Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult

to conform to the old traditions of this and other parliaments in congratulating the hon. gentlemen who spoke so splendidly on Friday last. The speeches in which they moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne were noteworthy. My hon. friend from Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) is a graduate of the school

of law from which I also graduated, and I have the natural pride of a fellow alumnist in his splendid achievement in this chamber on Friday last. My hon. friend from Proven-cher (Mr. Beaubien), who was elected by acclamation, was thereby placed in the position of being a member of this assembly who, with his adaptability, would have found himself quite happy and with great serenity making the same speech on this side of the house had the fortunes of war permitted.

I regret very much that, although it may be difficult for the house to believe it, I was so overcome on Thursday last that I failed to thank my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) for the very kind sentiments which he expressed to this house upon my election to the position I now hold. I desire now formally to thank him and those associated with him for the very kind sentiments to which he gave utterance and particularly for the expression of the hope that I might be able to discharge the duties of this difficult position in a manner satisfactory to the country at large.

It always seems that there is sadness mixed with joy in all assemblies of this character. The cables this morning conveyed to us the sad intelligence that the great commander in chief of the British forces during a long period of the war had passed to his reward. It is a matter of profound sadness to all of us; so great was Lord Haig, so great his achievements, so dogged his courage, his persistence and his effort, that the sorrow at his passing is very marked even in a country such as this. I am sure that wherever men are gathered together in this country which sent so many thousands to that great conflict, there will be a feeling of deep sympathy for his wife and family who survive him, together with a feeling of pride that the empire produced so great a soldier at such a time of stress.

But the speech with which His Majesty's representative has been pleased to meet this parliament is remarkable more for what it does not say than for what it does say. I fancy that there is some measure of satisfaction, perhaps, in the mind of the Prime Minister because he has concluded that if the country has prospered so well without his doing anything, it may be desirable to continue that inaction in the future as in the past. I fancy some such thought as that was in his mind, and in the mind of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), when the speech was being prepared. At any rate, the speech is sufficient for my purpose because it enables us to look at the affairs of this country from

The Address-Mr. Bennett

three points of view; and no speech from the throne hereafter will be complete-in fact, that has been the case for many years past-unless it deals with Canada's affairs from three aspects, namely, the domestic point of view, the matter of our imperial relationships, and the international point of view. I shall venture therefore to direct attention to the speech with these three main divisions in view.

I do not think it necessary to refer to those portions of the speech that deal with the diamond jubilee and the celebrations incident thereto. My right hon. friend will find, as we all do, that it is a very excellent thing to bask in the reflected glory of the great; but at times it is necessary to walk out of the shadow.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Hear, hear.

Mr. BENNETT:

I am glad the Minister

of Justice approves of that remark, for presently I shall ask him to do the very thing he says he approves of.

If a review of the past brings us great joy, as it does, and satisfaction too, it also reminds us of the obligations of the present and the duties and responsibilities of the future. I am quite certain that my right hon. friend has on very many occasions during the year that is past and the celebrations in which we have been engaged tried to remember that he is Prime Minister of Canada and not the leader of a party; but I will confess that I found it a little difficult to follow his reasoning in associating himself with a statement as to our status-and I think the report in the newspaper must have been incorrect-in connection with the visit to Canada of Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and Prince George and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Baldwin. If my memory serves me, the heir to the throne laid the foundations of the old buildings that stood on this site, and he found it not difficult to visit this country notwithstanding the then status of Canada. Furthermore, if my memory serves me, the Lord Chancellor of England, keeper of the great seal, who had never left England and is supposed to have the great seal in his custody at all times, visited' Montreal. So that I cannot see very much connection between the visit of Their Royal Highnesses and the Prime Minister of England, and the constitutional position to which reference was made. My thought was that there must have been some mistake in the report of the speech of my right hon. friend rather than that he said what was attributed to him in that regard. For after all the visits to Canada of the heir to the throne and the Prime Minister of Great Britain had about as much to do with the constitutional status of this country, I suppose,

as the appointment of a minister to Washington; I should think they had about the same relation one to the other.

Now, Mr. Speaker, having disposed of that matter, I observe that the speech from the throne refers to the fact that there is evidence that this country has been placed upon a sound economic basis; and to establish that fact reference is made to certain conditions that obtain with respect to increasing revenues, the growth of employment and building construction, railway receipts and business conditions generally. Well, all I can say with respect to that is that it is not probable that when the speech was written great attention was paid to the trade returns nor yet to the unemployment figures. The fact is. that we sold less by fifty millions this year than we did last, and we bought from other countries eighty millions more than we did the year before-eighty millions, a great portion of which should have been made in Canada and employment given to Canadians who are now idle. I am sure the members of this house must have observed that the Premier of Manitoba has just sent a memorandum down to this government asking for assistance with respect to unemployment. If you will look at the young, vigorous men who are employed in shovelling snow in this city you will realize the lack of employment that prevails in Canada. The figures of employment are the figures that are given by employers in industry who send reports to the statistical department as to the number of people they employ. In the city of Calgary a much larger sum was expended last month in taking care of those who are unable to find employment than for some time previously. The same may be said with respect to other cities in this dominion. Therefore so far as the statistics of the department with respect to employment are concerned, they are merely a record of the number of men and women relatively employed in industries that make reports to Ottawa; the official figures do not deal with the number of unemployed men and women who are without occupation today because we are buying $80,000,000 more goods from other countries this year than we did last, goods that should have been made in Canadian factories.

Then with respect to the railway figures: I am sure the gentlemen responsible for that speech have not closely analyzed those figures, because if the condition that prevailed last year is to continue for another three years, the railways will have no net revenue at all. The truth is that the Canadian Pacific railway earned last year S3,76p,fK'0 more gross than

The Address-Mr. Bennett

the year before, but the net receipts were $4,700,000 less than they were in 1926; and the Canadian National railway system, while increasing its gross revenues by $2,692,000, decreased its net revenue by five and a half million dollars. Now as its net revenues were only thirty millions it follows that if the revenue of the railway is decreased by five and a half millions every year it will only be five or six years before it has no revenue at all.

Then we come to the question of our trade. I will not on this occasion deal at length with this question, but I do desire to point out the real foundation upon which our present economic prosperity rests. The truth is that the population of this country has not increased during the last five years; I shall show presently that it has decreased. The truth is that a lesser number of people, inhabiting the same area, have been creating new wealth more rapidly than they did before. They have been utilizing the great resources of science and scientific investigation, improved machinery and equipment, and they have been increasing the natural wealth of this country at a very rapid rate indeed. Let us see what the figures indicate with respect to that. Last year two billion dollars of wealth were created by the Canadian people, and we sold to the people of the world 1,218 million dollars worth of goods. But what were the goods we sold? We sold $281,000,000 of wood and paper; we sold metals and minerals of all kinds worth $181,000,000, and we sold of grain and grain products $447,000,000 worth; making a total of $900,000,000 of products that we sold out of a total of $1,218,000,000, leaving only $318,000,000 to be otherwise accounted for. Now what did the production of wood, paper, metals and minerals, grain and grain products mean? It meant first a decline in the productivity of the soil that produced them. It meant the absolute exhaustion of mines and minerals that cannot be replaced, and it meant, with respect to wood and wood products, the depletion of resources which are utterly lost, at least for our life time, and which according to careful statisticians we shall be altogether unable to replace within a period of at least twenty years.

So that the sound financial basis upon which this country's prosperity now rests consists merely in this: we are selling our estate, which is being rapidly exhausted. That is all we are doing, and there can be no permanent prosperity in any nation whose present prosperity depends upon the sale of

its fixed assets. If you sell lands, minerals, trees and the products of lands-if you sell these things-you will not produce any permanent prosperity. Our forests are being depleted, our wood products are being sold, products that will not be replaced in our lifetime. Mines, minerals and mineral products, and the products of the soil in the way of grain, are being sold to the extent of over $900,000,000 per annum out of a total of $1,200,000,000 odd, according to the figures for the past year.

There is another fact to be considered in seeking to find the causes that have led to this result. We have had in Canada during the last year a very bountiful harvest; indeed, Providence during the past three years has favoured our people with quite abundant harvests. I say therefore, that it is conclusively shown, that the result which I have just indicated has been brought about notwithstanding the fact that farmers and artisans engaged in production to-day are lesser in numbers than they were five years ago. So that the only inference is that there has been an increase in energy and hard work on the part of Canadians who have made possible this increase in the temporary prosperity upon which apparently we are relying.

Let us look at the facts. I find, in the census reports which were distributed a short time [DOT] ago, that the population of Manitoba, in round numbers, was 610,000 in 1921 as compared with 639,000 in 1926, an increase of only 28,000 odd; in Alberta there has been an increase from 588,000 in 1921 to 607,000 in 1926, an increase of 19,000; while in Saskatchewan the population has risen from 757,000 in 1921 to only 821,000 in 1926, an increase of 63,000. These figures give the situation in regard to the population of the provinces mentioned. But what do we find when we look at the immigration returns? During that same period there were actually brought into the province of Manitoba, and distributed by the Department of Immigration and Colonization, 40,397 persons; in Saskatchewan, 58,487, and in Alberta 78,660. And if we take the natural increase on the basis of the provincial figures we find that we lost over 100,000 in these three provinces during the five years from 1916 to 1921.

As to the basis on which our prosperity is to be achieved, what are the facts? The facts I have given come from the statistical department, but it is not enough to rest the case there; let us see how many farms have been under cultivation. The number of farms occupied in Manitoba in 1921 was 53,252, and in 1926, 53,251. In Saskatchewan, in 1921, there were 119,451 farms under cultivation as

The Address-Mr. Bennett

compared with 117,787 in 1926, and in Alberta, while there were 82,954 in 1921 the number in 1926 was 77,130. The total acreage under crops of all varieties has increased in these provinces, in Manitoba by something like 400,000 acres, and in the other provinces correspondingly. I need not go into details. The point I make is this: the considerable accretion of new wealth which we have had in the country has been attributable to the development of our natural resources and to the crops that have been reaped by our husbandmen, as well as to the minerals and metals taken out of the soil and to the forests that have been denuded of their trees. These are facts that cannot be controverted in the light of the returns made by the various departments affected. So that the courage, skill, enterprise and hard work of Canadians have made possible the various increases to which I have alluded as having occurred during the years that have passed. But concurrently there has been a steady diminution in the population that has effected these results, and to that I shall presently refer. So much for this phase of the subject.

Let me come now to another point mentioned in the speech from the throne-and perhaps it is well to mention it here, inasmuch as this is the most appropriate stage at which to discuss it: I have reference to the statement with regard to the Dominion-provincial conference. We are told that a great conference took place in this capital, as indeed there did, and that a large number of very impoitant subjects were considered. May I venture to suggest to the first minister that it is highly desirable that this parliament should have laid before it a precis of what took place at that conference? I am not for a moment suggesting that the explanation given the other day is not wholly adequate from the standpoint of those who participated in the conference; naturally they would not desire to have their discussions made public. I can quite understand that; had I represented one of the provinces I should certainly have felt that way myself. But when we are asked, as we are, to deal with the matters discussed at the conference, it seems to me the proper course would have been to prepare a precis which might have been signed by the respective representatives from day to day or at the conclusion of the conference, in order that parliament might have something on which to proceed intelligently and which it could fully understand. Such a precis would enable us to understand what took place at the conference. I observe from the speech from the throne that certain measures will be introduced as a result of this con-

ference. These are purely domestic matters, and I note that at an early day we may expect the introduction of these measures, and when they are before us we shall consider the problems involved. But what about the provinces? The province which is oldest, posibly, in point of settlement, and certainly the second largest, has already given its view of the matter. While we in this parliament have before us what this government has to say with respect to the conference, may I also direct attention to what the government of the province of Quebec had to say on the subject on January 10 last. The following words occur in the speech from the throne as delivered in the legislature of Quebec:

An interprovincial conference was held in Ottawa in November last. All the provinces of the Dominion were represented there, and questions of the greatest importance were discussed. My ministers believe that Canadian unity and the future of Canada will be best assured by respecting provincial autonomy and by all remaining loyal to the British North America Act in spirit as well as in the letter. This declaration is the more timely in view of the celebration in 1927 of the sixtieth anniversary of the Canadian confederation. The progress hitherto achieved, marked by such splendid festivities, should move us to forestall any possible source of discord.

So that the conference was a possible source of discord-this conference about which we have been told so much. In the view of His Majesty's advisers of the province of Quebec it was not a conference making for Canadian unity but one, rather, which constituted a source of discord. I should like, and I am sure the country would be glad too, to hear the Prime Minister explain just how the conference may have been a possible source of discord, something that may possibly disturb Canadian unity, accord' ag to the view of the legislature of Quebec. I should think, in view of that statement in the speech from the throne presented to the legislature of that province, and, further, in view of the speech which we have heard in this parliament, that it is highly necessary-indeed, I consider it absolutely essential-that we should have before us some precis with respect to what took place at the conference in order that we may be able to reach our own conclusions in the matter.

I gather that my right hon. friend had something of this kind in mind when he made a speech in the great city of Quebec while attending a banquet given in honour of one of his colleagues. On that occasion he used, or is reported to have used, these words:

Since the government of Canada is hut the executive of parliament, announcement of what had been agreed upon would have to wait until parliament assembled.

The Address-Mr. Bennett

That does not seem to be unfair, but unfortunately what is it that we are to depend on? Is it to be by word of mouth of ministers who are telling the story and who may not know what happened? Will it be by means of the speech from the throne, which deals only in vague and glittering generalities? Will it be by means of measures that appeal to the government but perhaps not to the several provinces? I think if it was important that at the imperial conference there should be kept a precis of what took place, far more important is it in the domestic issues of this country that we should have laid before us a complete precis of what took place, in order that we may be able to ascertain for ourselves just what are the respective views of the Dominion and of the provinces.

The next domestic matter to which I refer is one that was touched upon at that conference, and one with respect to which I desire to make but a few observations. We had last session presented to this parliament the so-called Duncan report-a Duncan report which the Prime Minister anticipated might possibly rank with the historic Durham report as one of the great documents affecting the life of Canada. That report was tabled. The leader of the government accepted it; the leader of His Majesty's apposition accepted it; the people of the maritime provinces accepted it and expected it to be entirely implemented, and I rejoice that provision has been made for continuing during the present year at least the subsidies that were provided for under that report by parliament last year. But there still remain many matters to be dealt with by this parliament before that report is implemented in its entirety, and I can only hope, indeed, I am quite confident, having regard to what was said by the Prime Minister last session, that every reasonable effort will be made by the government this session to see to it that there is no possible cause for complaint on the part of the provinces affected by reason of that report not being implemented in its entirety. I will not at the moment do more than leave it in just that position.

I next turn to another matter which was dealt with at that conference, and one which is I think as important a subject as has engaged the attention of this parliament in recent years. I refer to that paragraph in the speech from the throne which deals with the return to the province of Alberta of its natural resources. Let us for a moment con-56103-2

sider the position of the government with respect to this matter. I should like this House to remember that this is not a new matter. The right hon. gentleman who leads this house has prepared seven speeches from the throne. He has prepared and placed in the hands of the representative of the sovereign seven documents dealing with national questions and problems-one in 1922, another in 1923, another in 1924, another in 1925, two in 1926, and the one that we are now considering. Let us for a moment see how on the threshold of his career as Prime Minister he dealt with the matter of the return to the provinces of their natural resources. Here are his words:

The long standing question of granting the control of the natural resources of three western provinces to their respective provincial governments has engaged the attention of my ministers. Sympathizing with the desire of the authorities of these provinces, which have now advanced to maturity, to have the same control and management of their resources as is possessed by the older provinces, my government have made a proposal to the governments of the several provinces concerned, which it is hoped may lead to a satisfactory settlement of the question at an early date.

Those of us who have lived in western Canada since 1900 will recall the circumstances under which the provinces were induced to accept money instead of lands; will recall the election that was conducted in 1905 and tihe vigorous appeals that were made to the electorate of those provinces to accept money rather than resources. When I look at the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart and recall the fervid eloquence with which the Liberal party told the electorate of the great benefits that would accrue to them if they accepted money instead of resources-well, it was a matter of consolation and joy to me to read in the speech from the throne that these people had now advanced to maturity, and that the government sympathized with them in their desire to control their natural resources.

The next year came. In 1923, 1924 and 1925, no reference was made to natural resources, but negotiations were taking place. But in 1926, at the end of the speech from the throne, occur these words:

Your attention will be invited, among other measures, to a bill to provide for the transfer to the province of Alberta of its natural resources, and to a bill amending the Dominion Elections Act.

The agreement upon which that bill was based was signed on behalf of the government of Canada by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. Minister of

The Address-Mr. Bennett

the Interior (Mr. Stewart), and on behalf of the province of Alberta by the Premier of Alberta and the Minister of Railways of the province, Hon. Vernon W. Smith. There is a promise given by His Majesty's representative that a bill would be introduced to return its natural resources to the province of Alberta. Well, that has not yet been done. But I find that last year there was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada a question for determination and settlement, under an order in council which reads as follows:

The committee of the Privy Council have had before tham a report dated June 24th, 1926, stating that as the result of certain negotiations looking to the transfer to the province of Alberta of the public lands within that province, now vested in the crown and administered by the government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, an agreement was entered into on the 9th January, 1926, between the governments of the Dominion of Canada and of the province of Alberta, respectively, whereby it was agreed that certain provisions of the Alberta Act should be modified to the intent that all crown lands, mines, minerals and royalties within the province, and sums due or payable for such lands, mines, minerals or royalties should, from and after the coming into force of the said agreement, belong to the province, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to the several other terms and conditions particularly set forth in said agreement. Subsequently, the two governments agreed upon certain additional provisions to be inserted in the said agreement relative to the transfer and administration of the School Lands fund and certain specified school lands, to parks and forest reserves affected by the agreement, and to the rights and properties of the Hudson's Bay Company. Notice was given by a resolution that a bill would be introduced into parliament, at its present session, to approve and give effect to the said agreement as so modified, but a question having been raised as to the constitutional validity of section 17 of the Alberta Act, relative to the subject of education and schools within the said province, it was decided not to proceed with the proposed legislation as drafted until this question of doubt could be authoritatively settled.

That matter was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada on the 7th of March and on the 20th of April, 1927, and on the last mentioned date a judgment was given unanimously deciding that the statute was constitutional and that the Alberta Act in every particular was within the legislative competence of the parliament of Canada. That was the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, given in answer to a reference made to it by the governor in council in which the specific question was asked, twenty-two years after the enactment of the legislation, as to whether or not it was within the constitutional competence of parliament to enact it. That question having been answered, as I have said, in the affirmative, one would naturally have

expected that the lands, mines and minerals would be turned over to Alberta and the promise given immediately implemented. But what happened? One would have thought, especially in view of the discussions that took place in this house as tot our equality of status with relation to other sections of the empire, that the judgment of the supreme court would have been at once accepted, and * action taken by the government accordingly. But what was done? Instead of that proceeding being taken, an application was made by petition to the judicial committee of His Majesty's Privy Council in England for the purpose of hearing an appeal when there was nobody to appear in the case as respondent.

I happened to be in London a few days after, and I saw the transcript of what took place. When Mr. Lafleur, representing the Minister of Justice of this Dominion, appeared for the purpose of presenting his petition-mark you, a petition to the Privy Council from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, about which we hear so much, and to which I shall presently allude-when he presented his petition he was asked, who were the respondents? There were none. To Whom did you give notice, he was asked? To nobody. And then he was told to hunt up a respondent somewhere in order that they could get on with the case; and so to-day, as far as I can find out, before the province of Alberta can get its resources the Minister of Justice must find a respondent to appear before the Privy Council.

But that did not end it. If it had ended there one might regard it as somewhat amusing. My friend the Minister of Justice will remember that last session, discussing the question of our constitutional status, he declared with great deliberation that it was the fixed aspiration of the French-Canadians to prevent appeals to the Privy Council. At page 1713 of Hansard the Minister of Justice, speaking of the Nadan case, said he thought it was well decided. He said further:

So that that is not the feeling that animates me, but to alleviate the fears of my hon. friend with respect to Quebec I will tell him that the men in Quebec who represent really the aspirations of French-Canadians are applying to have the appeal to Privy Council done away with. *

That is the same Minister of Justice who presents his solemn petition to His Majesty the King to permit him to take an undefended case to the Privy Council with a judgment in his favour.

I suggest that the government, without further delay, return to Alberta its natural resources. I raised no question in this House

The Address-Mr. Bennett

-because I appreciated the difficulty of the situation-when the hon. Minister of Justice referred to the Supreme Court of* Canada for its opinion the question I have just mentioned. That opinion having been unanimously given, I thought, and still think, that it was the bounden duty of this government without a moment's delay to give effect to the aspirations of the province of Alberta, with which province five years ago they had such sympathy. It is idle to disguise the fact that this long delay has created the most unfavourable opinion with respect to the whole situation, and nothing will remedy the matter more quickly and bring about that unity of thought and action so much desired in this country as to give effect to that opinion at once. But further; suppose the Minister of Justice had succeeded in getting to the Privy Council, what should we have had? Lord Chancellor Loreburn said that the answers given to such questions are not binding in litigation and have no greater value than the opinion of the law officers of the crown. We have the opinion of the law officers of the crown; we now have the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is no better, according to the Privy Council, than that of the law officers of the crown; then why should we delay? That is the question the people of the west are asking this house. It is a question which is highly relevant and should be answered without further delay.

With respect to this interprovincial conference I find that the railways were also discussed in this connection. Now, is parliament to be treated in this way? Is parliament not to be told what the discussions were? Are we to have no idea what they were until legislation is introduced by which we will have to pay $14,000,000 or $15,000,000 for railways in British Columbia? Is that the way the matter is to be treated? I recall how the Minister of Justice before 1921 used the strongest terms-terms I would not use now in my amiable frame of mind; terms so strong, so emphatic, so embittered that I should not think a peaceful man like the Minister of Justice could use them. We now find that these railway problems are being considered by the cabinet, but we are not told whether the Pacific Great Eastern is to be taken over, or what is to be done in regard to the Edmonton and Dunvegan railway. These matters are not discussed, and my hon. friend has stated that he had not time to discuss them, although he was present at the conference.

Then there is another matter that illustrates the attitude of the government towards parliament. Speaking of the Hudson Bay railway, we were told last year that an eminent engineer was to consider the tidal and estuarial conditions at the port, but no statement was made as to whether he thought Fort Churchill was a better port than Port Nelson or that without regard to parliament the change would be made. When the matter first came up for consideration in this house the government of the day was led by Mr. Borden, now Sir Robert Borden. On that occasion Mr. Graham made this statement in the house:

I will admit this; that I think the necessity of the construction of a much longer line of railway to Churchill may have had considerable influence in the selection of Nelson. But just at the time the selection was under discussion, or practically had been made, the government changed, much to the detriment of the country, and my successor was neither satisfied with the contract nor with the port of Nelson; so he stopped the contract, and stated he would see whether there was anything wrong with it. Then he made a trip to Nelson himself, and came back enthusiastic about that being the proper port. I refer to the late Mr. Cochrane. I do not pretend to be practical myself, and I simply based my selection on the information given by the engineers at that time. This was confirmed by my successor in office, Mr. Cochrane, but, as I said before, it is possible the shorter mileage of railway construction might have had something to do with the selection of Nelson...

It is not a question of the respective merits of Port Nelson and Fort Churchill that I desire to draw attention to at this point, but rather the fact that in 1911, before the Laurier administration left office, Mr. Graham, as a result of perusal of the reports of his engineers, had fixed upon Nelson. That was sixteen years ago last fall, and now, on the sayso of one eminent gentleman, the terminus is changed to Churchill, several more miles of railway are to be constructed and $6,000,000 that have been spent are to be lost, or practically lost. But the most important part of it is this: that a minister of the crown announces that by radio, without reference either to council or parliament-

Mr. DUNNING:

No. .

Mr. BENNETT:

Does the minister say he discussed it with his colleagues before he made the announcement? Is that the statement?

Mr. DUNNING:

Yes.

Mr. BENNETT:

My hon. friend announced it by radio, then, not on his own behalf alone but on behalf of himself and his colleagues, although his colleagues were at one place and

The Address-Mr. Bennett

he at another; but in these days of rapid communication wonderful things can be accomplished. At any rate the communication having taken place and the announcement having been made, one would have thought that parliament might have been considered.

I read with some interest the debate which took place on this subject last year, and certainly you will not find within those pages, any indication that parliament left it to the Minister of Railways or the government to make an announcement of that character without at least bringing it to parliament. Although the statement was made, and the letter read as to what Mr. Palmer's instructions were, what he was to do, the fact is that most hon. members believed, as I did, that he was to make a report on the basis of which parliament could consider what action should be taken, rather than that it should be an executive act on the part of the government. However, the action has been taken, and the question whether it is well taken or otherwise will be determined not in our time but rather by posterity, and by that time I suppose neither the Minister of Railways nor any of us will be able to say how accurately Mr. Palmer guessed. But it is a singular comment on the institutions of the country that sixteen years after the selection has been made by two ministers, one a Liberal and the other a Conservative, one who visited the port and the other who did not, but relied upon the word of responsible engineers, their work should go for naught and all the moneys expended practically lost just because a tidal and estuarial engineer says he thinks the other port would be the better. I do think that that is not in consonance with sound economy and constitutional government as we have it in this country.

Again with respect to this Hudson Bay railway it is only fair to say that the very first speech I ever made in the old chamber was an appeal for the immediate construction of the railway, and I recall the circumstances under which the then minister went there for that purpose. There was a suggestion-and it is only right that I should say the Minister of Railways has intimated that the suggestion is rather the reporter's and not his-that political considerations governed with respect to the selection of the port. I refer to an interview in the Montreal Gazette. But my hon. friend has assured me that the inference drawn by the reporter there is only an inference.

Mr. DUNNING:

The article says so.

Mr. BENNETT:

I have it under my hand, and I do not think it says so.

Mr. DUNNING:

I wish my hon. friend

would read the article.

Mr. BENNETT:

It is rather long.

Mr. DUNNING:

Just the part relating

to the inference.

Mr. BENNETT:

If the page will go up

to my room and bring me the newspaper I will satisfy my hon. friend.

Mr. DUNNING:

If my hon. friend will

permit me, the matter is of some importance because it relates to a very highly respected gentleman who is now dead.

Mr. BENNETT:

That is just the reason

I mentioned it.

Mr. DUNNING:

And that is the reason

I want the report correct.

Mr. BENNETT:

I have it here:

The Minister of Railways had a brief chat with Premier King-

Mr. DUNNING:

It is further on than

that.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, I have it here.

My friend has looked it up since I spoke to him the other day.

Mr. DUNNING:

Yes, that is right.