1939-02-02

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford
City) moved:
That the private bill intituled "An act respecting the Central Finance Corporation, and to change its name to the Household Finance Corporation of Canada," filed with the clerk of the house on January 19, based on the petition read and received by the house on January 26, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for a report on the filing of said petition and the deposit of the said bill and for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.
Motion agreed to.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, as I have given the required notice under the rules of the house, I now desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas):
That the public accounts and the report of the auditor general for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1938, together with a copy of the agreement between the government and the John Inglis Company of Toronto for the manufacture of Bren machine guns, the report of the royal commission dealing with said agreement and all related documents, evidence, vouchers and exhibits, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
I have already stated my reason for moving this reference to the public accounts committee, and I do not intend now to deal with the matter at any considerable length. I wish merely to refer to the remarks of Commissioner Mr. Justice Davis-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish in any way to interrupt my hon. friend in presenting his motion, but if he is about to debate the motion I am afraid that the resolution of this house, which has been concurred in, with respect to the debate on the address, would preclude such debate at the moment. The house has already agreed:
That the speech of His Excellency^ the Governor General to both houses of parliament be taken into consideration on Monday next, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except the introduction of bills, until disposed of.

If my hon. friend is simply making a motion to refer the two documents he has mentioned to the committee on public accounts, that would be a routine motion and I think it might be permitted to pass; but if he is wishing to debate the subject at the present time I am afraid that he would be out of order, until after the completion of the debate on the address.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I agree with the Prime Minister.


Walter Edward Foster: Shall the motion carry? Mr. STEWART: No.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker. On the point of order, I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that according to standing order 38 "the following motions are debatable," and it includes a motion-
(k) For reference to a committee of a report or any return laid on the table of the bouse.
So that this motion is debatable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes.


Robert James Manion: I object to its passing without debate. If it is to be carried, Mr. Speaker, it will be carried after debate, not before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite right in saying that the motion is debatable, and that is the reason I interrupted the hon. member to draw to his attention the fact that he could not debate it, according to the resolution which the house has already passed, until we have disposed of the debate on the address. If he wishes to make a formal motion the house can debate the motion, or decline to, as it wishes: the documents are on the table and they can be referred to the committee at once.


Robert James Manion: It is not a case of accepting or declining the motion. The question is whether the motion shall or shall not go through without debate. My submission is that this is such an important question that the place to discuss it is not behind closed doors in a packed committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I do not use that expression offensively. I withdraw the statement; I did not mean that. What I was thinking of was a committee which is four or five against one on this side of the house, and that is not the place to discuss a matter of this kind. The place to discuss it is in the house. As far as this motion is concerned I have no objection to its ultimately being adopted, but only after it is debated in the house.

Foreign Policy-Status of Canada


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite within his rights if he wishes to take objection to the motion being put at the present time, and the government is quite prepared to meet him in that regard; but it will have to stand, then, until another day.


Mr. STEWART:: Assuming the motion were passed and the report were referred to the public accounts committee, would that prevent discussion of the subject matter of the report in this house on other -occasions-on estimates, and going into supply?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is an old parliamentarian; I should think he may have referred to the rule even before I did. He knows very well that when a matter is referred to and is being considered by the committee, that precludes discussion on it by the house until the committee has reported.
Motion stands.



FISHERIES ACT, 1932   ASSESSMENT UPON OWNERS OP OBSTRUCTIONS TO ASCENT OR DESCENT OF PISH IN STREAMS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 15, to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend paragraph (b) of section 57 of the Fisheries Act. It is a minor amendment. As the section now reads, it has been assumed in some quarters to mean something different from what apparently was intended when it was passed by parliament. The purpose of the bill is to make the meaning of the section clear to all concerned.
Section 57(b) provides for the payment of compensation by people who build or place in rivers obstructions which prevent the fish from ascending or descending. I am told that when the law was enacted it was intended that an annual sum should be paid by these people. To-day they claim that they can comply with the provision of the act by paying a lump sum, and the purpose of the act is to correct this interpretation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOREIGN POLICY


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16, respecting the status of Canada in time of war.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to make clear and declare to the other nations of the world the status of Canada in the event of war.
The bill consists of only one section, which declares that:
Canada shall not assume the status of belligerent otherwise than by a declaration of war made by his majesty with specific reference to Canada and only on the advice of his majesty's government in Canada.
The declaration contained in the bill rests upon the constitutional basis that Canada is a sovereign nation in personal union with the other nations that make up what is termed the British commonwealth of nations, all owing allegiance to his majesty. Canada has complete autonomy over every aspect of her affairs, whether internal or external. This autonomy extends to the declaration of war. The bill defines the only manner in which a declaration of war can place Canada in a state of belligerency, namely if a declaration is made by his majesty with specific reference to Canada and on the advice of his majesty's government in Canada. It is the opinion of a good many Canadians that this declaration of status should be made now, in a time of peace, so that it may be known to the rest of the world. The bill is an assertion of the right on the part of Canada to decide whether Canada is at war or not.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. The matter is-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I do not think that at this stage of the proceedings the hon. member is entitled to ask to move the adjournment of the house. The motion should have been made under the head of routine proceedings.


Robert Emmett Finn: Mr. Speaker, standing order 31
says:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
Defence-Canada-United States

This is before the orders of the day are entered upon. The matter that I desire to bring before the house-although not until I have obtained leave in the parliamentary way -is the dire distress of the lobster fishermen in the constituencies of Halifax from Cole Harbour to Hubbards, which is adjacent to eastern Lunenburg county line, in Queens-Lunenburg, and Shelburne-Yarmouth and southeastern Digby.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. It does not seem that there is any regular order of the day. There is a special order of which the subject matter is the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The house having already entered upon the consideration of its business, the hon. member is not in order in bringing up the question at this stage.


Robert Emmett Finn: Will his honour the Speaker tell me when it should be brought up?


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member should make the motion on the opening of the house, under routine proceedings.


Robert Emmett Finn: The acoustic properties of the house will have to be improved. We cannot hear.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to read a brief news dispatch and on it base a question to the Prime Minister. In the Vancouver Sun of January 28 there is a dispatch from Washington, D.C., the opening sentence of which I will read:
Quietly, without need of treaty or negotiation, the United States and Canada are preparing to defend this continent from invasion, on a joint, cooperative basis, the armies and navies of both working together by definite plan.
I am not [DOT] asking the question by way of adverse criticism, but I should like to know whether this statement is correct and whether there are any commitments involved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A question of such importance as the one which the hon. member has asked is one that I should not like to answer offhand. I should like to see the statement and read it carefully. I gather, however, that the purport of the question is this: Are there any commitments on the part of the present government with the government of the United States in respect of the defence of the Pacific coast. If that is the

question I answer that there are no commitments that I am aware of, and I think I should be aware of any if there were.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was the other prior question which I asked as to whether it was correct that there is an arrangement to defend this continent from invasion, involving joint cooperative action, or to what extent the statement is correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should think that an arrangement would be in the nature of a commitment and, I repeat, there is no commitment. I have not the least doubt that there has been an exchange of information between the authorities in the United States and the authorities in Canada with respect to matters of common concern; in any event, that would be most desirable; but beyond exchange of information on matters of common concern I think I can assure my hon. friend that there has been nothing that could have the semblance of a commitment of any kind.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: Some days ago, just after the beginning of the debate on the address, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a question with reference to the business that would be taken up following the close of this discussion, and he mentioned that in all probability the trade treaty would come up for consideration. So far as one knows now, the vote in the present debate will be taken either this afternoon or this evening. Has the Prime Minister made any change in his plans? If not, will he tell us whether we shall proceed to-morrow with the trade treaty in the event of the debate concluding to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I remember rightly,
when I replied to my hon. friend's question on the previous occasion I intimated that if we concluded the debate towards the end of a week we would not in that week go on with the trade agreement. I might take advantage of this opportunity to mention that, to-morrow being a government day, the government would like, if possible, to proceed with such business as appears under the head of government business, and to that end I intend later to ask the permission of the house to proceed to the order for government notices of motion in order to advance

The Address-Mr. Cleaver
three or four resolutions. I had intended asking the house for permission to have the resolutions advanced a stage to-day so that to-morrow they might appear on the order paper under government orders. The resolutions will be found at page 34 of to-day's order paper. I would also ask my hon. friend -I do not suggest that he give me a reply at the moment; I simply mention the matter now so that he may have time to think it over-whether we might also have permission to go into committee of supply on the estimates of some department should the other business be summarily concluded. In that event we should like to take the estimates of the department of national revenue or those of agriculture.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid my right hon. friend is developing a rather subtle sense of humour; we are not likely to get into supply to-morrow. May I ask him which of these government notices he proposes to go on with? He need not tell me now, but perhaps he will this evening.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We propose to take up the second resolution, which requests that the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan the sum mentioned in the resolution. That is one. Another is the bill respecting the Ottawa corporation agreement. The Minister of Justice has a bill with respect to penitentiaries. It is the resolutions with respect to these three which the government have in mind.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: That is
only a resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is simply
a resolution. What we wish to do is to inform the house that His Excellency the Governor-General has been advised of these resolutions.


Robert James Manion: I merely wanted to know
what the government's intentions were. I do not want to cause any trouble in the house; I like to help everything along.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. E. Matthews for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Manion, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Woodsworth.
Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: I wish to direct attention to one way in which every
hon. member may make a personal contribution to the solution of the problem of unemployment, but before proceeding I concur heartily in all the complimentary remarks that have been made with reference to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address, to the new leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Manion), and to the two new cabinet ministers. May I be permitted also to say how pleased my constituents were to learn of the restoration to health of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). We hope that he will long enjoy good health so that he may be able to carry the very onerous responsibilities of his office.
At this time I should like to join with other Canadians in expressing our delight at the proposed visit of the king and queen to Canada this year. I do not know of any king and queen in the past who have so captivated the hearts of Canadians as have their majesties. Perhaps it is because, through the use of the radio, we were all permitted to share in the coronation ceremonies. Perhaps it is because of their wholesome family life, of which we are all so proud. Perhaps it is for both reasons.
We have listened to many fine speeches in this debate. Many of them will read particularly well in the ridings for which they were intended. It would almost seem as if a general election is in the offing. Let me say at once that I hope the people of Canada will not be subjected to the upset and turmoil of a general election until we have had an opportunity to weigh by actual experience the value of the new three-way trade agreement. I do not know of any safer way of arriving at a correct conclusion with respect to any subject than by actual performance. Actual performance is very much safer than prophecy, especially where the prophecy has a political tinge.
Every member of this house who has spoken in the debate has commented upon the serious problem of unemployment. I wish to offer a suggestion whereby I believe every member can make a direct contribution in his own riding toward the solution of the problem. I refer to the employment of men by house builders. This government cannot claim all the credit for the present national housing act, because in 1935 the then Bennett administration realized that the construction trades were lagging far behind the general recovery which was just commencing to be felt in this country, and a special committee on housing was set up. We are indebted to that committee for some very valuable findings of fact:
The Address-Mr. Cleaver

1.	At that time over $60,000,000 annually was being spent to maintain the building trades in idleness. Over sixty per cent of our then unemployed were dependent upon the building trades for employment.
2.	We had a shortage at that time in Canada of over 55,000 houses. That shortage has since grown to over 80,000.
The records of the bureau of statistics as to house building confirm these figures. I take first a long ten-year period in order to determine if possible the normal annual housebuilding needs of Canada. I have actual figures of the yearly construction of houses during the period from 1921 to 1930, and I ask leave to put these figures on the record without taking the time of the house to read them.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member can do so only with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Hughes Cleaver: House Construction in Canada 1921-1930 Inclusive
1921		$	76,655,000
1922		 104,202,000
1923		 97,645,000
1924		 91,225,000
1925		 96,490,000
1926		 109,562,000
1927		 124,940,000
1928		 139,166,000
1929		 128,901,000
1930		 93,292,000
Total	$1,062,078,000
From these figures it will be seen that the yearly average of house-building during this period was $106,207,800. These figures I submit establish conclusively the fact that our normal quota of house-building in order to keep up with our normal demands should fee rather better than $100,000,000 worth annually.
Coming to the period of the depression and succeeding years we have the following figures for 1931 to 1938:
1931		$ 81,684,000
1932		 28,893,000
1933		 23,930,000
1934		 30,588,000
1935		 36,409,000
1936		 42,858,000
1937		 56,207,000
1938		 55,025,000
Total	$355,594,000
Yearly average, $44,449,000.
It is therefore perfectly obvious that during the last eight years we have been building less than half our normal housing requirements.

The present house shortage is not as apparent as it would be under normal conditions, on account of unemployed people being forced to live under very crowded conditions. At the time this special committee sat to investigate the housing problem we had over 11,000 people living in one room per family. Just imagine, one room per family to live in, eat in and sleep in. Other thousands of our people were doubled up two and three families in a house. Figures as to this condition for all Canada are not available, but the city of Toronto took a census, and in that city alone it was found that over 8,500 families were living two and three families to a house. People do not voluntarily live under such conditions and just as soon as men regain employment they will demand homes of their own, and we shall not have the houses for them.
I need not draw attention to the fact that such crowded living conditions are not conducive to good health, nor are they conducive to good citizenship.
Turning again to the report of the committee we find figures as to infant mortality. For 1933 the infant mortality rate for the entire city of Toronto was 6-34 per cent of the births occurring there in that year. In comparison with that figure take one of the crowded areas of the city, the Moss Park division of ward 2, where the infant mortality rate was double the rate for the entire city. And this high mortality rate caused by overcrowding is not confined to infants; it applies to adults as well. Figures for Canada apparently were not available, but the committee in its report gave the figures for the city of Glasgow. In Glasgow where families were living under crowded conditions, one family to a room, the death rate was 2-59 per cent, whereas when families were living under normal conditions for that city of four rooms to a family the rate was only 1-08 per cent, or less than half. I shall not weary the house with crime figures, other than to say that in the crowded areas the crime percentages are simply appalling, over the entire field of crime, from murder down to juvenile delinquency.
Now when we required the houses and when we were spending $60,000,000 annually to maintain the building trades in idleness it seemed to me nothing short of sheer folly to do nothing about it. In 1936 I felt that something should be done, that we should at least spend some of the $60,000,000, that we were spending to maintain builders in idleness, to stimulate the building industry and put the men to work. I so intimated in 1936, but

The Address-Mr. Cleaver
received very little support at Ottawa. So I went back to Burlington, my home town, and discussed the matter with our municipal council. Burlington is at the head of lake Ontario, and has about 3,500 inhabitants. Burlington decided to try a modest scheme of bonusing house building. Like every urban municipality in Canada Burlington had hundreds of vacant lots to which the municipality had obtained title through tax sales. Some of the lots had been worth $600 to $800 each in normal times, but we decided to give them away for $50 to anyone who would build a house of specified value within one year. As a result of this plan nineteen new houses were built in Burlington in 1937. During the preceding six years only four houses had been built in the town, an average of less than one a year. Hon. members can thus see what we were able to do by just a little bit of stimulus or bonus to the house building trade.
Eighty per cent of the cost of every house of moderate price is labour, direct or indirect. This figure was definitely ascertained and reported on by the committee in its 1935 report. The direct labour is that employed where the house is built; the indirect labour is that employed in the manufacture and fabrication of building materials to the point where they can be used in construction. I refer to the labour employed in the manufacture of bricks, lumber, flooring, sash and doors, trim, plaster, hardware, plumbing supplies and the like. Hon. members will see that this little experiment of ours meant $72,000 worth of new payroll expended somewhere in Canada. Or, expressed in human terms, we put ninety men to work -in profitable employment at $800 a year, and I take that figure because that is the average sum paid to wage earners employed in the building trades, according to the bureau of statistics.
Let us look now at the tax results in Burlington. We not only took men off the relief rolls and consequently reduced our relief expenditures, making a saving to the taxpayers in that regard, but in addition Burlington is receiving every year about $2,499 in new tax money from the houses which were built in 1937. It is true that we had to write off between four and five thousand dollars of tax arrears on the vacant lots which we gave away in 1937 but who will say it was not good business? And this reduction in taxation, this improvement in conditions in a municipality, leads to still further building. In 1938 we went further still; in our little town we had twenty-four new houses built, and right now, in midwinter, there are six houses under construction, with twelve further
sales completed ready for construction to commence in the spring.
I have given our experience in Burlington to show what can be done, and now I should like to discuss the matter from a national standpoint. If we could increase house building in Canada even to our normal requirements, without overtaking any of the eighty thousand houses we are behind, it would mean an annual increase of $50,000,000 a year. Expressed in wage rolls it would mean an annual increase of $40,000,000, and expressed in human terms it would mean fifty thousand men taken off relief and put to profitable employment at $800 a year. I should like to place on record also at this time the all-inclusive figures of the construction trade. Up to this moment I have been dealing simply with housing construction. Taking the same ten year period from 1921 to 1930, the figures are as follows:
1921		$ 240,133,000
1922		 331,843,000
1923		 314,254,000
1924		 276,261,000
1925		 297,973,000
1926		 372,948,000
1927		 418,952,000
1928		 472,033,000
1929		 576,652,000
1930		 457,000,000
Total	$3,758,049,000
The yearly all-over average on construction work in Canada during that period was $375,-
804,000.	Again taking the eight year period of the depression and the years following, that is, from 1931 to 1938, the figures are as follows:
1931		$ 315,482,000
1932		 132,872,000
1933		 97,290,uU0
1934..-	 125,812,000
1935		 160,305,000
1936		 162,588,000
1937		 224,057,000
1938		 188,277,000
Total	$1,406,683,000
During that period the yearly average was only $175,835,000. In other words from these figures it is clear that over the whole construction field we are down about two billion dollars annually. If all the construction trades could be brought back simply to normal, without catching up on the slack at all, we would add 125,000 men to our employment lists and would take that many men off the relief rolls. That figure is made up in this way: $50,000,000 worth of additional house building, with an eighty per cent labour content, would mean 50,000 men put to work. Then $150,000,000 of additional industrial, business and engineering construction work, with a forty per cent labour content, would put 75,000 men to work, or a grand total of
125,000	men.
The Address-Mr. Cleaver

This government has gone perhaps as far as it should at present to stimulate personal endeavour in industry. (1) The government has taken off the eight per cent sales tax on all building material. (2) It has granted a tax subsidy with respect to all new homes costing $4,000 or less, built in municipalities which have qualified under part 3 of the act by making $50 lots available to builders in reasonable quantities. (3) It has made loans available in almost all communities, to all credit-worthy people who wish to build. (4) It has made two per cent money available as an indirect attack on our slum problem. The rest, Mr. Speaker, I submit is up to us, and just to show how badly we private members of this house have fallen down in our part of the responsibility I want to give the figures of the municipalities which have qualified for the tax subsidy under part 3 of the act. That legislation has been in force now for seven months. Yesterday I received from the Department of Finance a letter in which the figures as to the municipalities which have qualified to date for this tax subsidy were given as follows:
Nova Scotia	 4
New Brunswick	 1
Quebec	 0
Ontario	 12
Manitoba	 4
Saskatchewan	 5
Alberta	 5
British Columbia	 2
In other words we have a grand total of 33 municipalities out of 4,346 municipalities in Canada. I submit that this constitutes a direct challenge to every member of this house to take off his coat and go to work. It is time, I suggest, that we stop criticizing the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for what he has done or has not done, and assume some of the responsibility ourselves. In my riding I have found that better results can be obtained when politics are removed and when prominent Conservatives join with prominent Liberals in these meetings. Councillor Rennie of Burlington, who is president of the Conservative association, deserves a great deal of the credit for what we have been able to do in that town, and I am glad to take this opportunity of acknowledging that fact. He has also gone with me to address meetings throughout the riding in connection with the housing question. My good friend the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) is joining me at Georgetown at a meeting soon to be held there in order to discuss this matter, and I in turn am quite prepared to go with him to any part of his riding for the same purpose. If the members of this house could only become sufficiently interested to pull their weight in connection

with this problem, what a refreshing thing it would be!
I am firmly convinced that one of the strongest forces retarding recovery in Canada to-day is fear. If all hon. members of this house would call a political truce in discussing our problem of unemployment-


Miss MACPHAIL:: And every other
problem.


Hughes Cleaver: I agree-and present a united front to combat unemployment, I believe that very substantial and very lasting results could be obtained. So far as I am personally concerned I am quite willing that the Conservative party or any other party should have all the credit for curing unemployment in this country as long as all our people are put to work. I do not know of any sadder thing in human experience than to see a father of young children denied the right to earn for himself and his family an honest living through his toil. In my opinion present living conditions in Canada are a challenge to our Christian civilization. Are hon. members going to accept that challenge and do their part to help, or are they going to content themselves with simply criticizing those who are trying to do their best?


Hon. J. EARL LAWSON (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking the other night on the order before the house the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Wood) referred to the triplet of defeated candidates for the Conservative leadership who were sitting in support of the new leader of the official opposition. I desire to take this opportunity to assure the hon. member for Brant that he will find those triplets not merely sitting in support of the new leader of the official opposition, but loyally and actively supporting his cause, particularly because he has those very human qualities of friendship and understanding which endear him to all members of the National Conservative party which he has the honour to lead.
With respect to the leader of the opposition may I heartily endorse what has been said in the house by the other two of the triplets. I suggest to the hon. member for Brant that in his observations he missed something; he failed to observe that there were five candidates for the leadership of the National Conservative party. Now that the hon. member who has the honour to lead the party has been chosen, he is attracting to the National Conservative party more votes than the famous quintuplets are attracting tourists to Callander. If any further evidence were required as to the forward march of the National Conservative party I would quote

The Address-Mr. Lawson
from the writings in 1927 of a Liberal member of the house. The article was written on the eve of the Conservative convention held in Winnipeg in 1927. After the hon. member had outlined the causes as he saw them for the former defeat of the Conservative party, he then proceeded as follows:
Now, as I have outlined the causes of defeat of Toryism wherein lies the remedy? Soft words butter no parsnips. More people perish from fear of the scalpel than from septicaemia. The remedy must be heroic. Toryism cannot play both ends against the middle and win. The way to tolerance is the road to understanding. Wisdom must come to Toryism before the people think of giving it power. It should prove its fate by selecting as its leader one from the province of Quebec, a Canadian of French origin, and a Roman Catholic in religion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the new leader of the National Conservative party has nearly all those qualifications. And who, do you think, was the hon. member of the house who uttered those prophetic words?-none other than the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Deachman). So for once in my life I find myself in agreement with the hon. member in that the Conservative party is on the road to power following the next election.
I was indeed disappointed when I listened to the speech from the throne, because I fully anticipated that in view of the developments last year before the special committee of the house on radio, and in view of the public outcry there has been against the' administration of radio and the functioning of the bureaucracy of the broadcasting corporation, the government in the meantime would have devised and proposed some measure to deal with the situation.
By reason of temporary illness I was not present in the house when the discussion with respect to prohibiting Mr. McCuIlagh from expressing his views over the air with respect to national problems was at its height. On this occasion I have no intention of repeating any of the arguments so ably made on that occasion by other hon. members. I could not however but be impressed by the absurdity of the position taken by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the government in defence of the bureaucratic and undemocratic attitude in respect of the administration of radio. I for one will not allow the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to create a false impression in the country through the resounding declaration he made in the house that the government proposes to give the people's representatives in parliament an opportunity to deal with the situation. In reply to some speeches which had been made the Prime Minister said a committee of the house would be set up to consider the subject matter, and he went on to say:
Every opportunity will be given hon. gentlemen opposite to name their members on that committee.
What a concession! Was there ever a time in the history of this supposedly democratic institution of parliament when the respective parties in the house were not given the opportunity of naming members who should represent them on any committee of the house? The Prime Minister went on further:
An opportunity will be given to 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 which have been drawn up.
What a privilege is being granted by the Prime Minister! Think of the absurdity of setting up a committee of the house to inquire into the action of a government-created body, and to be allowed no evidence and no witnesses except those who compose the very body with respect to which the inquiry is being held. At least in the words of the declaration of the Prime Minister this session as spokesman for the government he has been more frank with hon. members and the people of the country than he was last session when a similar committee was set up. At least on this occasion by his words he lets us know in advance that the committee is to be a glorified whitewash brush for the purpose of whitewashing the administration of the radio corporation and the government. To accomplish that purpose last session it was necessary to rely upon his Liberal supporters in the house who were members of the radio committee to do the whitewashing job. I propose to take a few minutes to demonstrate what was done at the last session.
On February 7, 1938, it was ordered by the house that the select committee on radio broadcasting appointed to consider the annual report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records. I ask you to note the lack of limitation so far as the order of the house was concerned as to what persons, papers and records might be sent for. On the face of it the committee had wide power to send for persons, papers and records. Now let us see what happened.
The very first witness called before the committee was Mr. Brockington, K.C., chairman of the board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He proceeded in his evidence with a sticky laudation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and of the present government, and then he pur-

The Address-Mr. Lawson

ported to read what he alleged to be an excerpt from the minutes of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which excerpt declared, in part, the intention and the policy of the government with respect to radio.
After Mr. Brockington had finished his evidence I asked that the minutes of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be filed with the committee and be available to its members. Who do you think was the first hon. member of this house to object to our having access to the minutes? The Minister of Transport himself. To permit a witness to read an excerpt from a document and not allow the inquiring tribunal to have access to that document is so offensive to every principle of British justice that I insisted that the committee be put on record in connection therewith, and so I moved, seconded by my colleague from Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber):
That the minutes of the meetings of the board of governors be filed by the governors with the clerk of the committee for the information of the members of the committee and be made available to members of the committee.
That motion was defeated by a vote of nine to two. Let me read to you, Mr. Speaker, the names of the hon. members of this house who voted against that motion and made it impossible for the committee to have access to the minutes of the broadcasting corporation. They were the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Ahearn), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; the hon. member for Spadina, a riding in the city of Toronto (Mr. Factor), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Hamilton), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe)-the hon. Minister of Transport, the responsible minister of the crown; the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston); the hon. member for Neepawa (Mr. MacKenzie), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; and last but not least the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Turgeon), officially the assistant whip of the Liberal party in the House of Commons.
Those who voted in favour of the motion were my colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), a Conservative member, and I.

Again I call attention to the fact that the order of this house gave power to the committee to send for papers and records.


Mr. FACTOR:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Earl Lawson: Yes.


Samuel Factor: Did not the order of reference limit us to investigating financial and other operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


James Earl Lawson: I shall deal with that at some later stage. I should like to do it now but my time is limited. While the question is on my mind, let me say to my hon. friend that there was nothing more important before that committee than the finances of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, because it was proposed to increase the licence fees payable by the people of this country from $2 to $2.50, and to make them pay a separate licence for each radio set.
The order of reference gave us the widest power to call for persons, papers and records. I ask, how could evidence be obtained as to whether or not the radio fees should be increased against the taxpayers if no evidence was allowed except that of those who are in the pay of the broadcasting corporation?
But the matter did not end there. After the committee had listened at every sitting to the board of governors of the broadcasting corporation, to the general manager, the program director, and all those who were most interested in supporting the very system and the very administration which the committee was appointed to investigate, the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house, proposed to close off the inquiry and to draw up a report. I pointed out to the committee that opportunity should be given to hear from those who had knowledge of broadcasting and who were not in the pay of the government. I took occasion to point out to the committee its position in these words:
I again say that this committee is not in a position to judge whether the expenditure proposed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the development of radio, and by reason of that expenditure-therefore the necessary increase in licence fees is justifiable or otherwise when we have only had the opportunity of hearing one side of the case.
Several excuses were offered by members of the committee, who by the way were not Conservative members, to prevent other evidence being called; hence I moved:
That the chairman or president of the broadcasting association of Canada be requested to

The Address-Mr. Lawson
appear at his own expense before this committee a? \ witness, with respect to the subject matter of the order of reference to this committee.
To the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) went the distinction of objecting to that motion, the hon. member for Essex East also being a Liberal member supporting the government in this house. The hon. member is qualified as a lawyer, and the plain wording of the order of this house was that we had power to send for persons, papers and records.


Mr. MARTIN:: Will the hon. member
permit a question?


James Earl Lawson: I am sorry I cannot, because I should not be able to finish my speech unless the house granted me unlimited time, in which event of course I should be delighted to answer any questions.
Nevertheless, despite the wording of the order of reference, the chairman of the committee, the Liberal member for Provencher, ruled that my motion was out of order. And sc again we forced it to a vote, and this time the ruling which prevented us from calling any other witness was sustained by six to two. Let me read you the names of the members who supported the chairman in his ruling: the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; the hon. member for Spadina, a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; the hon. member for Algoma West, a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Patterson), a Liberal member supporting the government in this house; and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), also a Liberal member supporting the government in this house. Those who voted for the privilege of calling witnesses other than officers of the broadcasting corporation were the late lamented Mr. Alex. Edwards, then the hon. member for Waterloo South, a Conservative, and I.
In these circumstances I retired from the committee and refused to attend any further sittings to draw up a report, as a protest against the steam roller tactics adopted by the supporters of this government in that committee. Then imagine my surprise as I read that in this house the Minister of Transport had the effrontery in making a speech here to declare-


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Mr. Speaker, before
the hon. gentleman-


James Earl Lawson: -that a committee of this parliament-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Mr. Speaker-


James Earl Lawson: I trust, Mr. Speaker, that this will all be deducted from my time.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask the hon.
member a question?


James Earl Lawson: If it comes off my time,
I shall be delighted.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I just want to ask a
question. If the hon. member does not want to-


James Earl Lawson: A number of hon. members want to ask me questions.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was not the hon. member aware that he could make a motion to have the order of reference enlarged, which he did not do?


James Earl Lawson: Whether an hon. gentleman had knowledge that he could move to have it enlarged has nothing to do with the subject matter. It was down towards the end of the session. The order was already-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The hon. member had
the privilege, just the same.


James Earl Lawson: Wait a minute, now. The order was already on the order paper. The order which had already been made by this house was as wide in its terms as it was possible to be. There were no limitations on it. If we had come back to this house we should have been met with the declaration that the order was as wide as it could be and there was no necessity of amending it.
When I was interrupted I was saying that I was amazed at the effrontery of the Minister of Transport when, speaking on the subject of radio in the house this session, he intimated by his words that any committee appointed by this house this session would be, as in the past, unanimous in making its recommendations and supporting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. HOWE:: On a point of order, may I
ask the hon. gentleman to read what I said?


James Earl Lawson: I was just going to do
that. The Minister of Transport has not been here long enough to learn that I never make a statement without backing it up with a quotation. The minister, dealing with the appointment of the committee, said that the committee would be appointed and that-
A committee of this parliament will at this session examine the policies of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and report on their wisdom. I have no personal doubt that, as in the past, the report of that committee will be unanimous and an endorsement of the present Canadian Broadcasting Corporation policies including those now under discussion.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the committee's reports were not unanimous in the past. It was
The Address-Mr. Lawson

not unanimous last year; and one of the policies then under discussion was that of preventing a responsible citizen of this country from having access to the air to express his views.
I observe that the other evening the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McNevin) stated that I had retired from the radio committee last year for political purposes. I reply to him, we shall take good care that in the next election the facts and circumstances which I have to-day recorded in this house will be brought to the attention of his constituents, and we will let them decide who has been playing with the radio committee in this house for political purposes.
The minister indicated to the house that one of the reasons for refusing chain broadcasting to an individual who was willing to pay therefor was that to do so gave a preference to wealth to express its views as against one who had views to express and who, being poor, had not the same opportunity. So the people believe that the government and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, in view of their present performance, are sincere in that demagogic declaration of policy? Let me call your attention to some facts. Mr. McCullagh, having been refused a chain of stations over which to broadcast his views, because of wealth, has been able to circumvent the principles laid down by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and this government, by the use of more wealth, by having recorded each week on separate individual records what he proposes to say the following Sunday and then shipping them all over the country, paying the customary shipping charges, to separate individual broadcasting stations where they are run the following Sunday afternoon.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That defeats the hon. member's argument.


James Earl Lawson: Oh, no.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh yes, it does.


James Earl Lawson: Not a bit of it. I am testing the sincerity of the government in their declaration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will my hon. friend explain what the government has to do with it?


James Earl Lawson: Well, yes; I will try. And again I am being thrown off my argument. I was going to deal with it in due course. In the first place the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was created by this government.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: By the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: By parliament.

Mr. LAWSON; Oh, that is an old song, an old story. Every time anything happens it is done by parliament. How is it possible to put anything through this house that has not the approval of the government, with its one hundred and seventy-odd members out of a total of two hundred and forty-five-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It had the unanimous approval of parliament.


James Earl Lawson: -which the people of this country returned in 1935; and they have been regretting it ever since. I should like to come back to this point a little later.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the pension commission?


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


James Earl Lawson: Mr. Speaker, I only wish I had your assurance that you would extend my time. I should like to deal with these gentlemen who are interrupting.
To come back to my point: Mr. McCullagh desires to broadcast his opinions to the people of Canada. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the government-I will come later to why the government is in it- in effect say to Mr. McCullagh: "You cannot do it, because we will not allow you to broadcast over more than one station at a time by means of a connecting wire running from one station to another across the country." The truth of the matter is that Mr. McCullagh has made a farce of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation regulations-and these regulations and by-laws must be approved by this government-and a farce of the government, because it lacks the courage and the backbone to stand for that which it declared to be a sound principle; it fails to take any action to prevent those regulations from being circumvented. The government has awakened to a realization of the fact that the people of this country will no longer tolerate the curtailment of free speech, and the government has neither the courage to carry out its declared principle and intention, nor the grace to admit its mistakes.
I for one am not grieving about Mr. McCullagh making a monkey out of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and this government, because I think that for the first time since 1935 they have been put in the exact category to which they belong. But I tell you what I do object to. One of the fundamental principles of any democratic system is that if you have a law you enforce that law irrespective of whether the one who is evading it is a newspaper publisher or the poorest man on the street. And when this government and the Canadian Broadcasting

The Address-Mr. Lawson
Corporation permit an evasion of any principle which they have laid down in rules and regulations, they are inculcating in the mind of the public a disrespect for the laws of democracy and destroying a fundamental principle of that democracy.
But the issue between Mr. McCullagh and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is by no means an isolated instance of the discriminatory, bureaucratic and indefensible attitude of the corporation. Let me give you one or two others.
In 1937 I had occasion to rise in my place in this house and to protest against a Protestant minister being put off the air because of sermons which he was preaching, and in some parts of the country I was accused of bigotry and prejudice. Well, by a strange turn of the wheel of fortune I rise on this occasion in defence of a Roman Catholic priest, because the same principle applies. Father Lanphier in Toronto was recently banned from the air because he delivered a sermon against communism on a Sunday when a communist candidate was running for election on the following day, Monday.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That was not the reason.


James Earl Lawson: That was the reason set out by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Read the reason.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no; it was not the reason.


James Earl Lawson: I raise no objection to that. I wish I had time-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Go right along.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take all the time you want:


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Take your time.


James Earl Lawson: The constant interruption of my hon. friends puts me very much in mind of a small boy who sat beside me in school in the days when we sat two at a desk.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: You are wasting your time now.


James Earl Lawson: I am surprised at the lack of dignity on the part of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud).


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Well!


James Earl Lawson: This boy had a boil on a part of his anatomy which I need not mention, and I noticed that any time I touched that boil he set up a terrible howl. I think my hon. friends are very much in the same position to-day in view of their action with respect to the radio. But to come back to what I was saying.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Very dignified, for an exminister.


James Earl Lawson: I am not protesting against Father Lanphier being banned from the air on this occasion for a specific breach of a specific regulation. In fact, I congratulate the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation upon its common sense in last week reestablishing him on the air after one month's penalty for a breach of that specific regulation. But I observed that Father Lanphier made the statement that he was not returning to the air until certain terms and conditions were settled with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Now it is with respect to that business of terms and conditions that I wish to protest.
Father Lanphier was previously prohibited the use of the air by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I read the reasons they gave for that prohibition-no, excuse me. He was prohibited from the air and subsequently reinstated after representations were made by the radio league of St. Michael's church, Toronto, and this was the promise exacted from Father Lanphier by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before he was permitted to return to the air: That he, Father Lanphier, would confine himself in his broadcasts purely to religious subjects and avoid politics and controversial theories in economics. Well, if Father Lanphier, because he is a religious teacher, is not to be allowed to broadcast in his sermons matters touching upon politics and controversial theories in economics, then I ask, why has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation permitted my friends of the Social Credit party to broadcast for the past two years in the province of Alberta? Let us look facts in the face. Social credit was first introduced and sold to the people of Alberta from the pulpit or platform of the Prophetic Bible Institute, and for the last two years addresses have been broadcast almost every Sunday by Mr. Aber-hart or by the provincial secretary of Alberta, addresses which are mixing up general politics and controversial theories in economics. I am not saying a word in the way of criticism. I am trying to defend the principle of their being permitted, and to stop the gagging of people in this country who wish to use the-air and the facilities of the radio.
My hon. friend wanted to know why I said the government was responsible. I will tell him why. In the first place, the government, or this parliament if you will, created the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation when it fixed its powers by statute, and its by-laws have to be approved by the government. And did not Mr. Brockington, when he was before the committee, as I previously stated to-day,

The Address-Mr. Lawson
tell us that the Minister of Transport attended the first meeting of the governors of the corporation and informed them what the policy of the government was with respect to broadcasting? As this government created the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, so it can alter the powers of that body by limitations upon it, or destroy it if it so desires, by the introduction of legislation in this parliament; and I say that this government cannot absolve itself from and dodge its responsibility by taking the attitude that has been taken in this house on more than one occasion, on one occasion at any rate, by the Minister of Transport, namely, that the government has no responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and metaphorically washes its hands of all responsibility. It does that every time public pressure becomes too great.
A certain gentleman, Mr. Speaker, tried that same tactic nineteen hundred years ago. Pontius Pilate, charged with the responsibility of pronouncing judgment upon the greatest man who ever inhabited the earth, literally sent for a basin of water and washed his hands because he had not the courage to do his duty and discharge his responsibility. He has gone down through nineteen hundred years of history as a horrible example of refusal to discharge responsibility. I leave it to this government to decide the position it will occupy in the future history of Canada.
In the rest of the time at my disposal I wish to deal with one reference that is contained in the speech from the throne. The speech states:
Legislation will be introduced to establish a defence purchasing board with power to purchase equipment for the defence services and to ensure that, where private manufacture is necessary, profits in connection with such are fair and reasonable and that the public interest is protected.
I presume that the proposed legislation is the result of the recommendation of the royal commissioner who investigated a private contract entered into between this government and a gentleman by the name of Mr. Hahn, which is popularly known as the Bren gun contract. I believe there are sharp differences of opinion in this country on the question whether or not all instruments and munitions of war should be made by the government in government arsenals and factories, or should be made by private industry. There are those who believe that no profit should be made out of instruments or munitions of war and that therefore they should be manufactured by the government in government arsenals. There are those who believe that if they are manufactured by the government you will not get efficiency, and

such people say that the only way to get efficiency is by the competitive system. I believe all people are agreed that there should be no profiteering in munitions or instruments of war. Well, that raises several questions. If they are to be produced by private industry, what measure of profit is to be allowed? If they are to be produced by government, what is the measure of cost? If they are to be produced by private industry, what manufacturers are to be given the preference? Are contracts to be awarded to the lowest bidder under sealed tenders, irrespective of what plant or equipment he may have available? If the contracts are not to go to the lowest bidder under sealed tenders, how on earth are you ever going to prevent political patronage?
I have a suggestion to offer to this government and the country. We have a railway problem. Every year the taxpayers are called upon to put up between 840,000,000 and 850,000,000 to pay the deficits of the Canadian National Railways. I believe there is a sincere desire on the part of all thoughtful men to reduce deficits and thereby reduce taxation. One factor contributing to the large deficits of the Canadian National Railways is the overhead on idle shops, factories and plants. I want to recount the shops which at the time of formation of the Canadian National Railways were available in the central region alone-I have not time to go all across Canada. In the central region there were at the time of formation six shops. One was at St. Malo, near Quebec city, with, capacity for 1.000 men per shift employed in repair and construction. Another was at Point St. Charles, near Montreal, owned by the old Grand Trunk. Another was at Stratford, Ontario, also owned by the old Grand Trunk, and another at Leaside, near the city of Toronto, owned by the Canadian Northern. The plant at Leaside I believe has capacity for about 1,000 men per shift. Then there was a shop at London owned by the old Grand Trunk, and one at Joliette, Quebec, owned by the old Canadian Northern. My information is that the shop at Joliette is completely closed and idle, that the one at Leaside is used only for the repair of steel freight cars, and the one at London for the repair of steel passenger cars. None of these shops is operating at anything like capacity. Each is equipped with lathes and much machineiy which I am told would be useful in the manufacture of instruments of defence. The Canadian National has available, and I assume the other railway also has, large staffs of expert mechanics, most of whom are suffering from lack of employment and many of whom are on relief rolls.

The Address-Mr. Bonnier


Clarence Decatur Howe: Has my hon. friend any
proof that railway shop men are on the relief rolls? Give me one example. There is a dearth of skilled men in this country to-day.


James Earl Lawson: I frankly admit that I
have no proof. I know this, that by reason of the recent change, whereby instead of car repair men getting so many hours' work a week, full time is worked now by some on the basis of seniority, a great many men who are not high enough in the line of seniority do not get any work at all.


Clarence Decatur Howe: From the railway.


James Earl Lawson: From the railway is what
I am talking about. That condition exists in the riding adjacent to mine, which I previously represented.
I have only a few minutes left and so must hurry on. Why not have our munitions and defence equipment manufactured as far as possible in our railway shops, on a basis of cost of material and wagi*s plus a fair return for plant, machinery and overhead? This would assist in relieving the burden of taxation upon the taxpayers and in providng employment for that army of skilled mechanics who depend upon the railways for work.
I do not want to discuss the Bren gun report at this time, but it was on a cost plus basis. If the Bren contract was an improvident one, then we should have no more like it. If it was a prudent contract, how much more prudent it would be to give that work to our railways on a similar cost plus basis so as to relieve the burden of taxation and provide employment for skilled railway mechanics. I regret I have not the necessary technical knowledge to determine the extent to which the idle plant of the railways could be utilized, or the benefits which would be obtained by the taxpayers, or the number of skilled mechanics who would be provided for. But I am satisfied from inquiries I have made that the scheme is feasible.
Now, sir, a young newspaper publisher, an energetic young business man, to whose radio addresses I have previously referred, has intimated that our public men to-day are sadly lacking in concrete proposals to solve our national problems. It is to these we should apply ourselves, instead of spending our time, as he says, in playing the game of party politics. I put it to the government and the members of this house:	Let us accept that
challenge. If the government want to make a contribution to the solution, or at any rate partial solution of some of Canada's problems, why not set up a committee to study the feasibility and advantages of the scheme I have just outlined? I am confident that such efforts on our part would be a great deal more advantageous than anything produced as a result of the time now spent by committees in studying abstract questions which will not in this country call for practical action for ten years to come.


Mr. J. A. BONNIER (St. Henry) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, my first duty is to congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) who proposed and the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) who seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The seconder is a young man whom I met some twelve years ago during a trip to Europe. His courtesy and dignified manner impressed me. Meeting him again twelve years later as a fellow-member of the house, my opinion of him has not changed. The passing years have not taken from him any of the qualities which led me to the first opinion I formed of him. He has a bright future before him. He is certainly destined to replace the old fighters who have so long worked for the welfare of the country. These men are wearing themselves out, and when exhaustion forces them to lay down their arms it is men like the hon. member for Stormont who will worthily replace them.
I am astonishe4 at the lack of solicitude for Montreal shown by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh). It is a strange thing indeed to object to the improvement of one's own city. What can be the reason of the hon. member's objection to the construction of a terminal for the Canadian National Railways? He should at least admit that the project will be most useful inasmuch as it will provide work for citizens of Montreal at a time when everyone is anxious to do away with direct relief. But, apparently, he will criticize anything. Last year also he, no doubt, criticized public works allotted to my constituency.
I wish to thank the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) for their assistance in obtaining works for my constituency. With their aid it was an easy task to convince the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) of the necessity of providing a population of about 50,000, trapped so to speak south of Lachine canal, with adequate means of reaching the centre of the city. The hon. member for Mount Royal again criticized the project. But the Minister of Transport readily saw the reasonableness of my request, made in my name as well as on behalf of the citizens of St. Henri, for an adequate outlet as in other parts of the city.
The Address-Mr. Bonnier

I take this opportunity also of expressing my gratitude to the minister of transport for having started the construction of a tunnel on St. Marguerite Street, and another at the corner of Notre-Dame and St. Ferdinand Streets, one of the spots where traffic is jammed, where tramways serving the west end of the city were constantly blocked and which badly needed such an improvement. I wish to thank the minister for his favourable treatment of our request. All those works are in progress, with the exception of the Lachine canal project. According to the engineers in charge of that project, the plans, on which they are working since the month of July, will soon be ready. Then tenders will be called, the contract will be given and the work started.
A railway terminal is also essential to a city of the size of Montreal and nobody is justified in criticizing that project. We should be proud of the metropolis of Canada. It is entitled to an adequate railway terminal as much as any other lesser city. Every citizen of Montreal should be glad of the improvements undertaken by the government in that connection.
Many hon. gentlemen opposite have had a good deal to say about our national debt. Is it not a fact, though, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative party is solely responsible for the entire gross debt of the country? When the Laurier government went out of office in 1911, the debt stood at $350,000,000, which is the amount of the debt of Montreal to-day. But, between 1911 and 1921, the Conservative government added to that debt every year, until it reached approximately two billions.


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: There is the war debt.


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: We are ready to discuss it. It is always said that for purposes of war nothing is too much. But war was made a business speculation. Such was the Conservative record at the close of the Great War. Between 1921 and 1930 the Liberals reduced the debt. They brought the sales tax down from 6 per cent to 1 per cent. But what did the Conservatives do when they came to power in 1930? They restored the sales tax to 6 per cent and increased the national debt by $800,000,000. Whenever the Conservatives take over the administration of the country they increase the debt.
The other great drain on our finances is the railway debt. It is an elephant indeed. But who left us this elephant? The Conservatives. Let not my hon. friends opposite complain of the debt. All I ask of them is not to seek to regain power in order to increase it still more.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: Is the debt not increasing now?


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: Take our good province of Quebec which during 39 years of Liberal administration was the least indebted of all the provinces and the only solvent one. Under the present Union Nationale administration, which is a Conservative administration-for a party does not change its character by changing its name-the province is sinking deeper and deeper into debt, and the Liberal party, which will soon be returned to power, will have to restore the provincial finances.
Mr. Speaker, I now desire to discuss another subject, the National Housing Act, under which the government lends money at 2 per cent, in order to encourage house-building. This law works to the prejudice of owners of old buildings, who have had to borrow in the past and now have to pay 7 or 8 per cent and even more.
The government has already decided that it was illegal to lend money at a rate higher than 8 per cent. The small property-owners wish the government to go even further and declare it illegal to lend at a higher rate than 5 per cent. Such action would keep them from falling into the bankruptcy which threatens them. These small owners who after long years of hard work have managed to save enough money to build their own homes are faced with the loss . of their property. I do not see anything to prevent the government from granting the request of these worthy citizens. I should be grateful for whatever can be done for them.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to record my opposition to all immigration at the present time. If those who sought to come to Canada were real farmers who would settle on lands awaiting cultivation, it would not be so bad. But it is well known that the Israelites-the Jews, as they are commonly called-cannot adapt themselves to farm life, and their admission in large numbers would simply increase the number of unemployed in our cities. For this reason I am strongly opposed to all Jewish immigration to Canada.


Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) in congratulating the government upon its reference to the fishing industry in the speech from the throne. The reference I have in mind reads:
Continuous improvement in the position of the fishing industry as a whole has been reflected in annual increases for the past few years in the aggregate amounts received by the fishermen from their work. The Department of Fisheries have given and will continue

The Address-Mr. Pother
to give increased attention to the problem of marketing. The government have also assisted fishermen substantially through direct aid.
I have gone back over the records of speeches from the throne for a number of years, and I have found no reference to the fishing industry as such. This means that the present government has taken particular cognizance of the industry and is paying more attention to it than any other government has done. I can well remember the lack of interest shown in this particular industry by previous governments, particularly the Conservative government which held office between 1930 and 1935. In those years the Department of Fisheries was the neglected child in the federal family. It was carried from one doorstep to another, and apparently was considered more of a nuisance than an industry' which required special attention and care.
First there was a minister, then an acting minister-and I think the word " acting " was particularly appropriate. We then had another acting minister and, finally, on the eve of the election, we had a minister. The record is interesting, and I shall place on Hansard the names of the officials I have just indicated. First there was the Hon. E. N. Rhodes, who was appointed August 12, 1930, and continued in office until February 2, 1932. He was followed by the Hon. Alfred Duranleau, a Minister of Marine who was appointed acting Minister of Fisheries on February 3, 1932, and held the office until November 16, 1934. He was followed by the Hon. Grote Stirling, a Minister of National Defence, who was appointed acting Minister of Fisheries on November 17, 1934, and held the office until August 13, 1935. Finally a real Minister of Fisheries was appointed on August 14, 1935, and held office until the resignation of the Bennett government on October 23, 1935. Therefore it was not surprising to us in the maritime provinces to hear the then Prime Minister say at Bridgewater just prior to the election, " I do not know what remedies should be applied to assist fishermen." I want to remind hon. members that when the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) took office there was nothing but lack of interest, lack of system and lack of policy in the department. The Department of Fisheries had been forgotten and abandoned, and as a result, particularly in the years 1933, 1934 and 1935, the fisheries were at their worst in the history of Canada. We had experienced five years of drifting, and nothing had been done.
On the other hand I have had occasion in the interests of my constituency to follow the ideas and the policies developed by the present minister and, in my opinion, no 71492-38
minister has been more attentive or more sympathetic, or has taken greater interest or been more anxious to help than the present Minister of Fisheries. There seem to be people, most of them sitting on the opposition benches, who are oblivious to the most commonplace things. They do not seem to see the things they do not like to see, unless their attention is directed to them specifically. With this in mind I propose briefly to survey what has been done by the Department of Fisheries since the present Liberal government took office in 1935.
First of all, an advertising program was inaugurated for the purpose of increasing the consumption and sale of fish. In this connection S175,000 was spent in 1936, $100,000 in 1937 and $150,000 in 1938. We obtained valuable concessions in the trade treaties with the United States. Make no mistake about this, that those concessions were brought about largely through the demands and the policies of and the interest taken by the department. I say that to a great extent this is so, and I shall speak in greater detail in regard to the treaty when it comes before the house for special consideration.
Then, there have been cooperative educational facilities, fish transportation facilities, and a certain amount of price fixing from certain areas. We have had assistance given to needy fishermen through loans with provinces. We have had a survey of markets, including Puerto Rico, Central and South America and Cuba. We have had assistance to needy fishermen by way of direct aid. We have had help in renovating gear and equipment. All these are new developments, so far as the Department of Fisheries is concerned, and they indicate a policy of direct help to the fishing industry. Certainly these activities indicate a change from the old policy of restriction and control to one of expansion and development. I want particularly to emphasize the fact that policies which have been in force for over half a century, in the manner I have indicated, are not changed easily or perhaps as quickly as we may wish. Vision and courage are needed to bring those changes about.
As a result of the measures I have just indicated, and the natural ability of the fisherman to look after himself, according to the last survey I have been able to obtain, namely that of October, 1938, we had in Canada only 529 fishermen in receipt of urban aid, to which the dominion government contributed. In Nova Scotia, out of 22,023 persons employed in the fishing industry there were only thirty-eight receiving through municipalities or provinces material aid to which the dominion government had con-

The Address-Mr. Poilier

tributed a portion of the cost. I refer to aid to which contributions had been mads by the federal government through the Department of Labour. I want it understood that I am not including in those figures the help which is given by municipalities or provinces and of which no records of total numbers are kept by various poor boards, overseers of the poor, or otherwise.
There is no doubt that the fishermen of Canada are the ones who to-day are showing the most resourcefulness and tenacity in the struggle for a livelihood. We who were born in the kingdom by the sea know and understand this quality and trait. The fisherman is always ready to gamble everything he has and to risk his life to provide for his family. But world trends and extreme conditions he cannot overcome, and I want to bring to the attention of the house an emergency situation which has arisen in my constituency where a helping hand must be extended to the fishermen.
I refer to conditions resulting from the storms on December 6 last, and subsequent days. The fishermen in my constituency depend largely upon catching lobsters by means of trap and gear, so-called, the season being from December 1 to June 1. The fishermen in large numbers equip themselves at the opening of the season with traps and gear, chiefly through credit extended to them by merchants and suppliers, and after they have earned money by way of their catch or otherwise; they repay their creditors. But in latter years credits have been more difficult to obtain, and last year in particular, merchants and suppliers found it very difficult to supply the lobster fishermen at the opening of the season.
That was the situation, and with the season opening on December 1, we had on December 6 a storm the like of which we have rarely seen in the maritimes. This was followed a few days later by another one. The storm came at a most unfortunate time; in some districts a large number of fishermen, as a result of the loss of their traps and gear, found themselves unable to earn a living and repay their creditors or to purchase new traps, and they had simply to go on as best they could with what was left, or stop altogether.
I visited different parts of the shore during the storms, and just to indicate the type of storm we have on the Atlantic coast, and this one in particular, at Port Maitland in my constituency I am sure the waves at high tide on the day I was there were breaking and throwing mist a height of at least one hundred feet. That was the type of storm which the fisherman's equipment had to stand

up against, and as a result of the storm, lobster traps were drifting about and rolling along the shore everywhere in a tangled mass of traps and ropes and buoys. The loss in my constituency amounted to 44,440 traps, of an estimated value of between seventy and eighty thousand dollars. This of course, directly affected the livelihood of a large number of fishermen.
I should mention the fact that the Minister of Fisheries immediately asked for a survey of the conditions; he has shown great concern over the plight of the fishermen, and has been most anxious to cooperate. I appreciate some of the difficulties and obstacles in the way; but the fact still remains that a large number of the fishermen cannot reequip themselves, and in western Nova Scotia a new situation has arisen. We have never before been in a position where we could not equip ourselves to carry on, which is the case at present with a large number of fishermen.
Our fishermen have resourcefulness, courage and pride that have enabled them in the past to keep off relief. One family would help another; one relative would help another, and the young would support the old, but I am sorry to say that these qualities have been sorely tried by this last catastrophe. Just to indicate that quality in our people, let me point out that for a population of some
150,000	from Halifax county west, this government has expended by way of direct delief less than $5,000 since 1930-a remarkable record and one that, I think, should be encouraged and serve as an example for other parts of Canada. My people have believed in toiling. They have believed in following the road of hard work rather than in branching off on the road of relief. They have believed in being able to manage and control their own livelihood, rather than in depending on welfare workers. They are proud of their independence, and are anxious to maintain themselves. All they need is the equipment with which to carry on their livelihood.
We are not asking for direct relief. What we are asking for is ways and means to enable our fishermen to earn a living so that they can keep themselves off the relief rolls. I have already said that the storms last December were extreme ones, and any help that is given would have to be considered absolutely exceptional because of the emergency. The conditions are so extreme that large numbers of our people cannot help themselves in the situation in which they find themselves to-day, and I therefore urge upon the government the necessity of finding a way to enable the towns

The Address-Mr. Pottier
and the municipalities in my constituency to reestablish the fishermen who have suffered the losses I have indicated, so that once more they may be able to earn their own living instead of being forced to take direct relief. I think this assistance is necessary in addition to what has already been announced in the way of road work.
I have great confidence in the municipal officers in my constituency. I have had a great deal to do with various councils, and taking these municipal officers as a whole I believe that they are as good as any that can be found in Canada from the standpoint of an understanding and a knowledge of the people, and a sense of fairness and responsibility. I believe there are none better, and if the distribution were made through these officials there would be no delay and no extreme expenditure in investigation or distribution. Nor would there be any political patronage, and here I want to say that if any money is given, every dollar of it should go to the needy fishermen themselves; for the storm, like the dew from heaven, fell upon all of them alike, and all should be treated in a fair and equitable manner according to their necessities.
I do not suggest that cash be given out; I would suggest rather that materials be provided on the recommendation of municipal officials or municipal councils, and under the supervision of fishery officers for the different districts. I say the fishery officers should supervise this work because they have already made a detailed survey, and it is important that the situation be taken care of without any loss of time. I felt at one time that advances made should be by way of loans. I have become convinced that under existing conditions this is impossible, and that on account of the emergency situation and the exceptional circumstances the fishermen should be provided with equipment in the manner indicated, without obligation. With all the energy and seriousness at my command I ask the government to look upon this situation as an emergency and give relief to enable these people to carry on.
Passing from the question of fisheries, I think I should say something with regard to the remarks we have heard in some speeches in connection with the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I have listened to criticisms by my hon. friends in the opposition ranks. They referred to the lack of a program in the speech from the throne. They also criticized the government for its tariff policy, and they seemed to take a great deal of pleasure in dropping here and there a hint of disloyalty in the Liberal ranks. I want to remind them that they were once respon-
71492-36J
sible for the preparation and planning of speeches from the throne. I think it well to examine these past addresses with a view of showing what they did, what policy they had when they were at the helm and were controlling the ship of state. Before doing that, however, it is wise and, I think, proper that we should realize what the situation was in 1930 and see what was said by the then opposition as to what they were going to do and what their policy was. I shall then go on and attempt to show what they did, what they admitted in the speeches from the throne that they could not do, and their lack of ability to cope with the situation in which they found themselves in contrast with what they promised the people before they were in power.
First, I think it is wise to refer to the principal speeches they made and the talk of the Conservative party all through the campaign.
We pledge ourselves to a policy of protection for Canadians in the development of our natural resources, our agricultural and industrial life, and our consumers from exploitation.
In other words, from the beginning, through the years, and at the present time so far as I can see, the policy of the Conservative party has been one of protection by means of the tariff. That was their attitude back in 1930; that was their main pledge, in the words which I have indicated, and that pledge was referred to by the then leader of the opposition in these words:
These pledges I have made and by them I stand or fall. ... I have said that in my every action that must be my guide. ... I preach one policy and I will practise one and one alone, the upbuilding of Canada and the ever closer cooperation of its parts, so that through their mutual help and mutual advantage the whole will grow into a powTer which laughs at adversity and triumphs over all the evils that prey upon disunion.
The Conservative party, if elected, was going to bring into force a power which would laugh at adversity chiefly by putting into practice the policy of protection. Conditions were represented as critical, and they were going to blast their way into the markets of the world. I think that sometimes we should refer to these matters. They are apt to be forgotten, and if we are to judge what is to be the record of the Conservative party in the future it is right to go back and see what they said and what they did in the past.
With regard to the representation by the Conservative party of conditions as they were before 1930, I intend to quote from a few newspapers, and these all relate to speeches made just before the election of 1930. On
The Address-Mr. Pottier

July 17, at Sarnia, the then leader of the opposition, afterwards the Prime Minister, said:
Canada is now in a critical condition. Unemployment exists on a scale which never before was known in the history of this country. All this by reason of the policies of the Ottaw* government.
At Calgary on June 12, 1930, he said:
This is a new country and there is no excuse for unemployment in Canada if a government does its duty.
Then at Chatham on July 11, 1930:
I propose, if elected to power, to call a session of parliament immediately after July 28th to deal with the unemployment problem, to authorize national undertakings which will give work to our workmen. Side by side, I propose to have enacted such measures as will give Canadians fair competition and equal opportunity with the nations of the world. Then the bogey of unemployment will be destroyed.
Again at Moncton, July 10, 1930:
The Conservative party is going to find work for all who are willing to work, or perish in the attempt. It is going to call parliament at the earliest possible date after July 28th and take such steps as will end this tragic condition of unemployment and bring prosperity to the country as a whole. . . . Mr. King promises consideration of the problem of unemployment. I promise to end unemployment. Which plan do you like best?
Then followed on June 17 the famous quotation about blasting their way in the markets of the world.
At Quebec on July 14 their leader made this statement:
I do not want place and power over broken promises.
That was the picture before the general election of 1930. That was what the people of Canada heard and that is what they expected. They expected that an end would be put to unemployment; that ways would be found in the markets of the world for the sale of our products, and they were very anxious to see what the Conservative party, when it came into power, had to offer them when they came into power. I shall briefly go over the speeches from the throne and indicate what I think was the gist and substance of them as regards the main items having to do with unemployment and this blasting into world markets about which they talked. This is what we find in the first speech from the throne, on September 18, 1930:
The necessity for dealing with exceptional economic conditions with the resulting unemployment has induced me to summon you at an earlier date than would otherwise be necessary. Measures will be submitted for your consideration, including amendments to the
iMr. Pottier.l
Customs Act and the customs tariff, which it is anticipated will do much to meet the unusual conditions which now prevail.
When they were talking of ending unemployment; when they pledged themselves to blast their way in the markets of the world, they had one thing and one alone to offer, namely to raise the tariff, and that is just what they did, except that they voted, I believe, $20,000,000 for public works. But if they were going to end unemployment and establish entirely different conditions, we should have seen some changes proposed in the speech from the throne the following year. What do we find? On March 12, 1931, this is what they say:
It will be your privilege to consider certain measures designed by my ministers to ameliorate existing conditions.
That is all they did after nearly a year in power. They were then going to " ameliorate " conditions. Next year they say:
You enter upon your duties at a time of continuing and universal economic disturbance and distress. World conditions are beyond the control of the Canadian people.
They were then getting to the point where it was evident that the raising of tariff barriers and the voting of money for public works had not ended unemployment. The plan they had, if they had any, was not working, and they now admit that conditions in Canada are beyond their control. In October of that year they say:	'
The problem of unemployment continues to receive the anxious attention of my ministers. Under the powers granted them at the last session of parliament, they have been able to develop further, in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, a scheme of direct relief to be put into operation during the autumn and winter months to the extent required by prevailing conditions.
That was in the third speech from the throne. Hon. members will notice that they started by raising tariffs; in the next speech from the throne they declared that they would ameliorate conditions; then in the third speech they come forward and say they will have to give direct relief. To be frank, in 1934 there is an indication of some improvement, and I think it can be said honestly and fairly that the speech from the throne pictured conditions as they then existed, and perhaps the improvements that had taken place. Generally speaking, I believe we can go by what is contained in the speech from the throne as indicating conditions prevailing in the country at the time the speech is delivered. This is what they said in 1934:
You are summoned for the dispatch of public business at a time when there are sound reasons for believing that the world is gradually returning to economic stability. I congratulate

The Address-Mr. Pottier
you that such improved world conditions are reflected in Canada by expanding trade, improving revenues, increasing employment, and a more confident outlook upon the future. Canada occupies a leading position amongst those countries where the evidence of a return to permanent prosperity is most convincing.
But the best part of it, the treasure of them all, comes in 1935. As I say, they started in 1930 to raise tariffs. In 1931 they said that they would ameliorate conditions; in 1932 they said that conditions were beyond control; then in 1934 they said that conditions were good. But in 1935 they tell us that it is impossible to indicate anything except that conditions are getting hopeless and that something new must be discovered. Something different has to be brought forward. Hon. members will recall the assault that was made upon the capitalist system in 1935. This is what was said then:
In the anxious years through which you have passed, you have been the witnesses of grave defects, and abuses in the capitalist system. Unemployment and want are the proof of these. Great changes are taking place about us. New conditions prevail.
They were going to remodel the capitalist system; they were going to revamp it, and everything was going to be in order. We were going to have prosperity. Let us see what happened as a result of the attack upon the capitalist system through the social legislation that was passed, a great deal of which proved to be ultra vires. I cannot explain it better than to use the words of the then leader of the opposition when he travelled through the country in 1930 uttering words of eloquence such as the people had not heard before. At Guelph he said:
Whenever you have a convert doing something that he has not been brought up to do he will always make a mess of it.
That indicates exactly what happened in consequence of the attack upon the capitalist system through the social legislation of the Conservative government.
That, briefly, is the general picture given by the speeches from the throne during the Conservative regime from 1930 to 1935. I do not wish to labour this point, but I might compress into a few sentences the situation during those years. This was what the Conservative party promised to do: "We are going to have a definite plan and we are going to end unemployment. We are going to blast our way into the markets of the world and bring about prosperity in this country." Well, they got into power and at once raised tariffs. They voted $20,000,000. The next year they said that things were not in very good condition. Then they said they would ameliorate conditions. From then on they forgot tariffs
because they realized that the raising of tariffs got them nowhere as a remedy. When they went before the people in 1935 the people told them exactly what they thought of their policies and ideas.
You will ask me, Mr. Speaker, What does this show? I suggest that hon. members will find it profitable to read the speeches from the throne during the Liberal regime. If ' they do, they will find what was done in those years. In January, 1936, we find that there is a realization on the part of the Liberal party that conditions are bad, and they so declare. They got into power in October, and in January of the following year we find this in the speech from the throne:
Unemployment continues to be Canada's_ most urgent national problem. While there is an increase in the number of persons employed, the number of those on relief shows no abatement.
That was a statement of conditions as they were when the Conservatives went out of power. In January, 1937, the speech from the throne contained this statement:
The year just closed has witnessed a steady improvement in conditions throughout Canada, and has borne testimony to the beneficial effects of the fiscal policies of the administration, and of other methods employed to achieve national recovery. A very definite restoration of confidence is in itself an augury of the continuance of recovery.
Here we find, after one year of Liberal administration, an indication of improvement in conditions. Then, in January, 1938, we find conditions reflected as follows in the speech from the throne.
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.
Again, a further improvement in the state of things, as a result of those Liberal policies for which the people were looking. And, finally, in the speech from the throne now under review we find on the major problem the following statement:
The dominion government have taken active measures to stimulate private employment through the home improvement plan, the National Housing Act and the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. Under these measures certain local taxes have been assumed, and loans made to individuals, organizations and municipalities. The sales tax has been eliminated on important building materials. Special aid has been given to the mining industry by subventions, tax exemptions and improved transportation facilities. . . .
Notwithstanding the embarrassments, and handicaps encountered in coping with the prob-

The Address-Mr. Pottier
lem 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.
There again we have a sign of continued improvement, the result of Liberal policies. As I said before, the speech from the throne, generally speaking, gives an indication of conditions as they are throughout the country. No government would have the effrontery to go before the public with a speech from the throne which was contrary to the facts. The Conservatives themselves, in the years between 1930 and 1935, were compelled to admit that conditions were unfavourable. Comparing the two records we find that one show's uncertainty, and a gradual loss of ground, the other a steady improvement indicating a knowledge of conditions.
When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite criticizing the government I look around to see whether they have anything new to offer. I have been sitting here for three years listening for something besides tariff barriers and generalities from the opposition, but nothing new or different has come. They have nothing to offer us different from what they had in 1930. What have they more than they had in 1935 to make the people believe that they are worthy of confidence? I have never heard of any definite plan or policy except raising tariffs. When they were in pow'er they forgot it after two years and were groping around in 1932. Take the Conservative platform, to which they more or less tied themselves or which they promised to put through. I admit it is a pretty much confused document and it is hard to know where the ties are. They tried to cover everything; it is as confused as any document could be without being too ridiculous.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I have to inform the hon. gentleman that he has exhausted his time.


Ernest Lapointe: Let him finish his speech.


Walter Edward Foster: With the unanimous
consent of the house.


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I am much obliged. I
find in that platform just two things. One is:
This National Conservative convention declares its continued adherence to its traditional policy of fostering and sustaining by fiscal protection Canadian labour and Canadian industries-
The same thing as we had in the speeches before 1930. Then we come to employment,

a hopeless plan, a lot of language, but in brief it contains promises-
(a)	To institute and support projects looking to the development of our natural resources. . . .
(b)	To provide a non-partisan department of government to provide for the administration of unemployment relief throughout Canada. . . .
(c)	To encourage and support throughout Canada a plan of national unemployment and retirement insurance;
(d)	To cooperate with provinces in a scheme of apprenticeship to industry, assisted by government subsidy. . . .
(e)	To make federal grants for scholarships to young people who show ability and merit. . . .
That is the Conservative plan for taking care of unemployment. As for (a) it is nothing new; it is what they were saying in 1930. As for (b), the nomenclature may be different, but the present employment commissioner is one they appointed themselves. They promised to encourage and support a plan of national unemployment and retirement insurance, but in the platform they carefully avoided pledging themselves to make the necessary constitutional changes, so there is difficulty about carrying that out. As to assisting the provinces in apprenticeship schemes, this government is doing that, as well as making grants for scholarships. I suppose we shall find the opposition going to the countiy on that platform, unless they decide to throw it away and build a new one. It is the same as they had in 1930, and I believe that the answer the people gave in 1935 will be the answer the opposition will get again when the government decides it is the right time to go to the country again for continued confidence.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (Wellington North):: First I must congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). I knew him in his palmy days in college when he was stepping out on the threshold of life, before the snows of age had fallen on his brow, when he had a look of innocence and buoyancy-


Robert James Manion: He is just as innocent yet.


John Knox Blair: -before he was involved in Tory intrigue. Nevertheless I wish him all the success I can wish any Conservative leader. That is not saying too much.
Much to my surprise the Conservatives have discussed the unemployment problem. It seems to me that is one question they should feel embarrassed about and hang their heads in shame and keep away from. There are things in my life that I do not want my friends to talk about, and if I were a Conservative unemployment is one question that I would warn them not to draw to the attention of the public. That must be a sore point in the mind of any Conservative.

The Address-Mr. Blair
There is, however, a redeeming element in the Conservative party. They know a good Liberal. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) who is just leaving his seat was raised a Liberal, and the leader of the opposition was raised a Liberal. Any Liberal on this side of the house who is inclined to Toryism will find many vacancies over there; they might need some more Liberals.


Robert James Manion: We shall get plenty of
them after the next election.


John Knox Blair: He would indeed be an
optimistic prophet who would prophesy anything like that, not a Jeremiah at any rate.
When the Conservatives came into power in 1930 the unemployment situation was not bad. The Mackenzie King government had it well in hand. But from the howl that the Conservatives raised from the housetops one would have supposed the country was going to ruin through unemployment. As a result they gained office, and immediately called a short session; they were going to cure unemployment at once and could not wait for the usual time of the session. They called their short session, and did they deal with unemployment? They thought they did, in a Tory fashion. They raised tariffs ever so high, with the result that 100,000 more people were without employment. Next year they said, "We will deal with it again," and they raised the tariff again, resulting in 100,000
more unemployed. In my own stubborn way I advised them to raise it again; they did so, and there were 100,000 more unemployed. By this time the number of unemployed had mounted to some 600,000 and was still going strong. So I do not like the way the Conservatives have of talking in the house-


Mr. SPENCE:: Does the hon. member
think we like his way?


John Knox Blair: Of course I do not expect they are talking to please me, nor am I talking to amuse them particularly. But I should like to see them lay a foundation for their arguments. I would advise them to look into the statistics provided by the department of which Mr. Coats has charge and find some foundation for their speeches. Mere expressions of opinion are not of much value; there should be a proper foundation and logical sequence. When the statistical foundation is laid hon. members can tell the house and the country what they think, but it is useless to give opinions without any foundation.
I should like to give certain figures from the bureau of statistics in regard to unemployment. I wonder if with the consent of the house I can place them on the record, or must I read them?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put it on the
record.


John Knox Blair: The figures are as follows:
Dominion Bureau of Statistics' Estimate of Unemployed Wage-Earners in Canada
(000's omitted)
Month	1921	1929	1930	1931	1932	1933	1934	1935	1936	1937January	. . 189	135	297	425	558	691	598	572	556	500February .. ..	.. 252	197	332	424	504	713	584	552	545	521March	.. 205	200	288	402	571	708	598	589	568	519April	147	281	385	574	703	590	573	543	481May	. . 178	91	396	437	568	684	544	546	512	375June	, . . 208	47	391	437	594	659	487	526	480	308July	.. 120	49	348	431	600	635	502	511	472	300August	.. 83	49	371	413	595	657	510	492	446	257September.. ..	.. 101	48	300	445	606	606	497	455	409	223October	.. 102	92	341	453	627	600	495	435	399	235November . . . .	.. 243	182	423	488	642	597	515	479	415	301December .. . .	.. 322	272	413	543	675	623	571	546	502	381
These figures show that in 1929, during June, July, August and September, the number of unemployed was less than 50,000. That is about the normal number of unemployed in Canada. In June, 1929, it was 47,000; in July and August, 49,000, and in September,
48,000.


Robert James Manion: That was in 1929?


John Knox Blair: Yes, under a pure Liberal administration. I do not want anything adulterated.


Robert James Manion: What about 1930?


John Knox Blair: That was a mixture, and we do not want it. I want to take an unadulterated Liberal administration and report thereon. In 1933 I find that during one of the comparable months the number ran over
600,000.	Just imagine; these people were going to relieve unemployment, yet they had over ten times as many unemployed as in 19291 How were they trying to do it? They were raising tariffs sky-high. That is an old Tory cry; if you give privileges to the moneyed classes you are going to help the poorer classes. I wonder how even a fellow bom

The Address-Mr. Blair
and bred a Tory could think of such policies. I have, and always had, great personal respect for Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. I must admit, however, that his judgment was often very bad, and I often thought that was due to pressure being brought to bear upon him by Toronto. I always think of Toronto as the worst hotbed of Toryism in existence, and I am afraid that if the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) lets Toronto have anything to do with him, it will ruin the Tory party in a short time. Toronto has destroyed two or three would-be leaders already, and it can destroy two or three more. They are not straight even between themselves. There is treachery on all sides. They will stick the harpoon in their own leader. I have felt sorry, because of the treachery that existed within the Conservative party, for some of these men who were special friends of mine. I thought it was a downright shame, because I do admire honour among people, even among robbers.
Unemployment to-day is not so bad as the Conservatives are trying to indicate. At present, during the winter, 14-5 per cent of the wage-earners are unemployed. According to the bureau of statistics, even in ordinary times between seven and eight per cent of the wage-earners are unemployed during the winter. In the United States they have, in proportion to population, twice as many unemployed as we have. Other countries have been mentioned here, where it was said there was no unemployment. I feel sure-though I should not say that, because you may believe a lot and know very little-that there is no person in this house who wants our unemployed to be looked after as the unemployed are treated in Germany, where they are put into camps.
There is one way by which unemployment could be helped to a very great extent. I believe the employers should look after their unemployed much more than is the case at present. I believe there should be a certain amount of cooperation along this line; and if industry does not look after its people in a democratic country like this, the people will ask the government to take over industry and look after the employees. On the farm the horses work all summer, but when winter comes the farmers do not ask the government to feed the horses. These men who are employed by firms in the cities-and I am not thinking only of Toronto-should be looked after during the winter, just as the farmer has to feed even his horses during the winter. These men should be kept working, even though it may be for only a few days a week.
I Mr. Blair.]
I believe a good deal could be done to relieve unemployment by encouraging the sons of farmers to stay at home. I think we have pampered industries in the cities so much that farmers' sons are leaving home and trying to get work in the urban centres. If the government would loan money to farmers' sons so that they might live on farms near their fathers, these young men could use the implements and machinery on their fathers' farms and could operate very nicely. If that could be done and the money loaned at a low rate of interest, say three or four per cent, it would mean a great deal to this country and certainly would remove many young men from the ranks of the unemployed. Many farmers' sons are in the cities looking for soft, white-collar jobs, where they do not have to work very hard and will get decent salaries. Many city fellows do not do enough to keep themselves healthy, and naturally these farmers' sons would like to get those jobs. We have pampered industry and oppressed the farmers too much, and now we are at the stage where farming is going downhill rapidly. The Right Hon. Mr. Bennett realized that very well, and he passed the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, which was the rottenest act ever put on the statute books of Canada. It encouraged treachery and dishonesty and destroyed the spirit of our people.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not off the statute
books yet.


John Knox Blair: I think it is. It is not operative now except with regard to cases not disposed of.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is off with regard to
Ontario only.


John Knox Blair: I mean in Ontario and Quebec. Be that as it may, I give Mr. Bennett credit for passing that act. Why? Because he brought the farmers to such a desperate situation. He would not sell their stuff when it was jamming up the markets. He did not open up markets for the commodities the farmers produced. In 1930, when we had opportunities to sell our goods in the United States, the Tories seemed to think that would be an awful disgrace. I heard one Tory address a meeting. He said, "Think of these good Canadian cows going over to the United States," and he had the people with tears in their eyes. What did they expect to do with our cows? Any man who would come to my riding and say we should not have trade treaties with the United States would do me a great deal of good, because the farmers there have made considerable amounts

The Address-Mr. Blair
of money by selling their cattle, pigs and sheep in the United States during the last
few years.
Here is another silly idea. The Conservative party have introduced some absurd things into this house, but the worst I ever heard of is the idea that trade is war. We are trying to enter into a trade treaty with the United States, and we are told that trade is war. We negotiated the imperial agreements. Was the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett going to war with the British government when he concluded those agreements? The expression that trade is war should be expunged from Hansard, and those who made it should contradict it, because it is the silliest idea I ever heard of. A farmer and his wife go to town and trade their milk and eggs for merchandise. What are they doing? Are they at war? To me, war means slaughter and murder, and I do not believe that term should be used.
Another time, however, when the Conservatives were just as silly was when they said the depression was due to overproduction. Well, you know, that was awful. We had years of abundance, when there was prosperity, but according to the Conservatives that brought on a panic. I think the only time Mr. Bennett was angry at me was when I told him that I was going down the road one day and I saw a squirrel on a fence. The squirrel was weeping bitterly. I said, "What is the matter?" He said, "There is going to be a famine." "Why is there going to be a famine?" "Too many beechnuts; too many beechnuts." Yet the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was travelling from coast to coast with that same philosophy, and the Conservative party were backing him up.
In Toronto on a Saturday night-and I could name some hon. members who were on the platform with him-he told the audience that the depression was the result of overproduction. That was the harvest-home festival weekend. On Sunday those same Tories were sitting in church, as the preacher was fervently praying for an abundant harvest to gladden the heart of man. The Almighty Himself would not know what to do with the Tories of Toronto. He could not. They were saying one thing and praying another. You could not tell what to do with them.
That political philosophy in Toronto is the silliest concoction of ideas ever put together. I cannot understand it, and I never shall- but I have tried. We need trade in Canada. We are a farming country, and we cannot eat all we produce. To suggest that we can would be absurd. I should like to have seen the house cleaned out of some of the old
guard who were backing the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett and his policy of "no truck or trade with the Yankees." He would not trade with Russia because they did not observe the marriage laws. He would not trade with Japan because the standard of living there was too low. He would not trade with Germany because she was the cause of the last war. He would not trade with the United States-"No truck or trade with the Yankees."


James Houston Spence: The hon. member should not repeat that because he knows he is wrong.


John Knox Blair: He would not deal with New Zealand, our own sister dominion. Why?-too much butter. Trade with New Zealand was four times to our advantage, but the Conservative party would not trade with her. They did not want to go to war with New Zealand. I wish the Conservative party would withdraw that statement, that trade is war.
But I would suggest that the minister who is in charge might help Toronto, just the same. I see the threat of this folly but I also see the loan sharks of Toronto bleeding the heart and soul out of the people of that city. I have many friends there, because I lived there for some years. I should like the ministry, by some method, to put the harpoon into every loan shark in Toronto. I hope the government will pass a law or do something to put into the present law teeth which will take hold of the fellow who is running the small loan company and operating as a loan shark. Those people would sell a man a piano this year and come back in four or five years and take his home.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And the piano too.


John Knox Blair: Now, I must conclude, for this reason-


James Houston Spence: What is the hurry?


John Knox Blair: I should like to mention the difference between trade and commerce under the Liberal party and under the Conservative party. I do not ask hon. members to accept my opinions. I have referred to the bureau of statistics, because I should not like to express an opinion unless I had some figures behind me to verify what I may say. I have figures showing the exports of Canada between 1929 and 1938 to the United Kingdom, the United States and other outside countries. These figures show clearly how great have been the benefits derived by trade with other countries.


Mr. HARRIS:: The imperial trade agreement of 1932.
The Address-Mr. Blair


John Knox Blair: Does the hon. member want the figures for 1932?


James Houston Spence: Read them all.


John Knox Blair: 
James Houston Spence: What year is the hon. member at now?


John Knox Blair: In 1931-32 it was S174,000,000; in 1932-33, $184,000,000; in 1933-34, $288,000,000. Then the country got sick of the Conservative government.


Ernest Lapointe: Down! Down! Down!


John Knox Blair: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: What about the empire trade agreements?


John Knox Blair: Does it mean nothing to the country that millions of dollars are coming into it? And yet we hear that trade is war! When we get these millions of dollars from Great Britain we are at war with Great Britain. When we get millions of dollars from the United States we are at war with the United States. We have sold thousands of our cattle to the United States, through Buffalo. Stop it! That is war!
And one hon. member, who is in the house now, advised the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) to go to work as chore boy under the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). What was the good of a Department of Trade and Commerce? He was advocating war.


Joseph Henry Harris: To help him.


John Knox Blair: I have the hon. member's speech in my hand. Then, when Mr. Cordell Hull was here on a visit, one of the hon. members from Toronto said, "I view with alarm the visit of Cordell Hull to Canada." Yes, he viewed with alarm the visit of a friendly ambassador to Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Who said that?


John Knox Blair: What is Tommy Church's constituency?


Ernest Lapointe: Broadview.


John Knox Blair: Broadview?-the name is a misnomer. There is no "broadview" about that-it is one of the narrowest things I ever heard, in regard to Americans. And we are at war with them, because Cordell Hull comes to visit us! There are views which I wish, for the sake of civilization and for the sake of common decency and courtesy, could be erased from Hansard, and those are some of them.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): Mr. Speaker, in these the closing moments of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I wish to address the house from the standpoint of a business man. As a business man I am obliged from time to time to supervise advertising matter and to write letters, and I always endeavour to approach my subject and to present my thoughts in such a way that the one whom I am addressing will understand what I am placing before him. Particularly have I in mind my own business.
We are gathered here from all parts of Canada to deal with important national questions, and our criticisms should be constructive and our policies advanced in such a way that they will be understood by the public. But I have sometimes wondered, as I have sat here since the opening of parliament, whether the messages which have gone forth from this house from those taking part in this debate, on the government side and from the opposition and the two other groups represented in this chamber, were calculated to bring about the best results from the standpoint of the nation. Are they going to have a good or a harmful effect upon our citizens as a whole? Are they going to help mould the lives of our youth so that they will be better citizens of the future to occupy the seats we are endeavouring to fill here? I wonder also what has been the effect upon the average mature mind of the messages which have been broadcast from this house, through the press and by other means, as to our willingness to cooperate with the government in bringing about those results which are so much to be desired, conditions being as they are in this country to-day.
I sat and pondered this question, Mr. Speaker, and I was impressed by the thought which the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) brought before parliament, a thought which, I believe, is in the minds of

The Address-Mr. Isnor
many. Are we here to fight one another in regard to policies, or are we here to cooperate in offering constructive criticism and constructive policies which will be helpful to the government, instead of doing as has been done so often-I say this with all due respect for the views held by the various groups in this house-unfairly criticizing, apparently with the one thought in mind of obstructing the various measures brought forward by the government? I believe the thought expressed by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce is in the minds of a great many people throughout Canada. I do not wish to compliment her particularly upon her speech; but I do think she was talking good common sense, and it is common sense that is going to help Canada to prosper and bring about a return to better days. If we use common sense, instead of offering unfair criticisms, I believe our efforts will be better appreciated by the people outside this house.
I was also impressed by a statement I saw in the newspapers, credited to one of the veteran members of this house, that he did not think the country desired this continual repetition of compliments paid by the various speakers to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I sincerely trust the hon. members will not misunderstand me or think I am lacking in courtesy, but it does appear to me that it would be sufficient if the giving of the compliments usually paid to the mover and the seconder were restricted to the leaders of the various parties-the leader of the government, the leader of the opposition, and the leaders of the other two groups, or their representatives. I think that would be quite sufficient to bring to the attention of the people that the speeches of the mover and seconder were appreciated. On the other hand I think it is only fair that the mover (Mr. Matthews) and seconder (Mr. Chevrier) should know that we, the other hon. members, appreciate the time and thought they put into their addresses and that our compliments are extended to them in all sincerity. I think that is all I need to say on that subject, or members will begin to think I am like some others and the country perhaps feel that this is just another collection of words, but I thought it was necessary to put these views before the house. I am satisfied at least that I am reflecting the views honestly held by many outside parliament as to our methods of carrying on the nation's business.
I always hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to advance views held by any particular section of our nation; for I realize, whether it be a question of tariffs or taxes or social measures or a trade agreement, that the nation as a whole
must be considered. We are gathered here, not as representatives of any particular section only, but as representing also Canada as a whole from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and our suggestions offered in good faith and sincerely and honestly may be helpful in bringing about a solution of our problems.
Coming as I do from the maritimes I listened with deep interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and to the views expressed by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. McAvity), who very frankly and, may I add, very fairly, put before the house problems affecting particularly the eastern maritimes. I, sir, wish to bring before the house certain matters pertaining to the eastern maritimes, and perhaps more especially the province of Nova Scotia, with a view to something helpful being done for that particular section of the country.
I should also like to make mention of the able address we heard this afternoon from the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier). The hon. member is well acquainted with the fishing industry of our province and well versed as to the needs of the fishermen. He is therefore well able to speak with authority on that subject, and when one so well qualified to speak addresses the house on the needs he knows so well, I think the government would be well advised to take his suggestions into careful Consideration.
We from the maritimes, and particularly from Nova Scotia, do not perhaps press our claims as strongly upon the government as do members from other sections of Canada. Listening to the discussions in the house from year to year we cannot help but be impressed by the manner in which western members advance the claims of that section of the country. Perhaps it is because we are a little backward in the extreme east that we do not press our claims as strongly; but we have in the east pressing problems which affect our fishermen, farmers, miners, and lumbering interests in Nova Scotia, and which are, I am pleased to say, receiving the attention of the government. I have in mind, for instance, the trade agreement which was recently concluded with the United States, but I propose to speak of that at a later date.
I was especially pleased to note that the speech from the throne made reference to a matter that is of great importance to our section of the country. I refer to the West Indies trade treaty. As is mentioned in the speech from the throne, notice has already been given, effective December 31, 1939, terminating this agreement. I feel it is proper that views
The Address-Mr. Isnor

held in connection with such an important matter should be made known to the government, so I am venturing to touch upon it at the present time.
Trade with the West Indies is of vital importance to the eastern maritimes, especially to the port of Halifax. Halifax merchants for many generations have been actively engaged in this particlar trade, and they know what is needed to further its development. I remember that in 1924 certain definite recommendations were made to the government of that time. An exceptionally strong committee, composed of men who had been engaged for years in the trade between Halifax port and the West Indies, was appointed by the Halifax board of trade to go into this matter, and they did so very thoroughly. Not only did they gather data from our own province and the adjoining provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but they sought to find out what effects such a trade would have on the rest of Canada, and they compiled and forwarded to the government recommendations which, I think, if they had been carried out would have been of material benefit to our province, to the maritimes in the east and to the whole of Canada.
It is with this fact in mind that I make this suggestion to the government, and particularly to our own minister, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), whom we in the maritimes hold in very high regard. We can approach him in a spirit of brotherhood as one who knows our problems and who is always willing and ready to cooperate with us in regard to them. We sincerely hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), when the time arrives to discuss the details of such an agreement, will call into consultation men from Halifax who have an intimate knowledge of the trade requirements and the relations between Canada and the West Indies. I might say that the report of the committee I have mentioned was unanimously approved by the council of the Halifax board of trade and also by the council of the Saint John board of trade. We are agreed in regard to the requirements so far as the maritimes are concerned.
This matter touches us from the viewpoint of the potato market, whose needs were so well placed before the house a few days ago by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Douglas). He pointed out the advantages of the market not only in the West Indies but in Cuba. I could also mention the advantages, from the fishermen's standpoint, of a trade agreement. These two considerations in particular should receive careful attention by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I stress especially the

importance of having persons familiar with the trade situation sit in with the government in discussing the details.
Another question, which concerns equally the maritimes and the progress the maritimes must make if they are to advance as we hope they will, is that of transportation. I was pleased the other evening, to hear the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) allude to the promise made at the time of confederation with regard to our railway system. Coming as it did from an Ontario member, the remark showed the proper spirit. I feel that we should have a complete link from the Atlantic to the Pacific serving us in the maritimes in such a way as to permit us to place our goods in the eastern and central markets quickly enough to enjoy a profitable business. We can do that only if we are provided with a transportation system sufficiently rapid to enable us to place our products in a good state of preservation on the central market. I have in mind, of course, that important commodity, fish. I would ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) to give this question his careful attention.
I realize that I must touch carefully on the subject of transportation. Its pros and cons are being discussed by the best brains of the country. The biggest men in the transportation business are making radio speeches and sending broadcasts of printed speeches as regards amalgamation, some advocating it, some opposing it. We in the maritimes look on the question of amalgamation in what is perhaps a rather distinctive way. We know it was a vital instrument in connection with the confederation pact. We realize that there are deficits from year to year, but we also realize the high position in which the Canadian National railways stands to-day. That remark may be subject to criticism, but I would make a comparison of the various railways in order to justify my position. The justification lies in the relation of the railway deficits to the amount of new national wealth and national income available through the carrying of the railways into different parts of Canada. It is not only the private capital invested in the railways which is to be considered; it is not solely a matter of profit upon expenditure for railways or the actual earnings of the capital structure, but rather the increased wealth which is derived from the advancing of transportation facilities into sections which have not as yet been fully developed.
The vast bulk of goods for internal and external trade is moved by railway, and no other form of transportation in existence or

The Address-Mr. Isnor
in prospect is physically capable of handling the tonnage. Trucks have taken profitable short-haul package freight from the railways, leaving them carrying long-haul bulk commodities on which the business and the very existence of the country depends, and at rates so low that the carriage constitutes a subsidy to the business interests. That the present rate structure will not permit a return on railway investments is shown by the fact that in the first six months of 1938 eighty-six per cent of the railways of the United States failed to meet their fixed charges. In 1938 the United States railways failed to meet fixed charges by $125,000,000, and a total of 111 companies, including thirty-nine class A roads, were in receivership. That is a matter which should receive the careful attention of those who are so ready to criticize the earnings of the Canadian National Railways. This was all under private ownership, because private interests control the railways in the United States. We are in a somewhat different position. In Canada, along with the private railway system, we have our publicly owned railways. In Canada, with a much smaller population per mile and a more rigorous climate, it is obvious that the increasing failure of railways under private ownership to meet fixed charges will become more pronounced as time goes on. It would appear that the day of fat dividends in railways is over.
Let me ask:	Are the troubles of the Canadian Pacific Railway caused by these general conditions, or is their spokesman right in blaming the government-owned Canadian National Railways. As regards the statement that great savings could be made and dividend payments resumed through amalgamation and the abandonment of certain railway mileage, it would seem that the resumption of dividend payments is increasingly remote, because private ownership cannot accomplish this elsewhere, as is shown by the facts I have already quoted in connection with the United States roads. The argument in regard to large savings was not substantiated before the senate inquiry last year.
I place these facts before the house so that hon. members will not be so ready to criticize unfairly our own Canadian National Railways. In the United States the abandonment of railway mileage not paying fixed charges has invariably resulted in a short time in wholesale business bankruptcy, a serious fall in property values and a loss of population in the communities affected, which did not oppose abandonment. The abandonment of certain lines in the United States was not opposed, and the tearing up of rails that took place
was generally followed by a depression in business and a fall in property values. I suggest, therefore, that before the abandonment of lines is seriously considered this fact be borne in mind. The abandonment of lines in the United States was, in nearly every instance, the result of advances made by truck transportation, and we are facing the same situation in Canada to-day. Our roads are being honeycombed by trucks carrying freight in competition with the railways, taking the profitable business and leaving the very necessary long haul for the railways.
It is to be noted that in 1920 the privately owned roads of which the Canadian National railway system is composed had, under private ownership, a total operating deficit of $35,000,000, not to mention those which had defaulted on capital investment. From 1923 there has never been an operating deficit under government ownership; on the contrary, there have been operating profits totalling in excess of $360,000,000.
To any one who examines the monthly and yearly statistics set out under various headings for comparison of operations of railways in Canada, the United States and other countries, it is evident that the Canadian National Railways ranks with the best. Propaganda to the contrary cannot be supported by facts. Statements are frequently made in regard to the yearly deficit of the Canadian National Railways, and this, I would point out, is caused, as I believe all will appreciate, largely by interest charges on the capital investment of the former privately owned companies which were taken over under the one management.
In the United States and elsewhere, continued failure to meet fixed charges has resulted in bankruptcy and receivership, the capital structure being written down to a figure consonant with the operating revenues, and the original investors taking the loss. I need not point out that if this had been done in Canada the financial structure of the Canadian National Railways would appear in an altogether different light to-day. It would have been a great deal better for our country and we should have had a truer picture. I would suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) that though he has made advances-two years ago he did make advances in connection with the financial set-up, which were carried into effect last year-he should go still further and write off wherever possible. It is true that there are some capital investments which cannot be written off; but he could go a long way further in this
The Address-Mr. Isnor

direction, so that the general public would have a truer reflection of the actual workings of the Canadian National Railways.
It was decided, rightly or wrongly, not to do this in the case of the privately owned systems of the Canadian National Railways. Whether that was justified; whether it was done to save privately owned investments, I am not in a position to say. Operating revenues do not meet similar overhead charges on other roads and cannot have done so in the case of the Canadian National Railways, with the result that the deficit on capital investment is piling up and is being compounded. I might speak at some length on the compounding of deficits caused by increasing deficits in the capital structure, but I shall not discuss that question now. The advocates of amalgamation have offered no solution of this problem of capital investment indebtedness. On the contrary it would appear that they naively expect the government to retain these obligations and hand over the very considerable operating earnings of the system to the proposed amalgamated management. Can it be that they also expect the government to take over the capital investment obligations of the Canadian Pacific Railway without a writing down and without even the prospect of getting any of the operating surplus? Can propaganda, however dressed up, put over such a scheme? If it does, though I do not think it can, it will at least have trouble in convincing anyone with ordinary sense that this scheme will do otherwise than further embarrass the government and increase its obligations, and it will afford relief to no one except the holders of Canadian Pacific railway bonds and stocks.
In conclusion, with respect to the railway question, I would point out that it is estimated that for each dollar invested in railway construction in Canada there has been created ten dollars of national capital wealth. The efficiency of the Canadian National Railways has steadily and progressively been bettered under government management. It now stands in the front rank. Its property and equipment have been well maintained, and it is in an excellent position to take full advantage of increase in the volume of traffic. For instance, last fall business conditions turned upward, with a marked increase in traffic, and net revenue for October amounted to $4,650,000, the largest for any month since 1029, showing that there is nothing lacking in the operating efficiency of this system. The ability to respond so quickly to increased traffic gives an indication of the potential earning power of the Canadian National Railways.

Hon. members may wonder why I give this background of the Canadian National Railways. I am interested because the port of Halifax is the eastern terminus of that railway system. I am interested to see as much traffic as possible go through our Atlantic ports. I feel that with the Canadian National making such a good showing as far as its Canadian lines are concerned, the Minister of Transport would be well advised to consider seriously doing away with the existing lines of the Canadian National in the United States. I have particularly in mind doing away with the terminal at Portland. I would advocate this even if these lines showed a substantial surplus of earnings; but I am reliably advised that such is not the case, that on the contrary they show a decided deficit. In view of this and the urgent need of employment for our waterfront workers, stevedores and men who handle railway freight, I would urge the Minister of Transport to give this suggestion very careful consideration. Why should we ship our goods through United States ports? There should be no need for doing so when we have such excellent ports as Saint John and particularly Halifax. So I leave that suggestion with the Minister of Transport, confident of his capacity to make it a reality. I hope to see railways, steamship lines and airways, and, I trust, later, highway transport, all under his direction. He should not feel satisfied until he has linked the Atlantic with the Pacific by a transportation system that will be satisfactory to every section of our country.
I should like to have touched on the recently consummated trade agreement between Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, and the benefits accruing to the eastern maritimes particularly in respect to fish, potatoes and lumber, and even apples, because I believe that one goes with the other. While there is no direct increased benefit for the apple grower under the recent trade treaty, the advantages gained in respect to fish and lumber will go a long way to help us by creating additional trade which will be extremely beneficial to our section of the dominion.
I should like also to have gone into the question of defence in relation to the Atlantic, but there will be opportunity for that when the defence estimates are before us. I feel I should not sit down without expressing appreciation to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) on behalf of those living on the Atlantic coast for so generously considering that part of the country. Our defences were sadly lacking. We have de-

The Address-Mr. Manion
fences, perhaps better than a good many are aware, but they need to be brought up to date. I am pleased to note in the estimates that a sufficiently large sum has been made available, and I feel sure that our Atlantic coast will be put in a position at least to help defend the rest of Canada, if necessary, although I hope that necessity will never arise.
How any thinking member, in the face of the many important matters mentioned in the speech from the throne, can rise in his place and talk about the speech not containing anything worth while is beyond me. Instead of finding fault it would be better to listen and read and pick from the speeches of those who have endeavoured to offer constructive thoughts, the ideas which, when put together, would lead to a brighter and better Canada.
In conclusion, may I say that the views represented in parliament by the various groups simply reflect a cross section of nation-wide opinion. We are no different from what we were when elected in 1935; we are just human, striving to carry out our duties honestly and sincerely. We are no worse-no better perhaps -than those who are using the radio and newspapers to tear down without a plan of rebuilding. The public listen, smile, and say, "Yes, there is a lot of truth in what that fellow says, but why does he not give us a complete plan and specifications by which to build a stronger Canadian structure?" Would it not be far better if radio critics and others would unite in bringing out the good things about our Canada, following the line recently adopted by Canadian Industries Limited in a recent newspaper advertisement, which reads:
" The brightest spot on earth."
The start of another year is a good time for stock-taking, and when we do it on a national scale we see that Canada is literally "the brightest spot on earth."
Many things have contributed to Canada's progress. Nature put vast oceans to the east and west of us and history placed a friendly neighbour on the south. History also tells us that our forefathers were rugged men, capable of enduring the hardships of founding a new homeland. Experience, passed on to us from those pioneers of our two great races, has helped give us courage and determination to carry on against every obstacle. Back of all this we have supplies of natural resources which are the envy of all.
We have these things, and yet, perhaps we are too close to them. We take for granted those things which look so priceless to the outsider, when, if we will but believe it, we have "the brightest spot on earth" for our home-Canada.


Robert James Manion: I must apologize for taking up any more time of the house at this stage, but
since there is plenty of time for the vote this evening there is one subject with which I wish to deal briefly; not because it is my desire to speak again, but because of an attack made upon me in this house by an hon. member of the Liberal party, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank). Before dealing with that subject, however, I wish to say that after an absence of three years I have been pleased generally with the conduct of the debate. Practically all hon. members have spoken on a reasonably high plane. That is as it should be. I believe that as far as we are able we should avoid misstating facts, falsifying the record, or anything of that sort. We may misinterpret each other's acts; I may attack my right hon. friend upon interpretation I put on some of his acts, but I shall at all .times avoid misrepresenting anything he has done.
May I at the same time thank hon. members of all parties and all sections of the house for the kindly reception they have given me upon my return to the house, and the kind words so many have spoken of me. There are, however, always one or two, even in small groups, who cannot avoid flinging mud. Let me say now that I have no intention at any time of permitting anyone to fling mud at me, in the hope that some of it may stick. I will correct such statements on every occasion, no matter who the hon. member may be who makes them.
The hon. gentleman to whom I refer, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, made some charges against me, and if I were guilty of them I would not be fit to sit as a member of this house. In order that I may not be accused of misquoting him I shall read his words. Speaking of myself, he said:
He was Minister of Railways during those five years, and during those years the Canadian National Railways were systematically sabotaged.
A little further on he said:
I draw the inference from his conduct as Minister of Railways that the systematic sabotaging of the railway that went on during those years was largely attributable to him.
I contradicted that and said:
That statement is absolutely untrue. There was no sabotaging of the Canadian National Railways at any time.
Mr. Maybank: It was sabotaged from the day the late government came into office until the day it went out.
Mr. Manion: That is not true.
A little further on he said:
But from the moment he took over that portfolio-
Speaking again of myself.
-the manner of carrying on the business of the railroad was changed. We know that the
The Address-Mr. Manion

men who were working for the railway during those five years were trembling every day that he went to his office as Minister of Railways. Certainly what I said in regard to telegraph and express business is true, and in the light of that it is a reasonable inference to draw that this was the first step towards complete amalgamation.
Those are some of the statements the hon. gentleman made about myself, and of course I use the expression "honourable gentleman" in a parliamentary sense.


An hon. MEMBER:: Easy; he is not here.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman is not here; but he did not know whether I was going to be in the house when he attacked me so violently, misstating facts and accusing me of doing things which, as I said, would not be done by anyone worthy to sit in this house. If any man within or without this house, any Canadian, wilfully sabotaged the Canadian National Railways he would not be fit to bear the name Canadian. I say that here to-night.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say that.


Robert James Manion: I quoted his words. He accused me of sabotaging the Canadian National Railways and said the government of which I was a member sabotaged the railway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But not my hon. friend. It was a charge against the previous government.


Robert James Manion: Oh, no. I read the words and I do not wish to read them again. If the right hon. gentleman will look up what I read from the speech of the hon. member, he will see that the whole blame was placed on my shoulders. If, however, that were all, perhaps I should not mind so much; but since the hon. gentleman spoke in this house and made that charge-that false charge-it has been spread across this country by means of the radio. In addition to that, other charges of a like nature were made against me during the campaign in London. I was charged with the same thing. I was accused of closing the shops of the Canadian National; I was charged, as the hon. gentleman charged me, with trying to force the amalgamation of the railways, and I was accused of crucifying Sir Henry Thornton. The campaign carried on against me there was the most vicious one in which I have ever taken part, and I have been in quite a number. Let me give the house one illustration. In the railway station at London there is a plaque in honour of Sir Henry Thornton. Two or three nights before the election there was a religious ceremony held beneath that plaque, and I have before me

a statement which was made at that time by a gentleman who, I suppose, from his standpoint, spoke in good faith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may interrupt fQr a moment, I hope my hon. friend will make it clear, before he begins to quote what may have been said by different persons who participated in that campaign, that he had no Liberal opponent in that by-election. So I assume they were not Liberal speakers.


Robert James Manion: Quite. I am sorry I did not say that; I took it for granted that everyone was aware of the fact that I had no Liberal opponent. I have already thanked the right hon. gentleman and his party for their courteous treatment of me at that time. I do not wish to get into anything controversial, but these charges all link up in the same way. I am referring now to the charges that were made by the supporters of the candidate who ran against me in London.


Mr. DUPUIS:: What party?


Robert James Manion: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. This is what was said by the gentleman who, so far as I remember, spoke at the so-called religious ceremony:
Yet in spite of all the late Sir Henry did for the C.N.R., for Canada and for the British empire, he was crucified for no other reason than he was too progressive.
Of course anybody who knows anything realizes that the "religious" ceremony was a sacrilege; that it was put on not for religious purposes but absolutely for the purpose of playing politics. And that was only part of it. At that time not only was I charged with all the crimes of which I was accused by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre; I was charged with opposing old age pensions, unemployment insurance, the organization of bank employees, and, in fact, all social legislation. And I say here to-night that every one of those charges, without exception, was just as false as was the charge made by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre against me with regard to sabotaging the Canadian National Railways. The object, of course, is clear to anyone. The object was to capture the labour and Canadian National railway votes in big railway centres. London is a big railway centre; so is Winnipeg, and there are others as well. So, since these arguments no doubt will be used on other occasions, I intend to put the true story on the record. I hope it will not take very long; and then if others make statements against me that are false, at any rate I shall know the term that should be applied to them, even if I cannot use it in this house.

The Address-Mr. Manion
Tlie reply I desire to make deals merely with the facts. I want to say again, sir, what I have said in other places, that I am prouder of the work I did for the Canadian National Railways between 1930 and 1935 than of anything else I have done during the twenty years I have been in public life. Far from attempting to sabotage the Canadian National Railways, we did much to help them, and I will prove that. Sabotaging means wrecking. What kind of Canadian could he be who would attempt to wreck the Canadian National, owned by the government of Canada, which means by us? It is our railway. To my mind an attempt to sabotage that railway would be both disloyal and unpatriotic; and I repeat that it could be done only by a man who would be unworthy to sit in this house.
The Canadian Pacific is also a great Canadian institution, and certainly I do not think any hon. member who merits the word "honourable" before his name would think of intentionally damaging either of these two great railway companies. What I did for the Canadian National Railways, or at any rate what I as minister helped to do, was to put the Canadian National in an economic operating condition, and I shall endeavour to prove that. Indeed, I think I can bring that proof from the mouths of the Canadian National officers themselves. Mr. Fairweather appeared before the senate railway committee last year and was in the witness box for over a day. In number 7 of the proceedings before that committee, Mr. Fairweather is reported as follows:
When the depression hit us we started to reduce expenses everywhere we could find them, and we did reduce expenses to such an extent that in 1937 we handled the same gross revenue with $20,000,000 less of operating expenses.
I think that is sufficient proof. In the evidence before that committee a number of statistics were cited, and the actual figures are given in regard to the cost of operating the road, and the returns. I should like to put those figures on record. In 1931 the income of the whole Canadian National system was, in round figures, a little over $200000,000. In 1937, six years later, the income was $198,000,000 odd. The two figures are so close that Mr. Fairweather made the statement that the income was the same in those two years. Then, the expenses in 1931 were $199,000,000, and in 1937, $180,000,000 a difference really not of $20,000,000, as Mr. Fair-weather states, but of $19,000,000. After all, sir, that surely is absolute proof that the economies I frankly admit of forcing upon the Canadian National Railways were necessary. The fact that they could do the same
business in 1937 as in 1931 for $19,000,000 less surely shows that there were wild extravagances-those are words I have often used- in the handling of the Canadian National Railways when we came into power in 1930. That to me is a justification of our whole position.
There is a deficit this year which may amount to $50,000,000. Instead of that deficit of $50,000,000 there would have been that other $19,000,000 more, or roughly $70,000,000. The railway question to-day is a serious one in this country. Everybody realizes this, and people are realizing it more and more. There has been a great campaign carried on for the unification of the railways. The greater the deficit, the greater the feeling among business men particularly that something must be done with these railways. So that in correcting those extravagances and in bringing down legitimately the expenses of the Canadian National Railways-we started it, and my hon. friends are carrying it on; I am not suggesting anything to the contrary- those who did it were the real friends of the Canadian National Railways. We were not saboteurs-if that is the proper word-but we were friends of the Canadian National Railways.
I am not going to discuss the railways in detail, but the reason the railways are in difficulties to-day is very clear. First, there was a great deal of over-building. Second-and this is the big question to-day, the main reason for the present difficulties of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway is that automobiles came into competition. There was the expansion of the automobile industry to contend with. We have the fact that large numbers of people are to-day travelling in automobiles rather than on the railways. Again, much of the freight for short hauls is carried by trucks.
I am going to mention at this point-and I have the information in the same lot of tables-a startling fact which struck me when I was reading the evidence last year with respect to the Canadian National Railways. I refer to the figures respecting the numbers of passengers carried. I hold in my hand a document showing the figures which were given before the senate committee. They are startling figures and to a large extent show the reason why the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway are encountering a great deal of difficulty to-day in financing. In 1923 the passengers carried by the two railways numbered 38,000,000. In 1937 there were only 18,000,000, or less than half the number carried in the earlier year.
The Address-Mr. Manion

That to a large extent is the answer to the troubles of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways and, indeed, to the troubles of all the railways on this continent. I say that because the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific most certainly are not the only railways on the continent which have had their troubles. A book I picked up the other day showed the figures for the United States. I have reference to the magazine called Time published in the United States. The figures therein quoted show that the United States railways in 1922-just one year before the figures I have cited for Canada-carried a total of 537,000,000 passengers, while in 1937 they carried 251,000,000. Again we have a figure which is less than half, or the same proportion exactly as were carried by the Canadian railways.
That answers, largely, the whole trouble of the railways on this continent. Figures in the same table show the interesting fact that the freight carried on the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways was less in 1937 than it was in 1923. This, is an extraordinary fact, considering that the country has developed somewhat, but nevertheless clearly indicates the reasons why the railways are in difficulties.
So far as sabotage is concerned, I deny it absolutely and unequivocally; I resent very much the suggestion by anybody-and it is made so far as I know by only one man of all the speakers, and there were over one hundred of them-and I resent the charge very much. I hope that all lion, members even for political reasons, will not descend to that depth of attack in the future.
In regard to jobs, I was accused by the same hon. member-I read the statement a moment ago and it is unnecessary to read it again-that so long as I was Minister of Railways no Canadian National Railways employee could come to the office in the morning without wondering if he would have a job in the department. I had nothing to do, in any shape or form, with the job of anybody in the Canadian National Railways. It was entirely the management which looked after that. I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) will say the situation is the same to-day, and I shall believe him if he says so. The jobs in the Canadian National Railways are entirely in the hands of the management. Then, why charge me with taking away the jobs of men on the road? There was a depression which started in 1929 and which continued downward until 1933. During that time large numbers of men were laid off from the service of both roads. But this had nothing to do with me. I never interfered in any manner or form with the employees of the Canadian National Railways. I had no power to do so.
[Mi* Manion.]
I would probably have been told by the management to attend to my own business, and rightly.
Twice when we were in power I tried to get a favour from the Canadian National management. I mention these instances, because they were the only exceptions. One had reference to a doctor in the west-I shall not give his name or the place from which he comes. But he was a friend of many years, and a Liberal in politics. A certain organization, which had no right to interfere in the Canadian National Railways, attempted to have this man laid off. When we first came into power Sir Henry Thornton came to me and told me that this organization was trying to get this man dismissed, with which action he did not agree. He said, "What is your feeling?" and I backed him up. I knew the man, personally. He had gone to school with me. I had a personal friendship for him, and I have yet. Sir Henry felt the same way, and the man was kept on. But when Sir Henry Thornton left and we appointed the late Judge Fullerton as chairman of the board, one of his first acts was to dismiss this man. I protested. Without my knowledge, Mr. Bennett, who knew the man, because he had come from his section of the country, made similar protests in connection with what he, too, considered an unjust dismissal. This man had been a life-long Liberal and had oome from a Liberal family. We both protested, but we did not succeed in having the man retained, and he has been out of a job ever since.
The only other interference I ever attempted was with respect to a man who came from the constituency of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), namely, that of Port Arthur. This man was a watchman who had been laid off because of age. A number of his friends approached me at the time, as minister. Every hon. member coming from a railway constituency has no doubt had a similar experience. Probably the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. McKinnon) -has sometimes done it. It was requested that this man be given an extension of time for a period of one year. That is commonly done-but in this instance it was refused. I found out afterwards that in that very year, when they refused to extend his time for one year, they had retained over four hundred employees in similar circumstances. The company did not in fact save anything by their action in regard to this man. The truth is that they lost money because they had to pay him his pension as well as pay the man who replaced him. I repeat that in the

The Address-Mr. Manion
year when they refused to extend his time they extended the terms of over four hundred other employees. Yet I was refused. So far as I remember those are the only occasions in my term as Minister of Railways and Canals that I in any way attempted to interfere.
I will admit this, that I did interfere with headquarters. I endeavoured to bring down and did bring down the salaries of men at headquarters. To my mind most extravagant salaries were being paid, salaries which were not necessary at all. I will admit, too, that I succeeded in bringing down those salaries. I have stated on other occasions, and I state again to-night, that in salaries at headquarters alone we cut off over $1,000,000 in expenses. In other words, we decreased salaries by over
SI.000.000, and I believe we improved the efficiency of the road by so doing.
So far as wages are concerned, may I point out that I had nothing to do with them, neither has the present Minister of Transport. I never did interfere with wages, and I am sure he has not interfered with them. Neither of us would have had the power to do so.
Then the depression came on in 1929. It began a year before my hon. friends opposite left office, and it continued until 1933. On account of the huge losses which both railways *were facing, it was found necessary to try to impress upon the management that they must cut down expenditures. It was to this cutting of expenses that I referred a few moments ago. Possibly I would do well to give one or two illustrations. One man in particular-and I can give his name, because he is not now in the country-a Mr. Gaston, was drawing $62,000 a year. Why he was being paid that amount I could not find out. The people who complained to me about Gaston were the president and officers of the Canadian National Railways. They told me he was getting $62,000 a year and doing nothing for it, and he was lording it over them all, to use an expression of the street. He was dismissed and sent back to the United States, from where he had come.
Another man named Hummel was getting $35,000 a year, and he was sent back. Without any reflection upon my friends opposite I say that on the railway at that time there were a number of officers from the United States who were not necessary, and who were drawing large salaries, and we sent a number of them back to the United States where they belonged.
This was the only interference we made with the management of the Canadian National. We did that through the board of directors, as we had a perfect right to do. There is
nothing wrong with the present minister protesting to the board, if he thinks they are too extravagant, and asking them to cut down expenses. If they are extravagant, in his opinion, he is not doing his duty if he does not protest. I did protest and brought about a great many of these changes.
I want to make it quite clear that in speaking of Americans I have not and never did have any antagonism to them, but at the same time I do believe that our Canadian National, and the Canadian Pacific for that matter, can be run just as well by Canadians as by anybody from any other country in the world.
Another charge was that I closed the railway shops in various sections of this country. I do not think it was the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) who made that charge, but some other hon. member did. Some of the shops of both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific were closed; but far from closing them, I actually arranged with the government of which I was a member, to lend the two railways money, hundreds of thousands of dollars, to keep the shops going. In fact we were criticized for lending money to the Canadian Pacific. My hon. friends opposite have done a certain amount of that since they have come into office, but we did it when conditions were bad; when the shop men were in a terrible plight. We did lend money to the two railways to help them keep their shops going, and the money was paid back in full by the Canadian Pacific.
What they were referring to in London, I believe, was that we had given contracts for building freight cars and engines outside the railway shops. But that has always been done. Only within recent months contracts amounting to some millions of dollars have been given by the present management for building cars, and perhaps engines, by private companies. I am speaking subject to correction; but I read the item in the press, and I take it for granted that it is true. I offer no criticism because that is the proper thing to do. We have in this country a number of big car manufacturing companies. Have they not some rights? I know that this action was protested by some men working for the Canadian National and by some men on the Canadian Pacific who contended that the railways should build these cars in their own shops. We did give the railway shops some of that sort of work to do; but they did not have the equipment, and it would have taken millions of dollars to install the equipment. On the other hand, there were companies like the Canada Car, the National Steel Car of
The Address-Mr. Manion

Hamilton, the Eastern Car, the Canadian Locomotive Company of Kingston, and other large Canadian companies, and it would have been most unfair to these companies-


Mr. MUTCH:: Why?


Robert James Manion: Because, after all, the
people who have put their money into Canada Car, National Steel Car and these other big Canadian companies I have mentioned, are Canadians too, and, in addition, their employees have rights. Surely we do not owe everything to the employees of the two railways. There are other Canadians just as good as the railway men.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: How about the rights of all the people of Canada who, as we all know, have invested their money in the Canadian National?


Robert James Manion: On the contrary, most of
the money invested in the Canadian National came from the United States, and eighty-five per cent of the money invested in the Canadian Pacific is money from England. I am not belittling the bondholders at all. But I say that we took hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the treasury to keep the railway shops open and to pay the deficit on the Canadian National. I have forgotten the exact amount, but hon. gentlemen opposite will have to supply the deficit for last year amounting to approximately one million dollars a week. So I repeat, without any offence to the men on the Canadian National and the men on the Canadian Pacific, that these other large Canadian companies have been established for the purpose of manufacturing railway cars, and they and their employees have rights too.
By the way, I should like to interject that the management of both railways were insistent that these contracts should be given to these companies because they contended that these companies had been built up for that purpose, and that if we destroyed them- and Canadian Car had been closed for four or five years-there were no other private companies in Canada to do this work. These private companies had a great many employees who had been out of work a long time, longer than most of the men on the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, and they naturally had to be taken care of.
Another charge related to amalgamation. The hon. gentleman accused me directly of starting the amalgamation of the two roads when I brought in the two bills for the consolidation of the telegraph and express business of the two railways. Before dealing with that, I should like to show the attitude of this party towards amalgamation.
TMr. Manion.]
Let me recall to hon. gentlemen that in the first place we brought in a bill in 1933, which was passed, the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, the last clause of which, clause 27 of part IV, reads as follows:
Nothing in this act shall he deemed to authorize the amalgamation of any railway company which is comprised in National railways, with any railway company which is comprised in Pacific railways-
That means the Canadian Pacific Railway.

nor to authorize the unified management and control of the railway system which forms part of National railways with the^ railway system which forms part of Pacific railways.
That is perfectly clear, and that was put in by us in the act of 1933. But that is not all. The speech of the former leader of this party has been many times quoted.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: May I
ask my hon. friend, was not that clause put in as an amendment from the opposition of that day?


Robert James Manion: I do not think so.


Mr. EULER:: It was put in at the instance of the opposition.


Robert James Manion: I am not going to quarrel
with that statement because I do not recall the exact circumstances. At all events the government of the day took responsibility for the legislation, and at that time we had almost as big a majority as hon. gentlemen opposite have.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Robert James Manion: Not quite as large, but
we had 140 members and the government now has only about 170.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Wait until the next time,
when we will change that.


Mr. DUFEUS:: We have 180.


Robert James Manion: That is far too many. At any rate we were in power at the time this clause was put into the bill. I am not going to dispute with my hon. friends who say that it was their clause. If the government had not agreed to it, it would not have been put in. I want to be quite fair. I shall be glad to have the records searched because frankly I do not recall it as hon. gentlemen opposite give it. At any rate that clause is in the bill, and we put it in there; there is no doubt about that.
Then my former leader, Mr. Bennett, made a speech in Winnipeg laying down the policy from which we never departed. Everybody

The Address-Mr. Manion
remembers the phrase: "Amalgamation never; competition ever." We never at any time departed from that.
Finally there was the resolution passed at the national convention of the Conservative party last July. I thought I had it here, but I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment. At all events the convention passed a resolution absolutely opposing anything in the way of amalgamation or unification of the two railways. Eveiybody knows that. I am not going to argue it. We are on record over and over again as opposed to amalgamation or unification or anything of that sort. I do not think I should have to be arguing the question at all. I have been opposing unification since 1934.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Will my hon. friend permit a question while we are on a discussion of the subject of what happened to the railways? During the period that my hon. friend was Minister of Railways, why were twice as many Canadian National trains cut off from Saskatchewan as compared with Canadian Pacific trains?


Robert James Manion: Well, I did not have anything to do with the cutting off of trains, but I assume that it was for the reason that the Canadian National Railways thought there had been too many trains and that perhaps they had better cut some of them off. I had nothing to do at any time with cutting off any trains at any place. That was the function of the management. If they cut them off, my hon. friend had better protest to the management. It is the same management now as it was when we went out of power.
I have just said that I have opposed unification since 1934. Incidentally, although I do not want to get into a political controversy, I have not noticed any ministers of this government opposing it. I believe that my right hon. friend is opposed to unification, but I should like to hear him say so sometimes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I do.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid the right hon. gentleman is speaking below his breath. He has not been saying it at any place I know of, and I challenge him to do so now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say it now.


Robert James Manion: I am glad I have been able to stir up the right hon. gentleman to something, because I am afraid that he has not been saying it, nor has any member of his government that I can recall, in several years.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No one has ever questioned the position of the Liberal party.


Robert James Manion: Well, I think they had better begin to question it. As a matter of fact, the only man in this house who ever came out for amalgamation was the Minister of Trade and Commerce. (Mr. Euler).


William Daum Euler: But always under public
ownership.


Robert James Manion: All right. But I do not know that the men who would be put out of work by the amalgamation of the two roads would care much whether they were put out through government or through private ownership. I say that my hon. friend is the only member that I know of who has ever come out flatly for amalgamation.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend is quite
wrong. There used to be an independent Conservative member from Toronto who was strongly in favour of it.


Robert James Manion: Who was he?


William Daum Euler: Mr. W. F. Maclean.


Robert James Manion: Oh, well, Maclean is dead long ago.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps it might be unfair to say that there are some other members of his party who are dead but who don't know it.


Robert James Manion: I don't know whether the hon. gentleman refers to me, but if he thinks that I am dead and don't know it I hope I shall let him know the contrary before this session is over. Billy Maclean, however, has been dead for ten or fifteen years, and if we have to hunt in the grave for a Conservative who supported amalgamation I think it reinforces my argument. I was afraid my hon. friend might contradict my statement, so I brought his speech here, but I do not need to read it. At any rate, out of the two hundred and forty-five members of this house only one has come out for amalgamation or unification. This house is a pretty good cross-section of the country, and I think it is well worth the while of those who believe in unification to remember that fact. I did not intend, however, to go into that, especially.
I wish now to deal with the bills which I tried to introduce into the house in 1934. I tried, but I was stopped. I did, however, bring them before the committee. I am going to deal with this incident as honestly as I have dealt with all these questions. In 1934 the express bill and the telegraph bill were brought to my attention by Sir Edward Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and by Judge Fullerton, then chairman of the Canadian National Railways. Both these gentlemen wrote me exactly the same letter
The Address-Mr. Manion

asking me to introduce those two bills into the house. I protested that they should do it themselves.
I will give the evidence of that fact, but first I shall give a brief survey of the circumstances. They claimed that it was too late for them to introduce those measures as private bills. They said that to do so would cost them $11,000, and they asked us as a government to bring them in. I took them before the select standing committee on railways and shipping on June 20, 1934, without having introduced them into this house. That was a rather informal proceeding, but it was done because the committee was sitting and I thought it should know what suggestion had been made by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Sir Edward Beatty was not present, but Mr. Fullerton attended for the Canadian National Railways; Mr. Apps, representing Sir Edward Beatty, appeared for the Canadian Pacific Railway; Mr. Hungerford was also present for the Canadian National Railways, and they supported those bills.
May I interrupt for a moment my line of argument to say that I did not think, when the two railways asked me to introduce these two bills, I could have refused. I have thought a great deal over the matter, and I do not believe I am wrong in suggesting that if the heads of the two railways were to come to the Minister of Transport and ask him to bring forward some bill which-as in the case of those bills-was not in conflict with anything the government had supported, he could refuse to do so. I think he would be in exactly the same position as I was in at that time. A minister of railways is the minister of all the railways in Canada. In this house he is the mouthpiece of the Canadian National Railways, but he deals as far as the government is concerned with the other railways of the country as well, and practically the only other railway is the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I am going to read part of the evidence, the only part which bears on the matter, from the minutes of the meeting of the standing committee on railways and shipping on June 20, 1934, which is towards the end of the session. I shall quote myself. I said to the committee:
Gentlemen-The two railways wrote me some time ago and in a moment I will read the letter, and when I do so if you will transpose the words "express company" for "telegraph company" that will cover the letter in both cases. The Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National have got together and they want to unite into subsidiary companies their express companies and their telegraph companies-communications as they call them-as two separate companies. I will read one of the letters they have written to me, and the other is exactly

the same except that it deals with the other question. This letter is signed by Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Beatty for their prospective companies the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, and it is addressed to me:-
"We are enclosing herewith draft of bill incorporating the Canadian Railway Express Company which our companies desire to have passed at the present session of parliament as a means of implementing the recommendation of the royal commission on transportation respecting the conduct of express business of the two companies.
"You will observe that the proposed legislation is simply the incorporation of the new company with the requisite powers to carry on the express business of the two companies if, as and when the trustees of the Canadian National and the directors of the Canadian Pacific determine that this should be done.
"We regard it as essential that the legislation should be passed at the earliest possible moment in order to expedite whatever measures of economy and efficiency our two companies may jointly decide should be adopted."
This is signed by Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Beatty. The same letter refers also to the communications company except it is communications instead of express.
I shall read another paragraph. It is myself speaking again.
They should have brought them in as a private bill, which I prefer they should do. However, they pointed out in the first place there were some heavy fees which, of course, parliament could have waived, amounting to something like $11,000. In addition to that there were the delays that could not have been got over this session. I am willing to bring these in as government measures, but since this committee was sitting I thought I should lay these bills before this committee and have a gesture of approval in a general way. The bills are here; I have four copies; they have not been introduced-
To parliament, I meant.
-but I have them ready to introduce this afternoon if the committee agrees. I might read one of the bills for you-they differ only in so far as one deals with "express" and the other with "communications"; otherwise they are practically the same.
I do not need to read any more. That is the introduction, the informal introduction of the matter to the railway committee, on which were sitting the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), and, I believe, the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray); probably he was not there that day, because his name does not appear on the record, as it usually did when he was present. These hon. members and others were on that committee. I repeat that I dealt informally with those bills before the committee in order to get the opinion of the committee. The only protests made against the bills came from one Conservative, Doctor Price, and one Liberal, Mr. Hanbury, former member for

The Address-Mr. Manion
Vancouver-Burrard. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) and the present Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) took part in the discussion. The former asked a question with respect to the allotment of stock. He wanted to be sure that the Canadian National would be on the same basis as the Canadian Pacific, and rightly so. The Minister of Pensions and National Health took no attitude against the bills.


Mr. POWER:: He took the hon. member's advice. It is always so good.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member's defence is always good, too. That, however, is a little aside. As hon. gentlemen know, there was a dinner to-night to the returned soldier members of the house, and the Minister of Pensions and National Health defended me in a mock case in which I was charged.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. member had better hire me again.


Robert James Manion: He defended me so well that I was acquitted. As I say, Mr. Speaker, no one opposed the bills except Doctor Price of Moncton, and Mr. Hanbury of Vancouver. And they did not oppose them on the ground that there was any danger of amalgamation of the railways. Doctor Price took the view, in which he was supported by Mr. Hanbury, that the effect of such legislation would be to cut down the telegraph service in the mari-times. Apart from that, however, he offered no opposition. Mr. Hungerford took part in the discussion. Perhaps I might quote my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have before me certain passages which I have marked. I am not trying to misrepresent him or anyone else, and naturally not myself. Let me quote:
Hon. Mr. Euler: Before I say anything about the control of that company, I would like to ask whether that, in any sense, comes in any conflict with the clauses of the bill we put through last year?
He is referring to the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific bill.
Hon. Mr. Manion: No, that was about amalgamation. I will read that clause. I have it marked. It says in clause 27, part 4....
Then I read the clause which I have quoted to the house. I continued:
I read that clause which enabled it; it is under part 2, clause 16 in regard to cooperation.
And then I quoted the clause:
-without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such measures, plans or arrangements may include and be effected by means of-
(a) new companies controlled by stock ownership, equitably apportioned between the companies.
Let me next quote what Mr. Hanbury said:
Mr. Hanbury:	I would be interested in
knowing whether the railway commission has any control over the rates of the telegraph and express companies and the services that they shall render. Perhaps Judge Fullerton can give us some information on that.
Hon. Mr. Fullerton:	They have over the
rates, certainly.
Mr. Hanbury:	Not over the services?
Hon. Mr. Fullerton:	I am not sure about
that.
Mr. Hanbury:	I find myself to a considerable
extent in agreement with Dr. Price, but perhaps I am on a little different basis from him in that regard. I did not favour the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National bill last year; I opposed it. . . . True, I recognize the bill passed last year did contemplate such amalgamation as is now suggested; whereas the bill contemplated and forbade any amalgamation of the railway services. If I accepted these bills, it would simply be on this basis, that the legislation is now in effect, and it is perhaps not our duty to put any impediments in the way of the railway companies carrying out the wishes of parliament as expressed in the bill. But my personal view of this matter is, I am opposed to it; I do not think it is true economy, and I think that the people of Canada would suffer from the lack of competitive services in the future.
Hon. Mr. Euler:	Mr. Chairman, I have
always in the past, as I think many of the committee know, been in favour of doing everything possible to effect economies on the Canadian National Railways; and to that extent, I am entirely in favour of any legislation that may carry out that intention. The only thing that occurs to me in connection with the bill is this: in the new company, the only shareholders will be the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., I take it. Is that correct? They are the only ones that may be shareholders?
Hon. Mr. Manion:	Of course, they may issue
capital or preference stock, so I suppose they may sell it.
Hon. Mr. Euler:	I think the committee
should know whether it is the intention that this new company shall consist only of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R., or whether the outside public will be invited to subscribe.
Without going further, I repeat that the hon. gentleman took the attitude, which I think was a right one, that the Canadian Pacific Railway should not have any greater share than the Canadian National. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) was also on the committee, and I shall quote what he said:
Mr. Bothwell:	I should like to ask a question in regard to those two departments, the telegraphs and express departments. Have those two departments been losing the Canadian National and the C.P.R., or have they been paying their way? I think the committee would like to get information in connection with that.
Mr. Fairweather:	That is a very difficult
question to answer.
The facts are as I have stated. The only objection came from one Liberal, Mr. Han-
The Address-Mr. Manion

bury, and one Conservative, Doctor Price. Neither the Minister of Pensions and National Health, nor the Minister of Trade and Commerce, nor anybody else objected to those bills except from the point of view of their working out in detail. No one in the committee expressed any opinion which suggested that there was anything wrong with those bills.
The next step in the process was to bring them into the house. As I say, the committee raised no objection. Doctor Price and Mr. Hanbury took exception to them only on the ground that they would result in a diminished service. That was June 20. On June 21 I attempted to introduce them into the House of Commons. May I quote what I said on that occasion:
The bill, for leave to introduce which I am now asking, commits no one to anything; it is simply an enabling bill, the purpose of which is to permit the companies, if finally they come to an agreement, to carry out this measure. They have not yet come to such agreement and there is no certainty that they will; but both railways, through Mr. Beatty and Mr. Fullerton respectively, have written to me asking me to introduce these two bills and to endeavour to have them adopted by the house. . . .
The government had no information in regard to the matter, because the railway companies did not request us until very recently to introduce these bills. Apparently they had not arrived at the position of discussing an agreement of this kind until quite recently, when they wrote to me, and naturally I preferred that they should submit the bills themselves. They could have done so except for want of time, and they have asked us to deal with the matter	
Mr. Gray: Is this bill a first step towards the amalgamation of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway?
Mr. Manion: This is not a step towards the amalgamation of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I shall explain the matter when it is before the house, but I may say that what is contemplated here is permitted under the act of last year with respect to subsidiary companies.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I believe, was the only one who objected to the bills being introduced without notice, and, of course, it was his right to do so. Then on June 25, four days later, I withdrew the bills. I shall read everything that appears in Hansard with respect to them. That was the day I withdrew them. I quote:
On the order for the introduction of bills to incorporate Canadian Railway Express Company and Canadian Communications Company:
Hon. R. J. Manion (Minister of Railways): Regarding these two bills, the government was asked by the two railway companies to introduce them, as they regarded it as essential that enabling: legislation should be made avail-

able to expedite whatever measures for unified operation the two companies might decide jointly to adopt with respect to the two subsidiary services referred to. However, latest information intimates that no agreement has as yet been reached or is in prospect of being reached at an early date, if at all. Therefore the matter cannot be said to be one of immediate urgency. For this reason the government does not intend to proceed with these bills.
I withdrew the bills. That is the whole record of them. Though I have not read all the discussion before the railway committee, I have given the gist of it and I have read practically everything pertinent that appears in Hansard indicating why we withdrew them. They were withdrawn because they were not justified. I discovered, after the letters had been written to me, that no agreement had been reached. For that reason we did not introduce them. They had nothing to do with the amalgamation of the railways. I have shown that we were opposed to amalgamation, and evidence to that effect appeared in our legislation. We were against amalgamation, and I trust there will be no more misquotations.
So far as cooperation is concerned, it was recommended by the Duff commission which examined fully the whole railway problem of Canada, and it was inserted in the bill in 1933, which bill was intended in part to give the railways an opportunity to cooperate.
Finally the railway labour unions of Canada put on record last year before the senate committee their request for cooperation. I have their statement right here and it may be well to read it. One of the labour leaders showed me the statements himself and indicated that they were favourable to cooperation. This is the statement:
Memorandum of comments and recommendations.
Submitted by the dominion joint legislative committee of the Railway Transportation Brotherhoods and the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, to the special committee of the senate appointed to inquire into and report upon the best means of relieving the country from its extremely serious railway situation and financial burden consequent thereto.
I shall give just two quotations which cover their recommendations about cooperation.
In the review and comments here submitted, we have endeavoured to bring to your attention the effects upon the Canadian people as a whole which, in our opinion, would occur from amalgamation, unification, abandonment or further pooling of services. If, in the judgment of those in authority, there must be further cooperative measures, effect to such action should not be taken unless and until provision is made whereby labour's interests are protected and compensated for loss. In the consideration of any such measures, railway

The Address-Mr. Manion
labour will be found ready and willing to sit clown with others concerned and give sympathetic consideration to all practical and humane proposals submitted.
On another page they say as follows:
It is respectfully submitted on behalf of railway labour that if the interest on capital expenditures for unused power and rolling stock of the railways, or of unused plant or equipment in industry, due to depression or falling off of business, constitutes legitimate overhead charges against the consumer, it seems to logically follow that unem 'loyed W'orkers from similar causes should have an equally legitimate claim upon a larger share from industry as compensation for the loss of employment opportunity. Moreover, in any further cooperative measures involving labour displacement, definite provision should be made for equitable treatment to railway labour by compensation from the industry for any and all loss of employment opportunity.
With that I fully agree. I know no reason why, if those who propose unification take the attitude that men displaced must be cared for, those who suggest cooperation should not take the same attitude. There are opportunities for cooperation; we see them all around us: two ticket offices down here on Sparks street within a couple of hundred feet of each other, and a similar situation in practically all the big cities of Canada. There is the Montreal terminal, the hotels in Vancouver- the recent agreement by the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific in regard to using one hotel instead of two is one of the best illustrations of what cooperation could do. AH those measures could be carried out without hurting anyone, particularly if the men were cared for as proposed by the labour men, with which proposal I entirely agree. So far as enforced cooperation is concerned, there were those of us who thought that since the railways did not show much sign of voluntary cooperation, enforced cooperation might be worth considering. But in view of the attitude taken by Sir Edward Beatty, speaking for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company before the senate committee, enforced cooperation appears to be out of the question.
Two other points I want to raise. One is the " crucifixion " so-called of Sir Henry Thornton. The statement has been made many times; it was made in the London by-election and made all across this country; on one occasion I remember I was charged with killing Sir Henry Thornton.. The fact is that Sir Henry Thornton resigned and a year later he died of cancer. I did not have much to do with that. And never in the years I knew Sir Henry Thornton did I have a cross word of any kind with him. We were good friends throughout, despite the fact that I accepted his resignation. I say to-night
what I have said in many places-and I think I have written it once or twice-that he was a very able man; that he brought about in . the Canadian National Railways an esprit de corps which was of great value, and did good work in many ways. But I have pointed out-and it was no discredit to him-that he had this fault, that he did not know the value of money. I doubt whether anyone in this house who knew him well would think of contradicting that statement in view of the decreases in cost of operation amounting to $19,000,000, in view of the extravagance in such things as hotels, the Montreal terminal proposals to cost some $50,000,000, the building of those ships on the Pacific. In view of that, I do not think anyone would say that I am unjust in saying that extravagance was his great fault.
There was one other matter that was not his fault, namely, that there was not proper control over Sir Henry Thornton. He was a dominating personality and took complete control of the board of directors instead of their controlling him. As a result there was wild extravagance in the Canadian National Railways under his regime. One of the hon. members for Halifax referred to the fact that there were a great many defunct railroads unloaded on the Canadian National which are unprofitable and on which the Canadian National has to bear the capital charges. Practically every down-at-heel railway in this country was taken over by the Canadian National; most of them never paid their way. But there were other things-and in this I am a little critical-


Mr. YOUNG:: Does my hon. friend suggest that Sir Henry Thornton was responsible for taking over those defunct railways?


Robert James Manion: He was, at any rate, partly responsible, because he was the head of the Canadian National. If I must give an answer to my hon. friend-I do not like to, because it will not please him-the people really responsible were the government which he supports.


Mr. DUNNING:: Surely my hon. friend does not mean to imply that there were anywhere near the number of so-called defunct railways taken over during Sir Henry Thornton's management as were taken over when the Canadian National system was originally put together. And certainly this government was never responsible for that.


Robert James Manion: Oh, quite right; in 1919 when all the railways were taken over, I suppose those railways were greater in length than the defunct railways taken over when



BKVISKD H1IIIOS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Manion
[Stage Direction]
the hon. member-was Minister of Railways. I was not going to mention my hon. friend, but he was Minister of Railways when all these extravagant outlays were made by the Canadian National, and he was the man who should have held Sir Henry back from the wild extravagance that went on.
Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be glad to defend at any time anything I ever put before this house. And my hon. friend never opposed any of them.


Robert James Manion: Well, perhaps that is true. My hon. friends were the government, and conditions in the country were pretty good. But they took over all the defunct railways, as we well remember, nearly all that were left when the Canadian National was organized. Take, for example, the Quebec Southern. I looked over the file, and I must say it was disgraceful; that railway was taken over when my hon. friend was Minister of Railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


Robert James Manion: I do not blame him for taking them over, but I blame the parties who pressed the government to do it and the government which permitted them to press it into taking over this lot of defunct roads which became a charge on the Canadian National. Probably Sir Henry Thornton should have put his foot down and said, No; but while the railway administration, like these other boards and commissions, was theoretically independent, they were subject to the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the interest of accuracy I must say again that my hon. friend's expression " defunct railways " is entirely incorrect. The number of railways taken over during the time I was Minister of Railways in the former government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in fact very small indeed compared with those which had been taken over by the preceding administration.


Robert James Manion: Oh, I do not compare the railways that I described as defunct, with the whole Canadian National. I do not agree to-day that the old Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk should have been taken over by this country. I do not want to go into that question now, but I say they should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy.


Charles Avery Dunning: So do I. I said so at the time.


Robert James Manion: I agree with the hon. gentleman. I was a member of the house then;

but I was a young member, had been a member for a year, I did not presume to put my opinion up against that of senior men, or the government of that time; but, looking back, I think they should have been allowed to go into bankruptcy. But my hon. friend was Minister of Railways in 1929. In 1929, a pre-election year, between $200,000,000 and $250,000,000 was added to the debt of the Canadian National Railways in all kinds of political expenditures.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Robert James Manion: Oh, yes. I have put them on record, and my speeches will show them. I could give the record very easily. I did not want to get into this, but my hon. friend would interrupt me though I was not mentioning him at all. He was Minister of Railways at the time. I repeat, in that one year, the year before the election of 1930, they added to the debt of the Canadian National Railways by upwards of $200,000,000. I used the figure of $250,000,000 on another occasion here, but perhaps I was in error by a few million, so I shall cut it down to between $200,000,000 and $250,000,000. Not only that; but between 1921 and 1930, when the party of my hon. friend was in power continuously except for a few months in 1926, they added $32,000,000 to the annual interest charges of the Canadian National Railways. During a number of those years the hon. gentleman was Minister of Railways. In that time $20,000,000 was added to the interest owing to the bondholders and $12,000,000 to the interest on money owing to the government.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Would my hon. friend be good enough to tell us how much was added to the annual income of the railway during those years?


Robert James Manion: There was a good deal added to the income of the railway during those years, yes; but so far as I remember- I am speaking from memory but I think I am correct-in only two years in all the time the Canadian National Railways have existed have they paid their interest charges; so my hon. friend was not doing so well. But at any rate my hon. friend who asked me the question would not deny that in the nine years between 1921 and 1930 there was $20,000,000 added to the annual interest payable to bondholders and $12,000,000 to the annual interest on money owing to the government, so that was a pretty good piece of work. Take, for example, the Montreal terminal. Does anybody suggest to-day that a $50,000,000 expenditure on a Montreal terminal, such as was

The Address-Mr. Manion
started in 1929 and on which $17,000,000, I think, was spent before we came into office, was justified?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Of course.
Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rosemount) We deserve it.


Robert James Manion: You may deserve it for unemployment relief, but I do not admit that $50,000,000 was ever justified at any time for one station for the Canadian National Railways in the city of Montreal. I do not notice any of the ministers saying they think it is justified, as my hon. friend does; but probably he is thinking of the votes that would be forthcoming as a result of the work on the terminal.


Charles Avery Dunning: For a station, did my hon. friend say?


Robert James Manion: For a terminal, mostly a station.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Robert James Manion: Yes, yes. I know just as much as my hon. friend does about this railway. I shall not take a back seat to my hon. friend or anybody else in this house on this railway question. I know it pretty well.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want my hon. friend to take a back seat, but some of us know a little about it.


Robert James Manion: I am not questioning that.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Did my hon. friend vote against that $50,000,000 when it went through this house?


Robert James Manion: I have repeated in this
house that during those years the Canadian National was so strong under Sir Henry Thornton that I do not suppose I did; I do not suppose anybody did. Conditions in Canada were pretty fair, and we were not questioning these expenditures. But the fact that I did not happen to vote against it, does not lessen the mistake. I have made mistakes in my time, and I cannot say positively but that I might have done the same if I had been minister; I do not know. I do say, however, that the fact that I may have made a mistake or that I did not vote against it does not justify my hon. friends in adding from $200,000,000 to $250,000,000 to the debt of the railway in one year, and certainly it does not justify the construction of a $50,000,000 terminal in Montreal. If that were justified, I would ask my hon. friends this: We have been out of power since 1935. We stopped work on that terminal in either 1930 or 1931; I do not remember the exact time, but it was probably 1931 when 71492-37J
we halted further expenditures on it. About; $17,000,000 was the amount that had been spent on that work prior to that time, which would leave $33,000,000 to be spent to complete it, Hon. gentlemen opposite have been in power for nearly four years, and why is it that they have not completed the terminal? If it is justified, why did they not complete it? They knew it was never justified. That is why they did not continue the work and complete it, and that is the whole reason. By the way, ire. reference to the hon. gentleman who has been asking me questions, may I say that there was no greater extravagance ever committed, in proportion to size, than the construction of the hotel in Saskatoon at a cost of $4,000,000. The hon. gentleman comes from Saskatoon,


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It did not cost $4,000,000.


Robert James Manion: Well, it did. The hon.
gentleman had better look up his figures.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I know them pretty well.


Robert James Manion: It was pretty close to


Alexander MacGillivray Young: It was a long distance from $4,000,000.


Robert James Manion: Then perhaps that was
because we cut it down.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That was what was wrong
with the Canadian National all the time; you were cutting them down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert James Manion: I do not mind the hon.
gentleman getting a little excited. He is fighting for Saskatoon, and I do not blame him.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Fighting for what is right.


Robert James Manion: That is debatable. There
was nothing right in building a $4,000,000 hotel in Saskatoon when the best they could possibly have supported there, according to what I am told by the best hotelkeepers in this' country, was a $1,000,000 hotel. Perhaps $4,000,000 may be the wrong amount, but I am using round figures.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: My hon. friend does not
think very much of the city of Saskatoon.


Robert James Manion: I think a great deal of
Saskatoon, but my hon. friend is just trying to play a little cheap politics now. I am just as honest about the city of Saskatoon as I am about the city of Montreal; that is all. I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, if that $50,000,000 expenditure in Montreal was justified in 1929, why has that work not been completed sinee 1935? It must be because the government


Mr. HOWARD:: And the best of it is that
he carries out his promises.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend says the Minister of Public Works carries out his promises; but this has nothing to do with public works; he is making a promise for the Minister of Transport, a promise that the Minister of Transport, if anybody, had a right to make. I continue quoting:
At an afternoon meeting in Atwater Market Hon. Fernand Rinfret, Secretary of State, had made a similar pledge to the two thousand electors who attended. Both statements clarified and amplified the declaration of Mr. Rinfret on Friday that the Liberal government would "fill the hole on Dorchester street."

That was on January 17. Two days previously the Secretary of State is quoted, according to the same newspaper, the Gazette, as follows:
Mr. Rinfret said the tunnel under the Lachine bridge to connect St. Paul with St. Henry ward would be brought to fruition shortly.
May I ask the hon. member for St. Henry if the tunnel has been built?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: I thought they always
kept their promises. My hon. friend said that the Liberals always kept their promises. They still have a few months to go before the next election, so they may start the work after all.
He also stated the abandoned Canadian National railway works project conceived prior to 1930, and which involved disappearance of the level crossings in St. 11 rnry. would also be resumed, and this would mean an end of the "hole" on Dorchester street. ... "I declare that while the federal government is anxious to restore conditions by providing as much employment as possible, there is no intention to allow one man to starve in Canada."
I do not think there should be any starvation under a Liberal regime.
"So long as there are unemployed there will be direct relief for men, their wives and children. We will do our part, and if the municipal powers, and provincial powers should become fatigued, be tranquil. While there is a single unemployed, the federal government will see to their sustenance. It is not an independent who will do that. It is not a man-"
This is Mr. Houde-
"-isolated from all parties who can do anything. He may make eloquent speeches, even enact farces, but I am autliorized to repeat to you that as long as there are unemployed in Montreal, even if we are alone, the federal government engages itself on honour to give sustenance to him, his wife and children."
And yet the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), when I asked him the other day about conditions in Nova Scotia, and called his attention to a telegram I had received,-no wonder he looks down at his book-told me that that was the duty, as I should know, of the province and the municipality. He had better fight it out with the Secretary of State over there.
Then, this was stated-and I believe it is by the present Secretary of State, one of the two gentlemen over there-and they won the election, too.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

The Address-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: But we won in Waterloo
South. The election in question was against Mr. Houde. This is the statement I find:
Pledges action on C.N.R. The government of which I am a part will settle this problem of the Canadian National Railways, and the level crossings. We will fill the hole on Dorchester street, and solve the problem of the approaches thereto.
Mr.	DUPUIS:	Is	the	hon.	gentleman
against the terminal in Montreal?


Robert James Manion: I am certainly against $50,000,000 being spent on the terminal, just the same as the hon. member's own party is against it. Otherwise something would have been done in the last four years. The party opposite has been in power for four years.
Mr.	DUPUIS:	Is	the	hon.	gentleman
satisfied with the station in Montreal?


Robert James Manion: No, I am not satisfied. I do not think that hole in the ground should be left. But certainly I do not like to overtax the dominion on account of the Canadian National Railways, for political purposes. I say here solemnly to-night to those who are the friends of the Canadian National Railways, and particularly to the employees of that railway system, that the surest way to destroy the system is to play politics of that kind with it.
Then we have this humorous side of the matter. To show how far-sighted my hon. friends opposite are, politically, Mr. Hunger-ford has said, on their behalf, that $12,500,000 will be spent over a period of three or four years. Not only do they provide at this time for the coming election, but they are providing for the next one, too. I must confess that some day I am going to ask them to start a summer school at Port Hope for Conservative politicians. We know nothing about playing politics, when it gets down to that sort of business.
But I must say seriously that there is no surer way of destroying the Canadian National Railways than by playing politics of that kind with it. There is a campaign going on across the country, one which is gaining ground among business men, without doubt, for something by way of unification of these two railways. And with the increased deficit of the Canadian National Railways, $10,000,000 more than last' year, as it is reported, and with these increased expenditures for political purposes in connection with the filling of this hole in the city of Montreal there is the great danger that the Canadian National Railways will be destroyed by those who claim they are its friends.
I would not have taken so long, Mr. Speaker, but hon. members opposite have had some responsibility for the length of my speech.
I have, however, almost finished, and I shall leave plenty of time to take the vote tonight. I wish to repeat that the depression came upon us in 1929. The Conservative party was elected in 1930, and we were forced to bring about economies. We did that for the Canadian National Railways and, to their credit, my hon. friends opposite to a large extent have carried on in the same manner. I think, generally speaking, they have played a pretty fair game in the country. I do not think they have been doing much in the way of politics-until now, in connection with that hole in the ground in the city of Montreal.
I come back to the matter at this time because my observations were interrupted iby the Minister of Finance. I was discussing the suggestion that Sir Henry Thornton was supposed to have been crucified by me. I said to the directors that they must bring about economy. We were being asked to put up too much money at a time when relief was costing so much. I pleaded here, with the railway committee which was sitting in the house, to cut the extravagant expenditures. But Sir Henry Thornton declared, in a manner which he had of opposing economies, against these economies. I could repeat what I said earlier-and it is the only word I would say against him-he seemed to lack sufficient knowledge of the value of money, whether his own or anybody else's.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Would the hon. member permit a question? What is the value of money, may I ask?


Robert James Manion: I can quite understand my social credit friend asking what is the value of money, because if there is anybody on God's green earth that does not know the value of it, it is the social credit party.


John Charles Landeryou: I was simply looking for enlightenment. That was a cheap, political answer.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member says he was looking for light. I can understand why any social crediter would be looking for light. If there is any group which sees darkness more completely around it than the social crediters, I do not know who they are. But if the hon. member-


John Charles Landeryou: But the hon. member has not answered the question yet.


Robert James Manion: Well, I suggest that the hon. member go and ask Mr. Aberhart.

The Address-Mr. Manion


John Charles Landeryou: I believe I could get an answer from him.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member says he believes he can get an answer. I place his answer on Hansard, because I think it should be there. The people of Alberta have been looking for that answer now, at $25 a month, for a long time.


Mr. FAIR:: I would ask the hon. member how that $25 a month for the people of Alberta is going to be paid, after the mess this government, and the party of which the hon. member is leader, made of the railways?


Robert James Manion: During the rest of the session I am going to try to show the mess that the leader of the present government has made of things. Surely the hon. member did ;not expect me to stop my discussion of the railways to explain what money means? iEvery other hon. member in the house but the hon. gentleman in question knew what I meant when I said that Sir Henry Thornton did not know the value of money.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Leave Sir Henry alone- a dead man.


Robert James Manion: I am not saying anything against anybody. But I do not need any instructions from the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, about ethics or anything else. I just make that suggestion to him, and I do not think I need any instructions from him at all as to how I should treat either the dead or the living. I am not saying anything offensive about Sir Henry at all. I am pointing out the opinion of everybody else in Canada, from the right hon. gentleman before me right down to the ordinary employee in the Canadian National railways.
Now, I had better finish, because we want to vote to-night.


Mr. POULIOT:: Before the hon. member finishes, I should like to ask a question. An article from the Gazette which I have in my hand has refreshed my memory. I wonder if he is the same Doctor Manion who is quoted in the Montreal Gazette of November, 1927, as having said in Toronto:
I believe the Conservative party has been too honest in the past. Our party in the past has been too honest in strictly defining its position and policy on controversial and sectional questions.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I am the man who
said that, and I believe it yet. I shall explain that statement, since the hon. member has raised it, although it has nothing to do with the railways. I should like, however, to give an answer to my good friend over there. I said a few moments ago I wished the Liberal
JMr. Manion.]
party would establish a summer school for Conservatives at Port Hope and let us go there to learn politics, because they play them so well. In that remark I wras referring to the stupid habit, to my mind, of some Conservatives of occasionally grabbing controversial questions and jumping into them without any reason at all for discussing them at that particular time. I do not see the reason for my hon. friends opposite-they are a little wiser than we are in that respect- or for ourselves jumping into all kinds of controversial questions and insisting on fighting them to a finish when there is no occasion for a fight at all. It is just shadow-boxing. That is what I was referring to, and I am not ashamed of it at all.
I hope I shall not be interrupted any more, Mr. Speaker, because I wish to get through.
I could not get Sir Henry Thornton to agree to any compromise. I pleaded with him, but he refused. The directors appealed to me. They said they could not bring about economies because he opposed them. Finally, after the discussions-I want to be careful of my words-before the committee which brought out many extravagances, Sir Henry Thornton came into my office and told me he wanted to offer his resignation to me; after talking it over, he asked me if I would agree to his getting a bonus of some kind- I forget the exact word-when he resigned, and I said I would. We gave him altogether over $100,000; I think it was S125,000. He had Britton Osier, a lawyer from Toronto, working for him, and it took about a month. Finally we gave him, I think, about $125,000; at any rate it was over $100,000. At no time did Sir Henry Thornton and I have words about it.
I simply say, Mr. Speaker, that the $19,000,000 that I have shown of economies between 1931 and 1937 were justification to us for the pressure we put on the Canadian National Railways for economies. It was justification for my pressing Sir Henry Thornton to agree to economies. If Sir Henry Thornton had agreed to economies at headquarters -which had nothing to do with the men-I admit frankly, he would never have reached the stage of putting in his resignation or had any difficulty whatsoever. He and I were good friends, and before I sit down I take the liberty of quoting him. Here is his statement taken from the Canadian National Magazine. Sir Henry Thornton, as president of the road, was speaking of the Minister of Railways of that time-myself. Sir Henry said:
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I have served under a number of

The Address-Mr. Dunning
ministers of the crown, but I have never served under one for whom I had more real affection than for the present incumbent of that post.
We have in him one who ardently desires the welfare of the Canadian National Railways system, one whose heart beats with ours and one who, in addition to the performance of his ministerial duties, is likewise a really fine friend.
Perhaps it is not modest of me to quote it, but I think it is only fair to do so because of the charges that have been made against me.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and I have presented them as honestly as I know how. If, after this, statements are made to contradict them, all I have to say is that if they are made by members of this house, at any rate they will be stating what they know to be not true.
In regard to the subamendment submitted by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, which will be voted on shortly, I have only a word or two to say. Let me first read it:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following thereto: "We are of the opinion that these conditions can be remedied only by the effective control of financial institutions^ and monopolistic enterprises which are exploiting the Canadian people."
Whether accidentally or intentionally, and I imagine accidentally, the language of the amendment is confusing. It says:
We are of the opinion that these conditions can be remedied only by the effective control of financial institutions-
That is part of it. Then it goes on, in the same sentence, it is true:
-and monopolistic enterprises which are exploiting the Canadian people.
If they had said that conditions could be remedied by the effective control of monopolistic enterprises, I think the whole house could agree with the sentiment behind that; but when they say "effective control of financial institutions," I do not think the language expresses their thought. Anyway it does not express mine, and so far as I am concerned I am not going to support it.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Major James William Coldwell: Is there a comma
after "financial institutions"?


Robert James Manion: Not in this copy I am
reading from.


Major James William Coldwell: Therefore does not the modifying clause modify both "financial institutions" and "monopolistic enterprises"?


Robert James Manion: Whether the comma is in or out, and I do not think it makes any particular difference, I think the subamendment is badly worded. I do not think it is the thought of the hon. gentleman who moved it. If it is, at all events it is not my thought. ' I cannot support it anyway. I am naturally going to support my own amendment.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am moved to address you very briefly because of the fact, as stated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) this evening, that it was my good or ill fortune to be Minister of Railways for Canada during the period of greatest expansion of the Canadian National railway system.
My hon. friend has pointed out that during that period the investments of the Canadian people in the Canadian National Railways grew very rapidly. That is correct. What he did not point out was that during that period the revenues of the Canadian National Railways grew very much more rapidly.
When my hon. friend spoke of the addition of interest charges during the period from 1925 to 1930, he omitted to state that the ability of the railway company to carry interest charges grew during that period to such a point that for the only two years in the history of the system we had a net return over and above the amount required to pay the interest. This does not mean that I think my judgment, or the judgment of the management of the Canadian National Railways, or the judgment of the management of the Canadian Pacific Railway, or the judgment of nearly all the industrialists and financiers of Canada, was quite accurate during that period as to what was coming four or five years later. Is it any disgrace to admit it? Hon. gentlemen who were members of this house during that period will remember my experience of coming here as Minister of Railways to propose the building of branch lines, and what was the response of the house, and particularly the response of hon. gentlemen opposite? Always demanding more and more, year after year.


Robert James Manion: I do not remember that I ever did, but I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was the attitude of the opposition. The then member for Inverness comes to my mind, and others would come to mind if I were not speaking extemporaneously.
In respect to the taking over of defunct railway lines, during the period for which
The Address-Mr. Dunning

I was responsible as minister we took over the Gaspe railway line. Will any member of this house rise in his place to-day and say that the Gaspe line should not be a part of the Canadian National railway system? During my period as Minister of Railways we also took over the Inverness railway. Will any member rise in his place and say that the Inverness railway should not to-day be part of the Canadian National railway system?


An hon. MEMBER:: Better not.


Charles Avery Dunning: During the same period hon. members, the Alberta members, will remember the great competition which was developing between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National with respect to getting into northern Alberta with their respective lines. They will remember the pressure that I as minister endeavoured to exert to prevent useless duplication by the two railways, and the two of them jointly bought out the railway lines then owned by the government of Alberta. Will any hon. member to-day say that the Northern Alberta railway should not be a part of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways? I am sure he will not.
And there, Mr. Speaker, is a complete list of the so-called defunct railways with the exception of the Quebec Southern from Montreal northwards; and in that connection may I say that there was no political pressure from any quarter with respect to it. Time after time during three years Sir Henry Thornton pleaded with me to agree to and to recommend to the government the taking over of that road because of the advantages, demonstrated by his technical men in great detail, which it was supposed would come from it.


Robert James Manion: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I do not wish to bother him; but I have looked over that file, and not only was there political pressure but I can name one of his colleagues who used it and who is sitting within a few feet of him now. Sir Henry Thornton opposed it over and over again, and finally accepted under political pressure.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, if there were political pressure on Sir Henry Thornton I was not aware of it. There was none on me. I can only affirm that Sir Henry Thornton during several years urged repeatedly that it be taken over. At any rate I have reduced the defunct railroads to that one. Apparently my hon. friend would say that the Quebec Southern should not be part of the Canadian National Railways.
{Mr. Dunning.]


Mr. CARDIN:: And that road is a paying proposition to-day.


Robert James Manion: I do not think any railroad they took over is a paying proposition. None of the three the hon. gentleman has mentioned is, and I am also certain the Quebec Southern is not.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend can argue that from now until doomsday-


Robert James Manion: We know now who was the minister who put the political pressure on the hon. gentleman to take it over.


Charles Avery Dunning: We can argue from now until doomsday whether a particular piece of the Canadian National Railways is or is not a paying proposition. But, as was put to me in the house many times by hon. gentlemen on the other side, there was with respect to these matters, branch and other lines, an obligation on parliament to serve the Canadian people with equipped transportation facilities, and never was it expressed more strongly; never was I subjected to more criticism. My hon. friend speaks with some heat -and I can understand it-of accusations against himself of sabotaging-I think was the word-the Canadian National Railways; but does he not remember how all across this country it was published during the years 1927 and 1928 that I, because of alleged friendship with the Canadian Pacific Railway, was hindering Sir Henry Thornton's great scheme of expansion of the people's system.


Robert James Manion: I never said it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Probably not, but my hon. friend's friends did, and the press which supported his party did. I went through that experience, Mr. Speaker. That is one of the things which is inseparable from government ownership and the discussion of a government-owned enterprise in a democratic assembly. We have to take it whether we like it or not. Whether we are here or hon. gentlemen opposite are here, the people's representatives will speak their minds and the minds of their people, will give vent to the suspicions which they entertain, and all our complaining in that regard will not make a bit of difference.
Let me make just one observation with regard to political promises. I know my hon. friend will forgive me for reminding him of some of his own. I am sure he remembers going to Manitoba. I am sure he remembers categorically promising that if his party were returned to power in 1930, the Mafeking cut-off would be built.

The Address-Mr. Church


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely deny that I ever made any such promise. I admit the promise was made in that election, but I never made any such promise.


Mr. CRERAR:: My hon. friend made it in his address in the town of Dauphin during the election in 1930.


Robert James Manion: I made no such promise; I make the statement again. Just because a couple of ministers over there make the statement that I made that promise does not prove it. I state that I did not make the promise. I think I ought to know something about my own promises.


Mr. WARD:: If I may be permitted, I was present-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William John Ward: and I will take my oath that the hon. gentleman who is now leader of the opposition did say, speaking in Dauphin town hall, that if he were returned to power, his party would build the Mafeking cut-off and it would be built forthwith.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I ask the
hon. gentleman who rose in his place and said I made that promise to bring forward the quotation that I made such a statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: No, I am not unfair
enough to ask him to do it now-that is a fancy trick such as we get from hon. gentlemen opposite-but we are just beginning this session; we have plenty of time, and I ask him to bring it forward at the proper time and show me where I made it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now that this Donny-brook is over, may I continue? I merely cited an instance which, whether my hon. friend was guilty or not guilty, was certainly widely published at the time. I called upon my own memory with respect to it and got it confirmed by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward) who says he heard it there. We shall, however, allow the hon. member for Dauphin and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) to settle that between themselves. AH I desire to say, Mr. Speaker, is this, and this is the really serious word. The administration of a great public utility demands a degree of restraint on the part of all of us to which none of us in this parliament has so far proved equal. That is my firm belief. No matter which party of us is in opposition, we do belabour the government politically with respect to the administration of this great utility. That has been the 71492-38
history to date. I mention it merely in order that in this time of great difficulty we may all look at it-and I do not except hon. gentlemen in the corner; they are not any more righteous than the rest of us in that regard; I include everybody, including myself. There is no subject about which in the interests of Canda we require more heart searching than in regard to statements we make with respect to the conduct of our great publicly owned utility. That is all I want to say. I have spoken quite extemporaneously, because my hon. friend referred to these matters.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to call attention to a remark made in this debate this afternoon with reference to myself by the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) which I think, when his attention is called to it, he will withdraw. The short statement which the hon. member made at ten minutes to six, when I was not in the house, was that-
. . . one of the hon. members from Toronto said, "I view with alarm the visit of Cordell Hull to Canada." Yes, he viewed with alarm the visit of a friendly ambassador to Canada.
Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East): Who said that?
Mr. Blair:	What is Tommy Church's constituency?	.
Mr. Lapointe: Broadview.
Mr. Blair:	Broadview?-the name is a
misnomer. There is no "broadview" about that -it is one of the narrowest things I ever heard, in regard to Americans. And we are at war with them, because Cordell Hull comes to visit us! There are views of things which I wish, for the sake of civilization and for the sake of common decency and courtesy, could be erased from Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, I never on any occasion made remarks like that. I have too much respect for the famous statesman who was visiting the university of Toronto to receive a degree. Also, I have welcomed and received thousands and tens of thousands of Americans and conventions as I lived in a city near '-hr border, and this is the first time in all these long years I have been in the public service that it has been suggested that a discourteous remark of that kind had been made by me about any of them. May I say to the hon. member that he did not have a newspaper in his hand nor did he read from one. He never read such an article, and no newspaper ever published such an article. What I did say was this, after referring to the very fine reception at the university accorded to a distinguished and honoured United States citizen: I said that I viewed with alarm the

The Address-Mr. Church

effect which I believed the Anglo-American treaty would have on empire preferences, on the Ottawa agreements, and on acute unemployment in Toronto. No reference was made in that connection to the distinguished statesman the hon. member mentioned: Mr. Cordell Hull. He has not the paper, cannot produce it, and never saw any such statement in any paper. I have too high a regard for that distinguished statesman and for the American people to make such an absurd statement anywhere. I have welcomed tens of thousands of American visitors at conventions in a long public career, and never on any occasion have I shown any discourtesy to or any disrespect for the great nation which they represented and which I hold in the highest regard. If the hon. gentleman will say the same thing outside the house to-morrow, I will immediately sue him for libel and slander. He never saw such a statement in any paper, and his memory is not correct.


John Knox Blair: I simply gave a report which I saw in a paper. The hon. gentleman says he did not say it, and I accept his word and apologize.


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: I was paired with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. LALONDE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I was paired with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Baker). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Brown). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Main Estimates


Maurice Lalonde: I was paired with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Matthews) agreed to.


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


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


Robert James Manion: This is just a pro forma
motion, is it not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The rules provide that once the address has been agreed to, the next order of business is to constitute the committees of supply and ways and means.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['That this house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That the message of His Excellency the Governor General, together with the estimates presented on January 25, 1939, be referred to the committee of supply, with the exception of items Nos. 442, 443 and 454.
He said:	I might explain that the items
excepted are those which are later to be referred to the special committee on the Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend
have any objection to the house proceeding to government notices of motion so that we might introduce the three resolutions under that heading?
JMr. Martin.]


Robert James Manion: To-night?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I think we have been here long enough.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would take only about two minutes, but if there is objection to introducing them I would move that the house do now adjourn.


Robert James Manion: What will be the business
to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To-morrow
we shall take whatever business appears on the order paper. We shall start at the beginning and go right on, just in the order in which it appears.


Robert James Manion: I assume the government
will introduce the three government orders to which the Prime Minister has just referred?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That was what I wanted to do, to take up the three government notices of motion in order that we might be in a position to bring them on to-morrow. All that is necessary is for the house to permit the ministers to state that His Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the subject matter of these resolutions and recommends them to the house. Then tomorrow they would appear under government orders, but if we cannot do that they will just stay where they are.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Finance
(Mr. Dunning) and I have made long speeches to-night, and I think we need a rest. We had better leave it until to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.
I move that the house do now adjourn.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.02 p.m.
Friday, February 3, 1939