Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

Mr. MANION:

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is true. But I am aware that my hon. friend sat here at one time when we were discussing trade matters, when I was putting forward the argument I am making to-night, and on that occasion he said that trade was war. I think his words are still on Hansard.

I do not entertain that view. On the contrary I regard the promotion of trade as a means of avoiding war. I believe if policies of economic nationalism continue to make headway among the different nations, that war will follow as certain as night the day. It is not too much to say that such a policy perhaps above all others lies at the root of

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

conditions in Europe to-day. Some of those countries have abandoned the old policy of promoting the interchange of goods and have sought to become water-tight compartments in matters of production and purchase within their own boundaries. There can be no doubt in the world about that.

To-day opinion in the world is divided in large part between the two points of view, as to whether nations are to continue to seek to develop along lines of economic nationalism or whether something more is to be sought by way of international trade and greater freedom of intercourse between nations. This government believes in the latter policy. We have been pursuing it, and pursuing it successfully. Since the world has become as disturbed as it has been in recent years the first great step towards furthering better international relations was the step taken by the present government when it negotiated its first trade agreement with the United States.

Inevitably when the British and United States governments were seeking to develop a trade agreement between themselves the question came up with respect to the agreements which Canada had already had with each of those countries. We had an agreement with Great Britain which originated at the time of the economic conference of 1932, since modified and renewed in part but which expires in 1940. We had our agreement with the United States which with six months' notice would have expired this year. Those two countries were stressing to us their desire to reach a trade agreement between themselves. They kept pointing out that while they were seeking to negotiate a trade agreement between themselves they had in some particulars to bring up for our consideration some of the features of the agreements which were already in existence, one between Canada and Great Britain, the other between Canada and the United States.

Suppose we had assumed the attitude that under no circumstances would we consider- whether or not we got compensation, adequate or greater than adequate-the clause in the agreement between Great Britain and Canada which said that with the consent of the two parties modifications might be made in the agreement at any time, where each of the parties was likely to benefit in the long run. If we had taken any such attitude where would this country have been in 1940 when it came to seek a renewal of our agreement with Great Britain? I want this house to understand just where the country would very' shortly be, if policies such as those suggested to-night by my hon. friend opposite were to govern, instead of those which the present administration has followed.

In matters of government it is always wise to look ahead-sometimes a long way ahead. I want to repeat that a consideration of which this country had to take full account when negotiating these agreements was just where would we be when the period of each of the present agreements expired, if we were not able to retain the friendship of the two countries with which we had negotiated our previous agreements? I say any government which would not have considered that aspect of the question would have been recreant in its duty alike to the future and the present, because even within the space of the few months when these negotiations were going on, notice could have been given to terminate at the end of the year the agreement already existing with Canada. Instead of having an enlarged trade agreement, good for the next three years and I hope many more, which will be discussed in the house within the next few weeks, we might well have found ourselves with no agreement at all. I ask hon. members in all parts of the house if that is a position which anyone would have welcomed.

What we have got has been the result of trying to deal in a fair and honourable way with the two countries closest to us, the two countries which are our best customers, the countries with which we have the closest relations and upon which we are dependent for very much of what we enjoy in the way of freedom and security. The government was glad to view the situation in a large way. We indicated, however, at once to our friends alike in Great Britain and in the United States that we would consider modifying our position in the British market only if we were to be ensured of adequate compensation, either by the British or by the Americans or both together, and that only upon that basis were we prepared to consider suggested modification. We believed that once together to discuss matters in the light of a larger agreement calculated to affect many countries, we would be able not only to review the existing agreement but to make a much better agreement for the next three years than the one we had at that time. Such has proved to be the case.

I am not going into the details of the agreement to-night, but I venture to say that when it is discussed in this house hon. members will find that for the next three years and beyond we shall have an agreement much more beneficial to Canada than the one we have had for the last three years. Not only that, but I think it will be found that we in Canada shall also benefit considerably from the agreement that has been made between the United States and Great Britain. We receive extra advantages that arise out of that particular agreement.

58 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

But I ask: Are we in times such as the present, going to view everything merely in terms of material values, in terms solely of quantities of trade? This afternoon my hon. friend began examining in microscopic fashion some of the concessions that had been made and that involved for the moment some sectional interest somewhere. Then he passed on to do the same sort of thing elsewhere, but confining the concessions granted to those on one side only. May I say to my hon. friend that agreements are not generally made without concessions by both sides?

He did not go over the other side of the agreement to see what we got in return. He did not tell the house this afternoon of the larger market for cattle that would be available. He said nothing of milk, of other dairy products, of fish, of potatoes, and other products. Nor did he go over the many other additional advantages that would accrue to other primary industries the products of which are to obtain wider markets. What is most extraordinary of all, my hon. friend seems to deplore the fact that there has been a reduction in taxation. One of the many things that he said to-night was that this government had made no reduction in taxation; yet a large part of his remarks this afternoon was in the nature of an attack upon us for having taken off the three per cent excise tax. If the three per cent excise is not taxation, what is it?

The truth of the matter is that since it has been in office this administration has done more in the way of reducing taxes on trade than has been done, not only by any one previous parliament but by any other two or three previous parliaments. This government has done more in the way of relieving consumers and industry of taxation where it affects trade, than has been done in many years previously in the history of this country. If you remove taxation, such as the three per cent excise, it is a removal of three per cent taxation on everything that comes into the country subject to such tax. Are you not thereby helping all consumers throughout the country? Are you not helping to put the equivalent of so much more purchasing power in the hands and pockets of the great body of consumers throughout Canada? Are you not helping to make the cost of living easier for the people of the country?

I say that so far as the agreements are concerned, this government has done a great national service. But it has done something much more than that. It has helped to make one of the most substantial contributions towards improving world conditions that has been made in this last decade.

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

My hon. friend said that there were some interests in this country opposed to this agreement, but that their protests were being made sub rosa. He said that they were too patriotic to do anything about it.

Mr. MANION:

I said that my right hon.

friend pretended that they should be too patriotic. I did not suggest that they were too patriotic; I said that their patriotism prevented them from saying anything.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It is a pity

that patriotism does not prevent my hon. friend from saying a great many things.

Mr. MANION:

I do not think I have to

learn anything about patriotism from the right hon. gentleman.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Mr. MANION:

May I ask my right hon.

friend if he considers September the beginning of the winter? In the speech from the throne he uses those words.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No; my hon. friend said this afternoon that he regarded the month of November as the beginning of winter. When the speech from the throne was prepared the figures used were the latest figures the government had; they were the figures for September and October. I have given the figures for September, and I shall now give them for October. The result as put in the speech from the throne was obtained by combining the two sets of

figures and dividing by two, which I think was a fair basis.

Percentage

October change,

1936 1938 1938 fromUrban

729,527 473,812 -35-1Agriculture . . 279,269 185,461 -33-6Total .. ..1,008,796 659,273 -34-6

Taking the September and October figures together, they make a total of -38-3, that is within If of 40 per cent. The speech from the throne says "almost 40 per cent."

Mr. MANION:

I do not quarrel with the

figures the right hon. gentleman gives, but I made it clear this afternoon that I used the November figures.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend is quite right, and I hasten to say that when the November figures were prepared they did show that there were more receiving relief in November than at the first of November. The moment the November figures were prepared the Minister of Labour gave them to the press so that they would be available to this house and the country before the debate on the address took place. But the figures I have given this afternoon were the only figures and the latest figures the government had at the time the speech from the throne was prepared.

But I question very much whether we shall get far towards a solution of this problem if we spend our time on statistics, and fail altogether to get the larger view which it is necessary to take on a question of this importance. The leader of the opposition has admitted that technically and legally it is correct to say that the problem of unemployment is a local problem, a provincial problem and a dominion problem; that under our constitution there is a division of powers which assigns certain responsibilities to the provinces and others to the dominion, and, under the provinces, certain responsibilities and powers are given to the municipalities. As a consequence of that division of powers the problem of unemployment arises to-day from conditions in municipalities which municipalities alone can control, which this government cannot control. As long as the division of powers remains as it is, this government cannot control those situations over which the municipalities have control under the provinces. Similarly, when we come to the provinces, this government cannot control a situation that arises in the provinces in consequence of their powers as set forth in the constitution of this country, by which we are governed. All that we can possibly control are those matters which come under our powers under the provisions of the British-North America Act.

We have realized that we have not sufficient power to cope with the problem. We tried as a first step to get more in the way of power by seeking to get the British North America Act amended so that this dominion government could introduce an unemployment insurance act. We have no power to compel this parliament to act as we wish in the matter of an amendment or to compel the British parliament to amend the British North America Act. We have to get that power by persuading the provinces, or enabling them to see, that it is in their interest as well as ours, that it is in the national interest, to see that that power and right is given to the federal government. Some years ago when my hon. friend

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Woodsworth) was speaking of unemployment insurance and when I also was speaking on the same subject, an effort might then have been successfully made to get the British North America Act amended had hon. gentlemen opposite accepted our advice and sought amendment at that time. Whether they could have succeeded or not I cannot say, but it would have been much easier than it is to-day or has been in the last couple of years. What is the reason for the present opposition in some quarters? The reason is that an effort was made by the administration of which the present leader of the opposition was a member to force through this House of Commons a series of measures which this parliament had no authority whatever to enact, with the result that when the provinces saw that the dominion was seeking to take to itself powers to do certain things which they regarded as within their control, they began to be suspicious of the federal government, and the consequence has been that ever since it has been much more difficult to get the provinces-or some of them-to see where, in their own interest as well as in the interest of this nation as a whole, it would be well to allow this government to assume certain obligations. In seeking to get an amendment to the British North America Act which would enable us to introduce a national unemployment insurance scheme we were not asking the provinces to increase their burdens; we were proposing to take that whole burden upon ourselves. This government was asking that the dominion parliament should have that power, and made clear that the government itself would be prepared to raise the taxation necessary to that end, thereby relieving the provinces of part of the burden they already had.

I ask hon. members, What would be the effect of a course such as my hon. friend has suggested to-night, namely this federal government undertaking as its sole obligation to solve the unemployment problem? What would be the effect on the provinces, with the constitution remaining as it is to-day, if that theory were admitted for one moment? What authority has to do with the control of the whole question of employer and employee, of master and servant? What authority has to do with the regulation of hours and conditions of employment in mines? What authority has to do with workshops, with factories? What authority alone has any power with respect to wages and hours of labour? Only the provincial authorities. And as long as the provincial authorities have the control of these matters which are all-important in dealing with the question of employment, they must necessarily have some responsibility for the solution of unemployment. Imagine the situation in certain of our provinces to-morrow if a government were in power here which had come to power on the declaration that it was going to assume all the burden of dealing with unemployment and had assumed that obligation as its own? Imagine what some of our provinces would do with respect to many matters that were causing them trouble or embarrassment. I can think of one or two provincial governments in this country which, having no responsibility for the unemployed, would soon enact some very curious legislation. We should soon as a consequence have hundreds of thousands instead of thousands out of employment. They could do it very readily. The one check to-day on extremely foolish legislation is that it would almost certainly result in that very thing, throwing half a province out of employment. Relieve other authorities altogether of any responsibility in dealing with the question of unemployment, and under the circumstances of to-day instead of making things better they would be made infinitely worse.

How has this government sought to proceed with the matter, realizing that the constitution as it exists to-day places impediments and handicaps not only upon the federal authority s action but upon the provincial authorities and the municipalities as well, and this because our constitution was not framed to meet times and conditions such as we have been going through for the last ten years, nor was it framed for a country of the character Canada has become to-day. When our constitution was framed it did not look to the central authority assuming any of the social obligations to which we attach so much importance; they were not thought of at all. The matters which were left to the central authority can be seen in the act, and matters concerning social services as will be seen were left to the several provinces. Now we have come to the time when the provinces cannot, from their own revenues, carry on the social services they would like to carry on. In some cases they are going deeper and deeper into debt simply because they are trying to meet certain social obligations while they have not, as they claim, the sources of revenue which they need for that particular purpose. We sought, as a necessary first step in disclosing conditions as they have become, with a view to securing necessary adjustments or amendments, to deal with that question by appointing a royal commission to investigate the relations between the provinces and the dominion in regard to financial matters, those matters relating to the very questions we are discuss-

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

ing to-day. We believe that only as there is exact information to be placed before this House of Commons and before the legislatures of the different provinces with regard to conditions as they have become will there ever be a basis for the working out of a solution of the problem of unemployment, the constitutional question and other matters therein involved.

That commission was appointed a year or two ago. It met with a very serious loss in the regrettable retirement of the chief justice of Ontario, its first chairman, but the members composing that commission are all able men, and they have enlisted the services of many of the best minds of this country in helping to gather information and data and appraise its true value. Their report will be placed on the table of this house, according to what I am told by the chairman, within the course of another couple of months. When that report is submitted it will give to this parliament, to the legislatures and to the press of this country exact information of a character which will enable discussion to take place between parties interested in this question, which we believe will be effective in bringing them more into harmony with each other on adjustments and amendments which require to be made.

It has been said repeatedly back and forth throughout this country that the purpose of the commission was to say what is to be done and that we were leaving it to a commission to settle the whole matter. That is not the purpose of the commission at all. The commission has the authority to make recommendations, but this parliament alone can bring about any amendment of the British North America Act, and it will require with respect to some matters the consent of at least some of the provinces, in regard to some, possibly all. If we are to get the act amended it would seem we must bring about some kind of conference between representative men in the provinces and representative men in this parliament. I believe such a conference can be brought about and that it can be both successful and helpful, because I think the experience of the last couple of years has made it plain to all citizens of this country that there must be a getting together of representative men from all parts of Canada and, as a result of conferences between them, agreement reached on some very necessary amendments to the British North America Act which will meet with the acceptance of the provinces and the dominion.

That is what is meant in the reference in the speech from the throne to a national conference. It is not a national conference

to tell the government what it ought to do or should not do. It is a conference to give this country the fruits of discussion, between representative men, based upon information that is absolutely essential and reliable, and which would enable those interested to work out intelligently the amendments to the British North America Act which sooner or later must be worked out if we are to have a solution of more than one of our present day problems. An all-important matter of the kind cannot be carried out in a day or over night. I believe this government showed foresight and wisdom in appointing, as long ago as a year and a half, a commission to undertake the work of getting the information available for those who might require it. In the meantime we have made it perfectly clear, as it is also made clear in the speech from the throne, that we do not intend to wait for the report of any commission to assume obligations in regard to doing our part in the solution of the problem of unemployment, but that we are prepared to go further than we have gone in the past in cooperating with the provinces of this country in order to make still more of a contribution to a solution of this very difficult problem.

There was one part of the speech from the throne to which my hon. friend scarcely alluded at all. I was not surprised at that, but it is a part which I hope hon. members will read very carefully. I refer to the record therein contained of what this government has done towards helping solve the question of unemployment. I am surprised that members of this parliament, I care not to what particular party they may belong, should seek continually to persuade the people of this country that this parliament has not been doing what it should for unemployment, or that the unemployment question is what it is to-day because of some lack of effort here at Ottawa. Hon. members of this house are responsible for what is done with the public funds of this country raised by federal taxation. Instead of belittling what has been done, why do they not point out to the people of Canada what has been done by the parliament to which they belong and by the government at Ottawa, since this government operates by virtue of the power given it by this parliament? Why do they not take upon themselves to show the people that session after session this government has passed measures to assist in the relief of unemployment; that year in and year out it has been giving more and more and more in the way of public funds to the provinces to help them in working out their share of the solution?

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

What is happening? We are taking money out of the federal treasury in millions of dollars and giving it to the provinces to help meet the cost of relief there. But instead of the federal government getting any credit at all for that, the people are told that all this has come from the provincial governments themselves. That is the situation. If federal members of parliament will be honest with .themselves and with the people they will make a point of showing how under the British North America Act, as it is to-day, in order to solve this problem we must raise taxes federally and then hand over the money to some other authority, which has not been required to raise the funds at all, and allow that authority to spend the money. That is fundamentally wrong, and it is that circumstance as much as any other that is accountable for a good deal that is other than what we would wish it to be in Canada at the present time.

I am not going further into that question to-night because we shall be dealing with the whole question of unemployment at a later stage of the session. All I wanted to make clear this evening was that within the compass of our authority we are not only meeting all the obligations imposed upon us under the provisions of the British North America Act, and helping the provinces and municipalities as best we can, but we have been and are still trying to have this act amended in a way that will enable us to relieve both provinces and municipalities still further by assuming additional powers with regard to unemployment insurance, and we are -taking steps which we hope will help us before very long to have the British North America Act still further amended in other ways which will be helpful alike to the municipalities, the provinces and the dominion.

I see that we are near the hour of adjournment. I shall therefore conclude with just one further word in reference to another remark which my hon. friend has seen fit to make to-night. The Leader of the Opposition has said that I have not been across this country since this parliament was returned and that I have not been in my own constituency since this government came into office. He is perfectly right in his latter statement. I stand here as representative of the constituency of Prince Albert. I have been returned election after election, and I still represent Prince Albert, which is more than my hon. friend can say with regard to the constituency of Fort William.

Mr. MANION:

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I say this in reply to what my hon. friend has said. Anyone who holds the office of Prime Minister in these days must view his duties not from the point of view of whether or not he is going to be returned to parliament at the next election. He must not be thinking only of his own seat in the House of Commons- or even, may I say, mainly of whether or not his own party is to be returned. He has to do his duty as he sees it, day by day, in the light of his conscience with the knowledge of world conditions as they exist.

After all, we can each of us give only so much of our time and energy to our work. If there is any hon. member in the house who will point out to me wherein I have wasted any day in my life since I have been Prime Minister, and wherein I have not performed my public duty I wish him to speak now or forever after hold his peace. I confess I am not in a position to travel back and forth across the country and be in Ottawa at the same time. I confess I have been greatly concerned with international affairs-much more than I wish had been necessary. I said to the House of Commons during the last session that, I thought we were in perilous times, that we were coming dangerously near to a crisis in the world's history. I have spoken to members of my party in party caucus perhaps much more confidentially than I should care to speak to the public about how little, in comparison, some of this petty strife amounts to with respect to the large concerns which ought to occupy the minds of men and women these days. So far as I am concerned, each day I have to ask myself: What is the most important thing to do this day, with the time at my disposal?

I came here after the general election, and the most important thing seemed to be to get under way the negotiation of a trade agreement between Canada and the United States. I-went at once to Washington-I did not go to my constituency or out to Vancouver or Victoria. I went to Washington, with the result that we got a trade agreement which has been in force for three years. We now have another agreement which will be in force for a great many more years. And I venture to add that but for that agreement there would not to-day be the agreement which exists between Great Britain and the United States.

The next year was a year in which the League of Nations was holding an important

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King

meeting, a meeting at which the question of sanctions was to be discussed. But first let me say that I believe when parliament is in session the first duty of the Prime Minister is to parliament. I have not found it possible to be in the house every day of eveiy week when parliament is in session, for the entire time of each sitting. I have tried to be here for the question and answer period, following the practice of the prime ministers in England. But I have not stayed in the House of Commons all afternoons and listened to all debates because there are many matters which have to be considered by the Prime Minister which cannot be taken up unless he has the time to do it. And the only time which presents itself is such time as he can make for himself while other business is proceeding. I have kept an eye on the business of the house and have tried to see all the members I could, and I have tried to get through all the work I could which was most pressing.

In the year I have mentioned there was the question of attending the League of Nations. I felt it was my duty to attend at that critical time; it was after the Abysin-ian episode. Events even then were shaping towards the state of affairs which have come about recently. I went to the league assembly and placed frankly before the different countries Canada's point of view. I think what was said at that time was more important to the constituency of Prince Albert or to Victoria or Vancouver or Halifax, or to any other constituency in Canada than anything I could have done by way of travelling and speaking across the country. We have far too much travel and talk these days on the part of many people-far too much of it, and from too many sources. The difficulty to-day is to get time quietly to think about the great problems which confront this and other countries.

The next year it was my duty after a parliamentary session to attend the coronation of their majesties in Great Britain. I may be wrong, but had I not attended the coronation I question veTy much if their majesties would be visiting Canada this summer. I believe I am right in making that assumption. I should be sorry if the visit of their majesties in Canada will not mean much more to the people of the dominion than anything I could be saying in any part of the country. At the time of the coronation there was also an imperial conference which it was my duty and which I had the honour to attend, and in the proceedings of which I participated as completely as possible, again with more

advantage, I believe, to Canada than had I been travelling about and speaking in different constituencies.

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

Let me say only this in conclusion: The position of the leader of a government in Canada to-day is not unlike that of the captain of a ship when the ship is in a storm. The captain of the ship must not be spending his time wandering among the passengers on the decks; his place is at the helm. Mr. Speaker, I intend to remain at the helm of this ship of state just so long as I have the confidence

House of Commons

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

On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.