Mr. MANION:

I do not know what my bon. friend is referring to. The hon. gentleman made the statement that Canada's debt was slashed in the five years of the Liberal regime by 8257,000,000.

More than that.

Mr. MANION:

That is the figure quoted in the Times-Joumal. I wish to point out that that may be correct as far as the direct debt is concerned, but my hon. friend, like the right hon. gentleman himself and other lieutenants of his, forgot the indirect debt which was added to this country during their regime. From 1923 to 1930 the railway debt of Canada was increased to -the extent of 8461,000,000, just about double the amount of the decrease as given by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. And the interest on the railway debt was increased by 820,000,000 per annum. That is the indirect charge that is being paid by the people of this country through taxes at the 'present time. So they are not fair in stating that they cut down the debt of this country at all.

Then another statement my hon. friend made, in speaking of the wheat marketing policy of the government, was that the people have already suffered a loss of $30,000,000 by the action of this government. I merely say that the people of this country have not yet at any rate suffered a loss of one penny. The deal is not completed and no one knows at this moment whether we will suffer a loss at all or reap a profit.

Speaking of the royal commission on railways, my hon. friend said its recommendations were for a policy of amalgamation. That is absolutely untrue, they absolutely declared against amalgamation. Then he went on to say that by this amalgamation the government was trying to effect the absorption of one of Canada's great transportation systems, and an accounting would 'have to be asked for this effort to destroy public ownership. That is so plainly a misstatement that I do not intend to deal with it except to say that for the right hon. gentleman to say,-and he is supported by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) on every platform on which he goes-to say that this government is attempting to bring about amalgamation does not alter the fact that the law of this country to-day, introduced by the present government, prevents amalgamation. The last clause in the act to which he refers reads as follows: Nothing in this act shall be 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 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.

So that amalgamation is absolutely forbidden by the law of this country. There are two distinct and separate managements for the railways, there is no hint of amalgamation. There has been some pooling of passenger traffic and probably there will be more, but as far as amalgamation is concerned there has been no hint of it and there will be none under this government.

Then the hon. gentleman brought in a subject which I say should not be brought into politics at all, and which up to his coming into this house was kept out of politics. He spoke of "another gross breach of faith by this government" towards the returned soldiers. There has been no breach of faith towards returned soldiers by this government, and I will be fair to the other side and say that there was no gross breach of faith by the late government towards returned soldiers. All the governments of this country from 1919 on have been eminently fair to the returned soldiers, and I make the statement now that I have made many times, that the returned soldiers of Canada have been treated better than the returned soldiers of any other country in the world.

Mr. HANBURY:

By legislation, but not in operation.

Mr. MANION:

It is possible that by some rigidities of the pension commission, if you will, there may have been an occasional injustice done. These injustices, if they exist, can be corrected, and as far as I am concerned and this government, we are anxious to correct any injustices, as anxious as my hon. friend who has just spoken and as all hon. members on this side or the other side or the third side have been in dealing with questions affecting returned soldiers in the soldiers' committee. But I suggest to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre that when he or his friends attempt, as I am told they are doing, to inject this question into politics-

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

That is

absolutely incorrect.

Mr. MANION:

I am glad to have that

statement. At any rate he did throw it into politics in this statement in Fort William. When he or any hon. member brings the returned soldier question into politics he is doing the greatest disservice to the returned soldiers of this country that he or any man

The Address-Mr. Manion

can do. No body of men stand to suffer so much by bringing the returned soldier question into politics as the returned soldiers themselves. I suggest to any of those who think of bringing .it into politics, whether they are within or without this house, that they should be very hesitant about making such a move.

I do not intend to deal any further with my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre; I wish now to deal with statements made by the hon. member for Melville. He made a speech at Fort William, and like the hon. member for Vancouver Centre he was very well received, they all liked him very much. I do not think they took him very seriously, because one man said he was the most comical man who had ever come to Fort William. The hon. member for Melville said that the whole bonus policy on wheat was asinine and stupid. I suppose he does not find any fault with that quotation?

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

I think that yet so far as the government's policy related to those who had no crop.

Mr. MAiNION: What puzzles me is that when that policy was being put in force the hon. gentleman was sitting in this house and I do not remember that he took any such attitude then. I remember standing in this house and daring any hon. member on the other side to stand up and oppose the wheat bonus policy, and not one rose to oppose it. Certain hon. gentlemen over there took the attitude that some details should be changed, that it should be carried out in some other way-

Mr. HEPBURN:

You are quite wrong. I opposed the wheat bonus policy and spoke against such policy.

Mr. MANION:

Yes, I think that is correct, I think the hon. gentleman who now leads in absentia the Liberal party in the Ontario house did.

Mr. HANBURY:

What was the vote reported in Hansard?

Mr. MANION:

The hon. gentleman said Canada got no preference out of the imperial economic conference whatever-

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

For wheat.

Mr. MANION:

That is not what the paper quotes him as saying. But we get six cents a bushel on wheat, if you limit it to that.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:

The Prime Minister

does not say so.

Mr. MANION:

This paper quotes the hon. gentleman as saying we get no preference

[Mr- Manion.]

whatever. On wheat we get six cents; we get a preferential quota on bacon and ham; a most substantial preference on cheese, apples, etc., and on copper, and a ten year preference on Canadian grown or manufactured tobacco. These are among the preferences we get.

Then the hon. gentleman spoke of the price of wheat, and he said that my right hon leader had driven down the price of wheat to the lowest it had been in three hundred years. Well, I do not need to deal with such a statement as that, because I do not think that even my hon. friend would seriously contend that the Prime Minister of Canada has the power to drive down the world price of wheat to the lowest it has been in three hundred years. The only thing I have to say in regard to the hon. gentlemen who were in my constituency-and whom I will be happy to welcome back before the next election because if they come at that time I think I will get an acclamation-is that when a new edition of Baron Munchausen is published, I hope their speeches will be included.

My only reason for making these references is that they illustrate the attitude the hon. gentlemen take when they get away from Ottawa, in places where they think-wrongly, I am sure-that the people do not understand these questions. I have a particularly cultivated and highly educated constituency, and I suggest to my hon. friends that when they try to put over this sort of stuff they should stay away from Fort William; my constituents have had a good member too long to be uninformed on any of the public questions of this country.

Now I should like to deal for a little while with my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who spent four hours and twenty minutes, covering forty-two interminable pages of Hansard, weeping and wailing and gnashing his teeth about the terrible conditions in this country and the way the government is forgetting to do anything, not to help the country on the up-grade because he does not admit there is any up-grade, but to prevent the country from going further down-grade. Jeremiah, I think, was a cheerful optimist compared with the right hon. gentleman in his four hour and twenty minute speech the other day. What I should like to ask my right hon. friend is why he took four hours and twenty minutes and why he covered forty-two pages of Hansard in order to say what he could have said completely in one sentence; that is, that he had no use whatever for this government or any of its works, and that he would not admit of an improvement in business conditions in Canada, even though that

The Address-Mr. Manion

improvement had already taken place. That was the attitude taken by my right hon. friend. The fact that the improvement has taken place did not affect him in the least except in reference to the coming election. He wants the election sooner, because he is afraid the improvement is coming too quickly. He does not like our tariff policies, our trade policies and pacts, our agricultural policy, our wheat agreement or our unemployment measures.

Mr. DUPUIS:

Or titles.

Mr. MANION:

I am not sure about that; he said he had nothing against titles. I think perhaps he is looking forward to the next time he gets in power. He objected to titles from their constitutional aspect but not from their personal aspect. He does not like our railway policies, and for that matter he does not like any of our policies. The impression I got from his speech was that he does not like the government, but the things that depressed him most were the Prime Minister's speech and the Prime Minister's optimism. As a matter of fact the right hon. gentleman objects to optimism of any kind; he does not think there should be any optimism at all. He thinks this government caused the world depression, and I think if he told the truth he would say that in his opinion we caused the war. Travelling home the other day, in company with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), I looked over his speech; I spent my time reading the whole forty-two pages of it. I belong to that religion, Mr. Speaker, which believes in purgatory, and since reading that speech I have come to the conclusion that when I suffer in purgatory for my sins I am going to be forced to do my suffering in reading the right hon. . gentleman's speeches.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I hope my

hon. friend does not flatter himself by thinking he will get off with purgatory.

Mr. MANION:

Well, I am even more

convinced, Mr. Speaker, that if I go to hell I will be reading his speeches all the time; yes, and the Prime Minister suggests, that I may even have to listen to them there.