Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):

Why did the right hon. gentleman not do that while he was in office?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

If my hon.

friend will take the trouble to look at some of the things I have put on record, he will find that I advocated a step of this kind long before I came into office. May I also point out to my hon. friend that while we were in office, I helped to carry out part of the program by seeing that labour was given a place on the board of management of the Canadian National Railways. We were moving very distinctly in that direction.

Mr. STEVENS:

The same man is there

now.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

We also saw

that agriculture was given its representation. These things do not all come about in a day, but come about they will in the course of time. I am not surprised that in any effort to deal with social reconstruction opposition comes from hon. gentlemen opposite.

As I was saying, recognition comes in these different forms. I think it should be given equally in the matter of control of industrial policies. If that course is taken in one industry, and in one country it will, I believe, be taken in other industries and in other countries and we shall soon have a condition which will prevent the dislocation of industry whether arising from strikes or lockouts, or from other causes that can be at least partly controlled by those who are concerned in the industry itself. I should like to develop that

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King

idea a little further, but I feel it is necessary to go on with the other matters already touched upon.

May I come back now to the other part of the subamendment of the Progressive party? It is as follows:

That in the opinion of this house, as a first step towards general economic reconstruction, our financial system should be nationalized, and provision be made to issue immediately sufficient money to bring the value of the dollar as speedily as possible to that point at which the major portion of our debts were incurred during the war; stabilize the dollar at this point internally and thereafter manage credit and currency issue to secure and maintain a stable price level within Canada.

That is the substance of the subamendment. It suggests two things: first, the nationalization of our financial system and, second, the direct adoption of a policy of inflation. May I in the first instance ask this question of those who have moved this subamendment: If our financial system is to be nationalized, whom are you going to entrust with that work? Are you going to entrust the government opposite with it? Are you going to entrust hon. gentlemen opposite, who have dealt with the tariff in. the manner in which they have, under the freedom which has been given them, to nationalize the finances of this country? Yet that is what this amendment is suggesting, because it is addressed to parliament as it exists at the present time. May I ask another question? Were a Liberal administration in office would you entrust a Liberal administration with that task? May I ask still another question? Were you in office yourselves, would you undertake the work of nationalizing the finances of the country? I do not believe that any group of persons who have given thought to these matters would attempt a task of that kind in Canada at this time. And, if we ourselves would not undertake a scheme such as this, what would be thought of Canada by other countries if it were announced to-morrow that this House of Commons had attempted any such task as the one indicated in the subamendment?

With respect to the inflation of currency, may I draw attention to this further fact?

It is a well known circumstance that it is very difficult to discover just what exact amount of inflation is going to serve the purpose that may be in view. Who is going to determine whether there is enough inflation? Inflation has a way of gathering momentum to itself.

It is easy to step on the accelerator, but it is very hard to put on the brakes.

[Mr. Mackenzie King.l

Miss MACPHAIL:

They seem to have put on the brakes now.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is fortunate if it is in regard to inflation, because to my mind inflation certainly is one of the last cures that would be helpful in the present situation. Would inflation increase the purchasing power of any one overseas? Would not inflation, if it is carried to the point indicated in the amendment, help very much the holding classes to-day as compared with others? Let me read a statement by Mr. Keynes, whom hon. gentlemen to my left have often quoted:

To restore the value of pre-war holdings by deflation means enhancing at the same time the value of war and post-war holdings, and thereby raising the total claims of the rentier class not only beyond what they are entitled to, but to an intolerable proportion of the total income of the community.

Is that sort of thing what is desired by those who have moved the subamendment? You cannot deflate or inflate currency in such a way that it will help only those who have next to nothing, and not help in some cases those also who may possess something. Each works all around. Inflation like deflation is a two-edged sword when it comes to dealing with financial matters.

Moreover, may I ask if some of these problems are not very much beyond the bounds of a single nation to deal with? Is it not true that apart from these problems, being international in character, other factors enter in a very real way which, even so far as international cooperation is concerned, it is very difficult to control? A very learned address was delivered in this city not very long ago by a great economist who has been quoted many times in the course of this debate, Sir Josiah Stamp. What did he say?

No economic machine can stand against undue optimism or undue pessimism. In getting the world right, there are two separate sets of problems to be faced: (1) national problems to be solved by ourselves, and (2) international problems which cannot be solved by any one nation, but can be solved only by the complete and frank merging of interests which interrelate. Such problems are the gold problem, tariffs and the dislocation of markets.

There is here a reference to the psychological factor as well as the economic, and may I, in speaking of the psychological factor, ask those who are advocating the course set out in this subamendment whether the credit of Canada in the eyes of the world would be improved if to-morrow an announcement were made that this country had decided to inflate its currency? I do not believe it

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King

would, and I do not believe my hon. friends feel that it would. Then if it would not, why should we pass this particular subamendment at this time?

The question of a managed currency is a very large one. They are experimenting with it to a considerable extent in some countries, in Great Britain, for instance, at the present time. But Great Britain has back of her an experience in international finance that no other country in the world has, and an experience, in the matter of banking and currency which no other country in the world possesses. Can we not afford to wait a little and see how the experiment works out in Great Britain before seeking to oppose our efforts to hers or to rival her efforts by our own? That is the point I wish to bring out at the moment.

May I add this further fact? Great Britain, as the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has indicated, is experimenting with managed money. But has she experimented with inflated currency? Has she ever attempted to meet her currency problems in that way? She has not. Well, if Great Britain is to be cited as an example worthy of emulating, I think we might emulate her in that particular as well as in others. I do not, however, wish to dwell unduly on this point. I merely wish to point out that there are strong reasons for hesitating to accept this particular amendment at this time, not by any means with a view to indicating that we are not sympathetic to a study of the problem, or as indicating the absence of a desire to see some measure of reform effected, but just because we have to deal with things in the light of conditions as they are in this country and in this house at the present time.

Furthermore, the method suggested in the subamendment, if put into effect, would, I believe, defeat the very ends which its advocates themselves have in view. What does the subamendment say?

That . . . our financial system should be

nationalized, and provision be made to issue immediately sufficient money to bring the value of the dollar as speedily as possible to that point at which the major portion of our debts were incurred during the war.

To do it immediately-to do it speedily- to issue sufficient money to bring the whole thing up to the desired level at once. What would be the effect of that? What about all the wage-earners in this country and those with fixed incomes generally? If this course were followed, every one of them would be affected adversely. Every person on fixed

income or on a wage, if the currency were to be speedily and immediately inflated, would be the loser. I venture to say that those who have framed this amendment would not wish anything of the kind. It may well be that inflation, properly administered, might, in certain circumstances, help to meet a situation, just as the administration of some kind of a drug may help to have a certain effect upon a patient if given in sufficiently small doses over a long enough period of time. But to try to inject the drug all at once and work an immediate cure, might only kill the patient; and, with all due respect to my hon. friends, I am afraid that such would be the effect if the course they here propose were to be put into force as they suggest all at once.

Apart from the reasons I have mentioned, it can hardly be expected that we of the Liberal party, no matter how sympathetic we may be with the desire to see currency problems properly dealt with, questions of credit, gold and the like properly studied, and such action taken as can properly be taken with respect to them-it can hardly be expected that we can support a subamendment which asks us to reject all that we have in our own amendment and to support what is given to us instead. There is no reason why, because each of us cannot get his own pet panacea accepted, we should seek to rule out everything else. We have said nothing in our amendment about a number of other important problems for the simple reason that over and over again, where an amendment has referred to more than one question, we have been told by those who are criticizing us to-day that our amendment would have been very much improved if we had confined it to one question instead of referring to a great number. For that reason, among others, we have drawn our amendment in the form in which we have.

I come now more in detail to the amendment which the Liberal party has presented to the house.

Mr. IRVINE:

I should like to ask a question, although I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman. Would he not admit that if the subamendment were followed, as he has been outlining it, it would help those in debt? Does he not realize that managed currency does not mean an inflation of the type he describes?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Managed currency may not mean an inflation of the type I have described, but the amendment of the party to which my hon. friend belongs does mean that. It is with that aspect of the

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King

matter I was dealing. With respect to managed currency I have suggested it would be much wiser, before experimenting ourselves, to wait and see what happens as a result of the experiments now taking place in Great Britain.

In regard to helping those who are in debt, I cannot believe any course that is not fundamentally sound is going to be of lasting benefit to anybody. It is only that thing which is fundamentally sound that, in the long run, will be of any real service to the great body of our people. I think one fundamentally sound step would be to bring high tariffs down to something like a level which would permit trade between this and other countries. That is why the Liberal amendment stresses the present tariff position in Canada. It draws attention to the fact that the tariff is far from what it should be, if trade is to exist on any scale in this country.

I realize our amendment has been criticized on the score that it does not deal with more than one subject. I hope I have already answered that point, sufficiently.

Another objection raised, by hon. gentlemen opposite, and by some people outside this House of Commons, is that we are debating over and over again, the old question of tariffs. We are asked: Are we going to stick to orthodox economies, as they are called, instead of breaking out into new fields? May I point out, in the first place, that the tariff issue in Canada to-day is altogether different from what it has ever been in this country before. Would any of the former leaders of the Conservative party regard the present tariff as a protective tariff, would they not regard it as a prohibitive tariff? You will find, in their utterances which appear over and over again in Hansard, the statement that they see no necessity for a protective tariff being raised to the point where it becomes a prohibitive tariff. The tariff as we have it to-day is different from any tariff that has existed previously in Canada. It is out of all proportion and beyond the bounds of common sense with respect to the requirements of industry and the needs of this country. It has been made what it is deliberately and for a specific purpose. It was made in its present form to enable the Prime Minister to adopt his blasting tactics, as he has termed them, in order, as he believes is possible, to force other nations to change their attitude towards Canada. It is part of the paraphernalia of economic war in which the present administration believes.

It is the method the present government has deliberately chosen to deal with our

economic problems. We have blasting on the one side, and blockading on the other. I would remind hon. members that blockading is one phase, and blasting the other in economic war. We are blockading our ports. The ports of Canada to-day are blockaded against the entry of goods as effectively as has been many a port during a time of war. The trade coming into this country and going out of it as a result of the increased purchasing power which might come from those who sell their goods abroad are alike affected by the blockade. I say the question is entirely different from the one with which Canada has been faced at any previous time.

To revert to the Liberal amendment more in detail; will hon. members opposite deny that the changes in the tariff have been arbitrary? What about the fixing of the values of gasoline; what about oak flooring; what about electric fixtures; what what about a multitude of other things we have heard discussed in this chamber? Will anybody say those changes have not been made arbitrarily? Will any hon. member in the Progressive party say those changes were not ill-considered? Will members of the government say they have not been ill-considered? If they were not, why in many cases did the government change them the day after they were put in effect, as they did first of all with respect to the prohibitive duties on glass. We know that innumerable changes were made one day and in some form or other were changed by the government either the next day or a short time afterwards.

What about the regulations in regard to the pound sterling? One course must have been right, and the other wrong, or one would not have been changed for the other. We know the government did not take only one course with regard to the pound sterling; it did one thing one day and another another. One of those changes must have been ill-considered ; I leave it to the government to say which one it was. Will hon. members say there have been no inordinate increases in the tariff? Let me mention a very few things. By way of example, there is the duty on silk georgettes, of 85 per cent; on crepe de Chine, of 70 per cent; on cotton backed silk, of 96 per cent; on pongee silk, of 125 per cent; on men's worsteds, 60 per cent; on French serge,

63 per cent, and on men's woollens, from 85 per cent to 140 per cent. I select that list because it affects the clothing of the people in Canada which represents a serious item of expenditure in the cost of all. I might run through other tariff items and show where

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King

changes have been made of 50 per cent in some cases, 100 per cent in others, 150 per cent in others, 200 per cent in others and 250 per cent in others. If those are not inordinate increases, what could be considered inordinate?

I' do not think I need describe the effect of such tariff increases on industry, because that ground has been well covered by hon. members who have already spoken in this debate. Will anybody say the fixation of the tariff in the manner in which it has been done, namely by order in council, has not had a serious effect upon the business of Canada? Will anybody say it was ever intended by the constitution of this country and those who had to do with the framing of the British North America Act that the making of the tariff should be transferred from this House of Commons to the cabinet in the way it has been transferred by action of the government itself.

I do not at this time wish to debate the constitutional question which arises in this connection, although I think time might be well taken in a discussion of that matter.

Oh, oh.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Hon. gentlemen opposite laugh; they laugh at anything which affects the constitution, because nearly everything being done to-day on any large scale by hon. gentlemen opposite is subversive of the constitution. May I point out to them that when they talk about parliament being supreme they forget that parliament is supreme only within certain limits. Whatever supremacy the British parliament may have with regard to matters in general, we in Canada, until we amend the written portion of our constitution-and we are supreme in the sense that we can amend it at any time we wish- until we amend it we are subject to it, and it is only within the limits of the constitution as there set forth that we are free to act. Will hon. gentlemen opposite say that this Dominion parliament, in its supremacy, can make laws with respect to those matters which by the constitution are assigned to the provinces? They will not. There is a limitation to the supremacy of parliament in the constitution. AVhat is the difference between the limitation upon the executive as embodied in the constitution, and the limitation which I have just described. The constitution sets forth certain legislative powers. Those powers are confined to the two houses of parliament and the King's representative. That is the only body which can legislate with respect to anything, and particularly with respect to taxation. Another section of the act deals with

the powers of the executive, and there is not a word which gives the executive power to legislate. Similarly there is another section dealing with the powers of the judiciary. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen will say that under the act, as it now stands, parliament in its supremacy can transfer to the judiciary, legislative powers. They could in Britain, if they wished to do so, under the supremacy of parliament, and nothing intervening to restrict them. We in Canada could do so if we wished, but we would first have to amend the British North America Act. When it comes to the imposition of taxation there is no right eifher constitutionally or legally -which the government has to impose taxation in the form of duties by order in council, I care not under what authority they may claim that right. It is a right that might foe given were the constitution so amended, but it is not a right that at present exists. There is no authority whatever to do anything of the kind. I think that the business houses which are asking the government to give them a fiat to test in the courts whether they are not entitled to compensation from the crown for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of which they have been robbed by the orders in council which have been passed are perfectly right in their contention, and that they should be given such permission.

Bet me read what the president of the Robert Simpson Company has had to say in this regard. I refer to this particularly because the Robert Simpson Company is only one of many large commercial houses scattered throughout the country, whose business interests have suffered by unwarranted action on the part of the government; these commercial houses employ as large numbers of people as do our factories, and they also serve the consuming public in quite as effective a manner. In his last address to the shareholders of his company, the president of the Robert Simpson Company said:

The new tariff changes have penalized us seriously. Especially is this true in respect of those schedules which provided specific duties, revaluations of certain articles, revaluation of depreciated sterling exchange, and other currencies, and the wide application of dumping duties in respect to these valuations, as well as in respect of exchanges covering shipments of American and European purchases, whose currencies continue on the gold basis. The trading loss to us in 1931 ran into several hundred thousand dollars. The drastic contraction in imports-the practical prohibition of operations, which for many years have contributed greatly to the economy of business as a whole-presents a very serious problem.

There, I submit, is one of the strongest reasons why the amendment which we have

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King

before the house at the moment should receive the support of all who believe in confining legislation on tariff matters to the commons, and in doing away with the practice which has grown up under this administration of egislating on the tariff by orders in council.

Referring again for a moment to what is termed the timeworn discussion of orthodox economics may I say that nearly all the great questions which have occasioned controversy during the years are of that character. What is older than the question of the relative values of socialism and individualism? The whole argument for each will be found in the writings of Plato on the one hand and of Aristotle on the other, and from their time down to today the economic organizations of the world have been debating the relative values of those two opposing forms of social organization. Similarly they have been debating whether or not high or low tariffs or no tariffs at all were the better policy for the country concerned. No apology need be offered for bringing up what although an old question, at this present time arises in a form in which, in Canada, it has never hitherto arisen.

I have already drawn attention to the fact that we have brought forward this amendment because the subject is something we can deal with ourselves in a practical way. We can deal with it in a way that will help relieve the burdensome condition of the taxpayers of Canada and will be of service in many other directions.

A great deal has been said about Canada pointing the way. The Minister of Finance himself in his speech said he hoped that we would point the way at the coming economic conference. While the countries of the world to-day are seeking for a lead, particularly in the matter of the lowering of tariffs, why should we in this country run in the very opposite direction of putting up tariffs to a point higher than they are in any other country of the world at this time? We know moreover that high tariffs are no remedy for industrial ills. We know that in Australia and in the United States-countries that are cited over and over again as being high tariff countries-the condition of unemployment is, if anything, worse than it is in this country. We have our own experience in this matter. To-day we have the highest tariffs that Canada ever had, and we have the largest amount of unemployment we ever had. Moreover, in Australia, the people are rebelling against high tariffs. I have here, although I will not take the time to quote from it, the report of the tariff board of Australia, which was presented to the Australian parliament a short time ago. That report is one 'Mr. Mackenzie King.]

of the strongest condemnations of high tariff evils that has ever been put out by any public body. It condemns high tariffs, shows how they have operated against the interests of the people of Australia, against even in many cases the interests of the very manufacturers themselves in whose behalf they were supposed to have been passed; it outlines the abuses to which high tariffs have lead, and it states, just as a former premier of Australia, Mr. Bruce, stated recently in London, that high tariffs have had their day, and that no good could be expected from them in the way of helping either industry or social conditions.

Moreover, in this country we have had the example of a practical test of the relative value-of high and low tariffs in periods of depression. When the Liberal administration came into office over ten years ago, Canada was in the throes of an industrial depression. Did we put up the tariffs? On the contrary, we lowered the tariffs-lowered them with respect to the duties on the implements of production, lowered them with respect to many things affecting the necessaries of life, lowered them in a way which would help the producers of the great basic industries and consumers generally. And what was the result? In a little time our trade began to increase, it increased, and increased, until it exceeded the bounds of anything that had been known in the way of trade and commerce since confederation. With that example before us there is no necessity of making an experiment in an opposite direction for a longer period than that experiment has already been in operation.

The Prime Minister has referred time and again to using the tariff as an instrument of national policy. He has said that it should be used to afford equality of opportunity, that is should be used for the purpose of fair competition, and in that connection he always cites the manufacturing interests of the country. May I say that I agree with him that regulations should be made to prevent dumping; I also agree that the tariff can be used, and ought to be used, effectively to safeguard the legitimate standards of labour in this country. But my right hon. friend goes further; when he says we should use this instrument as a means of bringing about what he calls "fair competition and equal opportunity," he extends the tariff to unconscionable heights in an effort so to do. I put this question to him: If the tariff can be used as an instrument of national policy by raising duties to help the manufacturing industry of this country, wdiy might it not also be used as an instrument of national policy

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King

to help the great primary, basic industries of the country in their production by lowering the duties? If it can be used as an instrument of national policy by increasing duties, it can also be used as an instrument of national policy by decreasing duties. I think the time has about come in this country when what is most needed is a tariff which will help us export commodities, rather than a tariff that will help to prohibit importations. But to be just and effective, a tariff of the kind would require as an auxiliary something in the nature of a tariff board the membership of which would have knowledge of conditions in other parts of the world. Last year we heard a great deal about the necessity for a tariff board. We were held here for days by the government insisting their bill should go through in the form in which it was drafted, assuring the members of the board ten years of office no matter what happened. What has become of the board? We have heard nothing further about it. If there was ever need of a tariff board it was when the currency question was to the fore in Great Britain. If we had had a tariff board at that time we would not have taken the slam we did at Great Britain in the year we are to have her representatives here to meet us and other representatives of the Empire in an economic conference. Our friends opposite treated Great Britain in a way that our neighbours to the south, another great competitor of Great Britain, did not begin to do.

May I stress as a further reason which I think ought to appeal to all this year-the figures which I have given of the effect of the tariff as it is upon revenues. There is no doubt at all that the revenue of this country has suffered tremendously through the customs receipts having fallen to such a low point. Why should we impose additional taxes on the great body of the people, direct taxes in the form of sales tax, income tax and the like, when by a reversion to a moderate tariff, we may have a tariff that will serve all the purposes that are needed in the way of protection of industry, that will also help the great basic industries by permitting something in the way of competition within the country, that will be of service to the great consuming public as well, and will at the same time help to give us much of the revenue which we need at this time. These are the reasons which have actuated us in bringing forward the amendment in its present form.

There is one other matter with which I would like to deal, and it brings me to the final part of what I have to say. I refer now to the forthcoming Imperial conference. That 41761-1501

conference is going to deal with questions of trade, and of tariffs as affecting trade, more than with any other questions. That is the strongest of reasons, if there were no other, why the amendment which has been presented should be brought before the house at this time.

In regard to the Imperial conference, may I say first of all that nothing is going to be gained by exaggerating the significance of that event. It is a great event, a great national event, a great inter-imperial event, and let us hope it will prove to be also a great international event, but nothing will be gained by saying it is the greatest event since the Reformation. Nothing will be gained by saying it 'is going to mark a new dispensation. Nothing will be gained by saying, as the Prime Minister himself said when he landed in Halifax last December, that it will be the greatest event of the kind that ever occurred within the empire. I do not think this exaggeration is going to help things at all. Let us hope the conference will help to increase trade between this country and the other parts of the British Empire. If it does that, it will be a great event; but this object will not be helped along by super-exaggeration.

If it is to be the great event that hon. gentlemen opposite say it is to be, is it not surprising that, up to the present time, though we are within three months of the event itself, and I hope within three weeks of the prorogation of this parliament, we have not thus far had any discussion of the questions that are to come before the conference. The government has not brought forward any statement with regard even to the agenda, and when we have asked for information we have received only curt, and, I might almost say, rude replies. If the event is so important, I submit that this house is entitled to a little more information than we have had up to the present time in reference to it. A day or two ago, I asked the Prime Minister if the agenda had been prepared, and if we could be told anything about it. I also asked whether committees had been formed here in Canada. What was the reply? The reply was that we could not get any particulars with regard to the completed agenda; nothing was said about any other particulars. With regard to the committees, we were told that it was not in the public interest that it should be made known what these committees were. We were told that there were committees, but it was said that it was not in the public interest to disclose who composed the committees or what they were doing. I submit that such information is very much in the public interest.

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King

More than that, I say that the moment the Prime Minister made that statement, the government recognized it had been a mistake, and took good care to see that the error was rectified by the leader of the party in the other house. On the day following, the leader of the government in the Senate gave to that chamber, and through it to the country, a fairly complete statement of what he said he understood were the different committees that had to do with the business of the conference.

May I direct attention, Mr. Speaker, to this fact: The treatment of the house this year, with regard to getting information on these matters, is no different from the treatment of the house in other years. Hon. gentlemen opposite I assume would like to have the cooperation of those on this side. I ask how can they possibly expect cooperation, and how can it conceivably be given, if we are told nothing whatever about the subjects on which we are to cooperate, and if we are denied even the views of the administration with respect to what they intend to put forward at the conference? I do submit that it was an indignity to hon. members of this House of Commons that they should be denied information which the government found it necessary to give to the Senate on the following day.

But this conference is only the postponed conference of 1930. In September of that year, I asked a question of the ministry with regard to the agenda of the conference then about to take place. I was told by the Prime Minister that we could not have the agenda, that it was a secret matter and he did not intend to give it to the house. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) addressed some other questions to the Prime Minister, as to whether there would be an opportunity to discuss the agenda and whether he might be told certain things about it. He also received a reply which was to the effect that it was none of his business, and none of the business of any of us on this side of the house to discuss matters pertaining to the Imperial conference. Let me show how differently an opposition is treated in the parliament of Great Britain. On July 30, 1930-and remember it was in September that our Prime Minister said that he could give us no information, because it was a secret-Mr. Stanley Baldwin, who was then leader of the opposition, directed a question to the then Prime Minister. I am quoting from English Hansard for July 30. 1930, at page 474:

Mr. Stanley Baldwin asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the agenda for the Imperial conference ?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) : The Imperial conference will afford

an opportunity for a general review7 and discussion of all matters, both in the political and economic spheres, of common interest to the members of the British commonwealth under the following heads:

(1) Inter-Imperial relations.

(2) Foreign policy and defence.

(3) Economic questions.

Then are set out the details of what would happen on the political sphere, followed by details with respect to the economic sphere. They are given under headings, and I think I had better read those main headings to the house, because this was the agenda of 1930, and we shall in all probability have exactly the same agenda in 1932 because this is the postponed conference. If the Prime Minister of the country cannot give this information to the house, perhaps, on this occasion, the leader of the opposition may be permitted to do so. Here is the agenda:

On the economic side of the following will be the main headings:

(a) General question of the trade of the empire, including capital investments and establishment of branch industries, the effect of successive tariff changes and the extent and effect of inter-imperial tariff preferences, and also of other factors such as cartels, etc.;

(b) bulk purchase and price stabilization;

(c) development of inter-imperial trade by trade commissioner services, exhibition and general publicity;

(d) oversea settlement;

(ej the past and future work of the Imperial economic committee, the Empire Marketing Board and the Imperial Institute;

(f) questions of cooperation in agricultural research (including cotton growing), forestry and minerals;

(g) special meetings of experts on industrial research and standardization;

(h) Transport and communications, including review of the work of the Imperial Shipping Committee and the Oversea Mechanical Transport Council, survey of steamship services, development of civil aviation, cable, radio, broadcasting, postal and news services. Under this heading would come also the question of the proposed agreements relating to merchant shipping legislation recommended in the report of the conference on the operation of dominion legislation.

Why could not that agenda have been given to this House of Commons at the beginning of this session as well as at the special session of 1930? It was given to the British House of Commons in July, 1930. They make no secret of the agenda in Britain; they have been discussing it from day to day. But I think I know the reason; it is that hon. gentlemen themselves are not familiar with the agenda and have given little or no study to it.

Oh. oh.

The Budget-Mr. Mackenzie King

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I direct

attention to the question I asked the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) a day or two ago and to the minister's reply. I refer to Hansard for April 22:

Mr. Mackenzie King: I would like to ask

the minister one question. Could my hon. friend tell us whether the subject of migration and settlement within the British Empire will be one of the matters taken up at the forthcoming Imperial conference?

Hon. W. A. Gordon (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization): That hardly

comes within the scope of this item, but I imagine matters of that character will be discussed, though to what extent or from what angle I am not prepared to indicate at the moment.

Mr. Mackenzie King: As I understand it,

then, the minister's reply is to the effect that he imagines this may come up but at the present time he cannot say.

That was the position of the minister who deals with the question of settlement. The question of oversea settlement, immigration, in other words, is to be on the agenda for discussion, and all the minister can tell us is that he imagines it will come up. If that is the position of the ministry with respect to one subject on the agenda, what may we think of its present position with respect to the other subjects? I suppose each minister, if asked, would reply that he imagines the matters in which he is interested will come up, but that he cannot say. Yet we are within three months of the opening of the conference. I say to the Prime Minister that from one end of this country to the other, there is indignation being expressed at the lack of preparation on the part of the government for this important event. It is felt in this city more than anywhere else. There are officials who know that, at the last moment, they will be expected to furnish this and that in the way of information, but not until a day or two ago, when this question came up, were they told anything about what they will be expected to have in the way of preparation.

Mr. CAHAN:

Is that statement true?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That statement is true.

Mr. BENNETT:

It is absolutely untrue.

Mr. CAHAN:

I do not believe it.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend may not believe it, but I know in a very direct way that there has been a good deal of complaint that very little has been said.

Mr. CAHAN:

I cannot help that, but that statement is utterly untrue.

Mr. BENNETT:

Absolutely.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think I have the right from what I have heard to make a statement of the kind, and I repeat it.