1939-01-16

AMENDMENT TO MAKE ANNIVERSARY OP SIGNING OF STATUTE OP WESTMINSTER A STATUTORY HOLIDAY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID GARIEPY (Three Rivers) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Interpretation Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.

Criminal Code-Trade Unions


Mr. GARIEPY:: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to amend the Interpretation Act so as to make the eleventh day of December in each year a statutory holiday. On December 11, 1931, what is commonly called the statute of Westminster was assented to, confirming the present status of the Dominion of Canada. It is fit and proper to celebrate this s niversary so as to impress upon the people of this country its extraordinary consequence to Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment would be to allow the Board of Transport Commissioners to make orders and regulations to provide that all employees of railway and tel :graph companies coming within its jurisdiction shall have the requisite knowledge of the French language in the province of Quebec to enable them properly to perform their duties and to be understood by and understand the majority of the persons with whom they are required to do business.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Post Office Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Wilfrid Lacroix: The purpose of the amendment is to enlarge the powers of the Postmaster General as to the making of regulations. At present the Postmaster General may prohibit the sending of obscene or immoral publications. It is intended in this bill that he should also have the power to prohibit and prevent sending of communistic literature.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. 71492-2J



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: This is the same as Bill No. 4 of last year. The purpose of the bill is to prevent employers from refusing to employ, or from dismissing employees, or conspiring with others therefor, for the reason that they are members of a trade union.
As it is lawful for workmen or employees to form themselves into trade unions and to bargain collectively, it should, as a matter of public policy, be unlawful for employers to seek by overt acts or intimidation, threats or conspiracy to prevent them from belonging to such trade unions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MODERNIZATION OF ELEVATOR EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: I should like to call the attention of the government to the antiquated elevators we have in this building. It is about time they were replaced with safer and more modern equipment.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: I shall have the hon. gentleman's observations taken into consideration, but I wish to have the benefit of his information on the subject.



LIGHTING OF COMMONS CHAMBER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lin coin):	May I again gently refer to the
shadows that fall across these back seats? Last year it was pointed out to the government that there was considerable trouble in this regard. Some improvement has been effected, but I am wondering whether by changing bulbs or by some other means we can do away with these shadows.
Hon.	P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of
Public Works):	I make the same answer as
I made to the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard). Some changes have been made in connection with the lighting on the
[Stage Direction]
Radio-Broadcasting Privileges
other side. It may be unsatisfactory from my hon. friend's point of view, but from this side I can see him very well.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Will the Prime Minister indicate at the earliest possible da}7, not necessarily to-day, whether the house will be placed in possession of copies of the evidence and the argument heard before the commissioner during the inquiry into the Bren machine gun contract?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I may answer my hon.
friend at once. I shall be very glad to lay on the table of the house the evidence and the argument in connection with the Bren gun inquiry. They are in the possession of the government and I shall have them tabled tomorrow.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the special order- is called I should like to make a statement to the house. Hon. members have doubtless seen reports in the press to the effect that the government had refused the privilege of broadcasting to the publisher of one of Canada's leading newspapers. I simply wish to say that the government has had nothing whatever to do with refusing any application that has been made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Neither the government nor any member of the government had any knowledge that an application had been made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation by the publisher of one of Toronto's leading newspapers, nor had any member of the government any knowledge that such an application had been refused.
As hon. members know, the business of controlling and regulating radio broadcasting has been placed by this parliament under the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is an autonomous public body and with which the government does not interfere and has no desire to interfere. The general manager of the corporation has issued to the press a statement which gives a full explanation of
rMr. Cardin.]
the application itself and the grounds on which it was refused. I have in my hand a copy of the statement and if hon. members will take it as read I shall place it on the table that it may be printed in Hansard with the remarks I have made. The statement is one which, I think, will be of interest to hon. members.
CBC Statement given to the Press by Mr. Gladstone Murray, General Manager of the CBC, January 15th, 1939.
Mr. George McCullagh applied to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to buy time for a series of broadcast talks on the national network of the Corporation in order to give his views on public questions. The application was refused in accordance with the policy of the Corporation in dealing with controversial broadcasts. This policy is based on the principle of encouraging the free discussion of all subjects of public interest in round-table discussions, debates, talks, and forums, for which the Corporation provides time without charge. No individual may purchase any network to broadcast his own opinions and no profit-making corporation may purchase any network to broadcast opinions. Par from being a restraint on free speech, the Corporation's policy is an assurance that liberty of discussion is preserved, that all main points of view are fairly presented, and that the possession of wealth does not confer the right to use network broadcasting to influence opinion.
Having failed to secure time on the national network Mr. McCullagh attempted to buy time over a network of privately-owned stations. As all network broadcasting in Canada is under the control of the Corporation, under the specific authority of the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936, the permission of the Corporation would have been required to give effect to the new plan. As the same general principle in controversial broadcasts applies to all networks in Canada, the second application was also refused.
Mr. McCullagh had already been invited to participate in the Corporation's Sunday evening National Forum at no cost to him. Mr. McCullagh declined the invitation, which, however, remains open.
The Corporation's decision and the reasons for it were communicated to Mr. McCullagh in a letter, dated January 5th, which is now released for publication.
The decision was taken by the Corporation on its own responsibility in accordance with the policy laid down by the Board of Governors.
It is pointed out that the Corporation's policy regarding this class of network broadcasting is similar to that of the National Broadcasting Company of the United States.
On the same date Mr. Gladstone Murray released the following letter to Mr. McCullagh: Ottawa, Ontario
January 5th, 1939.
Dear Mr. McCullagh:
Thank you for your letter of the 4th instant. I shall be glad to set out fully the reasons why the corporation was obliged to reject your application to purchase network time for the purpose of placing your views on public questions before the listeners of Canada.

Radio-Broadcasting Privileges
In order that the answer may be complete, it is necessary to indicate the origin and evolution of the policy upon which it is based.
As you know, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was established by act of parliament as a non-partisan public trust to control all broadcasting in Canada in the public interest. In accordance with this purpose the corporation was endowed with exclusive control of all network broadcasting and with a general responsibility for the character and content of all programs.
The relevant provisions of The Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, respecting the control and direction of network broadcasting are paragraphs 21 and 22, as follows:
"21. No private station shall operate in Canada as a part of a chain or network of stations except with the permission of, and in accordance with the regulations made by the corporation.
"22. (1) The corporation may make regulations :
(a) to control the establishment and operation of chains or networks of stations in Canada."
The relevant provisions of the act relating to the corporation's control of all matter broadcast in Canada is section 22 (1) (c), (d), and (e) as follows:
"22 (1) The corporation may make regulations :
(c)	to control the character of any and all programs broadcast by corporation or private stations;
(d)	to determine the proportion of time which may be devoted to advertising in any programs broadcast by the stations of the corporation or by private stations, and to control the character of such advertising;
(e)	to prescribe the proportion of time which may be devoted to political broadcasts by the stations of the corporation and by private stations, and to assign such time on any equitable basis to all parties and rival candidates."
I have deliberately set out the above provisions in order to indicate the intentions of parliament. That the authority vested in the corporation has been exercised as intended is perhaps best illustrated by the following quotation from the report of the parliamentary committee on broadcasting of 1938:
"The bulk of the evidence concerned the program, technical and financial policies of the corporation. Your committee is of the opinion that these policies are well designed to carry out the purpose for which the corporation was created. Your committee is also of the opinion that the policies of the corporation are being executed in a business-like fashion."
Now, a brief outline of CBC policy respecting the discussion of public problems and issues and the position generally in the related fields of party political, and non-party controversial broadcasting.
On the first point, the Broadcasting Act, as you know, requires the corporation to prescribe regulations for all broadcasting, both on privately owned and CBC stations. No censorship is imposed, restrictions being confined to those specifically set out in the regulations. The policy of the corporation is to encourage the fair presentation of controversial questions which indeed is regarded as part of the educational function. To this end there are organized
round tables, talks, discussions, debates, commentaries and forums, distributed through CBC stations and networks. Moreover, facilities have been provided on a sustaining basis for organizations such as the Canadian Association of Adult Education and the Workers' Educational Association. Individual privately owned stations are encouraged to discharge similar public service on a local basis.
With regard to party political broadcasting during elections, new arrangements under consideration will aim to have issues and policies placed more adequately before the whole electorate. Individual privately owned and C'BC stations will remain commercially obtainable to rival parties and candidates, subject to the relevant provisions of The Canadian Broadcasting Act and the regulations issued thereunder.
With respect to party political broadcasting between elections, any legal political party may purchase time either on networks or individual stations. Non-party statements of political leaders of sufficient general interest are carried by the corporation on a sustaining basis.
Rulings recently approved by the board of governors regarding the sponsorship of nonparty controversial broadcasts are as follows:
"(1) No individual may purchase any network to broadcast his own opinions;
(2)	No profit-making corporation may purchase any network to broadcast opinions;
(3)	Properly constituted societies may purchase network time subject to the following condition:	(a) that the society accepts
responsibility for the broadcast, indemnifying the CBC against the possible consequences of libel or slander; (b) that each broadcast is prefaced and concluded by an appropriate announcement making clear the nature and auspices of the broadcast and indicating that equivalent facilities are available to opposing views on the same basis; (c) that there is no interference with normal CBC program arrangements; (d) that the broadcast is of sufficient popular appeal and interest to justify its inclusion; (e) that the broadcast is within the wording and spirit of our regulations and not in violation of any law."
These rulings, which apply also to individual CBC stations, but not to individual privately owned stations, were the subject of the most careful consideration. The admission of the right of an individual to buy network time to propound views would entail, for example, the approval of (a) the representative of a profitmaking corporation influencing public policy in favour of his corporation; (b) a profit-making corporation using opinions as a direct or indirect sales medium; and (c) an individual sponsoring his own opinions by virtue of the advantage of wealth.
Nothing in the above is of course intended to suggest that the ordinary commercial facilities, network or local, are not available to the Globe and Mail as to any other reputable company.
I hope you will excuse the length of this letter. I felt that you would understand the reasons for the decision I was obliged to take if I were to set out the general background.
I still hope that you will feel inclined to consider my suggestion that you participate in occasional programs, forums or otherwise, arranged by us. We are most anxious to make
The Address-Mr. Matthews

available to our listeners the views of Canadians with a real contribution to make to the solution of our many national problems.
Yours sincerely,
Gladstone Murray, .
General Manager.
George McCullagh, Esq.,
President,
The Globe and Mail Publishing Company, Toronto, Ontario.


Mr. MANION:: The statement has already been published in the press?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but I thought it would be of interest to hon. members to have it on Hansard.


Robert James Manion: I merely wanted to know whether it was the statement published in the press by the chairman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, my hon. iriend is right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May we not have the assurance of the Prime Minister that the government will stand behind the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so, yes. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH



ADDRESS IN REPLY, MOVED BY MR. J. E. MATTHEWS AND SECONDED BY MR. LIONEL CHEVRIER

[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. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon) moved:: That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the bumble 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: In making this motion I desire at the same time to express my sincere accord with the remarks made on Friday last by hon. members of this house touching upon the memory of those members who passed away during the recess. I desire to express my personal appreciation of the fine tributes that were paid to the sterling qualities of my predecessor, the late member for the constituency of Brandon. I can add little, if anything, to

those tributes that have already been paid, and I would merely say that Mr. Beaubier was a worthy citizen, a man who gave good service to his country, one for whom I had a very sincere regard and whose friendship I was privileged to share. He has left behind a large circle of friends of every class and every creed.
Before going further I should like to extend my congratulations to the hon. the new leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his elevation to the leadership of a great and historic party. We all realize his heavy responsibilities, for upon his shoulders has fallen the mantle of outstandingly able men. In the discharge of his onerous duties we wish him a large measure of success, although possibly there may be some in this house who would desire that that success have its limitations! The hon. gentleman paid my constituency the honour of a visit, early in November last I think it was. I did not have the privilege of meeting him at that time, because other duties were crowding upon me; but I can say this, and I think he will corroborate what I say, that he received a warm and cordial welcome there and formed many very fine friendships.
The speech from the throne made fitting reference to the prospective visit to Canada in May next of the King and Queen of the British Empire, the King and Queen of Canada. No words of mine can adequately express the admiration and respect of the Canadian people for our beloved sovereign and their loyalty to the crown. Our minds go back to his majesty's famous broadcast on New Year's Day, 1937, which concluded with these sincere and memorable words:
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.
These are noble sentiments, and they were expressed by a sovereign who, we all feel sure, will ever play a kingly part. Somehow, whenever I think of Her Gracious Majesty, the product of a Scottish clan, those words of Tennyson's come back to me, words which I believe are as applicable to Queen Elizabeth as they were ever applicable to her illustrious predecessor, Victoria the Good:
Her court was pure, her life serene,
God gave her peace, her land reposed,
A thousand claims to reverence closed In her, as mother, wife and Queen.
I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for having asked me to move this address. I regard it as a distinct honour, not to myself but to the constituency which I have been chosen to represent. I think all hon. members will agree with me that not

The Address-Mr. Matthews
for a considerable time has there been a by-election held in Canada in which interest was more intense and more widespread. The voice of Brandon constituency was interpreted, whether correctly or incorrectly, as the voice of western Canada. It was taken as a representative western constituency-one hundred miles from east to west, fifty miles from north to south, and the home of a type of people whom any member may feel honoured to represent. As far as voting strength is concerned, it is fifty-seven per cent rural and forty-three per cent urban, so that that voice may be taken as being fairly representative.
I do not think any of my western colleagues will disagree with me when I say that the constituency which I have the honour to represent has long been regarded as the crowning constituency of the west in agricultural progress. Its summer and winter fairs have won outstanding favour all over Canada. In this respect a sense of modesty almost impels me to refrain from making mention of the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto. Manitoba exhibitors sent to the Royal a few weeks ago 169 head of live stock for exhibition. Some of these animals were shown in groups, thus reducing the number of single entries to 146. Of those 146 single entries Manitoba exhibitors carried off 134 cash prizes and 12 awards. Now here is where the modesty enters in. Of those 134 cash prizes that came to Manitoba almost fifty per cent were won by farmers in my own constituency.
I make these observations, Mr. Speaker, not from an3r narrow or parochial viewpoint but as an indication of the interest that is felt by the farmers of Manitoba and the west in the new trade agreements that will presently come before this parliament, and particularly as they relate to the live stock industry. Under these trade agreements the whole tariff structure between Canada and the United States has been revised, in some cases very drastically, and in such a way that I believe every home in Canada will be benefited. Canada has made tariff adjustments on 1,489 products of the United States, and has also removed the three per cent excise tax. This means that every consumer in Canada, whether residing in the east or the west, should be able to buy his supplies more cheaply, and hence in larger quantities. On the other side the United States has lowered her tariff walls very materially as applied to 400 Canadian products. These reductions apply in marked degree to the products of the farm and of the sea. Lower tariffs on what we buy, a readier market for what we sell: the Canadian producer, it seems to me, is benefited both in his going out and his coming in.
Experienced cattle dealers have told me that they have found a distinctly healthier tone in the cattle market ever since this agreement was announced. These men are convinced, after years of experience, that the tariff reductions and the increased quota admissible to the United States, now 225,000 head, will mean a very decided impetus to our live stock development. An alert business man with an analytical complex remarked to me a few days before I left for Ottawa that, having studied this agreement, he had come to the conclusion that it was the smartest-that is the word he used-piece of business legislation enacted in Canada since confederation.
There is another side, a very significant side, to the finer relationships established by this agreement. We have been living for months past under the shadow of an impending world tragedy. We knew not when the fatal hour might strike, but of one thing we felt assured, that we are still far removed from that ideal day portrayed by Robert Burns, when-
. . . man to man the warld o'er Shall brothers be for a' that.
Under that dread shadow it is safe to say that we all became more aware of the fact that democracy was seriously threatened. We also became more aware of our own responsibility. It is a matter for profound thankfulness that after such dread suspense wiser and steadier counsels prevailed. Otherwise, instead of the king and queen coming here, as we hope they may, in time of peace, we might even now have been wading through the horrors of a world war that would have shaken civilization to its centre and possibly led to its utter annihilation.
I refer to this because the completion of trade agreements between three great democracies of the world undoubtedly constitutes a tremendous advance towards the preservation of world peace. The thought I have in mind was well expressed not long ago by the New York Tunes. I quote:
The mutual tariff concessions which have been agreed upon ought to have a beneficial effect on both American and British trade. But the real significance of the agreement goes far beyond this probable result. The treaty marks a closer union between the two most powerful democracies, achieved at a particularly decisive moment in the world's history. It increases the hope of more effective cooperation among all the democracies in defence of peace and order.
The same thought has been expressed in Toronto Saturday Night:
It is a definite move in a general drawing together of the great democracies for common
The Address-M. Matthews

action towards the upholding of the way of life to which those nations are dedicated. It is symbolic of an entirely new relationship between the two greatest English speaking countries.
The more we study those agreements, Mr. Speaker, the more obvious it becomes that we are very fortunate indeed in having liberal-minded statesmen, using that word in its broadest sense, of the type and temperament of the present leaders of those two great nations who, together with Mr. Cordell Hull, brought the negotiations to a successful conclusion.
Any remarks along this line might be considered incomplete if they did not contain some reference to the visit to Canada last summer of President Roosevelt. It was a significant illustration of the friendly relations which exist between two of the youngest, but at the same time two of the greatest, exponents of present day democracy. Both countries are wielding, in their own way, a strong, steadying influence in a world that is now torn by hatred and strife.
Speaking of agreements and their probable bearing on the trade of the countries involved, one naturally turns to a review of the achievements of the past, and the review is interesting. Our total imports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1938, amounted to over 8799,000,000, an increase over the previous year of more than 8117,000,000. This was the largest total since 1931. Turning to our exports, we find an increase of about 810,500,000 over 1937, and a total of $1,084,000,000, which was the highest total since 1930, and more than twice as large as the figure for 1933. Or if we consider the increase of trade on a percentage basis, from the standpoint of declared values, using 100 as the key, we have this result:
1932		 70-7
1933		 62-2
1934		 78-4
1935		 89-1
1936		 100
1937		 125
1938		 126-1
If we consider our exports from the standpoint of physical volume, the results will be found to	be	approximately	the same. I	submit that	in	the	face of world conditions	andthe adverse	trend in the United States,	this
result is a wonderful endorsation of the efforts which have been made to develop world trade.
Just here let me say that we are all greatly interested in the negotiations with the West Indies, referred	to in the	speech from	the
throne, and we agree with the hope there expressed that a new agreement will be arrived at which will be mutually beneficial to the West Indies and to Canada.

It is cheering to note that in the speech from the throne cognizance is being taken of the wheat situation in Canada. I have the honour to represent a constituency that has been long known as one of the leading wheat producing centres of the west; in fact Brandon is known in many parts of Canada as the wheat city. Our farmers were considerably disappointed last season when the price of wheat was set at 80 cents per bushel, but when the market price started to fall, eventually going below 60 cents, -they began to realize that in reality -they were receiving a bonus of twenty or more cents per bushel, and the feeling of disappointment gave way to a feeling of appreciation, in that they felt that the other parts of Canada, through their representatives in parliament and the government, were playing fair in this emergency. However, even the price of 80 cents per bushel was of little avail to those upon whose lands the' rain did not fall, who through no fault of their own had little or no wheat to sell, or to those who had a little wheat of inferior grade which had to be sold at starvation prices. The fact of the matter is that with production costs as they are to-day, and with the cost of the articles the farmer is compelled to buy twenty-five per cent greater than it was before the war, the farmer cannot raise wheat,-even if he gets the best grade, which seldom happens-pay transportation charges and other costs, and sell that wheat at 80 cents per bushel, or considerably less for the lower grades, and break even or nearly even. It is well known that for many years the grain of the western provinces has been the biggest single factor in our export trade. It is also well known- that year after year western purchases of eastern goods have coincided almost exactly with the revenue derived from the western wheat crop. I believe the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is authority for the information that in 1929, a good crop year, western Canada bought from the east goods to the value of 380 million dollars, but that in 1933, with a poor crop and low prices, those purchases were reduced to 80 millions. That is quite a drop.
In view of the difficulties experienced in the growing and marketing of wheat, therefore, I heartily agree with the Toronto Financial Post, which said:
One-quarter of our total Canadian population are entirely dependent upon the growing of wheat-another quarter are vitally concerned. Our elevator system, our railways, most of our leading companies, our huge milling and farm machinery industries have been developed on the basis of western wheat growing. Without wheat or a satisfactory substitute, one-half of Canada faces bankruptcy; a main prop is gone from our vital export trade.

The Address-Mr. Matthews
Then the Financial Post goes on to say:
A permanent policy must be developed, with all factors taken into consideration.
With that declaration I believe the western wheat growers will heartily agree. Briefly, then, for the reasons I have mentioned, together with a good many others, I believe deep interest will be aroused in this announcement contained in the speech from the throne:
Measures to assist further in the marketing of farm products will be introduced during the present session.
It is most gratifying to find in the speech from the throne a note of deep concern regarding unemployment and relief. I have the most sincere sympathy for people who are caught in the net of either of these national difficulties. To be sure, we will always have with us a considerable number of people too young and too old to be employed. We will also have with us those partly or totally disabled, through mental or physical disability, who are thus prevented from obtaining employment; and in Canada particularly we will always have seasonal unemployment. People belonging to these three groups form a large proportion of the number listed as unemployed or on relief. One task of government, and a great task of the Canadian people, is to see that unemployment, as it applies to capable men, is reduced to a minimum.
Then we come to the question of relief. The fact that over 31,000 people have been taken off relief lists at their own request-that is at the request of the adults, because this number includes children-and placed upon the land, is a hopeful sign, together with the further fact that 19,000 young men are employed in Canada right now under the farm employment plan. This does not include 2,000 placed in forestry and allied work in British Columbia-also a hopeful sign. At the same time, according to figures recently released, the grand total of all classes of persons benefiting by aid showed a substantial decrease from the year 1937.
I have always taken a deep interest in the youth of our land. When it has been possible I have never failed to lend to them a helping hand-and I do not say that in any spirit of boastfulness. This is one reason why the youth training program now being carried on appeals to me very strongly. It is giving to many of our young men and women, in a simple and inexpensive way, an opportunity the better to fit themselves for the responsibilities of life. I am delighted to find that out of over 5,000 who completed the course in 1938, forty-five per cent were placed in gainful occupations prior to November 30. That is a good record.
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of visiting two of those schools, one in the city of Brandon and a smaller one in the town of Oak Lake. May I say I was profoundly impressed with the type of training being imparted. It was of a practical kind; it was not training those young people for life in the clouds, but rather was fitting them the better to discharge the everyday responsibilities of their lives, and training them in the principles of good citizenship. No one can tell me that in the future there will not be many happier homes and a greater measure of contentment because of the good training imparted in those various schools.
If there were time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss some other subjects mentioned in the speech from the throne, and particularly the work done by the Department of Agriculture in connection with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. This work of conserving the spring flow of water for uses of stock during the year is a tremendous boon to thousands of farmers in the west, and an expansion of the area to which it applies would be a further help to many others.
Permit me to say in conclusion that although some of my remarks have applied more directly to western Canada, they are not made in any sectional spirit. I am interested in Canada as a whole. I believe, with Roger Babson, that Canada has the brightest future of any nation in the world. I was born in eastern Canada: I have always lived in Canada. I know Canada fairly well from coast to coast. I know something, too, of the aspirations of its people, and I am aware, as we must all be aware, that Kipling did not have Canada in mind when he said:
East is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.
So far as Canada is concerned, east and west have already met. Central Canada, eastern Canada, and western Canada are knit together by ties of kinship and bound together by bonds of nationhood. Surely by this time we have all come to realize that that which is detrimental or beneficial to one part of Canada is, as a matter of necessity, either directly or indirectly, detrimental or beneficial to the other.
For my own part I am confident, as I saw suggested a few days ago, that eastern and western Canada working together can unite on policies which will bring back stability to the prairies and increased progress to eastern industries. Regardless of what the pessimist may say, I will still maintain that if east and west in a spirit of mutual helpfulness will agree to merge their difficulties and share

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
their triumphs, Canada will continue in the future, as in the past, a united and progressive nation, the brightest star in the British crown.


Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Stormont) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with an old parliamentary custom, one of the two speeches made in moving and seconding the address, is delivered in French.
This year the honour of making the French speech has fallen to your humble servant. I am indeed most grateful to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for having chosen me. His choice was undoubtedly intended to honour the county of Stormont, which is rapidly gaining more and more importance in our national economy. The county of Stormont contains a large population of workers and farmers to whom this quotation from Longfellow's "Evangeline" may be fittingly applied:
Men whose lives glided on like rivers that water the woodlands
Darkened by shadows of Earth, but reflecting an image of Heaven.
There are to be found also in the county of Stormont great potential hydroelectric resources which the United States are endeavouring to develop jointly with Canada, and which, when developed, will make that area one of the richest and most prosperous in the Dominion. In choosing me, the Prime Minister also wished to pay homage to the French-speaking population of Ontario, who, in the days of Laurier, and even before them, embraced the Liberal faith, and have since remained faithful under the guidance of Mackenzie King. In the name of the Frenchspeaking people of Ontario, and in the name of my own constituents, may I express my deep gratitude to the Prime Minister.
At the outset, in greeting you, Mr. Speaker, let me say how pleased we all are to see you again in the chair, ready to resume your sessional duties. We know that you will preside over this house with the same tact, courtesy and patience you have shown in the past.
I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former leader of the Conservative party, Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, who, unfortunately is not in his seat at present. It was with deep regret that we heard last summer that he was to leave Canada to reside in England. May I be permitted to say that his departure will be a serious loss to his own party and to Canada as a whole. All members will join with me in wishing him health, long life, and a long \nd fruitful career abroad.

Since last session the Conservative party has chosen a new leader, who is well known in this house, I wish to congratulate Hon. Doctor Manion upon the high honour bestowed upon him. His qualities as a leader and as a fearless debater and experienced parliamentarian will be invaluable assets to his party. I wish him long life as the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
The dominant note of the speech from the throne is undoubtedly the reference to the visit of Their Majesties, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, next May. No news has ever been received with greater enthusiasm in Canada than the announcement of their coming to this country. All Canadian citizens, without distinction of race or creed, rejoice at the prospect of this visit. I am sure that, from near and far, they will hasten to pay homage to their majesties and give expression to sentiments of loyalty and devotion to these two illustrious personages, representing the supreme authority. Our people will be eager to manifest their allegiance and fidelity to the British sovereigns, who, under the statute of Westminster, are also King and Queen of Canada.
(Text) During the course of the summer this country was singularly honoured when it received as its guest no less a person than the President of the United States. Jointly with the Prime Minister of Canada he officiated at the opening of an international bridge near Brockville. His visit will long be remembered by those who were present and his statements marked the beginning of a new era in our relationship with the United States. At Kingston, where an honorary degree was conferred on the president by Queen's university, he declared that if Canada were ever attacked by a foreign nation, the United States could not and would not stand idly by. I need not labour the importance of this declaration so far as we are concerned.
At Ivy Lea the president discussed with his vast audience the project of deepening the St. Lawrence waterway, which often has received the attention of this house. He invited consideration of the draft treaty laid on the table of the house during the last session. In view of the serious unemployment situation which prevails in the country at the present time, this problem should receive the most careful consideration. The president's visit was a momentous one and helped greatly to strengthen the ties which already unite us to our neighbours to the south.
(Translation) Leaving this pleasant part of the speech, may I now turn to a situation laden with grave consequences for us all. Towards the end of September last we passed through

The Address-Mr. Chevrier
tragic days, hours full of anguish. We were on the verge of war. Never since the fateful year of 1914 had we faced a crisis so full of momentous events, where the slightest blunder on the part of certain statesmen might have started a European conflict in which our whole civilization would have perished.
The Czechoslovakian crisis was provoked by the coming into play of the interlocking alliances and ideological passions of two important groups, one led by Hitler and the other by Mussolini. These two leaders of men are characterized not only by the dictatorial organization they have given Germany and Italy, as Paul Van Zeeland tells us, in effect, but by the personal magnetism with which they succeeded in galvanizing their peoples and expanding their forces, thus increasing the power of the two countries to a formidable degree. What brings them still closer together is the fact that, in order to attain their purpose, they both took advantage of the struggle against communism, destroyer of internal order and a menace to the peace of the world.
The Sudeten Germans, encouraged by Berlin, demanded autonomy and a radical change in the foreign policy of Prague. Hitler, encouraged by the successful Anschluss, sought to extend the influence of the Reich towards the east. The problem was all the more serious as France was bound to Czechoslovakia by a guarantee of assistance, the validity of which she publicly affirmed on several occasions. Military preparations and unfortunate border incidents made the situation worse. London attempted diplomatic manoeuvres but conferences and negotiations proved unsuccessful. Hitler wanted war at all costs, and massed his troops on the Czechoslovakian border. It was then that Chamberlain, a man who had never travelled by air, made his historic flight which resulted in the Munich agreement. This pact has been the butt of bitter and violent criticism. Now that the storm has abated, however, and calm is restored, who can in all sincerity affirm that Chamberlain did not act wisely? Could France effectively defend Czechoslovakia had Germany attacked? Had England completed her rearmament program, and was she ready for war? Would Russia have intervened in the conflict in the face of a domestic crisis? And, inwardly, was Rusia not rejoicing at the prospect of a war which would have weakened the four European powers and left her a free hand towards the west? These questions must be answered in the affirmative if Chamberlain is to be condemned.
And what of the attitude of our Prime Minister, who at the time of the crisis was also severely criticized by extremists clamouring for a promise of intervention? He remained calm and wise, as usual. Strengthened in the attitude he took at the time of the Chanak incident, he stated that the Canadian parliament alone could decide whether Canada should participate in a war which might affect other parts of the British empire. After the Munich conference, the Prime Minister approved of Chamberlain's peace gesture, and all right-thinking citizens endorsed the government's policy.
(Text) At this juncture I should like to turn to another subject mentioned in the speech from the throne and which to my mind is equally as important as the one I have just discussed. I refer to the tripartite agreement which was signed at Washington in November of last year. Ever since this government has been in office it has sought by all the means at its disposal to break down the barriers of economic nationalism by opening up channels of trade. No sooner had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) been returned to office in 1935 than he succeeded in negotiating a treaty with Washington which expired in January of this year. The treaty which was signed recently is more important and will have far wider effects than the previous one. It may be considered from two points of view.
In the first instance, a challenge had been thrown out to democracies in recent months that they were impotent, unwieldy and slow and that their hope of preserving liberty and freedom was on the wane. The treaty was a complete answer to totalitarianism. It showed the world that the democracies were no longer paralyzed, but were very much alive. In the matter of trade at least it showed that they had left the dictatorships lagging far behind. This treaty, coming as it did after the dark days of September which brought us closer to world conflagration than anything that has taken place since 1914, had the desirable effect of uniting in a common bond of friendship the great democracies of the world.
In the next place, the treaty may be regarded as conferring great benefits upon Canada's primary industries. The fishermen in the maritimes and the potato growers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have easier access to the markets of the United States through larger quotas. The lumber operators were able to get unanticipated benefits in connection with British Columbia fir, red cedar shingles and hemlock. The farmer of the prairie provinces was not forgotten. The dairymen of eastern Canada have obtained important concessions on milk, cream and cheese.
The manufacturers of textile goods fear that they are being injuriously affected. The raison d'etre of their fears will be confirmed or dis-
The Address-Mr. Chevrier

pelled with the operation of the treaty. It must be remembered, however, that they may now import their raw material upon easier terms and that certain of their textile products may be exported to and sold on the American market. If the dumping of American products can be averted by the relevant sections of the Customs Act I do not believe that the manufacturers will fare too badly. In any event, in the consideration of this treaty there is one thing that should be kept in mind. When great achievements are obtained, very often great sacrifices must be made. Sacrifices had to be made by Great Britain, the United States, and Canada in the interests of peace on behalf of the cause of democracy, and I believe that those sacrifices should be and will be generously accepted.
(Translation.) The speech from the throne mentions another momentous question-the problem of youth training. There are great numbers of young men and women at present unemployed, and a great many others who, upon graduation from our colleges and universities, know not where to turn. It must be remembered, however, that the youth of to-day will be the nation of tomorrow. We must rely on youth if the ship of state is to be kept on an even keel. Therefore, we must find means of training youth for the part it is to play.
The government voted a large amount for youth training, and I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) on the manner in which the money has been expended. In cooperation with the provincial governments, youth training programs have been set up which are classified as follows:
(a)	training projects of an occupational nature;
(b)	learnership courses in industry;
(c)	work projects to combine training with conservation and development of natural resources;
(d)	physical training programs to maintain health and morale.
Those provinces which have adopted this plan have derived great advantages from it. It is only a beginning, however, and much remains to be accomplished. It would seem that a greater measure of publicity should be given to those programs for the rehabilitation of youth, since a great many communities appear to be unaware of what has been done.
The Canadian Corps Association has recently set up a program of youth training which seems to be commendable in many respects, and certainly deserves to be given careful consideration.
(Mr. Chevrier.]
Mr. Speaker, we are passing through a difficult and dangerous period of our history. Hate and distrust are everywhere. Nations are arming to the teeth in anticipation of war. Subversive ideas are being spread everywhere, class consciousness is being fostered, and our whole social order is threatened. We must fight those agitators preaching hate and disorder. In order to fight them effectively, it is not sufficient to affirm the superiority of democracies over dictatorships. We must show by our actions that such superiority actually exists, and that in our midst there is always room for social justice and peace.
We must come to the help of those who suffer: the worker who lives in constant fear of unemployment; the farmer who does not obtain a fair price for his products; the unemployed who are willing to work. We must make plain to those who are embittered against society that the cause of their ills is not our social order, but the abuses resulting from the doctrine of individualism; that socialism would only aggravate their predicament; that the aim should be, not to destroy our present order, but to reform it without delay, since otherwise it is futile to attempt effectively to defend society against the assault of revolutionary forces.
(Text) In order to preserve democracy and promote its welfare, the state must guard against two dangers; first, the danger of leaving too much to private initiative; second, the danger of leaving too little to the effort of its citizens. It must avoid the two extremes of individualism and paternalism. Whenever the general interest of any particular class suffers or is threatened with evils which can in no other way be met, the public authority must step in to meet them. This indicates that there are some situations where it is the duty of the state to intervene, and others where it must refrain from intervention. Democracy, therefore, in the true sense is that in which all classes will find representation-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 such a state more justice and charity would be meted out, and equilibrium among the various classes of society would be restored.
(Translation) The present government, by various legislative measures, has contributed to bring about the proper balance among the various classes of society. The speech from the throne mentions other proposals which, I hope, will be carried to a successful conclusion. I have much pleasure, therefore, Mr Speaker, in seconding the motion of my

The Address-Mr. Manion
hon. and distinguished' friend, the member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) for the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
HON. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):	Mr. Speaker, I should like first
to offer my very hearty congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and to the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. On a good many occasions in this house I have listened to new members, to young members and some not so young, performing this duty, and I say at once that the two hon. members who moved and seconded the address to-day did so as creditably as any other two whom I have ever heard. The air of the constituencies of Brandon and Stormont must be conducive to good speaking, because I well remember that during the campaign to which my hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) referred, in which I myself made a couple of speeches-but not very effectively, apparently-the young candidate who ran against him, George Beaubier, surprised me with his splendid gift of eloquence. And in regard to the constituency of Stormont. the predecessor of the present member of that constituency, Frank Shaver, was also a splendid speaker upon any subject in connection with which he took part in debate. So that the house was favoured to-day, Mr. Speaker, in these two addresses by members from constituencies where, if we are to judge from their performance here, the air is conducive to a high quality of public speaking.
May I add one word in regard to the hon. member for Stormont? It always surprises, I think, those of us of English extraction to note the ease with which Canadians of French extraction shift from one language to the other. I have perhaps never heard anybody shift quite so often or quite so easily as my hon. friend (Mr. Chevrier) did to-day. At the same time it does make some of us English-speaking people a little ashamed that only from French Quebec do we get this gift of the two languages, which is such an asset to any member of this house, but which unfortunately does not exist to any very considerable extent outside the province of Quebec.
Unfortunately, I find myself not altogether in agreement with everything the two hon. gentlemen have said, but they would hardly expect me to agree with them entirely. The hon. member for Brandon was not happy in his reference to the voice of western Canada. He argued that his success in Brandon was an indication that the voice of western Canada had spoken emphatically in support of this
government. As I recall, however, the vote did not quite show such a result. On looking up the vote I find that the present member for Brandon received 6,583 votes and his opponents 9,177. If that distribution of votes represents the voice of western Canada, then I am rather afraid that it is not very encouraging to the government. Indeed, the hon. member received just over 41 per cent of the votes. If therefore the voice of Brandon was the voice of the people of Manitoba, then the voice of Waterloo South was the voice of the people of Ontario, because I find that the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), the able and active gentleman who represents that constituency, with ten or twelve years of very valuable experience behind him in the provincial house at Toronto, swamped his two opponents, both the Liberal and the representative of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-swamped them to such an extent that they both lost their deposits. That makes me rather strongly of the opinion that, if we must judge by byelections, the government has no reason to regard the results as very encouraging. The Liberal received in the constituency of Waterloo South just 24 per cent of the vote. The Conservative received over 50 per cent and the representative of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation got the remainder. The Liberal received altogether just under 25 per cent in Waterloo South. I repeat, therefore, that the hon. member for Brandon was not quite fortunate in that reference. However, I will let it go at that.
My hon. friends opposite made a gallant attempt to win the Brandon by-election and they succeeded through a minority vote. They sent to the constituency three ministers, ten members of parliament and three members of legislature. They did pretty well. They missed one of the ministers, however. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Transport, was to have appeared there the day I was there but through an accident he did not arrive. The other day he said that it was a good thing that he did not because every by-election that he had taken part in had been lost to the Liberal party. That is his joke, not mine. On the other side, we had in support of our candidate, the Hon. J. L. Bowman and myself among privy councillors, two members of legislature and one member of parliament. We were altogether outnumbered and, from what I have heard, the odds were against us so far as cash was concerned. That is the information that has been given me.
May I say one other word about the hon. member for Brandon. The hon. gentleman spoke of the importance of wheat growing
The Address-Mr. Manion

to the people of Canada, and with that remark I am wholly in agreement. No one coming as I do from the head of the lakes, for many years the spout of the funnel through which passes the wheat of western Canada, can fail to grasp the importance to this dominion of the wheat-growing industry of the west.
Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I express now, in this my first set speech since my return to the house, something in the way of appreciation of the honour that has been conferred upon me in being chosen as leader of one of the two great parties that have governed this country for the last seventy years or more. In spite of all the criticism that has been heaped upon these two parties, I believe that they have done fairly well in the government of Canada throughout these years. I would express my appreciation of the honour that has come to me in being made the representative of the constituency of London. Many able and outstanding men have represented that constituency, and it is a matter for pride that I should now be its representative. I highly appreciate the honour of representing that fine old city.
I have already expressed publicly, and I should like to do so again in a word, my appreciation of the courtesy shown by the Liberal party in refraining from opposing me in the by-election. After all, it is only in keeping with the traditions of our parliamentary life. If you will go back over the years you will find that the same course was followed by the Conservatives in 1919 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) ran in Prince Edward Island. The same courtesy was extended by the Liberal party to my friend Arthur Meighen when he ran in Grenville-Dundas in 1922. May I therefore express again my deep appreciation of the courtesies shown me by the Liberals on the occasion of the by-election.
I realize sincerely the duties and responsibilities that devolve upon me as leader of one of the parties in Canada; yet, having been chosen by a great convention, I feel that no more can be expected of me than that I should do my best. For that convention did display a feeling of unanimity and progress, and there was on its part a realization of the changing times in the progressive attitude which it took on a great many questions. After all, we are living in a time when men of all religious and political beliefs must see that in a changing era all the world must continue to change. I may fittingly conclude these observations by thanking both the public and the press of the country for the kindly way in which they

have received my first efforts since my election . in July to the leadership of the National Conservative party.
And now I should like to deal with the speech from the throne. I have read it carefully two or three times, and whatever else we can say about it, we must admit at once, I think, that it is preeminent at least in regard to quantity. I have the word of one very industrious member behind me, who has measured the space in Hansard taken up by the speech from the throne in the past twenty-three years, that no speech from the throne has occupied quite so much space as the one with which we are now favoured. Whatever criticisms I may have to make of this document, therefore, the right hon. gentleman can rest assured that, in that one respect at any rate, it is preeminent.
May I deal briefly with the different paragraphs of the speech. With the first, announcing that Their Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth have graciously decided to visit Canada, and that that announcement has been received with rejoicing throughout the dominion, I think that not only all hon. members in this house but the people in all parts of Canada will fully agree. Their majesties, as one of the previous speakers properly observed, are as much the king and queen of Canada as they are the king and queen of Britain or of any other part of the empire. When we look at the romantic picture of the young man and the young woman who have assumed the very onerous duties of their office, when we realize that at the coronation not so very long ago they dedicated themselves to the service of the empire, and that they have since honoured that pledge as well as did his majesty's father King George V and his mother, Queen Mary, we cannot help feeling the greatest admiration and the sincerest affection for their majesties. I believe, sir, that is the feeling of everyone in this country. I do not believe there are any sections or groups that are not entirely loyal to the king and the empire, although there may be some differences of opinion here and there as to how that loyalty should be shown.
Another attribute of the present king and queen, and this applies equally to King George V and Queen Mary-I have mentioned it on other occasions, in Canadian Club addresses and so on-is that they have given throughout their lives such a splendid example of fine home life. After all, the home is the cornerstone of the nation; and for that as well as for many other things I think we owe a debt of gratitude both to the former and to the present king and queen. I can add

The Address-Mr. Manion
my words to those the Prime Minister has put into the mouth of his excellency, that our king and queen will certainly receive from every part of Canada and from all groups in this country a most hearty welcome when they visit this great dominion.
In regard to our friendship for the United States, which is referred to in the next paragraph, I believe it is true that next to the empire all of us in Canada feel an exceedingly deep friendship for the great republic to the south. I heartily endorse that part of the speech in which reference is made to the friendship of Canadians for the people of the United States.
Then there is reference to the rejoicing at the peace brought about by the work of Prime Minister Chamberlain and Premier Daladier in September last. Certainly all sane people in the empire appreciate the magnificent work that was done by these men in keeping the peace of the world. It seems to me that only a madman would want war in a world such as we have to-day, with the possibilities of destruction that exist.
Coming to the next item, the question of defence, the government says that Canada's defences must be materially strengthened. With that statement I certainly will not quarrel. I say most sincerely that I believe, and all thinking Canadians must believe and realize, that under conditions as they exist at present, when there are men who seem bent on destrojdng democracy and on controlling the world, Canada cannot alone be without defences. Especially when you think of the dictators and of the threats they have made and are making almost daily, when you have in mind our huge area, rich resources and sparse population, you realize that Canada would be a very choice morsel for any of the dictators. Some time ago I made it my business to make a comparison of certain geographical areas, and I found, as I had expected, that the area of Germany, Italy and Japan, the three chief dictator nations of to-day, taken together, is just a little greater than that of the province of Ontario; yet in those three dictatorships they have just under two hundred million people, while in Ontario we have less than four million. I do not think any further words of mine could make clearer the significance of that comparison. And nothing I could say would demonstrate more fully the need of a proper defence system. Many authorities on air fighting, of whom I do not claim to be one, have expressed the opinion on several occasions recently that Canada and the United States, this whole continent of America, north and south, are in danger
from the air. While I profess no expert knowledge of the matter, personally I think those experts are probably right. For these reasons I wholly endorse the idea that we should have in this country a proper defence system.
I am now going to suggest something which in these remarks will be perhaps the first monkey wrench that I throw into the machinery, and it is this. If some of the right hon. gentleman's lieutenants from the province of Quebec had not been so assiduous in years gone by in preaching to the people of that province the doctrine that this party was the militaristic party because we believed in a certain amount of defence, about half of what we have to-day-if they had not been so assiduous in that regard they would not to-day find it so difficult to remove the prejudice which they built up in regard to defence.
The next paragraph with which I shall deal is that relating to the defence purchasing board. I am more or less in accord with the idea of a defence purchasing board, but before commending it completely I should like to know its personnel; I should like to know for example that it is not going to be a political purchasing board, that it will not be a case of picking one man and ignoring all others in regard to competition, picking a man and financing him while he runs around the world getting ideas about defence and then giving him the contract without permitting anyone else to tender. I should like to know that, before I unqualifiedly endorse the idea. But as a Canadian citizen who for a long time has been familiar with public opinion I am convinced that the making of large profits from the manufacture of munitions or armaments is repugnant to the ideals of the Canadian people, whether such profits be made directly through a percentage of the amount of the contract, or by selling stock, or in any other way. The making of huge profits on munitions is looked upon by many of our people as taking blood money, as profiteering in patriotism. Some time ago I expressed this view, and I am going to read from a statement which I made in Toronto to a non-political group, the Canadian Commercial Travellers' Association, on December 16 last, just a month ago to-day. In fact I had made the same statement with almost no modifications about two months earlier before the Kiwanis Club in London, during the byelection in that city. I read it because it is exactly as I gave it to the Canadian press, and it expresses my opinion perhaps better and more concisely than I could state it in these remarks. I am quoted as follows;
"All arms and munitions needed for the direct defence of Canada should either be
The Address-Mr. Manion

manufactured by the government itself or under the complete control of the government, with profits eliminated", Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion, leader of the National Conservative party, said last night at the annual banquet of the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada.
"In addition there should be complete control of profits in the manufacture of arms and munitions of all kinds for the United Kingdom", said Doctor Manion.
"These proposals are fair", he said, "because they leave plenty of opportunity for private enterprise; they give a real opportunity for service to Canada; they assure cooperation and a fair deal to the empire and thereby assure Canadian producers of their share of the immense British contracts for munitions and armaments which are required."
Doctor Manion said he offered government control and elimination of profits as an alternative to complete nationalization of armament manufacture, because "I don't like to see the governments getting too much into business and because of the large capital expenditures complete government manufacture might involve."
That statement expresses my opinion to-day. It is open to modification in detail, but again I say I do not wish to quarrel with the proposal of a defence purchasing board. I do want to know the set-up and the ideas back of it and the principles on which it will work.
The next paragraph of the speech from the throne refers to the trade agreement with the United States. Even in the speech from the throne there is a certain amount of propaganda on behalf of that trade agreement, propaganda which was put out on a very large scale as soon as the agreement was signed. It was signed on November 17, and on the following day and for many days thereafter the press was printing the forty-six pages, I think, of comment handed out by the government, all of it commendatory. A little later I shall deal with that in a very general way, but I want to say that in my opinion there is too much propaganda being put out by the government in regard to such things as the trade agreement and other matters. It is being put out over the radio on various occasions; in fact I made it my business to try to get a list of all the ministers who have been speaking on the radio across Canada for the last six or eight months. I have here a list of some ten or twelve ministers who have been speaking on the air, supposedly explaining the workings of the various departments of the government and, of course,-perhaps justifiably, since they are on the air-throwing in the odd word which would show their great work in looking after their various departments.
I suggest here, sir, that in future, whether it be the present government or the one which will succeed it next year, when we want

propaganda of that sort put out, the men who write the statements should read them, because I venture to assert that not one of the ministers wrote the statements which they so carefully read over the radio. I speak with some authority and knowledge, because I did that myself on one occasion. At any rate I have the idea that it might be well if the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister or the secretary, or whoever writes the statement, should read that address, in order to avoid the impression-which is probably false-that some of the ministers might try to put over a little political propaganda. I mention this partly as a result of what I was going to call the action of the government, but according to the statement made by the Prime Minister I willingly refrain from blaming it on the government. However, I do want to refer very briefly to the incident which occurred as between the radio corporation and George McCullagh.
It strikes me, sir, that this censorship, because that is what it amounts to, is not appropriate while all the time we-all of us are talking so much about our democracy. We all talk a great deal about the value of free speech, a free press, free religion, free assembly, and so on; I have done it many times myself. But with all due respect to the officials of the radio corporation, and with all due respect to the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, I submit that in this country it is not sufficient that any one man should have the power to say who shall or shall not speak over the radio. We all know that in Italy, Germany and Russia no one may have the freedom of speech we have here, but I resent the idea that any prominent man who is a law abiding citizen, who does not advocate anything in the way of revolution, who does not offend any great body of people, whether in connection with religion or in any other way, should be forbidden to speak over the air, when other men have been given that privilege.
Take the example of Mr. George Drew, who was recently elected leader of the Conservative party in the province of Ontario. According to a statement which I read in one of the Toronto papers just yesterday or the day before, George Drew said he was permitted to do what George McCullagh was not allowed to do. Mr. Drew stated that it was put up to him that he should have the backing or endorsation-I have forgotten the exact word- of some organization, such as the Conservative party, for example; but he said he refused to ask for any endorsation and spoke as a private citizen. I do not mind saying that I do not

The Address-Mr. Manion
agree with very many of George McCullagh's views, but I do not think he should be placed in any different position from George Drew in that regard. In addition, in the correspondence between Mr. McCullagh and Mr. Gladstone Murray, which I glanced over this morning and which I have before me, Mr. McCullagh states that even a communist gets the opportunity to speak over the air which is denied George McCullagh. Well, I have some objection to communists speaking over the air. I have no objection to socialists, but my objection to communists being allowed to speak over the radio is that the fundamental principle and the whole doctrine of communism is revolution. They believe in world revolution; they believe in upsetting governments not by evolution, not by the ballot but by the bullet. Yet Tim Buck or some other communist may have the privilege of speaking over the radio-and this was not denied by Mr. Gladstone Murray-in order to air his views, while George McCullagh, a business man, may not do so.
I repeat, sir, that I believe any law-abiding business man who is willing to pay for the time he takes on the radio should have the right to speak over the air, so long as there are not so many of them that they take up the time that should be used for the legitimate purpose of entertainment. I believe it is the right of George McCullagh to express his views over the air; at least as yet I have not been convinced to the contrary, and I do not believe that any individual, Mr. Gladstone Murray in this case, should have power to say who may or who may not speak over the radio. If this system is to be carried on there should be something in the way of a commission or a committee, some body of men-it should not be limited to the judgment of any one man, I care not who he is-to decide who shall or shall not speak over the air. After all, sir, I should be glad to listen to some of these big business men, as I was glad to listen to George McCullagh yesterday, though he was not very complimentary to the Prime Minister, to myself or to anyone in this house. As I say, I should be glad to listen to the views of these men, because I think for the past twenty years, at least during my experience in public life, it has been too much of a habit on the part of too many big business men to condemn out of hand, as sort of halfwitted men, those of us who dared go into public life, and I should like to know some of their reasons for so doing. When they get on the air. as George McCullagh did yesterday, we may hit back if we choose to do so. When they are deprived of that opportunity while others who have messages perhaps not so
appropriate or not so sincere are permitted to broadcast them, then I do not believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carrying out its full duty. After all, if the radio is to be controlled in this maimer we might well ask ourselves if it is the press that is going to be controlled next.
To show the foolishness of it all let us consider the position of George McCullagh. In a sense he owns the Toronto Globe and Mail. He is backed by one of the richest men in Canada, if not the richest; I refer to Bill Wright, who largely owns the Wright-Hargreaves mine. If McCullagh wants to do so he can not only publish his ideas in his own newspaper; he can broadcast them in every paper across Canada. He chose a very expensive method yesterday of circumventing the order of the radio corporation, and if he so desired he could do that on a very much more extensive scale. It seems to me that the whole ruling shows a lack of judgment which is not good for this country; that is my opinion for the present, at any rate, until I know more about the matter than I know at present.
We have to listen to all kinds of people on the air. Last night, in order to make myself forget the difficulties of my present position, I listened for a while to Jack Benny and Charlie McCarthy. After all, probably I profited more by listening to George McCullagh in the early afternoon than I did by listening to Charlie McCarthy in the evening, although I did not laugh so much at George. There are others who have been on the air for some years, and whom we could very well dispense with, much better than we could dispense with George MeCul-lagh. For example, there is one commentator in the United States-I do not like to name him, because I am not sure enough of his name, though I think I know it-who was born in England but who came to the United States and became naturalized. Now, his chiel pride is in abusing the British empire, abusing England, and telling about the tyrannies from which he escaped when he came to the United States. When I listen to a fellow of that sort talking over the air, across our country, as he has been, and giving opinions, it annoys me very much indeed. And when I listen, as I did during the international crisis of last September, over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network, under the same management, to broadcasts made by commentators from Germany who were giving nothing but the German aspect of the whole affair, it also makes my blood boil. Again
The Address-Mr. Manion

I say we are much safer in the hands of a man like George McCullagh than in the hands of men such as the two groups I mentioned a moment ago. And so I suggest that if there is to be any censorship such as this, the right hon. gentleman should forthwith have something in the way of a censorship broader than that which can be afforded by one man, no matter who or how able that one man may be.
I furthermore suggest, in view of other things which are being said about the radio corporation, that we should have set up this year a committee of the House of Commons to deal not only with the question of censorship but with other matters as well which affect the broadcasting corporation.
I now come to the question of unemployment. I shall deal with it more fully later; at this time I shall confine my observations to one paragraph in the speech from the throne dealing with that subject. The statement is made that under the British North America Act the responsibility for unemployment and the solution of its problems is necessarily divided. The legal responsibility is perhaps divided, but, sir, to a large extent the solution of the problem is the duty of this government and parliament. It was pointed out even by the Purvis commission appointed by the right hon. gentleman opposite-and I shall speak of it in greater detail later-that the financial responsibility for unemployment is a direct responsibility, and that that financial responsibility is federal, not provincial. The relief question, of course, is another question. But they have pointed out what I have now stated. So that when the suggestion is made that the responsibility is perhaps divided, I may agree so far as the question of legality is concerned, but I do not agree in toto so far as the responsibility for the cure of the condition is concerned.
I shall next deal with the paragraph referring to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, which is as follows:
The report of the commission on dominion-provincial relations will be presented to parliament in the course of the present session. In accordance with the purpose for which the commission was instituted, its report will provide the basis for, and the material essential to the deliberations of a national conference, at which, among the important subjects to be dealt with, will be the problem of unemployment and social services generally.
This government has been in power nearly four years. We find that at the expiration of that period the government says, "We are going to call another national conference to
[Mt. Manion.]
tell the government and the members of the house what we must do about unemployment." This is the same government, led by the same right hon. gentleman, who was going to cure unemployment, and attacked us because we had not cured it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. EULER:: It was the other government.


Robert James Manion: I do not know what hon. gentlemen are cheering about. If they are applauding me, I appreciate it; but I did not catch what they said.
I repeat that this is the very government- all its members, and the right hon. gentleman particularly-which attacked us, over and over again in the house for our inability to cure unemployment. And now, after four years of power, it is going to call a national conference to tell it what to do about the problem! Well, I think almost any conference could tell it to do something much better than that which it has done. I make that statement frankly. It is a reflection upon itself to put it into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General that it will have to call a conference.
Hon. gentlemen opposite reiterate their faith in unemployment insurance. Somewhere in the bible it is stated that faith without good works is dead. The right hon. gentleman opposite and his group for a long time have been reiterating faith in unemployment insurance, but this is still a faith without good works.
Another paragraph in the speech from the throne is in these words:
It is also proposed to undertake, with provincial cooperation, to provide assistance to municipalities which, as an alternative to the provision of direct relief, desire to expand their normal programs of civic improvements.
May I point out to the right hon. gentleman that to-day very few municipalities in Canada can afford to do any such thing? Certainly all municipalities are taxed to death, because of relief costs. Certainly all municipalities are unable to cooperate financially with the dominion government or any other government in connection with a program of public works such as is proposed in the speech from the throne. I repeat what the Purvis commission said, namely, that the responsibility for the cure of unemployment is not municipal or provincial; it is federal.
I now come to another statement in the speech from the throne, and because I question it I shall read it. I know that if I am right in my conclusion the right hon. gentleman is mistaken, in good faith. If I am

The Address-Mr. Manion
right, however, then he exaggerates by just about one hundred per cent. Here is the paragraph in question:
Notwithstanding the embarrassments and handicaps encountered in coping with the problem of unemployment, it is gratifying to be able to record that, during the past year, there has been a material reduction in the number of those receiving agricultural aid, and a reduction also in the total number of those receiving public assistance due to unemployment and agricultural distress.
And then comes the part to which I draw particular attention and which I question:
At the beginning of the present winter the number of those receiving such public assistance was almost forty per cent less than two years ago.
I do not know where the right hon. gentleman got his information but I could not get any such information as that. I have endeavoured honestly to get it, but the information given me is entirely at variance with this paragraph. I find in the report released by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) on January 14-only two days ago-that the total number on relief at the present time amounts to 809,000. So far as I have been able to ascertain-and there is some difficulty in getting actual facts-in November of 1936 there were 1,046,000 on relief. A comparison of the two figures indicates a decrease of only 22-68 per cent, not 40 per cent, as the right hon. gentleman has suggested.
I have no objection to the right hon. gentleman setting me right at the present time, if he knows how to do it, because I do not wish to misrepresent his position. But I know of no figures differing from those I have given. If the right hon. gentleman would prefer to substantiate his figures when he is on his feet, it will be all right with me. I must point out however that I am giving the figures I received, as I got them, and according to those figures the number on relief in Nov-ember, 1938, as compared with the number in the same month of 1936, has been reduced by only 22-68 per cent. The right hon. gentleman may have been thinking of another month; that is possible. I do not know whether he did take a different month, and it is a fact that different months vary. I know only this, that I have given the facts as I received them. I believe November is the beginning of winter in Canada. Perhaps there was some such difference in some of the summer months, but in my comparison I am sticking to the beginning of winter, to his own words, "at the beginning of the present winter," and I repeat that winter in Canada begins about November.
That is one statement in the speech from the throne to which I take exception, because it is not in accordance with the facts.
Then, in the same paragraph we find this:
Over the same period the number of persons actually in employment has largely increased.
That of course is a period of two years. I admit the fact, but I also point out that according to the best authority I can get the number of unemployed also has increased.
The next paragraph begins in this way:
Continuous improvement in the position of the fishing industry as a whole has been reflected-[DOT]
And so on. That statement is very much disputed. There has been a great deal of dispute about the fishing industry. My opinion is that those engaged in the fishing industry would not agree that their conditions are much better, if indeed they are any better. It is reported by fishing people, particularly from around Nova Scotia, that a large portion of the population in that section of the country is in very bad shape, even in so far as earning a living is concerned.
There is one paragraph I miss from the speech from the throne of this year which did appear in the speech of last year, the one in which the right hon. gentleman boasted a little bit about conditions-and I do not use the term offensively. This paragraph appeared in the speech from the throne delivered on January 27, 1938:
It is gratifying to note that, during the past year, there has been a further substantial advance in Canada's economic recovery. Revenues have reached new levels. Trade with other countries has materially expanded. There has been a general increase in employment and a marked decrease in the numbers receiving unemployment aid.
He did not mention that this year. He did not mention improved conditions; he could not truthfully do so, because conditions generally ha j gone back. My authority for this is not the Minister of Labour but my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), who issued a statement around the turn of the year, as did a number of other ministers. He was quite right in doing that, but I should like to give a few quotations from his statement. He said that business had shown a slight falling off, that manufacturing had been slightly lower and that construction contracts were down 17 per cent. I might interject here that construction contracts never did go up very far. They have gone down despite the fact that they were well down anyway. He stated that the gross earnings of the railways were down $10,000,000 in the first ten months, and that retail sales were lower.
[DOT]js
The Address-Mr. Manion

That does not quite agree with what the speech from the throne has to say. Naturally I have abbreviated the statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. However, there was one thing that I missed in his statement. According to a statement put out last night, the pulp and paper business, part of the backbone of the industrial life of our country, is down twenty-eight per cent this year as compared with last year.
It is rather strange that the hon. gentleman did not mention the drop in total trade. According to my figures, which I believe are correct, the total trade of Canada, that is our imports and exports, was down $336,000,000 in 1938 as compared with 1937-quite a drop.
Only one industry in Canada seems to have improved, at least from the standpoint of production, and that is agriculture. I am not discussing prices now; I am referring only to production. Perhaps the mining industry may be up also, but I did not get the figures. Practically every line of agricultural production is up. It is a strange coincidence that this is the only industry with which this government has had nothing to do. In other words, providence has helped agriculture. The'acts of this government have had an effect upon every other industry in Canada. Agriculture alone depends upon providence, and I think that industry ought to thank providence that it was not interfered with by the present government. I point this out because last year and every year since the right hon. gentleman and his government came into power he and his government have taken credit for the improved conditions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Robert James Manion: One of my hon. friends
says "sure". All right, let him say "sure" when I finish this sentence. If they take credit for the improved conditions up to last year, then they must take the discredit for the adverse conditions of last year. I do not hear the hon. gentleman saying "sure" now.
When the hon. member for Brandon spoke this afternoon he made some comparisons between 1933, when we were in power, and the present time. The right hon. gentleman can do the same, but it is a most unfair comparison to make. We were in power for two years after 1933; we were in power until 1935. The great depression, perhaps the greatest that the world has ever known, certainly the greatest in a hundred years, started a year before this government went out of power in 1930 and continued until about the middle of 1933. It

was not a Canadian depression, it was a world depression. According to the best statistics of the League of Nations, thirty million people were unemployed in the industrial countries of the world. There was a decrease in world trade of two-thirds; in 1933 world trade was only one-third of what it had been during the peak in 1929. I was in the house until 1935, and I well remember the right hon. gentleman and his supporters getting up over and over again to blame us for the depression. They did not give us much credit. Unfortunately for us we were in power only for three years or less after there had been an improvement, and then the right hon. gentleman and his government came into power in 1935. Conditions continued to improve for another year or year and a half, and then they turned back in 1937.
I point out that if the government of the present day is to take credit when conditions are good, it must take some discredit when conditions are bad. Since 1937 conditions have not been good in this country. But I intend to adopt a different attitude. I do not say that this government is totally to blame for the change in conditions in Canada. These conditions are world wide, as was the depression of 1929, which continued for two years and a half or three years during our regime from 1930 to 1933.
Apparently my hon. friends opposite feel a little guilty about taking the credit for the pick-up in business, because they are putting out excuses. I notice that four different statements have been issued. One was by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), an old and true friend of mine whom I am delighted to see back in his place and looking as well as he does; I hope his health continues to improve until it is once more one hundred per cent. But I want to say that even he put out a statement making excuses. The Minister of Trade and Commerce put out one, as did the Minister of Labour. These excuses for conditions were made I suppose because of guilty consciences for having taken credit for the pick-up in business.
This government is very strong on excuses. This government is very strong on propaganda. I mentioned before the fact that ten or a dozen of its ministers-there may be many more but all I could hunt up was that number -have made statements which were broadcast across the continent over the radio stating what good fellows they were. Floods of ballyhoo have issued forth about all lands of matters. The people have been practically drowned in it. For example, take this trade

The Address-Mr. Manion
treaty or trade agreement that has been entered into-I suppose the two words are more or less interchangeable. There was, as I say, such a flood of ballyhoo and propaganda about this agreement with the United States that the press release took, as I said a few moments ago, about forty-six pages of small print. Those who might have opposed the treaty were shocked into silence. Almost no one has attempted to state even a few truths about it. However, I have not been frightened off and I am going to say a few words. I think it is worth while for the house and the country to know something about it.
I shall endeavour at this time to show some of the weaknesses in this treaty. The government have attempted to show what they claim are its advantages, but no one in or out of the house is capable of judging at once the full effects of the treaty. Only time can tell. This probably gives my right hon. friend a little advantage, especially after the ballyhoo that has been issued, because he has the power to call an election before that necessary time has elapsed. But I am going to show a few of the weaknesses. I am not going to attempt a complete discussion of the matter; I shall make only a few general observations.
I want to state frankly that I believe in trade agreements. I believe that it is one of the methods by which we can build up world trade. Trade agreements are necessary under the conditions of to-day. The world is made up of interdependent countries. It is of advantage, not only to us but to the world generally, to build up trade, provided always that any trade agreement which is made is fair to both sides. I do not think we should try to take advantage of the other party to the agreement, but I believe we should get as fair a deal as he does. I do not question the statement that certain groups in this country are benefited by certain provisions of the agreement. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that we must consider this country, not as nine provinces, not as nine different nations, not as different sections or different groups, but as one nation. We must take the treaty as a whole and endeavour to see if it is just and fair to us. Let us see what the advantages are from the treaty as a whole, and not consider it simply from the standpoint of its effect upon, for example, the cattle raising industry of the west, which effect may be more than counterbalanced by the treaty's effect on some industry in the east, or on perhaps some other industry in the west.
There have been perhaps more or less sub rosa, many complaints against this treaty,
but the industries of the country may have been too frightened to express their opinions about it. Some of them appear to think it would be more or less unpatriotic to express an opinion against the treaty. I shall deal with the patriotic side of it in a few moments.
To take a specific example, there came under my notice a protest which was being sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) irom the boot and shoe industry, pointing out the great damage that was going to be done to it, and setting forth that imports of boots and shoes from the United States in 1938 were more than double the amounts imported from the United States during the previous year.


William Daum Euler: Less than two per cent of the consumption.


Robert James Manion: All right, perhaps, but
we must not overlook the fact that every pair of boots and shoes that is imported from the United States takes work out of the hands of some of our Canadian workmen and food out of the mouths of some of our Canadian people. It was some of the people who manufacture boots and shoes in that part of the country from which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) comes who made this protest to the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: I saw the protest. I suggest this, that if our people were being charged more for Canadian boots and shoes, or if our boots and shoes were not the equal of the United States product, there might be some reason for encouraging imports; but my submission, and my personal observation, from what I have been able to observe on various trips to tke United Slates, is that our Canadian boots and shoes are just as cheap and just as good as those made in the United States, so I cannot see any great advantage in damaging our own boot and shoe industry. I said that last year we imported from the United States twice as many boots and shoes as in the previous year, and my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce interjected that the imports were less than two per cent of the consumption. I do not know what the percentage is, and so I cannot quarrel with his statement. But I repeat that, without this new trade treaty, our imports of boots and shoes from the United States last year were twice what they were in the previous year, and under the new treaty our imports will probably be much greater than in the past.
The Address-Mr. Manion

Another Canadian industry that is going to be injured by this treaty is the textile industry, and injured not only by the United States but perhaps much more seriously by Japan, where women are paid five or six dollars a month and men twenty-five dollars a month for the ordinary type of labour. Our wages in Canada are many times that amount. But Japan gets the benefit of this treaty, as well as the United States, because the former is one of the favoured nations, and without doubt Japan's exports of textiles will seriously injure the textile industry of this country.
On the other hand take a natural product like potatoes. I have seen many articles in the press, and in particular one press release, with respect to the great gain it is going to be to Canada to have under this treaty an increased quota of Canadian potatoes going into the United States. I speak subject to correction, but well informed people in New Brunswick have told me that one county alone in that province could supply the whole quota of potatoes permitted to enter the United States from Canada. If the statement is not correct, people from New Brunswick can correct it. I am giving the house just what has been stated to me, that the quota allowed under the treaty is so small that the increase will make no great difference.
Time alone can tell what will be the results of this treaty, and we must just judge it as a whole. But there are a few outstanding facts about the treaty which I wish to mention.
Unless the increase in trade is sufficient to make it up, there will be a loss in revenue. Take, for instance, the three per cent excise tax, which is being removed from the articles included in the agreement, and which without doubt will have to be removed from a number of other articles. That tax brought in last year a revenue of just under $19,000,000. The Minister of Finance is probably beginning to worry where his revenues are going to come from. I think the removal of the three per cent excise tax will hurt Canada materially in the way of decreased revenues.
Another outstanding feature of the treaty of which everybody is aware but which should be emphasized, is the removal of the six cent preference on Canadian wheat which was obtained for Canada in 1932 at the empire conference in this city by the government of which I had the honour of being a member. To me the removal of that six cent preference is a serious matter. The history of preferences granted by Great Britain to Canada goes away back to the Liberal party under Fielding in 1897, and from 1897 right down

to 1932 efforts were made by both Liberal and Conservative governments to obtain from the British something in the way of reciprocal preferences. The six cent preference on wheat, obtained in 1932 was an important one, but it has been wiped out by the treaty, and its removal will hit us in many ways. Perhaps the west are not objecting to this so much, may be on account of the fixed price on wheat; and after all it cannot affect the west very much this year. But there is this consideration, that eveiy bushel of United States wheat that goes into the British market, the biggest wheat market in the world, and a great market for many other products, replaces just that much Canadian wheat. It means just that much more competition against Canadian wheat. It means just that much more Canadian wheat that we cannot sell because the United States raises the same type of wheat that we do.
But that is not the only disadvantage we suffer from the wiping out of this six cent preference on wheat. There is the question of how business going through our own Canadian ports will be affected. This very day I received a letter from the port of Saint John advising me that business through that port has fallen off markedly since this treaty went into effect, and undoubtedly all the ports of Canada-Montreal, Quebec, Saint John, Halifax, Vancouver-will be affected. Under the six cent preference on wheat, the grain had to go through Canadian ports. I well remember, coming as I do from the head of the lakes and knowing something of the wheat business, that before the war about two-thirds of our Canadian wheat instead of passing through Montreal or Saint John or Halifax went through Buffalo and New York. I tried to get the figures, but it is not easy to get them. I did not get the figures for before the war, but I got them from 1921 on. I find that in 1922-I take the worst year-only 29 per cent of Canadian wheat went through Canadian ports and 70 per cent through United States ports, whereas last year, 1938, eighty-two per cent of our Canadian wheat went through Canadian ports and only 15i per cent through United States ports. That is a marked change. I am not going to give the figures for all the years, but I say that undoubtedly the removal of this six cent preference on Canadian wheat is going to hurt Canadian ports. Does anybody suggest that it is not going to do so? I cannot imagine that any such suggestion could be made.
Why, Mr. Speaker, the very day after the treaty was signed, word came from New York that the United States was going to get

The Address-Mr. Manion
back their port business because of this removal of the six cent preference on wheat! Dow, Jones and Company, one of the best known financial news agencies in the United States, an agency with which everybody is familiar, was quoted in the Ottawa Journal of November 17 last in these words as forecasting what would happen as a result of the removal of the six cent preference.
The agency said the result of the preference, in effect since the empire trade agreements of 1932, had been to divert most of the Canadian grain traffic from United States ports to Montreal, Saint John and Halifax.
The agency said the move "is considered likely to restore to United States Atlantic ports a large share of the export grain traffic."
And it is doing it. And, Mr. Speaker, from Washington also on that same day there came out statements boasting of the improvement that would take place in the business of United States ports because of the loss of this six cent preference on Canadian wheat. Then we lose the sheltered market of the British wheat buyer, by long odds the greatest wheat buyer in the world.
There are some other commodities on which we also sustain a loss. Take the preference on fruit. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) has felt a little worried from time to time regarding the ultimate effect on the Annapolis valley so far as apples are concerned. We have lost about half the preference on apples. We are also suffering in regard to pears, honey and frozen salmon. In other words, whatever else we can say about the treaty, the fact is that it is the death-knell of the preferential system under which we have been trading with Great Britain.
I have before me a United States business publication Business Week, and in the issue of November 26 the following statement appears :
The British pact is more important diplomatically, but the biggest trade concessions are made in the Canadian pact. The two new pacts, while they do not wipe out the system of empire preferences which was set up in Ottawa in 1932, mark the first important move to break down that system.
That comment appearing in this United States business journal published in New York gives the United States view of the treaty, and I repeat that in breaking down the system we are breaking down a connection with the greatest market in the world. And for what are we giving up that system? We are giving it up for the most uncertain and erratic market in the world, that of the United States. There has been no other market for the sale of our goods in which Canada has
had less assurance. All one has to do is review the history of our dealings with that country to the south.
In 1922 the United States adopted the Fordney-McCumber tariff, which was a tremendous slash at our exports to that market. In the year before that tariff was passed, that is to say, 1921, they were exporting to us nearly two dollars' worth of goods for every dollar's worth that we sold to them, and in spite of that discrepancy they passed the Fordney-McCumber tariff the following year. In 1921 we imported from them goods to the value of $856,000,000 and we exported to them $542,000,000 worth, giving us an adverse balance of $314,000,000. They increased their tariff against us at a time when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, the same hon. gentlemen who constitute the government to-day. Again, take the Hawley-Smoot tariff. It is true that tariff was erected largely against the world as a whole; nevertheless, as the trade figures will show, it hit us very hard. I do not intend to give all the figures. The comparison was practically the same, showing an unfavourable balance so far as we were concerned, because our adverse balance was $364,000,000; that is to say, they were buying from us $364,000,000 less than we were buying from them at that time. And yet they raised the Hawley-Smoot tariff against us.


An hon. MEMBER:: Did it make them prosperous?


Robert James Manion: That is not the question. My hon. friend will not divert me from my argument. Certainly it did not make us very prosperous. Can anyone suggest that a country of 125,000,000 or 130,000,000 people, who apparently resent the importation of Canadian goods, even to the amount of half as much as they export to us, to the extent of putting up trade barriers like the Hawley-Smoot and Fordney-McCumber tariffs, is a market upon which we can depend? Take the twelve months of 1938 as compared with the twelve months of 1937, and what do you find? In these past twelve months, just before the putting into effect of this agreement which has been signed by the right hon. gentleman and the United States representative, the figures show that we had a drop of $133,000,000 in exports to the United States. They dropped from $481,000,000 in the twelve months ending in November, 1937, to $348,000,000 in the twelve months ending in November, 1938. and that despite the 1935 agreement about which the right hon. gentleman has spoken so much. Before the 1935 agreement we had a balance of $1,000,000 in our favour in our
The Address-Mr. Manion


William Daum Euler: That is not a fair comparison.


Robert James Manion: Why not? What is wrong with it? I do not see anything unfair about it. I can see no reason why one Canadian should buy eleven times as much as an American buys from Canada. But that is precisely what happens when my hon. friends opposite deal with the United States.


An hon. MEMBER:: One rabbit, one horse.


Robert James Manion: We get the rabbit and they get the horse. We buy eleven times more per capita from the United States people than they buy from us. I cannot see anything unfair in the comparison. I submit that it is perfectly fair.
Take the three per cent excise tax. As I have said, last year it brought in $18,000,000 or $19,000,000. Those who have read the treaty carefully will remember that this three per cent excise tax was taken off only the items in the schedule. That is correct ; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) nods. As a result it created a most ridiculous situation. For example, a friend of mine who looked into the matter points out that the tax was taken off mushrooms and cut flowers but was left on

all sorts of necessities of life. According to the press it was also pointed out emphatically to the Minister of Finance, by letter and telegram, that this would be most unfair to Canadian manufacturers, owing to the fact that because the removal of the three per cent tax applied only to items in the schedule, Canadian manufacturers were still faced with the tax on their raw materials, whereas finished products entering into competition with their goods in other countries enjoyed the removal of the tax. It was a most unfair position for the manufacturers to be placed in and they protested most strenuously to the Minister of Finance. Let me read a statement from one of the morning papers. The following appeared on November 23, a few days after the treaty was concluded:
Communications have been pouring into the finance department from manufacturers protesting the tax on raw materials when the finished product is relieved of taxation.
A perfectly just protest, I think, and the Minister of Finance no doubt agreed, because he issued this statement:
The government has had under consideration the situation that will arise with the Temoval of the 3 per cent special excise tax from the articles enumerated in section 1 of the new trade agreement with the United States. The government will make certain when the necessary legislation is introduced that it will be of such a character as to eliminate any unfairness that might otherwise be expected to result from the exemption from the tax of the particular articles enumerated in the agreement.
All right. Since the treaty is signed and has been in effect since the first of the month I agree that the Minister of Finance is quite right in making that correction. I do not quarrel with that at all; but I say that by making that correction this government is handing to the United States another concession of great import, and incidentally handing another concession to all the twenty-five or thirty other most favoured nations with which we deal. But did this government when dealing with the British and United States governments tell them that in addition to the concessions mentioned in the agreement they were going to add the concessions to these other countries? They did not tell the people of Canada until some days later, when the matter was drawn to their attention. Did they know they had to make these concessions? I do not think so.


Mr. DUNNING:: I know my hon. friend does not want to proceed on a wrong premise. The treaty itself does not as of January 1 remove the three per cent special excise tax from anything. The treaty merely says that the government of Canada will propose to the Canadian parliament legisla-

The Address-Mr. Manion
tion which will have the effect of removing the special excise tax on those articles. So that to-day while the treaty is in effect with respect to its tariff provisions, it is not in effect at all and was never intended to be in effect with respect to the three per cent special excise tax until -this parliament has acted with respect to that. I assure my hon. friend that all the negotiating parties were quite aware of that throughout the whole proceedings.


Robert James Manion: I understand that. That is nothing new. I did not say the three per cent tax removal was in effect. I said the treaty was in effect, and the cancellation of the three per cent special excise tax does not come into effect except by legislation of this parliament. But does my hon. friend suggest that, having promised in the treaty that the3' would submit the matter to this house, if they failed to carry that provision they would not look upon it as a complete defeat of their government? Certainly not; they will put it through. In other words, it is as good as done.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will permit me, that was not the point. What my hon. friend has just said is quite correct. My point is that any addition to the items mentioned in the schedule of the treaty to which the removal of the excise tax will apply is not in itself a matter of treaty but a matter in the judgment of this government and of this house.


Mr. CAHAN:: It is a matter of international agreement and international honour.


Charles Avery Dunning: No; the international
agreement applies simply and solely to the items mentioned in the schedule.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But there is a promise collateral thereto that the three per cent excise will be removed.


Charles Avery Dunning: No-


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I think this is my speech. I do not mind interruptions, but I do not want speeches interjected in the midst of mine. I understand just as well as the Minister of Finance the facts as he puts them. I did not say anything to the contrary. I said the treaty is in effect from January 1. I take it for granted that the removal of the three per cent excise tax has to be a matter of legislation by this parliament. But I was pointing out that in addition to the products mentioned in this treaty from which the three per cent excise tax is to be removed there will be a number of other products, not mentioned in the treaty, from which the tax will be removed. And I ask 71493-3
this question, whether the British knew this and understood that a number of other concessions were to be given? Did the people of the United States know; did we know, that we were going to give a number of other concessions? My suspicion is that we did not, that there was a lot of bungling done. Now they find, after having made concessions of the utmost importance not only to the United States but to Japan, Germany and Italy, the three dictator nations, that they are going to have to make more and get nothing in return; that when they bring in this treaty and deal with it in this house they will have to submit a long list, probably much longer than that in the treaty itself, of materials and articles from which the three per cent excise tax will be totally eliminated. What return are we getting for that extra concession to the United States? And, what is worse, what return are we getting for that concession to the other favoured nations? We have most favoured nation clauses in our treaties with some twenty-five or thirty other nations. Three of the outstanding nations which receive this most favoured nation treatment, in other words which get the same concessions as the United States by virtue of this agreement, without giving anything in return for them, are Germany, Italy and Japan, the three dictatorships. What do they give in return for getting the same concessions as we are handing to the United States at the present time? What do we get from Germany, Italy and Japan more than we have already been getting from those countries? Those three countries which have been disturbing the peace of the world for the past two or three years get the same concessions that we are giving to the United States. And what do we get in return? We do not get anything so far as I know.


William Daum Euler: May I answer that in regard to one country we would receive this: If Germany did obtain any benefit-and I do not think she will obtain any benefit whatever-by reason of being a most favoured nation, we shall sell more goods to her, because she is bound under our agreement to provide exchange to an amount at least equal to the amount of the purchases we make from her.


Robert James Manion: But that gives her favours anyway. Germany wants foreign exchange; she is having great trouble getting it at the present time. And what do we get from Italy and Japan? My hon. friend has not answered that. We do not get anything. A little more exchange in regard to Germany, but that is exactly what Germany is fighting for all the time.

The Address-Mr. Manion


William Daum Euler: They have increased their purchases from us by over 100 per cent.


Robert James Manion: I did not look up the
figures, but I know very well it is not a very good bargain when you hand out these concessions to twenty-five or thirty nations who give nothing in return to the people of this country, especially when you have a tariff system under which you can ask something in return. Evidently this government works on the principle that it is more blessed to give than to receive, forgetting the other principle that charity begins at home. I submit also that, as many others have said on other occasions, it might be well to attend to the straightening out of this most favoured nation business, because I do not believe any government should be handing out favours to countries which are not asked to give anything in return. I am not questioning that there are advantages in this agreement; it would be a queer kind of agreement if it did not produce any benefit. But when the losses and gains are weighed, my submission is that there is grave doubt of the advantages being more than the disadvantages so far as we are concerned.
I want to deal with another aspect which has been greatly stressed. One speaker who preceded me, I think the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), spoke of it this afternoon, and it is mentioned in the speech from the throne; that is the supposedly patriotic ground on which we should receive the gift of this trade agreement. In the speech from the throne it is stated that this treaty will further the ends of international goodwill. Perhaps it will. I am not going to quarrel with that statement, but I do not think the fact that we make a trade treaty with some countries is going to further the ends of international goodwill. The implication is-and it has been advanced and fostered by members of the government-that on account of our having a trade treaty with the United States, therefore the United States is going to be very much more friendly to the British Empire than in the past, and if there should be international difficulties, the United States will be much more ready to jump in and fight for the British Empire than it has been in the past. That is the suggestion, that because of this treaty the United States is going to be very much more inclined to tie itself up to the empire for war purposes. I do not admit any such suggestion. Does the Prime Minister think that is true?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will answer my hon. friend later on. I do not want to interrupt him.


Robert James Manion: hear from some men, coming from various sections of the country, interested in certain industries, who may feel that they have been benefited or hurt.
But the real charge against this government is that apparently it absolutely fails to realize Canadian conditions. Despite all the statements made by the Prime Minister prior to the election of 1935, some of which I shall quote, and which tended to show that apparently he understood conditions in Canada, the government he now heads has given no indication that it really understands Canadian conditions. There has been a decided lack of action towards rectifying these conditions and no indication that there has been any planned method through which rectification could be brought about. The right hon. gentleman has been following a sort of hit-and-miss policy. That fact is evidenced in the speech from the throne when we find that to-day, after almost four years in office, he considers it necessary, upon receiving the report of the commission on dominion-provincial relations, to call a national conference to discover what is wrong with Canada. To my mind the greatest charge which can be made against the government is that it is continually broadcasting the information that all is well in Canada when, in fact, all is not well.
I am not by any means a pessimist. In fact, speaking generally, I believe I may be classed as a pretty good optimist, but I do say that throughout Canada to-day there is unrest, discontent and disharmony to an extent which perhaps has never before existed. I see unemployment to the extent of hundreds of thousands-not 125,000 as was published in a statement released a few days ago by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). It is true that he has said there are 125,000 people on relief. The unfortunate part of it is that the press pick up that figure and tell the country that there are only 125,000 unemployed in Canada. I have one such statement before me, and I could have brought many more. In making such a statement the Minister of Labour is not frank with the people, and I would point out that statements such as the one I have indicated should be corrected. It is not a fair deal. I do not impute motives, but I must say that such statements hoodwink many of the people. In one of the packages on my desk I have an item stating that there are only 125,000 unemployed. The information is published in that form when, as a matter of fact, the best information I can obtain from the statistics branch operated by the government is to the effect that last month there were 398,000 unemployed in Canada-not 125,000, but 398,000-plus any figure

you may wish to add to include the youth who have never been employed. Partly because of a seasonal change there are 50,000 or 75,000 more unemployed to-day than there were last month.
The bureau of statistics estimate that there are 64,000 youth who have never been employed. For the youth congress in Toronto a gentleman named Woodsworth has made an estimate of something like 400,000. As I have stated, however, the figure given by the government bureau stands at 64,000, a most optimistic figure, and represents the number of young men who have never worked. So, if hon. members will add this 64,000 to 398,000, the official estimate, they will get a figure well over 450,000, a figure nearly four times the one given by the Minister of Labour.
I do not wish to misrepresent the position taken by the minister. He refers in the press release to "unemployed but fully employable persons on aid" in October-


Mr. ROGERS:: On relief. They were the ones on relief.


Robert James Manion: I have explained that fully; I do not wish to misrepresent the minister's position. That is the number on relief. But the point I make is that that is not a fair type of statement to offer the people of Canada when actually there are 398,000. And you could add to that figure almost any additional number to include the young men in Canada who' have never worked, a group which the youth congress estimated at 400,000.
It is almost impossible to get proper unemployment figures. That is a complaint which the right hon. gentleman has made against us, and at a later time I shall quote him. It was he who said that we should have something by way of registry. Where is the registry to-day? Yet he said four years ago that that was needed. Where is the present registry of unemployed? My secretary and I spent hours trying to get honest figures of unemployment because I do not wish to misrepresent anything. I suggest that if the Minister of Labour wishes to be completely frank with the people of Canada, he should in the future publish not only the number of unemployed on relief but also the number of unemployed in the country. We must remember there are tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people in the country who are out of employment but will not go on relief if they can get along without it. I say therefore that we should avoid misrepresentation. No doubt the misrepresentation by the Minister of Labour was made unconsciously, but I suggest it should be made known that there are 398.000 unemployed, plus the number of unemployed

The Address-Mr. Manion
youth who have never earned anything. May I add that to-day ninety per cent of the unemployed are willing to work.
There is another way of checking unemployment figures. I have before me figures of the unemployed in trade unions of Canada between 1935 and 1938. I am not sure as to the author, but the figures are official. They say that unemployment among members of trade unions in the month of November, 1938, was greater than in any previous November as far back as 1935, when this government took office.
There are other ways of estimating the numbers of unemployed, but I shall not labour the point, or go into further detail. I submit, however, that in future the figures should be corrected, and I shall look forward to such correction. Because of these hundreds of thousands of unemployed there is fear, discontent and demoralization throughout the country, particularly' among our youth. Is that a healthy condition in which to exist? The present leader of the government knew those conditions in 1935, and I shall prove that statement from his own mouth. I have in my hand a little book entitled Mackenzie King To The Canadian People, 1935.


An hon. MEMBER:: That will be good.


Robert James Manion: It will be good; the hon. member is right. It is one of the best books I have read. In fact, I would place it among the productions of the humorists of our country. Had I had a weak heart I believe I should have laughed myself to death as I read it; fortunately my heart is quite strong. The book is so full of good things I hate to begin it at a time so near recess. If my right hon. friend would permit me to discuss it in one piece after dinner, I should be pleased.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would do anything to oblige the hon. member.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at six o'clock I was referring to the pleasure I had gained from reading this 'latest published book of the right hon. leader of the government. He, like myself, has revealed the weakness that induces a man to write. Somebody has said oh that mine enemy should write a book. The right hon. gentleman has been weaker than I because he has written a number, but I am quite sure that when he had these statements
put into book form he was not counting on its being read the way it will be to-night. This book was put out for the delectation of the people before the last election. I suppose that all of us get a little exuberant at times when elections are coming on.
I do not intend by any means to read all this book this evening. Do not be afraid that I am going to quote all the fifty-six pages, but I do intend to give occasional extracts from it in the hope that there will be brought back to the mind of my right hon. friend some of the pledges he made to the people of this country. Perhaps he will be given an opportunity between now and the time he goes out of power next year to put some of these pledges into effect. I am not going to quote this book in any particular order; I shall refer to just those parts that come up from page to page.
On page eight the right hon. gentleman refers to the years of depression during the Conservative regime. For example, he says:
It will be found that, for the most part, third parties owe their origin to one or other of two causes. They are bred of hard times, or of quarrels.
That is interesting. Then he goes on:
Third parties, in Canada, have invariably had their rise during years of Conservative administration. These have been years of depression, due, in large part, to reactionary policies.
He forgets that during his own regime there have been years of depression. Certainly the past year has not been quite as prosperous as the previous one. He goes on:
As Conservative administrations have given place to Liberal administrations, the country, through the substitution of Liberal for Conservative policies, has been brought out of depression into prosperity. With returning prosperity, discontent has vanished, and with it the third parties, which discontent had helped to bring into being.
Discontent may have vanished, but at the present time there are a good many signs of discontent in the country. Not only is there discontent in the country, but there is discontent in the party opposite. On page ten he said:
With the return of a Liberal administration to office, and the adoption of Liberal policies, carried out on broad and generous lines, and with more concern for human relations, than for the methods of big business, and of high finance, and of high pressure salesmanship, there is no reason why this period of depression should not be followed by a new era of prosperity; and why the unrest and discontent, which have brought these third parties into being, and to which they owe their existence, should not also disappear.
Just listen to that.
The Address-Mr. Manion


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I have not noticed any diminution in the number of parties. They still go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member (Mr. Stevens) has seen the error of his ways and has come back to the party to which he always belonged. But other parties such as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the Aberhart social credit party and various others still go on. It does not look as though the number of parties were decreasing. As I read these references to human relations, big business, high finance and high pressure salesmanship, I can hear the right hon. gentleman rolling these phrases over his tongue. I repeat that the unrest and discontent which was to disappear, has not disappeared.
Turning over a few pages I find on page 19 the beginning of his second address, made on August 2, 1935. He said:
Ladies and gentlemen: The Liberal party does not stand before the electorate in this campaign with an armful of promises, nor upon a platform of assurances-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: Who said, "hear, hear?"


An hon. MEMBER:: Everybody.


Robert James Manion: Everybody! Well, it is
easily seen how forgetful are hon. members opposite. I am going to refer to a few of the promises the right hon. gentleman made. He said:	.
The Liberal party does not stand before the electorate in this campaign with an armful of promises, nor upon a platform of assurances, constructed expressly for the purpose of a general electiou.
Oh, no, the Liberal party is too high-minded for that.
It believes the public is heartily sick of that kind of thing.
I shall deal with this later. I do not intend at this time to read the long list of promises which the right hon. gentleman made and which appear a little later in his book, but I shall name them just as I pass along. He advocated control of currency and credit. He was going to bring about social justice. He was going to wipe out trusts, combines, and mergers. He was going to bring about harmony and cooperation. He did not. He was going to appoint an investment control board. Where is it? He was going to cure unemployment. Where is that? He was going to bring about prosperity. He was going to wipe out third parties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does it say that he was going to cure unemployment?


Robert James Manion: I shall quote it when it suits me. I am making a speech at the present time. The right hon. gentleman would not answer me this afternoon, and I shall treat him in the same way. I shall quote these things as I go along. He was going to wipe out third parties. He was going to have a more equitable distribution of wealth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where does it say he was going to wipe out third parties?


Robert James Manion: I just read it. The right
hon. gentleman is almost as much asleep in this house as he is about the affairs of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, now,
he is awake.	,


Robert James Manion: I shall have to quote it
again. I did not want to repeat this, but apparently the right hon. gentleman likes his book. This is what he said at page eight:
Third parties, in Canada, have invariably had their rise during years of Conservative administration. These have been years of depression, due, in large part, to reactionary policies.
Then a little later on he says:
As Conservative administrations have given place to Liberal administrations, the country, through the substitution of Liberal for Conservative policies, has been brought out of depression into prosperity. With returning prosperity, discontent has vanished, and with it the third parties, which discontent had helped to bring into being.
What about all these parties?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman's
party was the fifth or sixth party. What about the third and fourth parties of which the right hon. gentleman speaks? I think, however, I have proved that I was right in quoting my right hon. friend. He promised that there would be a more equitable distribution of wealth. He even went so far, not in this book but in other places, as to say that proportional representation would apply.
I have quoted fifteen different promises, and I could quote many more. One promise was that the Liberal party would continue the Liberal policy of British preference. Well, the Liberal policy of British preference has been practically wiped out by this particular trade treaty or agreement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: Oh, yes. The British
preference has been practically wiped out.

The Address-Mr. Manion
If it has not been wiped out entirely, it is so close to being wiped out that there is really no difference. That preference was obtained by the Conservative party in 1932. and yet the right hon. gentleman and his party, by means of this trade agreement with the United States, has practically wiped it out. This afternoon I quoted different United States statements on that.
Then the right hon. gentleman said that he was going to control credit. This is what he said:
The Liberal party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to the average citizen. It stands for the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank, to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need.
We established the central bank.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Robert James Manion: We established the central bank.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not a government owned bank.


Robert James Manion: I admit that the right hon. gentleman has changed the control over some of the stock. The government now has control over all the stock; but as far as the control of the central bank is concerned, I venture to assert that there is no more control to-day than there was before the stock was taken over by the government. The central bank is being run to-day, and rightly so, as it has always been run, from the office of Mr. Towers. Unfortunately the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has been ill for the last six months, and I venture to say that during that time nobody opened his mouth to the central bank about the control of currency and credit.


Charles Avery Dunning: I assure my hon. friend he is quite wrong.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend was sick, and I do not understand how he knows so much about the situation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was not as sick as that.


Robert James Manion: I quote again, not because I wish to criticize but because I think it should be repeated. The right hon. gentleman said:
Let me repeat what I said in parliament, in protesting against the surrender, to a private institution, of the state's control over the nation's currency and credit: "Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government, and recognized as its most conspicuous and
sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile."
That is a popular quotation from the right hon. gentleman's statement, and it is well put, just as he always puts things very well; but so far as any practical application of it is concerned, I do not think there has been one one-hundredth per cent of it put into effect.
Then he says, dealing with the control of investments, and what he says in this book is absolutely refuted by the inaction of the government:
The Liberal party believes the financial mismanagement of industry is largely responsible for many conditions obtaining to-day.
To prevent exploitation of the public through the sale of watered stocks and worthless securities. it believes an investment control board should be established, with supervision of issues of securities by companies incorporated under federal charters.
Where is that investment control board? Is that not a promise? Why do not hon. gentlemen opposite say " hear, hear," now? That is a distinct promise, and there is no sign of its ever being put into effect.
On the next page he says:
Democratization of industry. The Liberal party believes that industrial reconstruction is the problem of the future. It will seek in industrial relations, as opportunity offers, to give to workers and consumers a larger share in the government of industry.
On the subject of industrial reconstruction, I shall have much to say throughout the campaign.
If there has been any more control of industry since this government came into power than before, I should like to know where it has been.
Then the right hon. gentleman delivers this old statement:
Liberalism stands, as always, for the principle of a free parliament, and for the supremacy of parliament.
When was parliament not supreme in this country? It has been supreme ever since 1867. What did my right hon. friend mean? When was parliament not free?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall reserve my remarks until later.


Robert James Manion: It is perhaps just as well. The parliament of Canada has always been in control. There has not been a minute since 1867 when it has not been in control. No matter how much the right hon. gentleman talks about dictators or a one-man government, parliament has always been in control in this dominion and is in control to-day; at least it could be if it were to put out of office a government that has
The Address-Mr. Manion

shown itself so futile in relieving the troubles of this country. This is another delectable bit from the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Finish reading the last one.


Robert James Manion: I am not going to read the whole book, because if I did I should laugh myself to death, as I said this afternoon.
This is another quotation from the next page:
The Liberal party believes the aim of every government should be the balancing of its budget.
This government has not got very close to balancing its budget. He goes on:
It would seek to effect that end, by retrenchment of public expenditures-
Never have public expenditures been so heavy as since this government came into power, and I do not notice any denials coming from the other side of the house.
The right hon. gentleman went on:
-by reduction of principal and interest on the public debt-
There has been a certain reduction of interest, but we were taking action in that regard before we went out of power. Every government has' done that, by the process of refunding. He went on:
-by a reduction in taxation-
When has there been any reduction in taxation? There has been an increase in the sales tax since this government came into power, but I do not know of any tax that has been taken off. The right hon. gentleman goes on:
-and by increased revenues through the encouragement of trade.
There has been an increase in the revenues; but increased revenues certainly mean increased taxation, and these increased revenues must come out of the pockets of the people. Then he said:
The government will seek to effect a reduction of the cost of government in Canada by a careful inquiry into federal, provincial and municipal costs.
When was that inquiry made? It has not been made. The right hon. gentleman goes on:
The record of Liberal administrations in the reduction of expenditures, taxation, debt and interest, and in transforming deficits into surpluses, is the best guarantee that Liberal policies, if given their opportunity, will be able again to achieve these results.
There has been no reduction in taxation. On the other hand there has been an increase in the sales tax; the cheque tax is still on; the three cents postage is still on; the sugar

tax is still on. In the next budget something may be done by way of reductions in view of the possibility of an election, but that is the only hope the people have of getting a reduction in taxation.
But this is something more than the right hon. gentleman said; this is a sweet bit:
More equitable distribution of wealth. The Liberal party recognizes that the problem of distribution has become more important than that of production and believes that personality is more sacred than property.
That is a discovery! He goes on:
It will devote itself to finding ways and means of effecting a fair and just distribution of wealth with increasing regard to human needs, to the furtherance of social justice, and to the promotion of the common good.
Human needs! Social justice 1 The common good! How those terms would roll over the right hon. gentleman's tongue when he was speaking over the radio! I myself was trying to gain a few votes for others at that time, but I did not succeed very well. He did. Social justice! The right hon. gentleman, when out of power, has been the greatest reformer the country has ever produced; but when in office he has been the greatest reactionary we have ever had. Out of office he is a theoretical reformer; in office he is a practical reactionary.
A little further down on the same page he says:
To-night, I hope I have answered, once and for all, the unwarranted and unworthy charge, so often made by our political opponents, that the Liberal party has no policy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party has had so much policy that nobody knows what it has had. It has had plenty of policy, all right, but it has lacked the principle of putting the policy into effect. Like the old woman in the shoe, it had so many policies it did not know what to do. That analogy is not quite correct; for the old woman in the shoe was dealing with children, and the Prime Minister, being a bachelor, would not, of course, adopt children. But if he did adopt children and treated them as he has treated his own policies, he would be arrested for cruelty. Or if he treated that dog of his as he has treated his own policies, he would be arrested for cruelty to animals.
I think it was Mr. Bourassa who said in this house that the only principle the Liberal party had was to have no principles, and it was Mr. Fielding who said-I think I have heard him say it in this house-that a platform was to get in on, but not to stand on. The principles which the right hon. gentleman is expounding in this little booklet remind me

The Address-Mr. Manion
of that southern politician who said, "Them's my principles, but if you do not like them,
I can change them."
Let me now deal with the question of unemployment. Speaking on August 5, 1935, the right hon. gentleman said:
Ladies and gentlemen . . . unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. You do not need to be told that.
He repeats that in this book over and over again, and with that statement I wholly agree; it is just as true to-day as when he said it on August 5, 1935.


Mr. SPENCE:: More true to-day.


Robert James Manion: Yes, perhaps more true.
On the next page the right hon. gentleman, speaking of our government, says:
One thing the government might have done, but which has never been properly done, is to have supplied parliament and the country with accurate information, year by year, as to the numbers of unemployed and the numbers on relief. There is nothing, even to-day, in the nature of national registry.
That is as true to-day as when he said it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Robert James Manion: There has been no national registry. I spent days trying to get legitimate and accurate figures. I pointed out this afternoon that the figure which the Minister of Labour has been giving was
125,000	of unemployed on aid, whereas the actual number of unemployed is 450,000. If there is such a thing as a registiy, I should like to know where it is, because I do not want to waste as much time as I have had to do in the last few days in order to get figures that are dependable.
The right hon. gentleman went on to say:
The statistical departments of the government have never been given the necessary instructions or authority to collect detailed information.
They have exactly the same instructions to-day. There has been no change whatever in the instructions to the statistical departments, and no change in their methods of keeping these figures.
On the next page the right hon. gentleman says:
In order to conceal the growing magnitude of the problem, and, at the same time, its own growing incapacity to deal with it, the government either did not seek to obtain information which, at all times, should have been available to the people's representatives in parliament, or it deliberately withheld such information as it had from them.
We are in exactly the same position now. The government may be able to get better infon lation than I can, but I am a member 71492-4
of this house and I cannot get the information. I was able to get it only after running a.ound to the labour department, the statistical branch, the national welfare council and various other bodies, and then finally I got something in the way of an estimate that was in no way different from the estimates we had when we were in power. To use his own words, is it to conceal the growing magnitude of the problem and at the same time its own incapacity to deal with it that this government does not give us in this house the proper figures with regard to unemployment? I do not know, but I think what the right hon. gentleman says here is as applicable to his party as it was to us. Again, he says:
Taking the latest figures on employment supplied by the bureau of statistics, it can be shown that, on the most conservative basis, there are to-day over 400,000 wage-earners out of work.
I gave the figures this afternoon and, from the information that I could obtain from the labour department or from anyone else who had any knowledge of the subject, it appears that the number to-day is 398,000. That was the number of persons out of work in November, and in addition there were 64.000 young men who had attained the employable age but could find no work. That is the estimate of the bureau of statistics. I am speaking from memory, because I do not wish to take up the time of the house now to look it up. Well, we can add to that number, for the month of December, another fifty or sixty thousand, if we are to judge by our experience every December as compared with November. So that in December the number would be well above 500,000. There is no doubt about that; those are the figures given by the bureau of statistics after they had worked on the question at considerable length in order to furnish the information I desired. This 64.000 estimated by the bureau as the number of young men out of work in November, it must be remembered, is the lowest estimate, because the youth council made an estimate of 400,000 as the number of unemployed wage-earners. With the December increase the number will be over
500,000.
Further on the right hon. gentleman says:
It is not with statistics, but with human lives, that we are concerned. You cannot measure fear, privation and want, by any yardstick, or adding machine.
I agree with that, but that is as true today as it was then.
Is it any wonder that to-day there is widespread unrest and discontent throughout the land, and that, in the case of young and old alike, many are in a condition of despair.

The Address-Mr. Manion

The position is exactly the same to-day. On page 46 he states what he will do for the unemployed:
Unemployment of First Concern.
The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergency conditions through a representative national commission, which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed.
As permanent measures, the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade; and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.
Nothing has been done wTith respect to any of these undertakings except as regards the representative national committee. That was appointed; but instead of becoming an administrative commission, instead of helping the provinces and the municipalities, as the right hon. gentleman promised, to carry out measures for the relief of unemployment, that body was dissolved a year ago. Its recommendations have not been accepted. It submitted at least a dozen recommendations, two or three of which have been carried out in part; but most of them have been absolutely ignored.
On the next page I find the following:
Release from rather than increase in the burden of the cost of government-
I have dealt with that.
-reductions, rather than increases, in taxation-
I have dealt with that.
-cooperation and goodwill between the federal and provincial administrations-
We know how much cooperation and goodwill there has been.
-and between all parts and classes of the country, must also be achieved, if commerce and industry are to revive.
None of these things has been achieved. And remember, these are all promises. Then he compared the representative national commission with the Canadian patriotic fund or with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. That reference will be found on page 48, where he tells about the commission acting as an administrative body. With regard to Liberal cooperation he makes this statement at page 49:
Liberals would get provincial cooperation.
There will necessarily be two main divisions in the commission's work. The one will have to do with the administration of unemployment relief. The other will have to do with the endeavour to provide work for the unemployed. ... A guarantee of provincial cooperation is to be found in the fact that, save in one province, out of nine, Liberal governments are already in office.
[Mr. Mamun.J
Then listen to this pathetic appeal:
Would it be possible to conceive a finer example of the kind of national government necessary to cope with social and industrial problems, which depend for their solution so completely on the co-operation of federal and provincial governments, than would be afforded by a Liberal government at Ottawa, and Liberal governments in all the provinces of Canada?
Then he turns to the group to the left:
Perhaps Mr. Woodsworth and members of the C.C.F. will be equally moved to see how constitutional difficulties, which stand in the way of industrial and social reform, may be removed, and any necessary amendments to the B.N.A. Act secured, through governmental cooperation of this character.
We have not observed the fulfilment of any of these.
They profess the aim of their party is the establishment of a cooperative commonwealth. Where could they find anything more closely resembling such an ideal, than in having all governments of the one mind?
Whose mind, the right hon. gentleman's or Mitch's? I might go back to a previous page, which is rather interesting. On page 27, speaking of the Liberal party, he says:
We are not only a united party, with traditions and a past in which we all share a pride, but we are a happy party as well.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Hear,
hear.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Justice says, "hear, hear." He knows better than anyone else how happy they are.
Mr. Bennett must know by now that no broad scheme of social reform can be carried through successfully in Canada without close cooperation between the dominion and the provinces.
Heaven help us if social reform must wait upon cooperation between this government and the provinces. It is certainly time for a change. I refer next to page 55:
Unemployment is the hardest cross which a working-man, I might almost say any man, is called upon to bear.
That sentiment is repeated throughout the book and I agree with it.
Even in a period of great emergency, such as the present, it is too much to hope to secure the united effort of all, but the effort of a political party, united in its aims and policies from one end of the country to the other, can go a long way towards effecting even that result. Of this, at least, I am sure: the task which confronts Canada to-day is one to which Liberalism can give its whole heart.
Then he goes into the bible:
"To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke," is, if

The Address-Mr. Manion
anything, more the aim of Liberalism in this twentieth century than it was even in ancient days.
One hon. member, more familiar with the bible than I am, reminds me that this is from Isaiah. When we were in power the right hon. gentleman was addicted more to the Lamentations of Jeremiah than he was to Isaiah. There is a delicious touch on page 46. I shall read it and then I shall dispense with the book:
The ancient Greeks had a clear understanding of human nature and behaviour, and of inevitable sequences, when they accorded Nemesis the place they did in most of their tragedies.
Nemesis, Mr. Speaker, if you will recall your classical studies, was the goddess of retribution. The right hon. gentleman has dodged rather a few goddesses in his time and I have no doubt he -is still dodging. In that sense he is the Artful Dodger, something which I really regret because I do believe the country would be better off'if some of these goddesses could catch up with him. However, I fancy that this one will. I am afr 'd that in time this goddess Nemesis will catch up with him and deal with him.
I have read some selections from this book, and I assure you. Mr. Speaker, that you can get more amusement and enjoyment, more of sheer cheerfulness out of it than out of any book of jokes published in Canada. I have a notion to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he ought to get the National Liberal Federation, which I am told has plenty of money, to publish another edition or other editions of this little book and call it The Prime Minister's Joke Book. There was a time, when I was very young, when about the only literature we got in that western country was the old almanac, which was a combination of astrology, recipes, jokes, advice and so on, and it very much resembled this book. I remember on the front page there wav a picture of a man dressed in something rf .enabling a lady's bathing suit of to-day; in other words, he had very little on. Thus, he was able to show that he had what people in the smooth language of to-day call "intestinal fortitude." I do not think you could show that on the front of this book, because I do not think this government has any of that "intestinal fortitude." I promise that if the right hon. gentleman will have the book issued, we will distribute it; we will distribute it with our comments. And I should like the right hon. gentleman to autograph it. because I think that would be of some use to us. Even if the book were not of very great use, it would at least add to the gaiety of nations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my hon. friend puts down the little book, he promised to read the passage where he said, I had said I would cure unemployment. He has not done that.


Robert James Manion: Oh, by implication. I do not think I can look through the book just now, but I have no doubt I could find he made that promise more than once. By implication; the very attacks the right hon. gentleman made on us for not curing unemployment imply it. Surely the right hon. gentleman was serious in what he said. What did he mean by attacking us for not curing unemployment?


An hon. MEMBER:: You said you would.


Robert James Manion: I thought I had that part marked. I cannot read the whole book; the whole thing is so many promises; I picked out just a few of the select ones.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend promised he would read the statement.


Robert James Manion: Well, that is nothing to
the promises the right hon. gentleman made in the last election. I may have to renege on that promise to-night because I cannot go searching through the book, but the right hon. gentleman promised, oh so many things. He was going to reduce taxation; he was going to lessen expenditure; he was going to retain the British preference, to bring about harmony and cooperation, to bring about social justice, to appoint an investment control board, to remove unemployment, to bring about prosperity, to wipe out third parties, or to bring about conditions which would cause third parties to disappear. He was going to bring about more equitable distribution of wealth, to control currency and credit, to set up proportional representation. And hon. members will remember the promises of the right hon. gentleman in earlier speeches to bring about senate reform. The older members of this house will remember how he rolled that promise from coast to coast, telling everyone he was going to reform the senate, to lower the cost of living and to wipe out trusts and combines.
Let me read what the right hon gentleman said on the night of the election. In the Toronto Daily Star of October 15 there are two or three pages of it, but I shall not read it all. He was going to banish poverty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Please read
that. I made no such statement, that I was going to banish poverty.
71492-4J
The Address-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: Well, this is what the
Toronto Daily Star of Tuesday, October 15, 1935, said. The heading is:
A New charter of Liberalism in statement by Mackenzie King.
"Faith in the ancient and beneficent precepts that it is only by sharing each other's burden, and doing unto others as we would have others do unto us, that men and nations can serve their own interests and the common good."
Ottawa, October 15-From Laurier House, where last night he received returns of the overwhelming Liberal victory, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King issued the following statement to the people of the dominion.
I am not going to read the whole statement, but I shall read one paragraph. It is headed, "Banish poverty and adversity."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
gentleman states that I said I would banish poverty. I said nothing of the kind.


Robert James Manion: Well, the heading is there,
the right hon. gentleman will have to quarrel with the Toronto Daily Star. I shall read it, and perhaps the right hon. gentleman will be sorry he interrupted. These are his words; the heading may not be his; it is divided into paragraphs, and whether the headings are by the Daily Star or the right hon. gentleman I do not know. He is reported as saying on the night of the election:
In the new era which dawns to-day the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, "seek to banish".


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman now falls back on the words "will seek"; in other words, they sought but did not find. They were only going to seek; it was just put out for the benefit of the people.
Then he goes on:
They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their manacing mien has served to destroy the souls, as well as the minds and bodies, of an ever increasing number of men, women and children in our land. We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty; starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance; discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
With those words I have no quarrel at all, but I should like to know what the right hon, gentleman has done to implement those promises. What has he done? With every word of it I agree, but he says now that he

was only going to seek to wipe out poverty and adversity. Well, the people of this country are still seeking to find anything done by him to do away with poverty and adversity. Was this just some more ballyhoo, just some more of the propaganda that has been so prevalent since this government came into power? Was he just attempting to fool the people? He says now he was going to seek; did he not expect to find? What have they done for the youth of this country who are without work, who are estimated by the youth council of Toronto to number 400,000? What have they done for the security of the people? What have they done to bring about social justice? What have they done for the fishermen or miners of Novia Scotia? What have they done to cure unemployment generally? What have they done for Canada generally?
Let me read apother little extract which is not a political article at all. The Canadian Welfare Council issued a statement on January 5 last, just the other day. They show this, as far as Canada is concerned-and they are not a political organization; they are not criticising the government but merely setting out the facts:
Relief costs $900,000,000 since 1930.
Of all the factors in the situation at the present time the most disturbing is probably realization of the fact that by the end of March 1939 Canada will have disbursed in nine years approximately 900 million dollars on direct aid, works and projects for the relief of unemployment and agricultural distress, and at the end of that time has more dependents on public funds voted for this purpose than when she started.
A little further down:
The discouraging fact is that after all these years, in part because of the clashing jurisdictions of the dominion and its provinces, Canada still lacks long term legislation, comprehensive planning, and any integrated and adequate program for a fundamental attack upon the serious national ills which have occasioned these heavy expenditures.
Then further down:
Energetic attack the need.
All in all, a weary country and a disillusioned people have been in a mood of drift, but there appears to be a growing realization that the situation cannot continue, that the attack must be basic, and much more than merely a matter of this or that relief policy, or the relative allocation of functions and costs among different units of government.
And finally:
.	.	. for it is possible that the threat to
Canadian well-being now lies not so largely in the actual sag in employment which we are facing as in the "let-down" of spirit and morale of the country as a whole.

The Address-Mr. Manion
That is the contention of the Canadian Welfare Council, which is not in any way a political organization. I read it because they describe the condition better than I can. May I ask my right hon. friend whether these statements of his before the election, and particularly his statement after the election, were merely flights of eloquence and a weaving of words and dreaming of dreams, or did he believe his own words? I find myself wondering whether the right hon. gentleman did believe them. If he did, why has there not been some action in regard to these matters? Perhaps it is all theory; perhaps the right hon. gentleman did not have-I do not think he did-in his early days sufficient contact with the difficulties of people who are poor, to realize how serious a picture he painted, and painted so well that one might think he understood, he really saw the picture that he painted.
I should like to ask the Minister of Labour: Is it just a coincidence that Canada, of all nations of the empire, is the least advanced in social legislation, and that this government, led by the right hon. gentleman, has been in power since 1921, with the exception of five years? Is it just a coincidence, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has practically no social legislation as compared with Great Britain, Australia or New Zealand? Is it a coincidence that the right hon. gentleman has been in power and that Canada has been so reactionary, despite the fine words and the weaving of beautiful thoughts by the right hon. gentleman, than whom no one can weave them better? I do not think it is a coincidence; I think it is largely cause and effect. During the last election the papers were full of " King or chaos " and the common joke throughout the country to-day is that we got both. Another slogan was " Vote Liberal and get action." Did we get action? We have got inaction, reaction, laissez-faire and do nothing. That is what the people are calling this government to-day, the do-nothing government, and the devil take the hindmost. That is the picture.
So far as I can see, neither the right hon. gentleman nor any of his ministers seem to know conditions in Canada. On occasion I have been struck with this thought, that the right hon. gentleman is too much interested in external affairs to be really interested in or understand internal affairs and the needs of the people. Does he know their needs? Does the right hon. gentleman realize that this country is made up of nine provinces? I find myself wondering if he really does. Since he became Prime Minister, has he visited the nine provinces, in order to get the viewpoints of these people? There is no answer. If I am not mistaken, the right hon.
gentleman since the last election has not been within a thousand miles of his own constituency. I am open to correction; if I am wrong I shall withdraw that statement, but I think I should have said fifteen hundred miles. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the trouble is that this has been a government of reaction, of inaction, a Micawber-like government. That is the trouble. You will remember the fine old character of Micawber in David Copperfield. I am very fond of him, because he had such a comforting philosophy. The old fellow was always in debt, you will remember, and when things got particularly bad and his creditors chased him, he would give them a promissory note and thank God that debt was paid. Many years ago I referred to the same picture and said then, as I repeat now, that the right hon. gentleman always reminds me a great deal of Micawber, because when he is driven too hard by the people in regard to the conditions that exist throughout the country he gives them another promise, another oration or a royal commission. No wonder the people call this a do-nothing government.
The real problem in Canada to-day, to my mind, is unemployment, just as much as it was the problem in 1935, and I admit quite frankly that that was the case then. It is the problem of giving opportunity to our youth. It is the problem of giving security to our older people. If we are going to justify this democracy of which we boast so much; if we are going to justify this system, we must compete with the dictatorships. In such countries as Russia, Germany and Italy they claim that they are keeping their people occupied. They are keeping them occupied, in a way; I think at too high a cost. They have taken away freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion, all of which we have in this country, thank heaven, under the British parliamentary system for which our ancestors fought for more than a thousand years. If we are to justify this democracy, and this economic system under which we live, variously called the capitalist system, the profit system, the reward system, the system of private property, of private enterprise; if we are to prevent our country from becoming a dictatorship of one kind or another, we must cure the defects of our system, and the great defect to-day is unemployment. I repeat to-night what I have previously said before various organizations in Canada, and what I said just a year ago before the Canadian Club of Ottawa, in the presence of my right hon. friend and some of his ministers: If we do not cure that defect, within
The Address-Mr. Manion

twenty years the democratic British parliamentary institutions in which we believe will be in very great danger of being completely wiped out, and our whole democratic system is likely to disappear. To my mind those who do not see this are blind. They are people without vision, and when the leaders of a country have no vision the people are in danger of perishing. More and more the well-to-do middle class are realizing the truth of that very statement, and after long, deep consideration I say solemnly that not since 1867 has Canada had a government that has so completely failed to realize the needs of the country or a government with more limited vision as to the methods by which we might cure the defects of democracy, such as unemployment, absence of security and lack of opportunity for youth-the cure for which must be brought about if we are to p.eserve not only confederation but our whole social system.
As everyone knows, youth is demoralized in Our country. Never has there been a time when our youth have been so completely demoralized, being fed by relief and, in many instances, driven to crime. We were criticized for putting the single unemployed men into camps. Where are they now? A great many are being put into gaol because they cannot earn a living. A great many have drifted into lives of crime. I say this is a national calamity, and again I am going to quote a published statement of the Canadian Welfare Council under date of January 5, 1938. I am going to quote this at some length because it expresses the danger better than I can. They say:
A Grave Danger
But now, as for the first sustained period in many years, there seems a breathing space, there emerges, in too many quarters to be disregarded, a danger as grave as the crisis which has shaken us. It takes its rise, in part, in the increasing docility and indifference reported among the recipients of public help in the face of continuing or threatened idleness. A "spiritlessness" and a loss of essential dignity perhaps could not but be by-products of our emergency mass treatment of individual human lives. But more and more, there are signs that the old, loyal and proud submission of the subject to constituted authority is giving way, in fear and insecurity, to a cringing subservience, and unwillingness to venture or to risk. The sense of uncertainty and dependency is sapping at the very foundations of individual initiative, of self-reliance, of an appreciation of the values of spiritual and intellectual freedom. Freedom, to-day, of itself is too generally regarded as a quantity to be despised and scorned as "fredom to suffer and to starve."
There are not wanting signs, in certain quarters, that authority is tightening rein and threatens to ride hard. Ruthlessness alone will not revive broken men. If through our mass {Mr. Manion.]
treatment of individual disaster, we have destroyed personal enterprise and independence, and if. realizing this, we fail immediately to take measures to retrieve and preserve these qualities, then there slips away the very bulwark of our democratic life. We are indeed a lesser people if the depression has taken from us our appreciation of our ancient liberties,-of thought, of belief, of speech, and of action,-as verities of greater value than life itself.
What did the right hon. gentleman do when he appointed the Purvis commission? That commission was appointed in 1936; that was one promise at least he partially carried out. This was to have been a continuing, administrative body, but instead of that the Purvis commission was dissolved about a year ago. Perhaps I have no right to mention this, but the fact that it. was intended to be a permanent body is obvious to anyone who takes a look at its personnel. Mr. Tom Moore, for example, was a well known labour leader who gave up a permanent position to become a member of that board. Did Tom Moore understand that at the end of the year he was going to be dropped? He thought it was going to be a permanent commission. Apparently that was the intention.


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I correct my hon. friend? Mr. Moore was a member of the social insurance commission appointed by the previous administration, and while a member of that commission was transferred to the national employment commission.


Robert James Manion: I am not quarrelling with that. I simply say that probably he would not have taken the transfer if he had thought that at the end of a year the Purvis commission would be dissolved. I believe he had a permanent position, but he transferred to this one because he was interested in social security, and thought he was going into a permanent position. I wish to make it absolutely clear that not in any shape or form am I quoting Mr. Moore. I am drawing that conclusion from my knowledge of Tom Moore.
However, the commission was dissolved, and their recommendations have not been carried out. I shall read twelve of them briefly, as I find them in their report. Only two of these or, at the outside three of them, have been touched. They are as follows:
1.	A great national cooperative effort to end unemployment.
That was one of them.
2.	Employment services to be national.
None of these has been carried out.
3.	Commission to be administrative, not just
advisory.
4.	A proper registry of unemployed and their classification.

The Address-Mr. Manion
I know of no such registry.
5.	Local communities to help in the work through local committees.
6.	Wiping out dole, which was to be replaced by rehabilitation measures.
7.	Slum clearance.
Nothing done about that.
8.	The national body to be succeeded by a small administrative committee to be helped by an interdepartmental committee to prevent
overlapping.
9.	Financial provision for and administration of unemployment aid should be the responsibility of the dominion government.
10.	Apprenticeship and learnership.
11.	Youth training.
12.	Housing plans.
I do not know whether apprenticeships and learnerships would be included in youth training. I do not know anything about that. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could tell me?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It would be included to some extent.


Robert James Manion: It is partly carried out, then. Youth training is partly carried out, and housing has been partly carried out. Those are the only three that have, to some extent, been dealt with, out of the twelve recommendations. There may have been more, but those are the recommendations I saw as I read the report.
For the moment I shall leave unemployment. I am sorry to be taking so much time; I have never committed that crime before, and I hope I shall not do so again.
Another important question is that of national understanding and harmony. Everyone sees the need for harmony. I do not think it is the prerogative of any individual to know the need of what is called by some, national unity, and by others, national harmony. But I say that to-day there is less national harmony and less harmony among our governments than there has ever been, without any exception, in the history of Canada.
I am sorry to see these family quarrels going on, but at the same time I do not intend to get into them, because after all the family quarrel which did start was finished by what one of the newspapers called a comical caucus, where the whole result was that the members from Ontario passed a resolution of confidence in the right hon. gentleman. Did they need to call the members of Ontario by telegram to attend a caucus to find out if they were loyal to the right hon. gentleman.? I should have thought one might have taken that for granted.
However, that is not what I intended to say. One side of the quarrel which struck me as rather strange was the statement put out by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). He made a statement, which I have before me, in which he suggested that he had seen. Mr. Hepburn in an attempt to bring about peace in the troubled family. And he said, apparently in an effort to keep Mr. Hepburn quiet, that he suggested that judges, senators and cabinet ministers might be recommended. The implication was that Mr. Hepburn could name them. I believe he used the word "recommendation," or something of that sort. If Mr. Hepburn only recommended them, and the recommendations were not going to be acted upon, it would not be much of a reward for Mr. Hepburn. However, I do not care how many senators or cabinet ministers he recommends. But I do think that recommendations for judges by anybody but the Minister of Justice, particularly by anyone like Mr. Hepburn or myself, who is not a lawyer, is a serious matter.
Our judiciary has always been kept on a high plane. It has always been chosen largely -there have been exceptions-through merit. That is one of the great advantages we have over the United States. Many of us believe that a great deal of the criminal activity in the United States ,is due to the election of their judiciary, due also to the laxity in their courts and to the fact that the judges are elected rather than selected through choice because of merit and good conduct. Our courts have been the bulwarks of justice and fair play. Our whole national life in a large sense depends upon fairness and justice in our courts. The appointment of judges has been the highest prerogative of the crown. The Prime Minister appoints them on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, and the appointees hold office during good behaviour.
Yet the Minister of Agriculture in a published statement suggests that he has advised Mr. Hepburn that-he does not put it in these words-if Mr. Hepburn will recommend some judges for this country, they will probably be appointed.


Mr. GARDINER:: Did you never recommend any?


Robert James Manion: Did I?


James Garfield Gardiner: Did you never recommend any?


Robert James Manion: I do not think I ever
did. Anyway, I am not a provincial premier. If I did recommend any, I was a member of the dominion cabinet.


James Garfield Gardiner: You are rather an exception, then.
The Address-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: Possibly so. But I submit that the recommendation of judges by a premier, and particularly by one who, like myself, is not a lawyer-and I say that without intent to reflect on anyone-is an extraordinary offer to make. The minister, in a certain statement-not in the same one, I believe-says that he discussed the matter with the Prime Minister, and then he went back to Mr. Hepburn. He does not say that the Prime Minister raised any objection to this course of action.
I do not wish to go into the matter further, but I submit again that such a suggestion by the Minister of Agriculture was one of the most extraordinary suggestions ever made in this country, namely that the premier of one province should have the right to nominate judges. As a matter of fact, if Mr. Hepburn were to have the right to nominate judges, what about the premiers of the other eight provinces? Were they to have a like right?


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not in the statement at all. This is about as near the truth as what the hon. member has been saying all evening.


Robert James Manion: Well, the hon. gentleman had better be more careful of his own statements. He probably knows better than any other hon. member how far away from the truth people can get. Let me quote his words:
I went down to Toronto to attend the Royal Winter Fair on November 16 and 17, and not as an emissary from dominion government authorities to offer "concessions" to Mr. Hepburn.
And then, farther on:
In the meantime, at noon on the 16th, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, finding I was in Toronto but having no previous knowledge I was going and wishing to leave for Washington to sign the trade agreement, telephoned to get my comment on a certain feature of the agreement. After completing this he stated he would be pleased if I would consult some of our friends regarding the results in the South Waterloo by-election.
I do not blame him. And then the hon. member goes on:
I stated I was likely to see Mr. Hepburn, and inquired as to whether there would be any objection to discussing it with him. Mr. King replied, "Certainly not, by all means do so."
And then, farther down in the same article:
Mr. Hepburn states, "I was told I could have some say in Ontario appointments."
Then the Minister of Agriculture goes on to Bay:
My memory is that in justifying certain things which happened in Waterloo, Mr. Hep-

burn took very strong exception to certain actions of the dominion government including certain appointments. I replied that I could see no reason why he should not make recommendations as other Liberal leaders do indicating that there are certain senatorial, judicial and possible future cabinet vacancies to be filled but making it plain that I had no authority from anyone to make proposals.
A little later on he says:


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not "nominations".


Robert James Manion: Recommendations.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Do I draw the conclusion that he was trying to flim-flam Mr. Hepburn? He is supposed to be a friend of Mr. Hepburn. The talk is that he was one of the men mixed up with Mitchell in an attempt to overthrow this government. That was the kind of talk. He was supposed to be a friend of Mitchell's, and yet he is virtually saying to-night that Mitchell would have the fun of recommending people knowing they would not be appointed.


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend said I had said that he had the right to nominate.


Robert James Manion: What is the difference between "nominate" and "recommend"?


James Garfield Gardiner: No comparison at all.


Robert James Manion: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend will not deem me discourteous if I do not try to follow him in all that he has said to-night. I prefer rather to seek to follow the speech from the throne in what it indicates of the business before parliament during the present session. I am happy, however, that my first words may be those of agreement with my hon. friend on many of the things which he has said, particularly with remarks made at the opening of his address. I should like to thank him at once for his courteous references to the mover and seconder of the address, and for his characterization of their remarks on this occasion. I agree with my hon. friend that the two addresses to which we have listened, made by the hon member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) and *he hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier), were two of the best addresses that have ever been made by hon. members in moving and seconding the address.
The hon. member for Brandon has come to the House of Commons without previous parliamentary experience, but he has devoted his life and time industriously to the study of public questions. He has taken his part in educational work and has had experience in

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
journalism as well as in business. All these activities have been reflected in a very real way in the able manner in which he addressed this house this afternoon. On behalf of hon. members on this side in particular I should like to congratulate him very warmly on his achievement in winning the constituency of Brandon in the recent by-election. His actions on that occasion speak even louder of his abilities and attainments than his words this afternoon, eloquent as they were.
The hon. member for Stormont also made an exceptionally fine address. He has been in the house now for some three years. We have heard him on different occasions, and on each occasion have admired his facility in speaking in either English or French and in always contributing something of value to the debate under discussion. May I say to my hon. friend that by his speech this afternoon he has greatly enhanced the already very high reputation which he holds as a member of this house.
Naturally I am more than pleased to join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) in recording the expressions of delight with which the people of Canada from coast to coast ha- e learned of the decision of their majesties to visit Canada in May and June of the present year. The king and queen, when they come to this country, will ' receive a right royal and truly loyal welcome from the people of Canada.
I should also like to join with the Leader of the Opposition in my expression of admiration of the fine personal qualities of their majesties, of the beauty of their home and family life, and above all, of the manner in which they have consecrated their lives to the public service. I believe it is literally true that no sovereigns in the history of Britain, and it is a fine history, have ever devoted themselves more whole-heartedly and completely to the service of their subjects.
The visit of their majesties to Canada will be a great historic occasion. It will be the first time that the citizens of this country will have had the opportunity of personally welcoming on their own soil their king and queen. We are all delighted that their majesties have found it possible in connection with their visit to Canada to pay a visit also to our good neighbour, the President of the United States, and to spend a few days in the United States while they are on this side of the ocean. It is not only the first time that a British sovereign has visited the North American continent, but it is the first time that a British sovereign has been in the western hemisphere. Taken altogether, I am sure the visit will be one which will go down in the

annals of history as of outstanding importance in the story of the great empire of which Canada is a part.
The house might be interested in just a word regarding one or two features of the visit. The arrangements with respect to the royal tour have been placed by the government in the hands of an interdepartmental committee composed of prominent members of the public service under the supervision of the senior members of the cabinet. The committee will work in close cooperation with provincial and municipal authorities.
I should like to stress, in speaking of the visit, how difficult it is both for the committee and for the members of the government to seek to meet the wishes and demands of different localities as to having their majesties visit them while they are in Canada. The main purpose of the visit, of course, will be to enable their majesties to see as much of the people of Canada as they can, and to enable the people of Canada to see as much of their majesties as they can. For that reason it has been found necessary to eliminate most of what otherwise there might have been in the nature of functions and ceremonies. Their majesties are undertaking a very extended tour, and I should like to emphasize how generous they have been in consenting within the space of one month to travel from one end of Canada to the other, thereby visiting all the provinces of the dominion.
There have been and naturally will be many disappointments that it is not possible for the king and queen to visit certain localities. But may I say that, having personally gone carefully into the whole matter of the itinerary with the members of the committee and with the railway authorities, I know that the itinerary has been worked out with the utmost care, having regard to what the distances are in this country and to what the strain is certain to be upon our royal guests during the time that they are here.
Their majesties have expressed a wish not to travel at night in order that they may see as much as possible of the country and of the citizens of Canada. When one eliminates travel by night on great journeys such as they will be taking, and confines travel mostly to the day time, it will be seen at once that the arrangements which have been made as to localities to be visited go perhaps about as far as it is possible to have them go. The itinerary will be gone over again with great care by the railway authorities when they are fixing the minutes-I might almost say the seconds-to be given to the different localities to be visited, in regard to train services the movement of trains and the like, and if it is at all possible in any way to make any ex-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
tension which will not involve too great a tax upon the energies of our royal guests, that exception will be made. But I want to make it perfectly clear that any attempt by pressure on the part of individuals or organizations or communities to have some change made in the itinerary is not likely to prove the best Way to go about securing it.
May I express my warm appreciation of the spirit and the vray in which generally the people of Canada and the different localities have accepted the situation. I should like to mention particularly the city of Toronto and the city of Montreal, the two largest and two of the oldest cities of Canada. The stay of the king and queen in each of these two cities will not be beyond a day, and part of that time will be taken up in travel, but it was the most that it was at all possible for the committee in charge to accord.
Hon. members will be interested in knowing that when their majesties arrive in Canada, it is the intention of the king to speak at Quebec. His majesty will also speak in this city when he is unveiling the National War Memorial. He will speak again at either Victoria or Vancouver, and will also speak at Halifax at the time of his departure. I understand that the day his majesty will be in Winnipeg is Empire day, and that the king intends to deliver from the city of Winnipeg an empire broadcast. That includes the number of speeches that will be made, all of which will likely be broadcast to all parts of the country.
I am happy to be able to announce that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously consented to lay the cornerstone of the new Supreme Court of Canada building when their majesties are here in the city of Ottawa, and the queen may on that occasion deliver a short address.
There are other features of the tour that I should like to mention, but they will perhaps come better at some later time by way of question and answer in this house.
There is, however, one other feature which I should like to speak of in particular, and that is the relation of their majesties' visit to the business of this house. I have seen it stated in the press, on -what authority I do not know, that His Majesty the King would prorogue parliament when he is in Ottawa. May I say there is no authority whatever for that statement. It has not been given out by the government or by any authorized body. I make that clear for this reason, that I wish hon. members of this house to understand that so far as the royal visit is concerned. it must not be expected in any way to interfere with or to hasten the proceedings of this House of Commons or of this parliament. We are here to do the country's business, and on behalf of the government I wish to say to hon. members that we want that business done in the most businesslike way possible. We as a government intend on our part to bring forward the different measures as rapidly as the convenience of the house will permit. If we are through in time to have prorogation when their majesties are here, the effort will be made to secure prorogation by his majesty himself; but if we are not through at that time and there remains business to be considered, an adjournment of parliament will be made and the house will resume consideration of public business after their majesties' visit. I wish to make this very clear, not only for the reason I have already mentioned but also because I am sure there is no one who would regret more the thought that in any way the visit was responsible for hastening the business of parliament than the king himself.
I confess I hardly know where to begin in attempting to comment upon what my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has said. I might perhaps remark that in a broad way the speech from the throne seems to fall natural 1}' into three or four distinct parts, each of them having to do with matters which the government believe the country is most interested in at the present time. The first part I would mention, apart from the royal visit to which I have already referred, is the question of defence. The defence of our country at this time in the affairs of the world is of special concern. The second division relates to the trade treaties which are a constructive contribution to the solution of problems not only in our own country but also, we believe, in other parts of the world. The third part is concerned with the great problem of unemployment, which has been the concern of every parliament, of every legislature and of every municipality for the past eight or nine years, and, I might add, not only in Canada but pretty much throughout the entire world. The remaining part of the speech has to do with other measures that are likely to be brought forward and discussed as among the most important ones in the present session.
With regard to the question of defence, may I say that here I am happy to find that my hon. friend opposite appears to be, to some extent at least, favourable to what is set forth in the speech from the throne as to the government's policy. I do not wish to hold him down in any narrow way to any particular set of words; but broadly speaking he has received that part of the address with a certain measure of approval, no doubt reserving to himself the right, as measures are brought

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
forward from time to time, to express his views upon whether or not those measures adequately meet what he and his party conceive to be the present need.
I should like to take this opportunity at once to express to the leader of the opposition my appreciation of his attitude at the time of the great crisis last September. By his silence he sought not to embarrass the government at a very critical time. It is true that he was not at that time a member of the House of Commons nor was he the leader of the opposition. He could not be leader of the opposition until he came into the house. He was, however, the leader of his party and I understand, in fact I read, criticisms directed at him for his failure to attack the administration for not having come forward at the time and indicated whether or not it was prepared to have Canada engage in a European war. I thought my hon. friend showed good judgment on that occasion, and not only good judgment but also true patriotism. He has been long enough in a government to know something of the responsibilities that a ministry incurs when dealing with great problems that affect the well-being of nations, particularly to the extent of involving war. If there are hon. members who think the attitude taken by the government last fall was wrong in maintaining a steady, thoughtful and careful position while matters were in a very critical state in Europe; if there are any hon. members who are of the opinion that the government's attitude on that occasion should have been different from what it was, I wish to say that the government will gladly afford them ample opportunity to debate that issue at an appropriate time during the course of the present session. I believe, as I felt at the time, that the greatest service that this or any other country can render at a time of great need or peril is to be prepared, in whatever it does, to act in a united and wholehearted manner. The administration, knowing the critical situation that existed last fall, took the view that if at all possible no premature word or utterance on its part should in any way become responsible for the slightest occasion of disunity or even of question in the minds of the people of Canada. I believe that our attitude in that respect has been proven to be more than justified.
Some members of my hon. friend's party were, however, veiy critical of the administration. They seemed to feel that we ought to declare that Canada was prepared to go into a European war the moment war broke out, and make that declaration even before

it was at all apparent what the particular issue was likely to be in the event of war, or whether or not Great Britain herself was likely to be involved. It might as well be said now, at the beginning of this session, because it will be the attitude of this government for its time, that before this country goes into any war this parliament will be consulted.
The other day I was reading a most interesting book recently published, a work which is full of valuable personal and political information, written by a well known former hon. member of this house and, I am happy to say, a former colleague in a previous Liberal administration. The volume is one of Recollections, Political and Personal, by the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, and has just been published. Mr. Macdonald's book contains amongst other of its contents, a great deal of valuable historical material in reference to the policies which have been adopted by the respective parties in bygone years. In reading Mr. Macdonald's book I came across a statement of the Liberal position with respect to participation by Canada in conflicts which might take place in other parts of the world and the attitude taken thereon by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier as long as thirty years ago. I should like to read that statement to-night because at the time it was made it was expressive of Liberal policy concerning the relation of this country to other countries at a time of war. It was a statement of the Liberal policy which was accepted then, a statement which sets forth the Liberal policy as it has been followed ever since. I wish to give it as a statement of the Liberal policy as it is to-day and as it will continue to be under the present Liberal administration.
At page 331 of Mr. Macdonald's book, referring to the debate that took place in this House of Commons on the Naval Service Act in 1910, the author quotes Sir Wilfrid Laurier speaking in that debate as follows. Here are the words of Sir Wilfrid:
I am a Canadian first, last and all the time. I am a British subject by birth, by tradition, by conviction; by the conviction that under British institutions my native land has found a measure of security and freedom it could not have found under any other regime.
Then in another place at that time:
If England is at war we are at war and liable to attack. I do not say we will always be attacked; neither do I say that we would take part in all the wars of England. That is a matter that must be guided by circumstances, upon which the Canadian parliament will have to pronounce and will have to decide in its own best judgment.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
My hon. friend made reference, in speaking of defence, to the paragraph in the speech from the throne which refers to the intention of this government to appoint a defence purchasing board, and expressed the hope that it would not be a political board. May I say to my hon. friend I think that when the government's legislation is brought down he will have every reason to feel that in this matter, as in all others, the government has sought to do that which will commend itself to the people of this country at large; and that the board which will be appointed will be a board which will command the respect and confidence of hon. members of this house. I agree with my hon. friend when he says that he believes there is no right thinking person in Canada who wishes to see unwarranted profits made out of anything that has to do with war. The whole question as to what is best in the matter of the manufacture of war materials, munitions and other implements of war, whether it is better to have this done under government ownership, or private ownership properly controlled, is one which will come up for full discussion and debate in this house this session. I shall not go into that question now, but I wish to say immediately that for myself, and I speak as well for every member of this administration, and I think I may say for every hon. member in this house, we are determined to see that, where it is necessary for the country to engage in the manufacture of war material, matters are so safeguarded that their manufacture cannot be made a basis for profiteering.
I come now to the next part of the speech, which has to do with the trade treaties. But I recall that before my hon. friend came to that part he brought in a matter which rather surprised me, because it was touched on only a few minutes before the debate opened, one which it seemed to me he sought to stress unduly, namely the question of the refusal of an application made within the last few days to the radio broadcasting corporation by the publisher of one of our Canadian papers to be allowed to use the corporation's network for the purpose of delivering addresses setting forth his personal opinions on some public matters. Now I have already said that as far as that application is concerned the government knew nothing whatever of it. No member of the government had any knowledge that such an application was being made; no member of the government had even heard anything about the application having been refused until he saw mention of it in the press; although in the press, which apparently is not to be censored in any way, the statement was made quite emphatically that the government was responsible for the refusal of that particular application.
My hon. friend says, What we ought to have in this house is a committee dealing with radio. I think it would be a kindness to my hon. friend to say at once that there are a number of things that he has missed in the three years he has been out of the house recently. His address to-night gave evidence of that repeatedly, and this is one instance. This house has had for a couple of years past a standing committee on radio broadcasting.


Robert James Manion: I knew that all the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend knew that all the time and yet asked for a committee I am somewhat surprised.


Robert James Manion: May I ask my right hon. friend as a matter of information whether that committee is a standing committee that continues this year without further appointment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been a committee for the last two sessions, a select standing committee. A motion was passed:
That a select committee be appointed on broadcasting to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to review the policies of the corporation with special reference to revenues, expenditures and development, with all the powers vested in the standing committees under standing orders and the resolution passed by this house oil the 7th February, 1938.


Robert James Manion: But I am afraid that does not answer my question. Is that committee automatically appointed for this year also?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; it will require the appointment of another committee.


Robert James Manion: That is exactly what I was saying.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The inference I drew, and which I think hon. members of the house will have drawn, from my hon. friend's remark was that there was need of such a committee.


Robert James Manion: This session.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, at previous sessions, all the time.


Robert James Manion: No, I knew there was a committee; I read the press.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then if my hon. friend knew, he evidently forgot some things. The committee reported, and its report was accepted unanimously by this house. One feature was approval of the policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because it was into those very matters that the committee was obliged to look. As I said this
54	-	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
afternoon, in order to remove the possibility of any control on the part of the government over radio broadcasting in this country, this parliament passed an act establishing the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. There was appointed to govern the affairs of that corporation a board of nine governors. These members were selected from different parts of Canada, covering pretty much the entire dominion. Every member of the board of. governors is recognized as a person well qualified to hold such a position. And the board of governors was given power to lay down regulations with respect to radio broadcasting. The board has laid down certain regulations, not within the last twenty-four hours, or the last two months, but regulations that have been in force for the last year or two. Among these regulations is one to the effect that the national network cannot be bought up by any individual or any corporation except under certain conditions for the purpose of giving his or its views to the nation at large over the national network.


Robert James Manion: What about George Drew?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did he have the national broadcasting network?


Robert James Manion: He had a broadcast across Ontario, and George McCullagh could not get that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This was an application for the entire national network.


Robert James Manion: I appreciate that, but later he tried for less and could not get anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I think he succeeded in getting something, because my hon. friend heard him. But may I point out, as far as the application is concerned, that it was not rejected because it came from one individual; it was rejected because the rules and regulations of the broadcasting corporation which set forth the conditions under which the use of the entire network may be acquired by any person apparently did not permit of the application being granted. The point, as I understand it, is this, that the governors of the corporation have provided that there shall be round table conferences, debates, a forum, where there shall be opportunities given from time to time for discussion of different questions of importance, and that subject to the existing rules and regulations facilities will be provided alike to all parties who take part in these discussions when they wish to put forward particular views. I understand that the publisher in question made application and was told by the corporation that he might appear in connection with any

of these opportunities which are given to all persons alike, and make his statement there. But the rule of the corporation, as I understand, is-


Mr. MASSEY:: If the right hon. gentleman will permit me, he was told that he could make his statement on the forum, but he would be given his subject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) seems to know more about the details than I do. However the letter explaining the situation, written by the manager of the broadcasting corporation, will make perfectly clear what the reason was. This afternoon I placed that communication on the table and the house having given its consent, it will appear in Hansard to-morrow. I should be very much surprised if in any particular there has been an exception made to any rule, either by way of refusing such an application or by way of granting a special privilege to others. If any such thing has occurred of course the manager and governor will quite properly be liable to be taken to task for it. But may I again draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that all members of this house had full opportunity last year to consider or take exception to the policies of the radio broadcasting corporation. Having done this, I wish now to read one or two paragraphs from the report of the radio broadcasting committee which was submitted to this house and carried unanimously, which report approved the very policies designed to see that radio broadcasting, as carried on by this corporation, should be so conducted that there would be equal opportunity for all concerned, regardless of their particular circumstances one way or the other. I quote now from page 194 of-the proceedings of the committee on radio broadcasting, under date of May 20, 1938:
Your committee held seven meetings and had as principal witnesses the chairman and vicechairman of the board of governors and the general manager. During seven sittings an exhaustive examination was conducted. All information required by the committee to carry out its terms of reference was supplied, confidential information not susceptible of publication in the public interest being made available privately. The committee was impressed by the ability and frankness of the principal witnesses.
The bulk of the evidence concerned the program. technical and financial policies of the corporation. Your committee is of the opinion that these policies are well designed to carry out the purpose for which the corporation was created. Your committee is also of the opinion that the policies of the corporation are being executed in a businesslike fashion.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
And further:
Your committee believes that the constitution of the corporation, ensuring a proper division between policy and management and a degree of flexibility and independence essential to the medium of broadcasting, together with ultimate parliamentary control, is well suited to the purpose for which it was created. Public service broadcasting in Canada must necessarily continue to be free from partisan control, and your committee is gratified to report that the activities of the CBC have been free from any nature of partisanship whatsoever. Your committee also wished to pay its tribute to the governors of the corporation for their vision, public spirit and efficient conduct of the trust imposed upon them by parliament.
That was after an examination of the corporation's policies, and I think I am right when I say that the regulations referred to by the manager of the broadcasting corporation, which govern in the matter, were in existence at the time this report was made. I think the hon. member for Greenwood, who interrupted me a moment ago, was a member of one of the committees of this house which investigated radio broadcasting.


Denton Massey: The first committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I believe those regulations were in existence at that time.


Denton Massey: I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but it is the interpretation of the regulations which is causing the difficulty at the present time. I do not wish to attempt to make a speech at the moment; I expect to speak on this matter later on; but if the Prime Minister will permit me, he will recall that at the time the committee sat two members of the committee withdrew because they were not permitted to call witnesses to go into just such a matter as has arisen at the present time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
that as far as the government is concerned we would welcome the appointment of a committee again this year, and every opportunity will be given hon. gentlemen opposite to name their members of that committee. Opportunity will be given the committee to call the general manager, the governors and any others connected with the corporation, and they may go very fully into all the rules and regulations that have been drawn up.
What I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that as far as radio broadcasting in Canada is concerned, when this parliament has put the whole business into the hands of a broadcasting corporation it seems to me that we as members of this house in our public capacity ought to be prepared to support the corporation in seeking to make rules which will
cause radio broadcasting throughout this country to show favours to none but equal privileges and opportunities to all. I believe it was in that spirit that the regulations at present in existence were laid down.
I hope I am making it clear that as far as censorship is concerned this government has no desire whatever to effect any censorship with respect to anything excepting what may be distinctly contrary to the public interest; but that so far as the broadcasting corporation is concerned such censorship as is exercised there is not the censorship of the government but of the corporation which parliament itself has established and to which has been given certain rights and powers.
Now I come to the question of the trade treaties, and here first of all, may I remind the house of the sequence of events, because it is only in the light of such that one can properly appreciate the significance and effects of any government policy. May I recall that from the time of confederation until the late administration went out of office there had been repeated efforts-not excluding those of the last administration- to bring about a reciprocal trade agreement with the United States, an agreement which, as between our two countries, would have mutuality of benefit and which would be reciprocally helpful. Every effort towards that end failed until the present administration came into office after the general election of 1935. The first task undertaken by this administration was that of bringing about an agreement with the United States if such was at all possible. We succeeded in getting that agreement, which was approved by this parliament and was to remain in force for three years, to continue thereafter subject to cancellation on six months notice. We have had three years of experience with that agreement, and I ask hon. members of this house: Are there those here who think this country would have been better off if an agreement had never been effected?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We certainly
would.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hear very
little in the way of rejection. I am certain the people of Canada generally whole-heartedly approve that agreement. They know there is not a single part of this country that has not benefited under the provisions of that trade agreement during the last few years. At the time this agreement was negotiated there had to be certain concessions on our part which affected certain interests here and there. Equally there had to be concessions on the part of the United States which

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
affected interests in that country. But so far as Canada is concerned, during the last three years the benefits of that agreement have been so apparent that the country has altogether forgotten the concessions that had to be made here and there in order to bring the agreement into effect.
We know that the increased trade resulting from the agreement has helped materially in keeping conditions better than they could possibly otherwise have been. A great deal has been said to-day about there still being numbers of unemployed. I wonder what the present position would have been if it had not been for some of the measures that have been brought in by this government. We would have had not the mere question of the numbers unemployed to-day; we would have had unemployment to four, five or perhaps ten times the extent it exists at the present time, with what consequences. having regard to world conditions no one can say.


James Houston Spence: Better explain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Better explain? The improved condition has been due to the fact that under these trade agreements we have had wider markets for our primary products. These wider markets secured to those engaged in the primary industries of Canada have brought to this country a quantity of purchasing power which has gone towards the purchase of manufactured and other goods; a purchasing power which but for those agreements would not have existed. That purchasing power has helped to give employment to men in industry, in agriculture and in all the branches of our economic activity.
We came to the point where we had to consider where we would be when the three years were up. When the 1935 agreement was negotiated it was to a certain extent an experiment. The United States was then within a short space of a presidential election. There were concessions which at the time that country was hesitant about making, until they saw how the agreement was likely to work out. We were in the same position in regard to some things we should have liked to have done. At the time it was distinctly understood that the three years would be a testing period and that if after a trial the agreement proved to be mutually beneficial an effort would be made anew to extend and expand its provisions. Not only would the effort be made to extend and expand the provisions but to secure them for a further period of time. I want hon. members to keep that factor in mind.
When this government began its negotiations to have the agreement enlarged and extended

it was facing the possibility of the then existing agreement ending at the expiration of the three year period, if we should not be able to secure the goodwill of our neighbours to the south, as we had before, when we began to negotiate. We began early, knowing how difficult these negotiations are, and how many considerations there are of which account has to be taken. We found that the governments of Great Britain and the United States were considering the making of a trade agreement between those two countries. When some of us were present at the imperial conference in England it was made quite clear to us that an agreement between the United States and Great Britain in matters of trade not only would be beneficial to those two countries but might help to point the way to a method of dealing with international affairs better than that which was existing in some other parts of the world.
May I say at once to my hon. friend that when we discuss trade matters we are almost certain to differ diametrically because we view matters in an entirely different light. I believe the way to help to improve economic conditions, employment and the like is to encourage trade and to obtain as much in the way of trade as we possibly can. My hon. friend opposite believes in the policy of economic nationalism.


Robert James Manion: Nothing of the sort.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes.


Robert James Manion: Nothing of the sort.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, then, the government of which he was a member went farther in that direction than all other governments in Canada put together. I am not aware that he offered any objection. At any rate, he certainly did not-


Robert James Manion: I assume the right hon. gentleman is not aware of many things which happened in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is true. But I am aware that my hon. friend sat here at one time when we were discussing trade matters, when I was putting forward the argument I am making to-night, and on that occasion he said that trade was war. I think his words are still on Hansard.
I do not entertain that view. On the contrary I regard the promotion of trade as a means of avoiding war. I believe if policies of economic nationalism continue to make headway among the different nations, that war will follow as certain as night the day. It is not too much to say that such a policy perhaps above all others lies at the root of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
conditions in Europe to-day. Some of those countries have abandoned the old policy of promoting the interchange of goods and have sought to become water-tight compartments in matters of production and purchase within their own boundaries. There can be no doubt in the world about that.
To-day opinion in the world is divided in large part between the two points of view, as to whether nations are to continue to seek to develop along lines of economic nationalism or whether something more is to be sought by way of international trade and greater freedom of intercourse between nations. This government believes in the latter policy. We have been pursuing it, and pursuing it successfully. Since the world has become as disturbed as it has been in recent years the first great step towards furthering better international relations was the step taken by the present government when it negotiated its first trade agreement with the United States.
Inevitably when the British and United States governments were seeking to develop a trade agreement between themselves the question came up with respect to the agreements which Canada had already had with each of those countries. We had an agreement with Great Britain which originated at the time of the economic conference of 1932, since modified and renewed in part but which expires in 1940. We had our agreement with the United States which with six months' notice would have expired this year. Those two countries were stressing to us their desire to reach a trade agreement between themselves. They kept pointing out that while they were seeking to negotiate a trade agreement between themselves they had in some particulars to bring up for our consideration some of the features of the agreements which were already in existence, one between Canada and Great Britain, the other between Canada and the United States.
Suppose we had assumed the attitude that under no circumstances would we consider- whether or not we got compensation, adequate or greater than adequate-the clause in the agreement between Great Britain and Canada which said that with the consent of the two parties modifications might be made in the agreement at any time, where each of the parties was likely to benefit in the long run. If we had taken any such attitude where would this country have been in 1940 when it came to seek a renewal of our agreement with Great Britain? I want this house to understand just where the country would very' shortly be, if policies such as those suggested to-night by my hon. friend opposite were to govern, instead of those which the present administration has followed.
In matters of government it is always wise to look ahead-sometimes a long way ahead. I want to repeat that a consideration of which this country had to take full account when negotiating these agreements was just where would we be when the period of each of the present agreements expired, if we were not able to retain the friendship of the two countries with which we had negotiated our previous agreements? I say any government which would not have considered that aspect of the question would have been recreant in its duty alike to the future and the present, because even within the space of the few months when these negotiations were going on, notice could have been given to terminate at the end of the year the agreement already existing with Canada. Instead of having an enlarged trade agreement, good for the next three years and I hope many more, which will be discussed in the house within the next few weeks, we might well have found ourselves with no agreement at all. I ask hon. members in all parts of the house if that is a position which anyone would have welcomed.
What we have got has been the result of trying to deal in a fair and honourable way with the two countries closest to us, the two countries which are our best customers, the countries with which we have the closest relations and upon which we are dependent for very much of what we enjoy in the way of freedom and security. The government was glad to view the situation in a large way. We indicated, however, at once to our friends alike in Great Britain and in the United States that we would consider modifying our position in the British market only if we were to be ensured of adequate compensation, either by the British or by the Americans or both together, and that only upon that basis were we prepared to consider suggested modification. We believed that once together to discuss matters in the light of a larger agreement calculated to affect many countries, we would be able not only to review the existing agreement but to make a much better agreement for the next three years than the one we had at that time. Such has proved to be the case.
I am not going into the details of the agreement to-night, but I venture to say that when it is discussed in this house hon. members will find that for the next three years and beyond we shall have an agreement much more beneficial to Canada than the one we have had for the last three years. Not only that, but I think it will be found that we in Canada shall also benefit considerably from the agreement that has been made between the United States and Great Britain. We receive extra advantages that arise out of that particular agreement.
58	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
But I ask: Are we in times such as the present, going to view everything merely in terms of material values, in terms solely of quantities of trade? This afternoon my hon. friend began examining in microscopic fashion some of the concessions that had been made and that involved for the moment some sectional interest somewhere. Then he passed on to do the same sort of thing elsewhere, but confining the concessions granted to those on one side only. May I say to my hon. friend that agreements are not generally made without concessions by both sides?
He did not go over the other side of the agreement to see what we got in return. He did not tell the house this afternoon of the larger market for cattle that would be available. He said nothing of milk, of other dairy products, of fish, of potatoes, and other products. Nor did he go over the many other additional advantages that would accrue to other primary industries the products of which are to obtain wider markets. What is most extraordinary of all, my hon. friend seems to deplore the fact that there has been a reduction in taxation. One of the many things that he said to-night was that this government had made no reduction in taxation; yet a large part of his remarks this afternoon was in the nature of an attack upon us for having taken off the three per cent excise tax. If the three per cent excise is not taxation, what is it?
The truth of the matter is that since it has been in office this administration has done more in the way of reducing taxes on trade than has been done, not only by any one previous parliament but by any other two or three previous parliaments. This government has done more in the way of relieving consumers and industry of taxation where it affects trade, than has been done in many years previously in the history of this country. If you remove taxation, such as the three per cent excise, it is a removal of three per cent taxation on everything that comes into the country subject to such tax. Are you not thereby helping all consumers throughout the country? Are you not helping to put the equivalent of so much more purchasing power in the hands and pockets of the great body of consumers throughout Canada? Are you not helping to make the cost of living easier for the people of the country?
I say that so far as the agreements are concerned, this government has done a great national service. But it has done something much more than that. It has helped to make one of the most substantial contributions towards improving world conditions that has been made in this last decade.

I venture to say that at this time in the world's history nothing has been more necessary than that every effort should be made in that particular direction. Is it not literally and absolutely true that the basis of the civilization which we cherish is dependent above everything else upon the friendly relations which exist between the English speaking countries of the world? By the English speaking countries, I mean this Dominion of Canada, the United States of America and Great Britain with the other dominions. It is literally and absolutely true that at this time in the world's affairs, when different forms of government have control in other lands, that the nations which cherish common ideals of freedom and liberty cannot be brought too closely together. There are no nations anywhere in this world that hold to the great ideals which those who love freedom cherish more than do the peoples of Great Britain, the peoples of the United States, and our own people. By these [DOT] two agreements-I have put it broadly because the negotiations were carried on side by side-we have been able to bring together in a more friendly way these great elements of the English speaking world.
My hon. friend said that there were some interests in this country opposed to this agreement, but that their protests were being made sub rosa. He said that they were too patriotic to do anything about it.


Robert James Manion: I said that my right hon.
friend pretended that they should be too patriotic. I did not suggest that they were too patriotic; I said that their patriotism prevented them from saying anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a pity
that patriotism does not prevent my hon. friend from saying a great many things.


Robert James Manion: I do not think I have to
learn anything about patriotism from the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Robert James Manion: May I ask my		right hon.
friend if he considers September the beginning of the winter? In the speech from the throne he uses those words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; my hon. friend said this afternoon that he regarded the month of November as the beginning of winter. When the speech from the throne was prepared the figures used were the latest figures the government had; they were the figures for September and October. I have given the figures for September, and I shall now give them for October. The result as put in the speech from the throne was obtained by	combining	the two	sets	of
figures and dividing by two, which I think was a fair basis.
Percentage
October	change,
1936	1938	1938 fromUrban	
729,527	473,812	-35-1Agriculture .	. 279,269	185,461	-33-6Total .. ..1,008,796 659,273	-34-6
Taking the September and October figures together, they make a total of -38-3, that is within If of 40 per cent. The speech from the throne says "almost 40 per cent."


Robert James Manion: I do not quarrel with the
figures the right hon. gentleman gives, but I made it clear this afternoon that I used the November figures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite right, and I hasten to say that when the November figures were prepared they did show that there were more receiving relief in November than at the first of November. The moment the November figures were prepared the Minister of Labour gave them to the press so that they would be available to this house and the country before the debate on the address took place. But the figures I have given this afternoon were the only figures and the latest figures the government had at the time the speech from the throne was prepared.
But I question very much whether we shall get far towards a solution of this problem if we spend our time on statistics, and fail altogether to get the larger view which it is necessary to take on a question of this importance. The leader of the opposition has admitted that technically and legally it is correct to say that the problem of unemployment is a local problem, a provincial problem and a dominion problem; that under our constitution there is a division of powers which assigns certain responsibilities to the provinces and others to the dominion, and, under the provinces, certain responsibilities and powers are given to the municipalities. As a consequence of that division of powers the problem of unemployment arises to-day from conditions in municipalities which municipalities alone can control, which this government cannot control. As long as the division of powers remains as it is, this government cannot control those situations over which the municipalities have control under the provinces. Similarly, when we come to the provinces, this government cannot control a situation that arises in the provinces in consequence of their powers as set forth in the constitution of this country, by which we are governed. All that we can possibly control are those matters which come under our powers under the provisions of the British-North America Act.
We have realized that we have not sufficient power to cope with the problem. We tried as a first step to get more in the way of power by seeking to get the British North America Act amended so that this dominion government could introduce an unemployment insurance act. We have no power to compel this parliament to act as we wish in the matter of an amendment or to compel the British parliament to amend the British North America Act. We have to get that power by persuading the provinces, or enabling them to see, that it is in their interest as well as ours, that it is in the national interest, to see that that power and right is given to the federal government. Some years ago when my hon. friend

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Woodsworth) was speaking of unemployment insurance and when I also was speaking on the same subject, an effort might then have been successfully made to get the British North America Act amended had hon. gentlemen opposite accepted our advice and sought amendment at that time. Whether they could have succeeded or not I cannot say, but it would have been much easier than it is to-day or has been in the last couple of years. What is the reason for the present opposition in some quarters? The reason is that an effort was made by the administration of which the present leader of the opposition was a member to force through this House of Commons a series of measures which this parliament had no authority whatever to enact, with the result that when the provinces saw that the dominion was seeking to take to itself powers to do certain things which they regarded as within their control, they began to be suspicious of the federal government, and the consequence has been that ever since it has been much more difficult to get the provinces-or some of them-to see where, in their own interest as well as in the interest of this nation as a whole, it would be well to allow this government to assume certain obligations. In seeking to get an amendment to the British North America Act which would enable us to introduce a national unemployment insurance scheme we were not asking the provinces to increase their burdens; we were proposing to take that whole burden upon ourselves. This government was asking that the dominion parliament should have that power, and made clear that the government itself would be prepared to raise the taxation necessary to that end, thereby relieving the provinces of part of the burden they already had.
I ask hon. members, What would be the effect of a course such as my hon. friend has suggested to-night, namely this federal government undertaking as its sole obligation to solve the unemployment problem? What would be the effect on the provinces, with the constitution remaining as it is to-day, if that theory were admitted for one moment? What authority has to do with the control of the whole question of employer and employee, of master and servant? What authority has to do with the regulation of hours and conditions of employment in mines? What authority has to do with workshops, with factories? What authority alone has any power with respect to wages and hours of labour? Only the provincial authorities. And as long as the provincial authorities have the control of these matters which are all-important in dealing with the question of employment, they must necessarily have some responsibility for the solution of unemployment. Imagine the situation in certain of our provinces to-morrow if a government were in power here which had come to power on the declaration that it was going to assume all the burden of dealing with unemployment and had assumed that obligation as its own? Imagine what some of our provinces would do with respect to many matters that were causing them trouble or embarrassment. I can think of one or two provincial governments in this country which, having no responsibility for the unemployed, would soon enact some very curious legislation. We should soon as a consequence have hundreds of thousands instead of thousands out of employment. They could do it very readily. The one check to-day on extremely foolish legislation is that it would almost certainly result in that very thing, throwing half a province out of employment. Relieve other authorities altogether of any responsibility in dealing with the question of unemployment, and under the circumstances of to-day instead of making things better they would be made infinitely worse.
How has this government sought to proceed with the matter, realizing that the constitution as it exists to-day places impediments and handicaps not only upon the federal authority s action but upon the provincial authorities and the municipalities as well, and this because our constitution was not framed to meet times and conditions such as we have been going through for the last ten years, nor was it framed for a country of the character Canada has become to-day. When our constitution was framed it did not look to the central authority assuming any of the social obligations to which we attach so much importance; they were not thought of at all. The matters which were left to the central authority can be seen in the act, and matters concerning social services as will be seen were left to the several provinces. Now we have come to the time when the provinces cannot, from their own revenues, carry on the social services they would like to carry on. In some cases they are going deeper and deeper into debt simply because they are trying to meet certain social obligations while they have not, as they claim, the sources of revenue which they need for that particular purpose. We sought, as a necessary first step in disclosing conditions as they have become, with a view to securing necessary adjustments or amendments, to deal with that question by appointing a royal commission to investigate the relations between the provinces and the dominion in regard to financial matters, those matters relating to the very questions we are discuss-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
ing to-day. We believe that only as there is exact information to be placed before this House of Commons and before the legislatures of the different provinces with regard to conditions as they have become will there ever be a basis for the working out of a solution of the problem of unemployment, the constitutional question and other matters therein involved.
That commission was appointed a year or two ago. It met with a very serious loss in the regrettable retirement of the chief justice of Ontario, its first chairman, but the members composing that commission are all able men, and they have enlisted the services of many of the best minds of this country in helping to gather information and data and appraise its true value. Their report will be placed on the table of this house, according to what I am told by the chairman, within the course of another couple of months. When that report is submitted it will give to this parliament, to the legislatures and to the press of this country exact information of a character which will enable discussion to take place between parties interested in this question, which we believe will be effective in bringing them more into harmony with each other on adjustments and amendments which require to be made.
It has been said repeatedly back and forth throughout this country that the purpose of the commission was to say what is to be done and that we were leaving it to a commission to settle the whole matter. That is not the purpose of the commission at all. The commission has the authority to make recommendations, but this parliament alone can bring about any amendment of the British North America Act, and it will require with respect to some matters the consent of at least some of the provinces, in regard to some, possibly all. If we are to get the act amended it would seem we must bring about some kind of conference between representative men in the provinces and representative men in this parliament. I believe such a conference can be brought about and that it can be both successful and helpful, because I think the experience of the last couple of years has made it plain to all citizens of this country that there must be a getting together of representative men from all parts of Canada and, as a result of conferences between them, agreement reached on some very necessary amendments to the British North America Act which will meet with the acceptance of the provinces and the dominion.
That is what is meant in the reference in the speech from the throne to a national conference. It is not a national conference

to tell the government what it ought to do or should not do. It is a conference to give this country the fruits of discussion, between representative men, based upon information that is absolutely essential and reliable, and which would enable those interested to work out intelligently the amendments to the British North America Act which sooner or later must be worked out if we are to have a solution of more than one of our present day problems. An all-important matter of the kind cannot be carried out in a day or over night. I believe this government showed foresight and wisdom in appointing, as long ago as a year and a half, a commission to undertake the work of getting the information available for those who might require it. In the meantime we have made it perfectly clear, as it is also made clear in the speech from the throne, that we do not intend to wait for the report of any commission to assume obligations in regard to doing our part in the solution of the problem of unemployment, but that we are prepared to go further than we have gone in the past in cooperating with the provinces of this country in order to make still more of a contribution to a solution of this very difficult problem.
There was one part of the speech from the throne to which my hon. friend scarcely alluded at all. I was not surprised at that, but it is a part which I hope hon. members will read very carefully. I refer to the record therein contained of what this government has done towards helping solve the question of unemployment. I am surprised that members of this parliament, I care not to what particular party they may belong, should seek continually to persuade the people of this country that this parliament has not been doing what it should for unemployment, or that the unemployment question is what it is to-day because of some lack of effort here at Ottawa. Hon. members of this house are responsible for what is done with the public funds of this country raised by federal taxation. Instead of belittling what has been done, why do they not point out to the people of Canada what has been done by the parliament to which they belong and by the government at Ottawa, since this government operates by virtue of the power given it by this parliament? Why do they not take upon themselves to show the people that session after session this government has passed measures to assist in the relief of unemployment; that year in and year out it has been giving more and more and more in the way of public funds to the provinces to help them in working out their share of the solution?

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
What is happening? We are taking money out of the federal treasury in millions of dollars and giving it to the provinces to help meet the cost of relief there. But instead of the federal government getting any credit at all for that, the people are told that all this has come from the provincial governments themselves. That is the situation. If federal members of parliament will be honest with .themselves and with the people they will make a point of showing how under the British North America Act, as it is to-day, in order to solve this problem we must raise taxes federally and then hand over the money to some other authority, which has not been required to raise the funds at all, and allow that authority to spend the money. That is fundamentally wrong, and it is that circumstance as much as any other that is accountable for a good deal that is other than what we would wish it to be in Canada at the present time.
I am not going further into that question to-night because we shall be dealing with the whole question of unemployment at a later stage of the session. All I wanted to make clear this evening was that within the compass of our authority we are not only meeting all the obligations imposed upon us under the provisions of the British North America Act, and helping the provinces and municipalities as best we can, but we have been and are still trying to have this act amended in a way that will enable us to relieve both provinces and municipalities still further by assuming additional powers with regard to unemployment insurance, and we are -taking steps which we hope will help us before very long to have the British North America Act still further amended in other ways which will be helpful alike to the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion.
I see that we are near the hour of adjournment. I shall therefore conclude with just one further word in reference to another remark which my hon. friend has seen fit to make to-night. The Leader of the Opposition has said that I have not been across this country since this parliament was returned and that I have not been in my own constituency since this government came into office. He is perfectly right in his latter statement. I stand here as representative of the constituency of Prince Albert. I have been returned election after election, and I still represent Prince Albert, which is more than my hon. friend can say with regard to the constituency of Fort William.


Robert James Manion: But no man in all Canada has been defeated as often as the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say this in reply to what my hon. friend has said. Anyone who holds the office of Prime Minister in these days must view his duties not from the point of view of whether or not he is going to be returned to parliament at the next election. He must not be thinking only of his own seat in the House of Commons- or even, may I say, mainly of whether or not his own party is to be returned. He has to do his duty as he sees it, day by day, in the light of his conscience with the knowledge of world conditions as they exist.
After all, we can each of us give only so much of our time and energy to our work. If there is any hon. member in the house who will point out to me wherein I have wasted any day in my life since I have been Prime Minister, and wherein I have not performed my public duty I wish him to speak now or forever after hold his peace. I confess I am not in a position to travel back and forth across the country and be in Ottawa at the same time. I confess I have been greatly concerned with international affairs-much more than I wish had been necessary. I said to the House of Commons during the last session that, I thought we were in perilous times, that we were coming dangerously near to a crisis in the world's history. I have spoken to members of my party in party caucus perhaps much more confidentially than I should care to speak to the public about how little, in comparison, some of this petty strife amounts to with respect to the large concerns which ought to occupy the minds of men and women these days. So far as I am concerned, each day I have to ask myself: What is the most important thing to do this day, with the time at my disposal?
I came here after the general election, and the most important thing seemed to be to get under way the negotiation of a trade agreement between Canada and the United States. I-went at once to Washington-I did not go to my constituency or out to Vancouver or Victoria. I went to Washington, with the result that we got a trade agreement which has been in force for three years. We now have another agreement which will be in force for a great many more years. And I venture to add that but for that agreement there would not to-day be the agreement which exists between Great Britain and the United States.
The next year was a year in which the League of Nations was holding an important



The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
meeting, a meeting at which the question of sanctions was to be discussed. But first let me say that I believe when parliament is in session the first duty of the Prime Minister is to parliament. I have not found it possible to be in the house every day of eveiy week when parliament is in session, for the entire time of each sitting. I have tried to be here for the question and answer period, following the practice of the prime ministers in England. But I have not stayed in the House of Commons all afternoons and listened to all debates because there are many matters which have to be considered by the Prime Minister which cannot be taken up unless he has the time to do it. And the only time which presents itself is such time as he can make for himself while other business is proceeding. I have kept an eye on the business of the house and have tried to see all the members I could, and I have tried to get through all the work I could which was most pressing.
In the year I have mentioned there was the question of attending the League of Nations. I felt it was my duty to attend at that critical time; it was after the Abysin-ian episode. Events even then were shaping towards the state of affairs which have come about recently. I went to the league assembly and placed frankly before the different countries Canada's point of view. I think what was said at that time was more important to the constituency of Prince Albert or to Victoria or Vancouver or Halifax, or to any other constituency in Canada than anything I could have done by way of travelling and speaking across the country. We have far too much travel and talk these days on the part of many people-far too much of it, and from too many sources. The difficulty to-day is to get time quietly to think about the great problems which confront this and other countries.
The next year it was my duty after a parliamentary session to attend the coronation of their majesties in Great Britain. I may be wrong, but had I not attended the coronation I question veTy much if their majesties would be visiting Canada this summer. I believe I am right in making that assumption. I should be sorry if the visit of their majesties in Canada will not mean much more to the people of the dominion than anything I could be saying in any part of the country. At the time of the coronation there was also an imperial conference which it was my duty and which I had the honour to attend, and in the proceedings of which I participated as completely as possible, again with more

advantage, I believe, to Canada than had I been travelling about and speaking in different constituencies.
It is quite true that this year I did not get away to the west, including my constituency, as I had hoped I might be able to do. It was a bitter disappointment to me. But it was no fault of my own-yes, it was a fault of my own. I was confined to my bed for a month during the summer, from what?-the effects of exhaustion, fatigue, nothing but that, seeking, though confined in that manner, to do the best I could with respect to many matters which were before me, and from having had on my mind for the last year or two what I dreaded above everything else, namely the possible developments which would involve this and other countries in a war. I ask this house to-night: Was I right or wrong in believing that the nations were nearing a stage where another world war was about to take place? I say to hon. members I have a two-fold duty. I am holding not merely the office of Prime Minister, but also that of Secretary of State for External Affairs, which is equivalent to that of a foreign minister. In the nature of things a foreign minister and Prime Minister must give his attention to matters which are of greatest importance to the world. I wish that shadow had passed. I wish all of us in the house to-night could feel secure as to what may take place in the course of this very year. May I add this: If he is going to deal intelligently, carefully and thoughtfully with the problems facing the world and Canada to-day, in relation to what may take place in the next few months or before this year is out, the Prime Minister of Canada cannot be going back and forth across the country making political speeches and making personal appearances before local audiences. He has this House of Commons to speak in. What better forum is there in the world? He has the radio to speak over. Is it not much better to give a few nation-wide addresses in carefully chosen words than to be giving the kind of oration to which we have listened this afternoon and tonight?
Let me say only this in conclusion: The position of the leader of a government in Canada to-day is not unlike that of the captain of a ship when the ship is in a storm. The captain of the ship must not be spending his time wandering among the passengers on the decks; his place is at the helm. Mr. Speaker, I intend to remain at the helm of this ship of state just so long as I have the confidence

House of Commons
of the people of Canada and have the strength to perform the duties of my office. But if I have to gain that confidence by going back and forth across the country, making speeches here and there, and by seeking to cater to local tastes and prejudices, I do not wish to occupy office for a day. So long as God gives me strength to do my duty I shall seek to serve this country as best I can, according to the best light my conscience may give me.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, January 17, 1939