1933-02-09

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MU Pi PHY (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Indian Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
Mr. MURPHY': It is proposed to make certain amendments to the Indian Act dealing with the appointment of truancy officers and executors of estates; also relating to the sale of cattle and field crops; the establishment of roads on reserves; enfranchisement; residing or hunting upon reserves without authority; and the regulation of the operations of hawkers, peddlers and others on reserves.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GRADING OF HAY AND STRAW

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, respecting the inspection and grading of hay and straw.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: The present grades for hay and straw were established some twenty-five years ago, when the demand for these commodities was of a different nature from now. We have had a number of requests that the definitions of the grades as set out in the statute be repealed and that authority be given to the minister to establish new grades more in conformity with present requirements. If this bill could be given its two readings this afternoon, I would then refer it to the committee on agriculture.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[Mr. Lapointe.J



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. AHEARN:: At the coming conference with the provincial governments, is it the intention of the government to move to obtain an agreement whereby the censoring of motion pictures be concentrated under a minister of the Dominion government?


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: This question apparently refers to matters coming before the interprovincial conference which was held last fall. I think the question is out of date.


RAILWAY REST AND FEED STATIONS
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	At what points between Calgary and Saint John are rest and feed stations available?
2.	What are the facilities at these various stations ?
3.	Are the stations operated under the direct control of the railway or are they privately operated; if privately operated, what are the names of the operators?
4.	Are the railway companies financially interested in any of such operators; if so, what is their interest?
5.	What is the price of fodder charged shippers at the various feeding stations; where price is per bale is there any standard weight of such bale?
6.	What inspection, if any, is made of quality of fodder supplied?


Mr. MANION:: This question can be
passed as an order for a return so far as the Canadian National Railway is concerned, but we have no records of the Canadian Pacific Railway with respect to this matter. I am sure that my hon. friend could get that part of the information by writing to the Canadian Pacific Railway.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Question passed as an order for a return.


Robert James Manion: So far as the Canadian National Railway is concerned.


NEW ZEALAND BUTTER
Mr. MACLEAN:: 1.	How many pounds of New Zealand butter were imported into Canada in 1932?
2.	How many pounds of New Zealand butter were imported into Canada up to present date during the month of January, 1933?
3.	What is the total amount for both periods?

Trade Relations with Russia


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Canada's imports of butter from New Zealand entered for consumption, for the year ended December 31, 1932, were 50,972 pounds.
2.	Canada's imports of butter from New Zealand entered for consumption, for the month of January, 1933, were 76,924 pounds.
3.	Canada's imports of butter from New Zealand entered for consumption from January 1, 1932 to January 31, 1933, were 127,896 pounds.


Mr. STEVENS:: 1,	2, 3 and 4. Canada's imports of bituminous coal entered for consumption, by countries, year ended December 31, 1932, were:
Tons of
Imports from 2,000 lbs	$
United Kingdom..	..	332,037	766,084United States	
8,187,178	10,824,064Newfoundland	
2	24Total Imports. .. 8,519,217	11,590,172


CANADIAN RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: How many persons were employed on Canadian railroads in 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932?


Robert James Manion: The average number of
railway employees throughout Canada is as follows:
1928		 187,710
1929		 187,846
1930		 174,485
1931		 154,569
1932-Complete returns not yet available.


CAMPBELLTON, N.B., POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has Mr. A. C. Belle-Isle been appointed postmaster of Campbellton, New Brunswick?
2.	If so: (a) on what date was he appointed; (b) was he advised that an inspector would install him as postmaster at a given date, and in such a case, on what date?
3.	Was he installed as postmaster of Campbellton?
4.	If so: (a) on what date; (b) if not, why?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2,	3 and 4. A certificate was issued by the Civil Service Commission on behalf of Mr. Belle-Isle on the 20th January, 1933, and Mr. Belle-Isle would be notified by the district superintendent of the probable date of the transfer. Mr. Belle-Isle was installed on the 4th instant.


BITUMINOUS COAL IMPORTATIONS
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	How much bituminous coal was imported into Canada during the year of 1932?
2.	What quantity came from the United States of America?
3.	What quantity oame from Great Britain?
4.	What quantity oame from other countries?


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	At what points between Calgary and Saint John are rest and feed stations available?
2.	What are the facilities at these various stations?
3.	Are the stations operated under the direct control of the railway or are they privately operated; if privately operated, what are the names of the operators?
4.	Are the railway companies financially interested in any of such operators; if so, what is their interest?
5.	What is the price of fodder charged shippers at the various feeding stations; where price is per bale is there any standard weight of such bale?
6.	What inspection, if any, is made of quality of fodder supplied?


TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: May I ask the Minister of Justice, who is leading the house, the following question: Will the government afford the house an early opportunity of discussing the proposed Canadian syndicate Russian barter transaction in cattle and oil and other commodities? What I mean by an early opportunity is, say, not later than next Tuesday because, in the absence of the Prime Minister, which we all regret, I know that we cannot expeot the opportunity to be afforded to-morrow.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: In answer to my hon. friend, I
shall discuss the question with the Prime Minister at the first opportunity, probably this afternoon, and let him have an answer


COMMON1,
[Stage Direction]
Trade Relations with Russia
to-morrow. I think an early opportunity could be afforded for a discussion of the matter, but the proposal that I have heard made was that it should be discussed on the estimates of the Agriculture department. However, if that is not agreeable to the house, some other date can be fixed.
William Richard Motherwell: That will be quite satisfactory to me, if we may discuss it on the live stock vote.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that would be
the appropriate time, and if it is acceptable to the house we shall arrange to have the matter discussed on the live stock vote of the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Is the reply of the Minister of Justice intended to convey the impression that the Minister of Agriculture will take up his estimates on Tuesday so that the matter may be discussed at that time?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I did not intend to leave that impression. I have not discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know when he will be ready with his estimates, but I fancy it will not be at a very distant date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the meantime apparently there is at least one syndicate trying to make an agreement to exchange cattle for Russian goods. May I ask the Minister of Justice, whether the government would be opposed to such an agreement being carried out provided it could be made satisfactorily and without any government guarantees?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not going to express an opinion on behalf of the government in answer to the question of the right hon. gentleman. The matter was fully placed before the house by the Prime Minister himself, and I have no further information than he afforded the house on that occasion.


William Richard Motherwell: I have no right to speak for the Minister of Agriculture, but I have a hunch that he will be quite ready by next Tuesday.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sure reasonable
notice will be given.


Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the Minister of Justice if the government has

been approached by a steel industry concerning a certain barter involving an exchange of steel rails for Russian oil, to a value of about $4,000,000? What is the attitude of the government towards that proposed barter?


Hugh Guthrie: No offer of the kind has come to my knowledge. Until this moment I had not heard of it, but I shall make inquiries regarding it and let the hon. member know.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
a question of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). A press report from Vancouver contains the information that representatives of Hull, B'lyth and Company, old country coal merchants, are leaving for the east to negotiate with authorities of the Canadian National Railways for the purchase of the railways' dock at Vancouver harbour. I should like to know if the minister has any information in this connection, or whether he will obtain it and give it to the house.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I have
heard more or less indirectly that there have been some negotiations between the Canadian National Railways and some other parties concerning the dock in question. However I cannot give any accurate information at this time. I understand the railways are not using the dock to any great extent. I shall make inquiries however and give the hon. member any information I may receive from the railway company.


ANYOX, B. C., DISTURBANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has received any further information concerning the trouble at Anyox.


Hugh Guthrie: 
RUMOURED DEPORTATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know
if it is the intention of the government to deport Fred Booth, John Harris, Tom Kir-bride and J. Waldon, all of Bienfait, Saskatchewan, together with their families? I have been notified that such deportations will take place. Is there any truth in this notice of deportations I have received?


Hugh Guthrie: I shall draw the hon. member's
question to the atttention of the Minister of Labour as soon as he enters the house. His department is charged with deportation matters.


WESTERN FREIGHT RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the appeal made by the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia in October, 1929, against the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners in their order No. 448 dated August 26, 1927, I should like to ask when an answer will be given or a date set for re-hearing?


Robert James Manion: I believe I explained the other day that at the interprovincial conference an understanding was arrived at by which domestic freight rates on feed grains were to be lowered. Representatives at that conference from the western provinces were quite agreeable. Although the proposal was delayed a short time owing to the illness of a traffic officer of the Canadian Pacific Railway, it has now been received, and I have submitted it to the western provinces. If it is acceptable to them-and I think it will be

it may be that the appeal will be disposed of. However when the replies arrive the government will have to deal with the appeal in the proper manner.


GRANTS FOR THE DREDGING AND DRAINAGE OF RIVERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve):	I want to inquire whether
he has received from the Department of

Public Works a grant of 50 per cent on the dredging and drainage cost of rivers in Laval-Two Mountains county, since 1930, and what is the amount?


Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: I do not quite follow the drift of the horn, member for Laprairie-Napier-ville's question. I shall make inquiries and consult the files, if necessary, and shall give him, in due time, the answer to which he is entitled.


Vincent Dupuis: Does the hon Postmaster General wish me to put the ques tion in English?
Hen.. Mr. SAUVE (Translation): If the hon. member thinks he can better express the purport of his question in English, he is free to do so.


Vincent Dupuis: I did not
catch what was said. Does the hon. Postmaster General wish to reply in English?


COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth:
Whereas under our present economic arrangement large numbers of our people are unemployed and without the means of earning a livelihood for themselves and their dependents;
And whereas the prevalence of the present depression throughout the world indicates fundamental defects in the existing economic system;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house to-day was moved on the first day of this month by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). It was discussed very ably by hon. members from this side of the house, as well as those from the Progressive, Labour and Independent groups, but Liberal members observed a discreet and possibly ominous silence. None of them has yet indicated his reaction to this resolution. Coming in at this time, when we are in the midst of an unusual depression, at a time when there is considerable u'nrest in the country, the resolution has created a great deal of interest in the house and country. On account of the new political party sponsoring it, and the acclaim the party has received, the resolution has produced the impression in the
1944	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Anderson
minds of some people that it challenges our democratic institutions. It is for that reason only that I venture into the debate.
The first clause deals with the unprecedented unemployment situation obtaining in Canada and in other lands. There is no doubt that everyone regrets the extreme unemployment and the attending distress suffered by many of our citizens. The unemployment situation which we have has been produced by many forces. They are world-wide in their character and have been in operation for some years. I would judge that the great war and the unusual inflation following it, and the unprecedented prosperity from 1921 to 1929, have been largely the causes of our present depression. It commenced in the latter half of 1929 and by the time of the election in 1930 was well under way. It has continued since that time and we are still looking for a solution. This country is not worse off in that regard than other countries, and I compliment the government on the courage and efficiency they have shown in attacking this situation and bringing relief to our unemployed as much as possible.
You may say that the unemployed fall into two classes; the first class, those citizens who never have accepted responsibility for making a living for themselves and providing for their dependents. These people have been on the unemployed list before and probably will be as long as they live. They accept employment by fits and starts but are very much subject to wanting leisure. The second class consists of those citizens who do accept the responsibility of making a living for themselves and providing for their dependents. They are the larger class. The unemployment list to-day includes quite a number who have come on it only this year, because their little savings that they had accumulated in previous years have been spent, and only with great reluctance have they ventured to ask for assistance under the unemployment relief scheme, that is direct relief, that we have this year. This is the class of citizen that deserves sympathy and should get every assistance possible.
Before the present time it has not been looked upon as the duty of the government to provide jobs for the individual. It is the duty of the government to make the laws, to put into effect such machinery as will enforce them, to see to it that the individual's rights and liberty and life are protected, that he is given justice as between man and man. It is the duty of the citizen to obey those laws, to provide for himself as far as possible and to assist in paying the taxes that will keep the country solvent. Many of the people

who are on the unemployed list to-day are not able to pay taxes, but they have paid taxes before and it is not their fault that at present they are not able to do so. It has been said in this house that large numbers of people in this country have been denied the right to work. This is a free country and the right is not denied to any person to work in any vocation he chooses. But circumstances may be such that if they depend for their day's labour on the ingenuity and initiative of some Other individual, under the circumstances we have to-day that other individual may be unable to give them employment. To my mind employment is not going to get much better in the future. We have a condition, brought about by many forces, as I have already indicated, that will render employment in factories and other places not so extensive as in the past.
The unemployment relief system which we have to-day is not satisfactory, it is not a permanent solution for our difficulties. It will be a less satisfactory solution in the future, and I am going to offer a suggestion to the government that I have not heard mentioned before. I do not know of any country that has put anything like it into effect. It is this, that the government should set up some means by which more people will be returned to the land. The government has made some efforts in that direction; I compliment them on it. It is the right direction. They are putting certain people on crown lands in various parts of the country. They are assisting them to make homes and provide for themselves. But I would go further than that. There are large tracts of land going back to a state of nature all over this country. In Ontario -il speak of it particularly-there are large tracts of land unused at the present time farms practically deserted. You see them in all sections, with only a fence around the hundred acres, no fences within, going back to grass and weeds. I would suggest that the money that is now spent on unemployment relief might be better used in acquiring some of that land by the government, parcelling it out into small lots, five or ten acres, or even twenty-five acres, and taking the unemployed from our cities, towns and villages and putting them on that land; assist them by giving them expert direction, and help to build their own homes. Show them how to produce agricultural products by what might be called a forced system. If numbers of these people were given the opportunity to go on the land -and I know lots of them would be willing- they could produce on a five acre lot all the fruit and vegetables they require. They could also produce eggs and poultry, milk and butter,

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Anderson
sufficient fodder for the cow and grain for their fowl. Then they would have a stake in the country, would be more contented, and better citizens. It would provide a solution in a certain measure of the unemployed situation to-day.
I would also suggest that some of the large industrial plants move from the cities to country districts where they might be surrounded by land which could be parcelled out amongst the employees in a similar manner. The day is coming when fewer men will be employed in those industrial plants, the shorter working day and week are coming, so they are going to have more leisure time. It would be a good plan to give them a stake in the country, where they could use their leisure in doing something for themselves, improving their homes. It would keep them from burning up gas on the highways and getting into traffic jams, and I am quite satisfied that they would be happier, and better citizens, and would be less troublesome in times of distress. I simply offer this to the government as a suggestion in the hope that it may be looked into and if possible put into operation to a certain extent.
In the second or main section of the resolution is embodied the policy of the new political party. I will read it:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
That, of course, is plainly a socialistic program. This new party, as stated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in his speech on February 1, has attracted to itself certain other groups and political parties in this country. Those affiliated are the United Farmers of the three prairie provinces and of the province of Ontario, but I note that the United Farmers joined with a reservation. They got into bed with the new party, but indicated that should the sleeping conditions prove not congenial they would leave at any time. They intimated that in affiliating with the new party they still maintained the right to follow their own policies as United Farmers. Speaking of the United Farmers of Ontario more particularly, I may say that they are a hardheaded business class and very shrewd politicians. They are not going into anything very definitely and securely until they know how it is going to turn out, and just so soon as they find out what this commonwealth actually means a great number of them will secede from it.
Not only that, but even at the present time the leaders who have affiliated with the new party will not be able to carry with them anything like the body of United Farmers of Ontario. It is also stated that the labour unions from the Pacific coast to the border of Quebec have affiliated with this new organization. Well, the labour unions may have affiliated but there is a large class of labour in the dominion that does not belong to the union. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre made the statement, that they had affiliated.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I think the hon.
gentleman is in error; I said nothing about the labour unions.


Robert King Anderson: If the hon.
gentleman says they have not, I will accept his word. But I find at page I6S8 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
Further than that, the political labour bodies in the provinces from British Columbia to Montreal have also voted to affiliate.
That gave me the impression that he meant the labour union, but apparently he meant something else. He also said that there were a large number of people in this country who had indicated their intention of uniting with the party, people from one end of the country to the other, and I have noticed in the newspapers that many people have so intimated. There was also another party, it appears, that endorsed the policy of the new party and which neither the hon. gentleman nor any member of his party mentioned, and that was a section of the United Church of Canada. The United Church in Toronto on December 7, 1932, in their report presented to the Presbytery of that city, moved this resolution which was passed:
In view of the fact that our political leaders have not evolved any adequate system so far as the masses are concerned, but have _ directed their efforts toward protecting vested interests, rather than the common welfare, be it resolved that we adopt some such program as that of the C.C.F.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert King Anderson: Hon. gentlemen say " hear, hear," but large numbers of the United Church of Canada do not say " hear, hear."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert King Anderson: And the
United Church itself does not say "hear, hear." Now, the acceptance of this policy as presented by hon. members across the aisle will simply mean that we shall need to get a new constitution for the dominion.

1946	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Anderson


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert King Anderson: I am glad
they say " hear, hear " to-day, but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not say "hear, hear" when that was said on the first of this month by the Prime Minister. He did not believe then that it would be necessary to change the constitution of the country if the policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was to go into effect. The policy as enunciated is communist, pure and simple. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the party behind him are sincere in what they say. They are in favour of socialism or communism, and the difference between these two systems was defined in the house by the hon. gentleman: communism is brought in by force and the other by constitutional means. I agree with the hon. gentleman in that statement; so far as I can make out from a study of the two systems, that is the difference. But can anyone supporting an effort towards socialism say that force will not eventuate? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not say that force could be prevented. At page 1689 of Hansard, in answer to a question that was asked at the time, as to whether force might be used, he said:
It may very well be that force may prove inevitable, yes, if the attitude of certain gentlemen is persisted in and the people of this country are denied the right that they have to self-expression and to the enjoyment of a decent livelihood.
That is the statement of the hon. gentleman, that force will be used if it becomes inevitable. Now, that is a warning and also a threat.


Mr. SPENCER:: Did he say who was
going to use force?


Robert King Anderson: No, but who else except the socialist party? Does the hon. gentleman think that the rest of Canada will use force? The hon. member made this statement that I have quoted. This means that if the people of the dominion are docile enough to accept this policy meekly, if they do not resist, then we shall have socialism; but if the rest of us do resist, if the people object to it, we shall have force, because in any event this party intends to put its policy into effect and create a socialistic or communistic state in this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman is misstating entirely the position I took the other day.


Mr. McGIBBON:: It is a fair deduction.


Robert King Anderson: I am basing my proposition upon the statement made by the hon. gentleman himself. That is the way it appeared to me and I am satisfied that is the way it will appear to many other people in Canada. If the hon. gentleman did not mean that, I am sorry that I misconstrued his remarks as I have no desire to do him wrong. It is the intention of this new party which had its birth in the closing months of 1932, to appeal to the electorate upon this policy. That is their whole policy because it has been stated in this house and it has not been enlarged upon. It is a policy fashioned after the Russian system, it is nothing less than that.
The hon. gentleman gravely asks this parliament to endorse this policy and put it into effect immediately. That is a most extraordinary proposition to make to any house. Such a proposition makes it impossible for any hon. member, no matter how favourable he may be towards that policy, to vote to put it into effect immediately. That would not be democratic. It is socialistic to ask that we go ahead without the endorsation and consent of the people of Canada. Such a course of action would wreck our constitution and destroy confederation.
The hon. gentlemen who are advocating this policy state that it is meant to displace capitalism. It might displace capitalism but it would destroy democracy. What is eapital-sm? It is simply a system by which we produce wealth for the production of further w'ealth. Capitalism as we know it to-day came into being during the last half of the nineteenth century, less than one hundred years ago. Since that time the world has made more progress than it had in the previous five thousand years. The success of capitalism has been phenomenal; the world jumped ahead immediately it came into effect and the progress of the world has been continuous ever since. As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) said, when this system was founded the world was suffering from a scarcity of everything except poverty, but in less than a century we had an overproduction and over-abundance of everything. In spite of this, capitalism is denounced as a failure. Before capitalism terrible famines took place all over the world. I can remember when the people of Ireland faced starvation because of the failure of the potato crop and I can remember when the people of India and China were starving by the millions because of the failure of their crops. What has been

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Anderson
the result of capitalism? Famine has been eliminated, so much so that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin says that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation offers economic independence to everybody.


Mr. IRVINE:: My statement was that
economic security was offered to everyone.


Robert King Anderson: The hon.
member is reported on page 1743 of Hansard of February 2, as saying;
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation guarantees to every Canadian economic independence.
If there has been a mistake made in Hansard the hon. gentleman should have had it corrected. He said also that there was in this country sufficient plant and equipment to guarantee at least an abundance of the necessaries to every Canadian. That would mean that the Canadian people would have economic independence and an abundance of necessaries free of cost. It is the intention of hon. gentlemen to destroy the price system and to destroy capitalism, consequently the necessaries of life, which include shelter, clothing, food and heat and light, will be given free to everybody. Was there ever a greater slogan for an election? Was there ever a greater attempt at wholesale bribery of the people? Such promises are over and above any ever made by the Liberal or Conservative parties, yet hon. gentlemen complain about the promises made by the political parties during election campaigns.
In the last twenty-five years-I make this statement subject to correction if any hon. member cares to correct me-the world made more advancement under capitalism than it had made in the previous two thousand years. Does any hon. member want to deny that statement? Since the war everything has been stimulated by capital. Laboratories were set up wherein scientists could work unhampered by the necessity of producing a living. Nature has been made to yield up her secrets and those secrets have been applied to such an extent that our civilization has been transformed. Yet, according to hon. gentlemen opposite, capitalism is a huge failure.
Capitalism brought in the machine age in which we are now. By means of the capital expended in the laboratories, in our industries and in all lines of personal endeavour, the machine has been developed to such an extent as to eliminate thousands of men from gainful labour. Far more men have been eliminated than is required to build the machine. This has all been brought about by 53719-1231
capital. We are entering the electrical age, our machines are going to be run by electricity and more men will be eliminated from gainful occupations. These things are just signs of the times, they are progress and it is futile for anyone to think that he can stop the progress of the world. It will go ahead in spite of what any human being may do.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What is happening to those men who have been eliminated?


Robert King Anderson: I am just
going to take up that point. The hon. gentleman gave his own solution for this. I am not saying that there is nothing in socialism,
I am simply saying that we are on the verge or are well advanced into a new era. The sun of that new era is well above the horizon and the signs of the time are everywhere for any man to read. We are not going back to the old system but also we do not need to go to socialism. We can carry on with the system we have, that is capitalism. The only thing that is wrong now is that capitalists did not realize that the advances have been so great that it is out of step with our social order. Capitalism got ahead of the social order which we have in the world to-day and we must bring the social order up in step with capitalism.
The machine age is only beginning. As I have said, we shall see further advances and progress in machinery until possibly some day every man will be able to have a servant of an electrical character. That is one of the possibilities of the future and we must prepare for it. But only a fanatic would attempt to disrupt the present order by trying to bring in a new order all at once. If there is to be a new order, it must come gradually and imperceptibly, a merging of the old into the new, so that when the old order passes out, the new order will be ready to take charge of the situation and carry on. I am not altogether advocating capitalism. I say that it has been a splendid thing for the world, but it has defects. It has had defects which have been remedied; the defects which it now has can be remedied, and by remedying those defects and carrying on with our present progress we shall eventually bring about a system under which the people of this world will be able to have a living without very much work. We shall be able to have abundance to eat and all the luxuries of life without having any socialistic state. Socialism was in existence long before capitalism. Socialism has been in existence pretty nearly as long as the world has. It is a failure in
1948	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Pouliot
*Russia to-day, and it is a peculiar situation for some hon. members to be advocating socialism and communism when socialism and communism are at this very time failures in Russia. Russia started out without a price system. They were going to run a socialistic state there by making everybody engage in labour and by parcelling out to them what they needed in the way of food, clothing, shelter and so forth. But what is happening now? At the end of five yearn they are trying to bolster up their plan by bringing in capital. They are beginning to arrange for a capitalistic system in that country to bolster up a system of communism. They are asking the loan of capital from outside countries, even from Canada. Socialism has not been a success; it has been a failure, and all I have to say is that we should stay with the capitalistic system that we have, improve and perfect it, and it will bring us out of the depression in which we find ourselves just at present.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata):	Mr. Speaker, the motion that is
before the house reads:
Whereas under our present economic arrangement large numbers of our people are unemployed and without the means of earning a livelihood for themselves and their dependents;
And whereas the prevalence of the present depression throughout the world indicates fundamental defects in the existing economic system;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
Since the beginning of this debate many quotations have been made by hon. members in the far comer to my left. In the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) we find quotations from the English poet Blake, the Reverend John A. Ryan, D.D., Hjalmar Schact, expresident of the German Reichsbank, Mr. P. W. Martin, the October letter of the Royal bank, and Goldsmith. The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has quoted Gustav Cassel, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, Stuart Chase, and an English girl, from an article in The Canadian Student. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) has quoted Shakespeare, Sir William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes, Sir Basil Blackett, Lloyd's Bank Monthly, Henry Ford and Walter Rathenan. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has quoted Lord Marley, Professor W. H. Wakenshaw, Sir Arthur Salter, a great

scientist called John L. Hodgson, and Sir Basil Blackett. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maelnnis) has quoted Karl Marx and President Hoover.
I am not interested to-day, in any one of those people. The only quotations I shall make will be from the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who is the mover of the resolution. I do not know what it exactly means because there are in it some words that may mean a great deal or nothing. I should like to know whether they mean a great deal or nothing and in order to procure that information I want to ask the hon. member fifty-five questions.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Put them on the ordei
paper.


Mr. POULIOT:: First of all, may I quote the speech of the hon. gentleman which is of much more interest than any quotation from Sir Basil Blackett, G. L). H. Cole or Walter Rathernan or Karl Marx. I am not interested in any of those. As I have already informed the house, I have not time to read any communistic books and I believe those who do so are wasting their time.
An hon. MEMBER; Treason.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would not go so far as
that, but they think a great deal of them because they do not always understand their full and real meaning, and those who write those books do not themselves often understand the first word of what they are writing.
First of all, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke about a new and better social order. There is only one social order and it is order. When there is no social order, the situation is disorder. So if the hon. member proposes a new social order, conditions will remain the same; there will be no change. If it is something different, then it will be disorder. Is that not logical, Mr. Speaker? There has been confusion in the mind of the hon. gentleman between capitalism and ownership and the abuse of capitalism and capitalism itself. The two things are entirely different. One cannot condemn capitalism just because of the abuse of it. While the abuse is bad, that does not mean capitalism is also bad. I am not personally interested in capitalism in a practical way, but if I take the stand today, I do so on behalf of human liberty and freedom, and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre thinks he is advocating liberty, he does not realize the results that will be brought about by his proposal. If his proposal were adopted in this country, there

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Pouliot
would be no more human freedom and liberty; we would have human slavery, state slavery.
I quote from the speech of the mover of the resolution:
Great economists have pointed out that our present economic system could not last very long, but must give place to a different one. In more recent days we have the technicians pointing out not only the feasibility of fundamental changes in our social order, but the absolute necessity of such changes if our civilization is to persist.
What are those changes? Those changes come from the platform of 1921 as quoted by the hon. gentleman, and it is most important that I should put them on record as a basis for my questions. The hon. gentleman said at page 1687 of Hansard:
The Independent Labour party of Manitoba is formed for the purpose of giving political expression to the aspirations of all workers, regardless of industrial affiliation, who believe in the establishment of a cooperative commonwealth-
Mark this, Mr. Speaker:
-with production for use and not for profit as its economic basis.
Quoting from the platform of the United Farmers of Alberta, the hon. gentleman continued:
A community freed from the domination-
This is rather mixed up, but afterwards I shall detach some sentences in order to analyze them:
A community freed from the domination of irresponsible financial and economic powers, in which all social means of production and distribution, including land,

Mark you, it includes land:

are socially owned and controlled either by voluntarily organized groups of producers and consumers, or-in the case of the major public services and utilities and such productive and distributive enterprises as can be conducted most efficiently when owned in common-by public corporations responsible to the pepole's elected representatives.
There was another platform published by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and here is the quotation from their platform as given by the hon. gentleman:
A federation of organizations whose purpose is the establishment in Canada of a cooperative commonwealth in which the basic principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be tiie supply of human needs instead of the making of profits.
Just the same thing as in 1921. The reason I am suspicious about that platform, Mr. Speaker, is because of the following expressions which were used by the hon. gentleman in the course of his speech, and I would ask if these statements mean much for the social
welfare of the country and the public good. Here is what he says:
The object of the federation shall be to promote cooperation between the member organizations and to correlate their political activities.
That is why I am against it. We cannot play any game for political purposes with the welfare of this country. To-day we have a most serious problem to consider, and while I give full credit to the hon. gentleman for the sincerity of his view, still as a Canadian citizen I believe that order must be maintained at any cost, and that if anyone is found guilty of a breach of order he must be punished. The whole community should not suffer for the excesses of the few.
Here are my questions, Mr. Speaker, and before each series of questions I give first of all an excerpt from the passages which il have just quoted from the hon. gentleman's speech, and then state the consequence. The questions follow:
"All social means of production and distribution (including land) (should first be) freed from the domination of irresponsible financial and economic power/'
First consequence:
There would be no more municipal and other taxes on land; municipal councils and school boards would be abolished.
Questions:
1.	Would the municipal councils and school boards be replaced by other public bodies?
2.	If so, how?
Second consequence:
All mortgages on lands and buildings would be wiped out.
Questions:
1.	What is the total amount and number of mortgages in each province?
2.	How many are held by widows, orphans and different people who have no other means of living than the revenue therefrom?
3.	Would the cooperative commonwealth pay the mortgagees in full?
4.	If so, how?
5.	If not, what proportion, if any, would be paid to widows, orphans and people who have no other means of living than the revenue therefrom?
6.	What would happen in the case of mortgage transfers for value received?
That is only to give the house a sweet mouth before I put my other questions, as follows, giving first a quotation from the hon. gentleman's speech:
"All social means of production and distribution (including land) (should be) socially owned and controlled by voluntarily organized groups of producers and consumers."
Questions:
1.	What is the definition of the words (a) "socially owned" and (b) "socially controlled"?
2.	What would be the function of the dominion parliament and provincial legislatures in a cooperative commonwealth?
1950	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Pouliot
3.	By what process would privately owned lands be turned into societies or become socially owned and controlled property?
4.	How would such groups of producers and consumers be voluntarily organized?
5.	Would such groups be amenable to the laws?
6.	Would the cooperative commonwealth compensate private individuals or corporations who presently own land and property, for their loss, and if so, to what extent?
7.	How many people in each province would be affected by their private property becoming "socially owned and controlled"?
8.	Would such change in land ownership take place in urban as well as rural centres?
9.	What are the social means of production and distribution (excluding land) which should be socially owned and controlled?
10.	Would movable as well as immovable property be socially owned and controlled?
11.	How and by whom would socially owned and controlled means of production and distribution (including land) be managed?
12.	How, by whom and for how long would each of the above mentioned managers be appointed ?
13.	Who would decide the kind, area and location of the land or property to be assigned by society to each individual?


Mr. GOTT:: Would the hon. member permit me to inform him that his questions are so hot that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has left the chamber.


Mr. HEAPS:: In deference to the hon. gentleman who has left the chamber, I think my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott) ought to have first found out why he left it.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman has said that he wishes to be fair. He will make it clear that what Zinoviev says is not what I say.


Mr. STANLEY:: I think that anyone in this house has ears to hear, and by no twist of one's imagination can it be suggested that I have put into the mouth of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre anything that Zinoviev has said. Now, as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) so well pointed out, in order to accomplish the purposes of this organization property must go into the possession of a proletarian dictatorship, if you want to put it in the words of Zinoviev, or there must be collective ownership, if you want to put it in the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Property must be possessed; the land must go. But remember this. The agency through which this socialism is being expressed on this occasion is principally our U.F.A. friends in this country. Oh, that is a different consideration. Therefore they say: "When we get out a platform, we must bear in mind the fact that a great number of the farmers are to be appealed to, and we have collective ownership advocated." Oh yes; but they note in brackets down below that "use-land" will be exempt. All other lands are included in

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Stanley
the collective ownership except "use-land"; and as to the interpretation of "use-land," who is going to determine what comprises such land? That interpretation is left for someone to determine later but in the meantime what is required is the support of the farmers. Their political support is needed, their votes are needed, and in the meantime, to carry out in its entirety the collective ownership of the socialist party, they can afford to exempt such land. For the time being at least use-land will be exempted. That is the sop that is being given to our farmers.
How is this revolution to be accomplished? Ah! that is the rub, politically speaking. How is it to be accomplished, I ask? Well, by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. And that will express itself for the time being as "all things to all men." We have various degrees of socialism running up and down the colour line. I belong to the medical profession, as most hon. gentlemen know, and in the laboratory we have what we call the Fehling's test. We have a glass of blue solution for testing for sugar. If you have the least little tinge of sugar you will get just a little tinge at the bottom, a tint of pink, and as the sugar is increased it goes on up the line until, when you have a considerable quantity of sugar, you get a scarlet red. I do not know how better you can express the degrees of socialism. You can take it from a faint tinge of pink at the bottom to the flaring red scarlet at the top.
Now, how is socialism expresing itself? Well, we have various brands or degrees of socialism. First we have that highly cultured university socialism called the League of Social Reconstruction, represented by some of the eminent university professors-Professor Gordon, Professor Alexander and other such gentlemen. That is the class of people that belong to that grade of socialism. Then we have what is called in the various countries of Europe "tamed" socialism. To that class I think belong our friends of the U.F.A. and other Progressive members. Then we have the socialism that belongs to political labour. An hon. member has pointed out the difference between labour unions, trade unions and the political labour party. We have those also, and we have the socialism which found its expression through the Rev. Mr. Ivens in the O.B.U. back in 1919, or through Bob Russell, in such organizations as the I.W.W. Then we have the bolshevik socialism, and again the all-inclusive, all-embracing socialism which is so well represented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which takes in all. How does he express himself to-day?-
You find him in this position. First he is the honorary president of the League of Social Reconstruction, and he is the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation; he is also a member of the house here, representing political labour. He was one of the outstanding leaders in the O.B.U. activities.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


George Douglass Stanley: Allow me to finish my statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member rises to a point of order and he has a right to state it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The point of order is that the statement just made by the hon member is absolutely untrue and I ask that it be withdrawn.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has not finished the
statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask that it be withdrawn. I was not among the leaders of the O.B.U., never belonged to it, and was not one of its leaders. I ask that the statement be withdrawn.


George Douglass Stanley: I made no such statement as that the hon. member was a member of the O.B.U. I said he was one of the leaders in the O.B.U. activities.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was not one of the leaders in those activities and I ask that the statement be withdrawn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will have an opportunity to reply to statements such as that when he comes to make his reply in this debate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I deny the statement just made and I ask that it be withdrawn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member can
state the truth as he sees it when he comes to reply.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask that it be
withdrawn.


George Douglass Stanley: May I say this then.
When the O.B.U. were in the height of their activities, when all the turmoil and troubles were going on in Winnipeg and in western Canada, headed by the O.B.U., my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was one of the outstanding public men defending those who were in the activities of those times. Now, I think I am perfectly fair in saying that the all-embracing socialism of to-day comes under the leadership of my hon. friend. Let us go on. Let us put in front of us again the colorimeter, the name we give to the instru-
1954	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Stanley
ment which determines the various colours in the test of which I spoke. The degrees and grades of socialism as expressed by the apostles of socialism in years gone by and in more modern times, are these. First we have these university professors to whom I have referred. Of course, they have dignified ideas of socialism. They say that this collective ownership, this industrial commonwealth will be introduced by a process of education and intelligent voting-I would say that is the pink variety of socialism. Passing on, we find that another member of the group opposite said recently that "revolution is not only utterly unnecessary, it is utterly ridiculous"- I would call that the tamed-down red variety of socialism. Another hon. member of the same group advocates a bloodless revolution- that would be the bloodless red variety. Another hon. member stated in the house that you can plan only when you have control of the economic situation, and that they proposed to take that control-I would call that the all-controlling red variety. Then in the city of Calgary, according to the report of the Herald, the hon. member himself said: "Why not buy out an industry for, say, a hundred thousand dollars and then tax it all back"- that would be the super-tax variety of socialism. Then we have the Reverend Mr. Ivens, one of the outstanding apostles of socialism, making the statement in Winnipeg that "all you have to do is to walk into an industry, tell the owner you are going to take it over and it is done"-that is the genuine red variety. Then the British Columbia Federa-tionist, the socialistic organ, made the statement that "it is impossible to demand too much because nothing short of the whole shooting-match is of any use." I would call that the scarlet red variety. The Western Labour News of which Mr. Ivens was once editor, followed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, states that "one big union is greater than one big army and more effective than one big government; one big union has but to name a day, an hour, a minute, and behold, as the smallest unit of time is reached, a whole nation is paralyzed." I would call that the fiery red variety, it is the real stuff. Mr. E. T. Kingsley of Vancouver, president of the British Columbia Federated Labour party told an audience in Calgary, my own city, that "we all ought to be in one big union and its purpose should be the mastery of the earth and everything upon it." That is what I call the ultra-violet red variety or the ultra-violent red variety.
All down the colour scale an attempt is being made to appeal to the electors of this 
country. They say that they must control political power, they can start at the pink and go right up to the scarlet red and get them all, up and down the line. We see the appeal to socialism which can be made to the electors of this country. But what was the attitude of the trade unions when they considered this matter? At the thirty-sixth annual convention held at Hamilton after a discussion of the disturbances which had been stirred up in 1919 by socialism, the executive council had this to say:
The futility of the one big union method should have been apparent from the beginning, founded as it was on force and intolerance of the chosen leaders of the labour movement, repudiating the organization from which they drew their financial and numerical strength, preaching class hatred throughout the country, and gambling their whole future on the success of sympathetic and national strikes. . . .
That is not an expression by over-wealthy capitalists; it is the expression of a labour group at their annual convention. The president, Mr. Tom Moore, cautioned the people by saying that there were the labour trades unions, and the political labour party; "that the political labour party was in no way representative of organized labour in Canada." That is a point which should be emphasized to the people of this country, that the expression of socialism by the so-called political labour party is not the expression of a large portion of labour in this country.
As the president and the executive of the labour unions pointed out, in 1919 there were two classes of labour, those who were organized to look after the interests of labour, to use every means to maintain the standard of living, to use the strike legitimately if it were necessary, law-abiding citizens who believed in the institutions of this country and the constitution of the land; and another group which had received so much support from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, a group which caused disturbances and violated the law as we understand it, which created dissension and class hatred and stirred up unfruitful sentiments in the minds of those who were facing economic distress at the time.
How much force will be required to create this collective ownership, to bring about this industrial commonwealth? The hon. member for Temiscouata has asked a number of questions and I think the answers to those questions will give us our answer. What control of property is to be taken? What property is the commonwealth to acquire? Is it to acquire all property with the exception of this "use land" which is excluded or exempted for the time being? If it is to

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Stanley
possess property, how is that to be done? When is it to be done? Are the owners of property to be dispossessed? If so, how and when? Are the lands to be expropriated from ownership or is their property to be confiscated holus bolus? I suppose all this will depend upon the colorimeter. If such a thing were to happen as my hon. friend being asked to form a government in this country,
I suppose the colours would have to be inspected in order to find out how far up the scale he would be able to go.
I do not know of any hon. member who talks about force so frequently and disclaims force so vigorously as does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He w-as the first to introduce this question and I think I am correct in stating that he has talked more about it than all the rest of the members put together. Let me quote a few of his expressions. Speaking about the creating of this industrial commonwealth or collective ownership, he is reported as having said at Port Arthur:
"Can this thing be brought about?" He asked in conclusion. He answered it by saying that it had been done in Russia, but with loss of millions of lives and untold suffering. He hoped that would not be necessary in Canada.
If the cardinal principle of socialism is to be accepted, collective ownership has got to come. He hopes it can be done "without the loss of millions of lives and untold suffering." At Calgary, just a day or two before we left, the hon. member spoke there and, according to the report, he said:
Violence may come. I am warning my people, again and again I have begged for action to prevent violent methods being used. My earnest desire is not to have that happen which happened in Russia which involved a great loss of life and suffering.
That came from my own city of Calgary and I want to give that for the benefit of my fellow-citizens. According to his dictum, violence may come, but he hopes the change can be brought about without a great loss of life and suffering.
In the House of Commons last year, as reported on page 2S08 of Hansard, he said:
There is something to be said with regard to those who are trying to bring in reforms by means of force.
Then he goes on to elaborate.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon.
member conclude that passage. He is taking a detached sentence.


George Douglass Stanley: The hon. gentleman will
have an opportunity to give the whole thing. The words as quoted are absolutely correct.
At Saskatoon, on his way through, he delivered an address to the farmers there and this is a stenographic report. He said: Now, how are we going to attain that power?
I think that is a practical question. There are a few people in our labour movement, as well as in the farm movement, who say that the only possible thing for us to-day is to win that power by force, to resort to force of arms, or violence or something of that kind. Of course, since the Dominion government has been taking such an active part in suppressing the advocates of open force we have not heard quite so much of that openly expressed. At the same time there are those who quite conscientiously and firmly believe that is the only way in which we can obtain our ends. I am not so shocked as some people are at that because if it is right to obtain victory of one nation over another nation by means of force, it is right to obtain victory of one class over another class by means of force.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon.
gentleman conclude the statement?


George Douglass Stanley: I have only a few
minutes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon.
gentleman finish the statement?


George Douglass Stanley: Yes, I shall finish it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When an hon. member
is speaking, no other member has a right to interrupt him except on a point of order.


George Douglass Stanley: I have only a few
minutes left. The hon. gentleman, according to the report of Mr. Sandwell of Toronto Saturday Night, repeated practically the same thing and Mr. Sandwell gave him the honour of an editorial in regard to it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order. The statement as made by Mr. Sandwell was a detached sentence which had been definitely repudiated by the president of the association before which I spoke.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is not a point of order.	.


George Douglass Stanley: These poor press reporters who become deaf just at convenient moments are not the kind that I meet. Those whom I meet generally get what is said. But may I say this, that if it is right, as the statement of the hon. gentleman claims, for one nation and so forth to use force, it is quite true the nations are using force or they are prepared for doing so. Then as long as that is considered right, the hon. gentleman says it is right for one class to use force against another class. But the hon. gentleman says it is not right for individuals to do that. Of course it is not. The logical conclusion is that the right thing for an individual to do, if he wants to use force, is to get into a class, and when
1956	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Motherwell
that class is built up so strong that it can overcome all other classes, then he has at his feet "the world and all that is on it." That is the situation.
May I quote just one statement which the hon. gentleman made at Moose Jaw away back in the time of the troubles of those days. He said:
The federal authorities control the military and the courts, and labour is not going to get what it wants until it in some way gets control of the military and the courts.
In this house in my hearing the hon. member said "that the military were here not for the repelling of some foreign enemy but to shoot down our Canadian citizens."
So I could go on quoting from some of the other trusted associates in socialism during the troubles of years gone by. This is what Kingsley said in his Vancouver speech:
"I stand for one big union-for the specific purpose of conquering the reins of power by peaceful means if possible; and if not, by some other means."


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Speaker, if some of us have seemed to others to be somewhat reluctant to take part in this debate, this has been for the very good reason that we were hoping to the very last minute that some hon. member of this new-old cult would tell us exactly what this motion of the hon. member (Mr. Woods-worth) means. I may say that I have not so far been able to fathom it. Nobody has yet supplied the key. Being in that position, I am obliged to go outside this house to find what the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are saying there so that then we may be able to understand what the motion really means. I know what it -means, bu-t it is not Started in the motion.


Henry Elvins Spencer: May I remind the hon.
gentleman that I put it on record the other day?
Mr. MOTHE*RWELL:	I did not catch
that. Will the hon. member excuse me because I need the whole forty minutes to say what I want to say. If my hon. friend will speak a little louder I shall be glad to answer.
One thing we can understand is the somewhat comprehensive and, I might say, the presumptive name they have appropriated to themselves-Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I do not think any party in the house has a right to monopolize all those names. Another thing I can understand is that this new party, so called, wants the government, the opposition and all the rest of us to set them up. Those are the words

of the motion. Well, they may be set up later on, but not in the way they expect. But they want to be set up. The motion calls for the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) wants to be a party to setting up our hon. friends to my left. None of the speakers who have shown their attitude in this regard has given any indication of that, but in any case I wish to inform the house that whatever the government may do, I am not going to be a party to setting up the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.
We have had these new parties for many years, and I am not going to say for how long back. I shall not say that they have all been in vain or that some of them have not at some time served a useful purpose. But we do not need to try a new experiment to find out what they are likely to be because right in this country, as well as in others, we have a history of them dating back for a considerable number of years. The first demonstration of vocational government was in the province of Ontario when the Drury government came into power. What marvellous things were expected of him when he was taken from the plough tail and put into the premier's chair in the biggest province of this dominion! But lo and behold, one of his ministers found himself in the penitentiary before two years had gone by. Is that the new social order that we are to follow? Is that the new day that is about to dawn upon us? May we expect hon. gentlemen to the left to follow such an example of the new cult that I have just mentioned?
But let us go out to the west, and take a look at Alberta and Manitoba. They have two farmer governments there, and as a whole they are fairly good governments. They did not undertake to perform any miracles. But both of them are giving reasonably fair government. The one in Manitoba, however, before going to tlhe country last summer, thought it advisable to ask for the co-operation of all parties in the house. Two of them declined, but the Liberals accepted, and consequently we have in Manitoba to-day a coalition government composed of two parties, the Progressives and the Liberals. In my estimation they never should have been separated in the first instance. But they came together again in that way, and I rather approved of it myself, notwithstanding that I do not like coalition governments as a rule.
In Saskatchewan we have a Conservative cooperative government. There are eleven nondescripts there calling themselves by any name that is convenient for the occasion who

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Motherwell
hold the balance of power. In this House of Commons at Ottawa, in the corner to my left, any two of those gentlemen held the balance of power for ten months 1925-26. What a wonderful sensation it must be to hold this entire House of Commons in the hollow of two hon. gentlemen's hands! It is the most vicious form of government that could be conceived of.


James Dew Chaplin: Then why did you permit it to go on?


William Richard Motherwell: I am getting along fine thank you. I anticipate that that is what our friends to the left are again aiming at now. They certainly do not expect to be called upon to form a government, for otherwise they would have never made themselves responsible for such extraordinary things as they are saying and promising outside of this house.
If time would permit, we might go to the Antipodes for further examples. But there is nothing to indicate that either Australia or New Zealand has benefited sufficiently by a Labour government to write home about it.
I come to my last illustration, in the homeland. There we had probably the best Labour government that has ever been formed in any part of the British commonwealth. I am a great admirer of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, the present Prime Minister of Great Britain, but when the Labour government of Great Britain came up against a real crisis about two years ago, and they found that their trade union bronchos would not follow them in the great reforms which they felt it necessary to make to meet the economic crisis, Mr. MacDonald was obliged to turn to the two old parties and form a national government to meet the situation at that time, and that was the end of the Labour government there.
Now what is the use of us trying another such experiment in this country with all this experience within our ken, right under our eyes, within our own time? It is quite true that our friends to the left have assumed a new name, but a new name does not mean very much. A new name without a change for the better does not mean anything at all to me. To me our friends to the left still remain the same old sixpence, notwithstanding their new and cumbersome name.
Just a word about that name-the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Saskatchewan leaders of the farmer-labour party have done more harm in pulling down cooperative enterprises within the last three or four years than the whole gang of them have done in their lifetime in building it up. The United
Farmers of Canada-the Saskatchewan section -brought Sapiro to Canada, I think it was in 1923, and he went around that province in a sort of cyclonic crusade on behalf of the pool method of selling wheat. While prices were going up that method proved to be fine. I think it was the most magnificent wheat cooperative superstructure that I have known anywhere. But in Saskatchewan this movement was built on a comparatively unknown foundation, and that was not sound. The foundations were not strong enough to uphold the wonderful superstructure; that is, the success of the pool method of giving an advance payment followed at intervals by two or three other payments depended largely on keeping the advance payment safely low. While this was being done, another great institution called the Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator Company was carrying on successfully. It had been organized in 1911, and was financed eighty-five per cent by the government of the day in the province of Saskatchewan, and they also had a line of credit guaranteed to the extent of sixty per cent. Never a dollar was lost to the treasury of Saskatchewan as a result of that great enterprise. It was absorbed by the new pool overnight, quite constitutionally, it is admitted, but nevertheless terribly ruthlessly. Now the pool, as you know, has met with a terrible financial disaster. You may ask me, how do I know but what the same fate would have overtaken the old Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator Company if it had not been absorbed? My answer is that the United Grain Growers, another cooperative enterprise in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, operating outside of the pool, has weathered the present economic storm and is in good shape financially. Consequently I come to the conclusion that if things had been left as they were for a while in Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Cooperative would have weathered the financial storm also. But this pool method of salesmanship was adopted because of the desire to jump away ahead of their time, not being content to grow gradually by natural evolution, as all reforms should be brought about. They did not even take advantage of the provision in the old Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator Act which provided for patronage dividends. No, they must have something new and different entirely-scrap the old and start anew. Destruction almost followed due to over advance payments and rapid drop in wheat prices. There is only one way to rebuild this once great wheat pool, and that is by keeping it entirely outside of politics,
1958	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Motherwell
but I am afraid that the U.F.C. is dragging the pool down again by that dangerous avenue. So much for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation's claim for the name "cooperation" along commercial lines.
What kind of cooperation did we get politically from this body of hon. and enterprising gentlemen? It is not so very long ago, in 1926, as many hon. members will recall, that one old political party one dark midnight had its throat cut like this, from ear to ear by these hon. gentlemen, and three days afterwards the other old party had its throat cut like that, and both were left gurgling in their own gore. That is a kind of political cooperation which its victims do not appreciate very much.
We had further evidence of the sort of political cooperation they give when the Great Britain-Canada Trade Agreement bill was before the house. Our friends to the left made a number of hearty and valiant speeches against it on the first reading, but I have searched Hansard in vain for any evidence that a single member of the farmer wing of the party to my left voted against that bill on its first reading, although they spoke valiantly against it. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) in particular made a very excellent speech against the first reading of this bill. I always like to hear his speeches for, whatever may be amiss in them, they always make good reading and listening to. We do not always agree as to their substance, but on that occasion I agreed with the substance of his speech entirely. Then imagine my disappointment to find when the vote came and cooperation was urgently needed, his cooperation consisted of retirement behind the curtains or into the neighbouring lobby-and he an Irishman! Irishmen, as I know them, are always looking for a fight, but when the division bell rang, the zero hour was nigh and my halting friend was due to go over the top, he retired to the rear. I was disappointed-yes, very much disappointed indeed. Hon. members will see that that type of cooperation does not give this Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party the right to be called the Cooperative Commonwealth party of this dominion.
And now, a word or two about "federation". This name, apparently has been accepted because of a word dropped by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. They have chosen to call it a federation rather than a party. The hon. member and his colleagues have never liked to be called a party because it seems they are reminded so they say, too much of the old parties, and characteristically
fMr. Motherwell.]
they want all things new. So they call themselves a federation,-a federation of disjointed units which have very little, if anything, in common. If I had time I do not think I would have much difficulty in showing that. They are bound by what? By the desire that I suppose we all entertain to a greater or lesser degree, namely to make their calling and election sure. That is what it all means, when the mask is off.
I cannot be accused of liking over much the policies of my Conservative friends, but at the same time I should rather be with them than accept the present alternative. In the election of 1929 the people of Saskatchewan were stung by the Ku Klux Klan, the leader of which is now in jail at Edmonton. In 1930 we were stung again by the voluminous promises of the present Prime Minister of Canada. Now it would seem as if Canada was in danger of being stung a third time, in the same place. Surely not,- surely not. When the farmer-labour party's land and economic policy is understood, it will be deserted like rats from a sinking ship.
Then, about the word "commonwealth",- who has any monopoly on that word? What does it mean? Some years ago I heard Austen Chamberlain give a definition of it in the railway committee room. I notice the dictionary does not give the same meaning, but I recall he indicated that commonwealth meant common weal, and commonweal meant the weal of the common people. I think all parties in the house would claim they constituted a commonwealth, because we all contend, no matter how much we may be mistaken or whatever justification we may have for our contention, that we are representatives of the common people. So the house will realize that there is no reason why this long name should be grasped at and monopolized by our friends from the left. Of course, so long as we allow them to do so it is all right. I am reminded of another triple name which was generated just after the demise of the Union government. I believe it was my old friend Senator Calder who worked out the name of the National Liberal Conservative party.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: "And" Conservative.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes; probably it
was the National "and" Liberal "and" Conservative party. I think that is right,


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But it did not survive.


William Richard Motherwell: Anyway the word
"national" was intended to be attractive to all nationalists; then there was the old name

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Motherwell
dating back to the time of Sir John A. Macdonald, and the time when an attempt was made to dish the Grits by misappropriating the Liberal name. I may add that that has not done the party opposite much good. It is out of place entirely. There is no similarity between the two old parties. So it would seem that the name now before us the Cooperative Commonwealth federation, is about as great a distortion and monstrosity as the one to which I have just referred.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I think it is worse.


William Richard Motherwell: I think if they had added the word "humbug" to these trip,Ideates they would have been more easily recognized.
Although I am not in the habit of reading clippings from newspapers I feel on this occasion I must do so, as it ie necessary for me to be candid. I believe when any man throws down a challenge, as the horn, member for Winnipeg North Centre has, those who do not agree with him should accept that challenge and deal with it accordingly. This is the time, and, in my estimation, the proper place to deal with it. As I read the article before me hon. members will realize the amount of provocation which has developed both in and out of the house. Listen to this: "The Liberal party was the Judas Iscariot of political life." Who will agree with that?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Who is the Judas who
said that?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, who said that?


William Richard Motherwell: Thanks-I had just forgotten to mention that. In the first place, this article is taken from the Western Producer of August 19, 1932, the official paper issued by the pool. Hon. members will realize the danger the pool is in when it is used by a political party to give voice to such diatribes as I have read. I shall read the head note of the article before me:
Williams and Coldwell on Farmer-Labour action at Saskatoon convention.
This refers to the time when the farmer-labour body came into existence at Saskatoon, and has reference to a speech by Mr. Williams, honorary president of the Saskatchewan section of the United Farmers of Canada, and who is now a candidate for the provincial legislature. He will run, nio doubt, under whatever name they wish to call themselves when election time arrives. I shall read again this article which refers to the farmer-labour party of Saskatchewan, now affiliated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Hon. members will! please note carefully that the
Labour-Farmer party of Saskatchewan has been affiliated with tire Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, that body which had its birth in Calgary last August. The article reads:
"The Liberal party was the Judas Iscariot of political life, promising much and giving little" but, said Mr. Williams, if he criticized the Conservatives less than the Liberals it was not that he had greater love for them but that he feared them less. "One does not beat a dead dog" he remarked, and added that the result of the Conservative policy on the prairies was too apparent to need comment.
Mr. Coldwell uses similar objectionable language and makes use of terms quite as irrelevant and untrue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Motherwell
23 in the Regina Leader. Now we will get what they mean. Speaking of planned economy :	^
Such a plan would mean the scrapping of the system of private enterprise. We have got to plan and we must plan apart from the idea of ownership. Profits and ownership have to go.
Any of you who hope to make a little profit to help get out of the hole, I would advise you not to set up this commonwealth, because there is to be no more profit after this.
There is no way out until we have discarded these.
Profits and ownership.
It was now too late for palliatives such os unemployment insurance, he said, citing statistics that if production were now geared to the 1929 speed, 55 per cent of the unemployed would remain unemployed.
Mr. Coldwell declared that human beings must stifle the psychology of thrift-
I am afraid my good friend the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has probably been reading this, or Mr. Coldwell has been reading the speeches of the hon. member for Southeast Grey on that point.
I thought thrift was just what we were lacking in. We are told that one of the causes of the depression is lack of thrift.
-a psychology that was a legacy of the past, of the age of scarcity when saving was a virtue.
Saving was only a virtue in the past, during the period of soarcity. Apparently it is thought to be a vice now. If it is not a virtue it must be a vice, or a negation of some kind. And he goes on:
We must have a mental revolution, he said, or we shall have a physical revolution.
Now what does all that mean? We are not only to scrap all the past back to the time of King John in the evolution of our parliamentary system, our constitution and our institutions generally, but we are to forget all about ownership, all about thrift, things that we used to be taught in our youth were virtues, and take on this new order, this nebulous thing that no one can catch hold of; all we know is that we are to discard the old and tried and grapple with something that is so visionary that no one seems to understand it so far as the motion before us goes. Talk about buying a pig in a poke! I do not know how you would describe this; you would be buying without seeing either the pig or the poke.
Now we will deal in a Toronto speech with another noted gentleman in the left-hand 
corner. I think this is taken from the Globe, a paper that has grown in some respects quite irresponsible I admit:
Garland states the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation platform. Standard of living for the working classes raised five hundred per cent, he says.
Toronto, Feb. 1.-Under the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the standard of living for the Canadian working classes will he raised five hundred per cent, E. J. Garland, M.P. for Bow Kiver, Alta., declares.
Now there is something definite; that looks pretty good. It will need to come pretty near that in some cases to be what we would desire, but anyhow that is definite.
The banking system will be "socialized," he said,-
I wish someone would tell me the difference between socialization and nationalization.
-along with all health services, while every worker and farmer will have the opportunity to own his own home and private property for himself.
Behold the difference! Mr. Coldwell, who is a labour man, the hon. member for Bow River who is a farmer, or farmer-representative-one takes a diametrically opposite direction to the other, yet they both belong to the same party. How are you going to make a government out of such disjointed and dissimilar units?


Eccles James Gott: It will never be done.


William Richard Motherwell: The hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches know by this time it is hard enough to form a government out of one party, without trying to merge twenty or thirty divergent units and call it cooperative. Listen to this:
And if it proves necessary for the state to take over industry the state will do it, and "not ait the public expense, either," said Mr. Garland.
Now you capitalistic people over the way, watch out. The hon. member for Bow River is not going to pay for it out of the treasury; he is going to do what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was going to do with the Beauharnois waters-seize them, take them. Well, as the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) well said, that would not be any different from any other form of burglary.
And if it proves necessary for the state to take over industry, the state will do it, "and not at the public expense, either," said Mr. Garland.
I wonder how? He left it to our imagination, just as the motion leaves it largely to

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Motherwell
our imagination. But there is only one other way that I know of, and that is by expropriation, seizure-just take it.
This was the reply of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to those who said the movement had no platform, Mr. Garland declared.
In the past we've voted for our enemies, beneficiaries of the capitalist system. Now we can vote to kick them out. The powers that be are terrified. They are frightened out of their shirts. I wouldn't be surprised to receive, any day now, an invitation to form a national government.
I am sure if that idea ever dawns upon the government, that they want a national government-and that has been rumoured around -I can see from some signs that they will make a bee line for the party to the left. I think I am right in coming to that conclusion, because when they wanted to get the best man that could be found, so we are told, as vicechairman of the tariff board-the government sought out Milton Campbell.
I have some more here. Here is the real Kildore, the real official platform of the farmer labour party of Saskatchewan. I am going to give it the publicity of Hansard. This is also the economic policy of the Saskatchewan Farmer Labour group, and that group is affiliated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation:
The supplying of human needs instead of the making of profits.
Now I think the -time will come when man will entertain the idea of living for humanity and forgetting about himself, but that will be j-ust preceding t'he millennia! dawn, and we 'are a considerable distance from that yet. Some of our friends on the left may have attained to that high eminence, but .1 must admit I have not. And I do not -think the majority of the people of Canada -have. If we are to have representative government it must be a government that represents the -conceptions of the people of to-day on public questions. This is quite beyond the average -man -to-day, and to that extent our friends on the left, I think, stand pretty nearly alone. I have met people, I could count them on the fingers of my two hands who have gon-e so far in -helping humanitarian activities, -churches and hospitals, that they hurt and forgot themselves, giving away what belonged to them and what a great many people thought they should have kept for themselves. But there are not imany, and we are not now legislating for the millenia! dawn but for the present day, for human beings such as they are now. And they are not too bad. After two thousand years of evolution from the time of the Christian -era, I feel we are a tremendous improvement on those early 53719-124
days. I do not know how many -thousand years it will take to prepare us for the millenium, -but our friends to the left are -ready now, apparently. We-ll, -perhaps they are, but I have not been able even with my best glasses on to detect any evidence of it. I think it is -meant to be taken as sem-i-religious, and I note the church papers are taking it up in that light. AH I can say, therefore, is, dear help the -men who are engaged in -this kind of propaganda if it is not genuine. Whether it is genuine or not I leave to each individual member of this house to decide. Let me quote further:
1.	The establishment of a planned system of rational economy for the production, distribution and exchange of all goods and services.
2.	Socialization of the banking, credit and financial system of the country, together with social ownership, development, operation and control of utilities and natural resources.
Well, there will not be much -left after that is all scooped in under t-he system of nationalization. There are some real authorities on this subject. I really do not know where our friends -have got their experience in these matters, but I -can say for myself that I am not an authority on them, and in a case such as this I -must go to those who are universally regarded as authorities. Now wha-t do we find? We find no less -a person than Philip Snowden, now Loud Snowden, at one time Chancellor of the Exchequer in Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's Labour government, making thus statement with regard to the socialization of banks:
But it is clear from the discussion that the purpose of this demand is to get the financial control of the Bank of England, the joint stock banks and the financial houses in order to use these institutions for political purposes. The control of financial policy is to be handed over to the House of Commons. Nothing could be more dangerous than to introduce political influence into financial control apart from the incompetence of an honest parliament to deal with such a matter.
That is rather frank, and I must say that so far as I am concerned the imputation is correct. The man who makes the statement I have just quoted is not big in stature but he is a giant in intellect and- I am compelled to accept h-is surmise of what is likely to happen if we ad-opt the principle of the government handling the banks entirely by itself. What a great j-amboree our friends to the left would 'have with state operated banks prior to an election. We have -only to turn to the many farm loan boards in this dominion, the provincial farm loan boards, -to get some idea of what would happen. After borrowing all we could from private persons, banks and mortgage companies, the public forced the various provincial governments

1962	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Motherwell
themselves to enter upon a system of loaning, and from that to the dominion system also. We find nothing in all this but a grand orgy, a grand spree of borrowing and spending with pay day yet to come. And now the whole thing is to be taken over and socialized and administered by our very innocent friends to the left, who know no wrong nor evil nor see the obvious danger pointed out by Lord Snowden. Let me continue quoting:
3.	Social legislation to secure to the worker and the farmer:	an adequate income and
leisure with an effective voice in the management of his industry.
How will the worker have an effective voice if he becomes tenant and the government landlord? That is what I want to know. It is all things to all men, but particularly for themselves.
Remove the burden of debt which hangs so heavily over society at the present time.
Isn't that alluring? Wouldn't everybody like that? But how is it to be done? They do not tell us. Are they going to repudiate debts or cancel them or what? Of course, something must be done, and I personally should like to know the way out. No one would follow that path more readily than I, but this is too indefinite to induce me to take a leap in the dark. The next item is this:
The development of Churchill as a free port of entry for western Canada.
This is a local matter, but it reminds me that when I was on the other side of this chamber and advocated Churchill as 'the port of entry instead of Nelson, these letters are the very boys that opposed me; they charged me with throwing a monkey wrench into the whole machinery. Yet they are now talking about developing Churchill. The port would not have been at Churchill if it had been left to them, and now they come along with all their nonsense and Aim flam. I cannot go into all of it because my time is running short.
Still another policy is presented to us, an agricultural policy from the same source. I am sure our left wing friends must have great faith in that old dictum of Bamum, that the people like to be fooled, and apparently some do; but on the other hand I have just enough faith in the intelligence and discernment of the electors of Canada to believe that if you give them time to think these questions over, they will not be humbugged with all this propaganda, especially when they remember what the nationalization of land implies. We were all brought up with the idea that it was the highest aspiration of a man to own the roof over his head, 
and every labouring man was encouraged to achieve that end-a little piece of God's earth which one could call his own, not as tenant but as owner. This idea is to be scrapped- by whom? Some of these Labour gentlemen leaders especially in Saskatchewan, who advocate these new theories could not go to a farmer's home and start a fanning mill or turn a grindstone or set a clucking hen, so far as agriculture is concerned, and yet they want us to hand over all the affaire of the nation to them, with all this evidence of their incapacity. They have not been able to do what they were entrusted with. Consider what was done through the agency and influence of the U.F.C., as already recited in connection with Wheat Producers Limited. Look at the prostrate condition of that great undertaking to-day. The government is trying to salvage its mountains of wheat having to be taken over and further mountains bought to bolster up the price. We find trouble all along the line as a result of not leaving the Saskatchewan cooperative elevators to serve their end as they would have done until further steps could in safety be taken by adopting the policy of patronage dividends.
The farmer labour land policy in Saskatchewan is so vague that I hesitate to put any interpretation upon it, but my understanding of it is that those who have mortgages on their land, and that means a good many of us, will have these mortgages taken over by the provincial government. Provincial bonds will be given in exchange for mortgages. I do not know whether the mortgage companies will be agreeable, but that is what is proposed-some say the bonds will be noninterest-bearing while others say they will bear interest. Both ways have been mentioned and I do not know which is right. Then the farmer is to be tenant and must pay rent to the government, and when he has paid sufficient rent that is to be set aside to redeem the before-mentioned provincial bonds. I do not know how long that will take but finally the ownership, according to this document, as I and others understand it, passes not into the hands of the farmer but into the possession of the state. What a prospect and what a landlord.


Mr. L. DUGUAY (Lake St. John) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty to
make a few comments with reference to the resolution under consideration. May I, first, state that I admit with the horn, member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Duguay
that the present world wide depression points to fundamental defects in our economic system; however, I must add, sir, that I do not share his views as to the remedies and means to which he wishes to resort in order to cure or reform our present system. May I further state that, if it is unfortunate for social order and peace to be called upon to discuss a motion such as the present one, capitalism, which has replaced justice, is the cause; moreover, those who have uprooted our rural population to transplant them into cities have prepared the advent of communism i,n Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I am not opposed to capitalism. Larousse defines the word capitalist: "one who has capital, especially capital invested in enterprises." According to this definition, we can state that the small property owner who has lodgments to rent and the farmer who works his farm to earn an income necessary to a livelihood, are equally capitalists. The manufacturer who operates larger industries for the benefit of his fellow-citizens and makes reasonable profits, even if they are large, is a capitalist who deserves, like the two first, the protection of the government and the respect of the people. This kind of capitalist is necessary to the fundamental existence of nations, and no one is allowed, in my humble opinion, to pass any measure which might tend to dispossess them of such capital. That is why I shall vote against the present resolution, which states:
. . . the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
This would inevitably dispossess the property owners I referred to.
As I previously stated, the promoters of over capitalized companies or enterprises who have assumed the rights of small property owners, either legally or otherwise, are responsible, to some extent, for this general depression, and foster ideas like those advocated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, which spread and find supporters.
One must remember, sir, that, even in the province of Quebec, many people share these more or less advanced ideas, and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was right in saying:
"Well, after all. bolshevism is in Russia: it is far away, but we know what we are suffer-53719-124|
ing from and we are not going to be satisfied with denunciations of bolshevism all the time. What we want is some alleviation of our own evil."
Take, for instance, the situation created by capitalists in the district of Lake St. John. Some fifteen years ago, the people of that section lived happily and peacefully, each on his own small farm; the day, however, came when these magnates of finance who, with the cooperation of the provincial Liberal government, ruined everybody, even more, they usurped the rights of property owners, legally, if you wish, but nevertheless unjustly.


Mr. DUMAINE (Translation):: Did they
pay for them?


Joseph Léonard Duguay: . . . legally, but abusively. Some will contend that I wish to raise the bugbear of the Lake St. John flood. . .
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): It is out of fashion.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Some will
also state that the dispossessed farmers were compensated. That is also true.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: Not all.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: However;
the fact remains that, willingly or not, they were forced to give up their property to these promoters of large undertakings.
The Quebec government, by fostering these large industries uprooted our country people from their farms and herded them in cities in industrial centres; even more, our national patrimony has been parcelled up with the concurrence of our municipalities which were loaded with the whole cost of their administration, in order to enable these gentlemen to-found small independent towns. These gentlemen soon forgot the great sacrifices made by the people of that district, and to-day, we witness the offsprings of these pioneers who settled that part of the country, crippled with debts for years to come. What has been the result of these large undertakings, if not to spread poverty? Owing to unfair competition, we witness, to-day, one of our oldest established firms, Price Company, forced to close their doors, notwithstanding the fact that this company had greatly contributed to the development of the Lake St. John region and Quebec.
In order to conceal the fate inevitably reserved to our people, our legislators, both present and past, have always waved the political flag, to conceal from people the outcome of their want of foresight.
1964	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Duguay
May I, sir, set forth the best proof of such a statement.
On October 13, 1932, one of the oldest members of this house, the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil), on page 181 of Hansard
stated:
We have had no shanties in eastern Quebec for the last two years. Thousands and thousands of our young men who every year go into the lumber woods were idle last winter and the winter before, and they are going to be idle again this winter. Every saw-mill from Rimouski down the Matapedia valley along the coast of Bonaventure and Gaspe has been closed, [DOT] with one exception. The hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix) has a saw-mill where he is sawing a quantity of logs so that they will not be completely lost, but he says that he can find no market for his product. Therefore in the lumber industry there has been complete stagnation. In the town of Campbell-ton, which	is the	leading	town of	northernNew Brunswick, all the mills with one exception are closed down; between three and four thousand men are idle and the people do not know Where to turn and how to get food and clothing during the coming winter. We all received some days ago two or three slices of bread that were sent	to us	by	mail-bread	for theChomeurs, for the unemployed. Those are the rations that are being given to good Canadians who are willing to work. If this government could implement only half the promises it made and find a	market	for	our	farmers	and workfor our mechanics,	all	our	troubles	would be
settled.
An effort was being made, to convince the people of my native district-being a native of Gaspe-that, if they were out of work and suffering hardships, it was due to the Dominion government not fulfilling its pledges; while the true cause was communicated and published in the press of December 15, 1932, by the Hon. Mr. Kelly, legislative councillor.
It is as follows:
In the interest of my fellow Gaspesians and in fairness to myself, 1 feel that I should tell the public what I have often told Mr. Tasehereau especially during recent months.
Until a few years ago Gaspe was a happy contented country. Its population of 75,000 souls consists of small farmers, fishermen and labourers. The farming and fishing not being sufficient to provide for their wants the young and middle aged men went to the lumber camps during the winter and the old men took care [DOT]of the home. There were then numerous mills [DOT]operating on many of our Gaspe rivers. Then came the days of amalgamation and overnight these mills were controlled by a few large companies. The International Paper purchased the limits-Champoux or Ohaleur Bay Mills and closed the mills at Cross Point. It purchased the Montgomery Mills, at New Richmond and demolished them. At Cascapedia the Bathurst Paper Co. took over the control of the limits of the Grand Cascapedia and the mills were demolished. The same company took over the Edwards and McLean Mills, at Bonaventure, and here also they were demolished. The International purchased the Shephard and

Morse Mills, at Gaspe, and closed their doors. The Howard Smith demolished its mills at New Carlisle and closed its mills at Gaspe.
The pulp mill on the Madeleine river was purchased by Brown Corporation and the machinery was taken away. Two other mills remained: the pulp mill at Chandler and that of Lacroix at Carleton, both are now closed. As a result of all this the Gaspe people were, in a short time, deprived of their main means of earning a livelihood. The potato crop remained but owing to the heavy rains it also was a failure this year. There still remained the fisheries, unfortunately this also was a failure. The consequence of all this is that a large percentage of the people have _ not a copper with which to buy food and clothing and the Gaspe winter is now on. Only government assistance and lots of it, can cope with the present situation.
That is the real cause of all hardships, and what the Hon. Mr. Kelly says with reference to Gaspe, can also be said about the whole country.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: The hon.
member might perhaps give us a list of the grants they received.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: I am not
discussing at present whether the government made grants, but I wish to state why it is obliged to make grants.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: The hon.
member for Lake St. John is not here to champion the Tasehereau government!


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Then why
raise the question? If the hon. member will permit me I shall proceed with my remarks.
In connivance with the provincial government the federal Liberal members of Quebec are responsible for the situation such as it exists in Quebec, and it is with reason that the hon. member for Labelle stated in Montreal, some time ago, that Quebec was the paradise of capitalists. We are, therefore, compelled, to-day, so as to reestablish order, to give our rural districts a larger population as compared with that of cities which spend millions of dollars. When the Bank Act is again submitted to parliament, next year, we shall be forced in order to keep our people on the farm, to enact measures so as to reduce the rate of interest on loans made to them.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: We shall see what will then be your attitude.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: The future
will tell. I am not pointing out these facts, sir, simply to criticize. If I have mixed some politics with them, it was simply to render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Young
The situation is not irretrievable. I feel confident that the subversive ideas proclaimed by alarmists will not prevail in Quebec, because our rural population, from whose midst are recruited our priests and nuns, is the safeguard of order and property rights, and will, with the help of our church, withstand the shock, and when the crisis has passed over, it will once more have proved that, faithful to its traditions, Quebec will have contributed to make of Canada a bulwark of moral and social order.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weybum):: Mr. Speaker, for two days last week I listened patiently to the speeches of hon. gentlemen in the corner to my left advocating the policy, of this new party, in the hope that I would get some understanding of the policy they advocate. What do they tell us? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodswoi'th), leader of the party, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail), the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis), the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), all spoke in support of this new policy, and yet I do not know what their plan is. In graphic pictures they painted before us the deplorable condition of the unemployed, the distressful situation under which many of our people live. That could be done by a supporter of any party in the house. They told us that the capitalistic system is tottering to its fall; that nothing could be done to save it and that they were the only party in the house that had a definite plan to put something in its place. We have waited patiently, but in vain, to learn what that plan is, and so far as I can find out, all the plan they have is that they are planning to make a plan.
Supposing, sir, a gentleman were to come into your office to-morrow morning and tell you that the house in which he is living is an old tumble-down shack; that the foundations are falling into decay; that the house is drafty, dark, unsanitary, overrun with vermin, if you will; that it is likely at any time to fall on the heads of the inhabitants and that he is planning to build a new and better house. Supposing you were to ask him what kind of
house he intended to build, and he were to tell you that the was going to build a beautiful house, large, bright, sanitary, comfortable, convenient, with a room in it for everybody and every room designed to suit the exact needs of the occupants and located in the exact part of the building the occupant most wanted. Suppose you were to ask him to show you the plan of the house and he replied that that was the plan which he had already described. Then supposing you asked him further how he planned to finance the building of the house, you knowing he had no money, and he told you that he would pay for it by issuing notes payable on demand to bearer. Supposing you asked him how he proposed to redeem those notes when they were presented for payment and he told you quite cheerfully that he did not intend to redeem them; that when the lumberman, wanting money to pay for coal to put him through the winter, presented his note, he would tell him to take the note to the coal man and buy coal with it because it would be honoured by anybody; that when the coal man came and asked that the note be redeemed for cash, he would tell him to to take it to the grocer and pay for his groceries with it, and when the grocer came for his money, he would tell him to take the note to the coal dealer to buy his coal with it and so on. If a man were to tell you such a story as that, you would be more impressed with his cheerful optimism than with the practicability of his plan.
These gentlemen who are supporting this new movement ask us on the Liberal side of the house why we are not taking part in this debate. They say:	Why are you folks
sitting back and not discussing this plan of ours? The answer is:	We are waiting to
hear what the plan is. Let them show us their plan and we will examine it. Look at the speeches they have made. Reference has frequently been made to the style of their speeches with their long quotations and extracts from the utterances of others, extracts from speeches of Reginald McKenna, John Maynard Keynes, Sir William Beveridge, Sir Basil Blackett and others. They offer no argument of their own, no explanation of their plan, no proof of anything they say, simply quotations from these gentlemen. When my turn comes to knock and seek admission at the pearly gates, if it should be asked of me why, when I was a member of this house, I supported certain policies and opposed others, I hope to have a better reason to offer than to say: Sir Basil Blackett said that it would be a good thing or John Maynard Keynes said it would do no harm.
1966	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Young
If I were to offer such an excuse, St. Peter would ask me:	Where was your own head?
What were you elected for? Were you not supposed to exercise any judgment of your own?
Perhaps this attitude on the part of hon. gentlemen in the corner to my left as compared with ours illustrates as well as could anything else the difference between a Liberal and a Progressive. The Liberal says: Show us your plan, and we will examine it and form a judgment; he analyses. The Progressive memorizes. I might add that the Tory fossilizes. The hon. member for Wet-askiwin (Mr. Irvine)-I am sorry he is not in his seat-did say something about the foundation of the new structure. He did not outline the plan. He said that the foundation is to be laid on the bedrock of abundance. I ask: Abundance of what? Abundance of grain from which to make bread? Yes. Abundance of beef, pork, mutton? Yes. Abundance of fuel? Yes, but not all where it is handy. Some of our fuel is thousands of miles from the market where it is most needed. Abundance of lumber? Yes, if we are satisfied to use only the kind of lumber we have. Abundance of wool to make clothing? Yes, abundance of wool, but not the kind of wool we use in our clothing. If we are going to be restricted to the wool produced in Canada, we are not going to wear the kind of clothing we wear now, nor the kind these hon. gentlemen at present wear. Abundance of cotton from which to make cotton clothing? We have none. Abundance of tea, coffee, oranges, lemons, bananas, currants, raisins? We have none of these things. Where is the abundance? We have abundance of certain things which we can produce in vast quantities. We have none of other things. Under our capitalistic system, which my hon. friends condemn, we seek to exchange our surplus of the products which we have for the things which other people have in abundance and which we do not produce. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin said the other night that capitalism cannot continue without foreign markets. Perhaps some hon. member in the corner to my left will tell us how the new cooperative commonwealth is to go on without foreign markets. The hon. member for Bow River told us last session that normally two-thirds of our national income arises from the export of raw material. Under this new commonwealth scheme we would cut off our foreign trade, live within ourselves, so according to their own figures we would cut off two-thirds of our national income and they think we can get rich by living on the other third. iMr. Young.]


Michael Luchkovich: We have no markets now.


Edward James Young: We have this year marketed a considerable portion of our crop. They call this the Farmer-Labour party; it is a party composed of farmers and labourers, an alliance of these two groups to bring about a new world, a new condition in which there will be justice to everybody. Last session I quoted figures-they were repeated this afternoon by the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley)-showing that the farmer, when he goes into the market to exchange his labour for that of the industrial worker, is required to give four days' work in exchange for one. That was true last year. It is doubly true to-day. The farmer is not now getting one day's work of the industrial worker for four days' work of his own. If this new party gets into power, is it going to perpetuate that condition or bring about a new deal? Is the farmer to be compelled to give four or six or ten days' work for one day's work of the industrial workman?
Speaking of wages, I have under my hand a "Memorandum submitted by the National Railway Labour Unions of Canada, with respect to Bill A, introduced in the Senate of Canada by the Right Honourable Senator Meighen. Presented by A. R. Mosher, president of the All-Canadian Congress of Labour and of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Employees." This is what Mr. Mosher says:
Restrictions on railway revenues should therefore be removed and the railways allowed to charge rates which would return them their costs plus reasonable profits. An increase in freight rates to the same level as that which now prevails in the United States would remove any financial difficulties from which Canadian railways may suffer.
Further on he says:
If the revenues of the railways are not sufficient to meet their requirements, freight and passenger rates should be increased.
That is the opinion of Mr. Mosher, speaking for the railway men. Who is Mr. Mosher? I have before me another document entitled "The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the new national movement launched at Calgary, August 1, 1932." The national council consists of the president, Mr. J. S. Woods-worth, M.P.; Secretary, Norman F. Priestley; provisional executive: George H. Williams, Saskatchewan; J. Queen, M.L.A., Winnipeg; Mrs. B. Latham, Edmonton; A. R. Mosher, Ottawa, representing the Canadian Brother-dood of Railway Employees; William Irvine, M.P., Wetaskiwin; Angus Maclnnis, M.P., Vancouver; and Mrs. J. Lucas, president of the women's section of the U.F.C. (Saskatche-

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Young
wan section). I would ask the president of this new political party which is seeking to bring about equality, if he is supporting Mr. Mosher in his demand for higher freight rates.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Answer.


Edward James Young: He does not answer. I am sorry the hon. member for Wetaskiwin is not in his seat, or the hon. member for Bow River. The hon. member for Bow River told us last session that one of the greatest handicaps from which the farmer is suffering to-day is high freight rates, and he cited the case of a farmer who shipped 21 fine pullets to market and found that the entire price he received was absorbed in freight rates. I would ask these hon. gentlemen if they were here if they support this party in its demand for higher freight rates.
I have here the proposed program of this new party. The first plank is the establishment of a planned system of social economy for the production, distribution and exchange of all goods and services. This is the famous production-for-use program. We are to produce for use. As a farmer, I know from my experience, and I believe the experience of every other farmer in Canada has been the same, that during the past three years I have been producing for use. Every bushel of wheat that we have raised, every steer that we have fattened, every hog that we have fed, every egg that our hens have laid, have all been produced for the use of society. Society has used them, and we have had no profit. Frankly we are getting tired of it. We would like to produce for profit for a change. We have had plenty of producing for the use of other people.
Although hon. members to my left have refused to discuss the particulars of their plan, there is in Saskatchewan one man who seems to have more faith in the program than they have, or at least faith enough to be willing to discuss it. Sonne two or three weeks ago at a meeting which was held in Regina I heard this gentleman discuss "Some Phases of Planning." He said: There is no use in growing wheat for the world's market because you cannot sell it, and the only way to restore the price of wheat to what it ought to be is to curtail production. Under the present system, he said, if some farmers reduce their acreage in order to curtail production, others who refuse to do so will reap a double benefit due to the sacrifice of their neighbours. That will not do at all, he said. The whole thing must be controlled, and this is what he proposed to do. A planning board must be set up composed of scientists, engineers and economists. There will be no politicians on it, no members of this house, because politicians are not competent to make a plan. All that he is going to entrust the politicians with is the more difficult task of choosing the planners, and as far as I understand the program, that will be the sole function of the House of Commons under this scheme-simiply to choose the planners who will make the plan. We will be reduced to the status of a sort of electoral college. We will be elected for four years, and will come here and choose the planners who will make the plans under which we are going to work. This planning board will make a survey of all the requirements o-f our people, and will decide how much food of different kinds we need, how much clothing, how much fuel, and lumber and furniture, and so on. Then they will call in the technocrats who will tell them how many men will be required working so many hours per day and so many days per week to produce those goods. And then, he said, we will mobilize the man power of the nation as was done during the war, and we will set every man to do the work for which he is best suited. The machine will then start operating, and in this way, he said, we will produce abundance of everything for everybody, and we will work only four or five hours a day.
Of course, he produced no evidence except the statements of the technocrats. I think the hon. member for Wetaskiwin stated in the house the other day that one hundred men operating a modern 'brick machine could produce all the bricks that are required in the United States. I suppose that if a machine of that sort were set up in Canada only eight or ten men would be required to produce all the bricks that are needed in this country. Now the principal factor in the making and marketing of bricks is the freight. Are we going to set up these costly machines in every province of the dominion, or are we going to have only one in some central place? There is nothing practical about it at all. The technocrats have told us many startling things about the possibilities of industry, but every statement made by the technocrats has been exploded already. We have been told that technocracy and socialism are identical. Well, if they are technocracy has gone by the board.
We are going to work only four or five hours a day under this system. Perhaps some of the farmer members of this new group will tell us how the farmer, working only that number of hours a day, is going to get in his crop. Perhaps that difficulty could be solved by sending more men on to the farm. But what
1,968	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Young
about the farmer's wife? Where does she come in? The farmer may work only four hours a day but his wife has to cook him three meals, and she ,cannot cook ail three and have the dishes washed up and do all her other work inside of four hours. If we are going to have equality of status between men and women under this new regime, the only solution that I can see is to allow every farmer three wives, one to cook his breakfast, one to cook his dinner, and another to cook his supper. I do not know whether the technocrats can arrange that.
The second plank of their platform is that dealing with the banking, credit and financial system of the country. That phase has been dealt with by other speakers. I am not going into the question of the desirability or undesirability of socializing our banking institutions, but I can tell you what happened in the state of North Dakota where it was tried. They set up a farmers' government there a few years ago, a Non-partisan League. One of the planks in their platform was the establishment of a state bank for the same reason for which it is being advocated in this country, because the other banks were not lending money to those they thought should get it. They set up this state bank, which loaned money, and loaned to those who could not borrow in other banks. In the course of time these farmers' notes became due and were not paid, and the state bank took possession of their land. The state bank like any other state institution does not pay any taxes, and every quarter-section of land that was taken over in that way was removed from the tax roll, leaving the full burden of taxation to be carried by the other lands. In one single school district no less than nineteen quarter-sections were thus taken over and removed from the tax roll. The consequence was 'that the whole burden of taxation fell on the other lands, and the taxation in that school district rose to four dollars an acre. I wonder if my hon. friend will tell that to the farmers?
Then we find the expression "social ownership, development, operation and control of utilities and natural resources." All our utilities are to be publicly owned and operated. Well, we have on our hands onie experiment in public ownership, namely, our railways. Do hon. members think we should go any farther along that line? Do they not think it would be a good idea to wait until we have given this system a thorough trial? Has the public operation of our railways been such an outstanding success that all at onoe we must take over everything? Would it not be well

to go on with the public ownership that we have, and wait until we have thoroughly mastered the technique of running a railroad? When we meet with success in that one particular, probably we may consider going further and taking on other obligations.
Then, they are going to have "security of tenure for the farmer on his use-land and for the worker in his own house." "Use-land" refers to the land used for purposes of production. They are going to dictate to the farmer how much grain he shall grow, how many cows 'he shall milk, how many hogs he shall fatten, how many eggs his hens shall lay. All this is to be planned, and the farmer is to be directed as to how he shall do it. They will say to each farmer: "You must leave a certain portion of your land idle." We know 'that all land lying idle will grow weeds; it will cost money to keep those weeds down, and the land will not be producing anything. The cost of fighting those weeds will have to be borne' by the farmer. All that land which is taken from him will not be secured to him. They wiill give him security of tenure on his use-land only, or that which they permit him to use. All the burden of taxation will fall on the use-land acreage. To cover all these services an enormous increase in taxation will be necessary, and those taxes must be levied against the lands which they say they are not going to take away from the farmer. I want them to tell us how they will collect taxes. If the farmers will not pay or cannot pay, the security for taxation is in the land. How will they proceed to get those taxes, without impairing the tenure of the farmer on his use-land?
Then we come to clause No. 4,-
The retention and extension of all existing social legislation and facilities, with adequate provision for insurance against crop failure, illness, accidents, old age and unemployment during the transition to the socialist state.
"Insurance against crop failure",-any man who has any practical knowledge of the risks run by the farmers who put in their crops, who has any practical knowledge of the cost of insuring those crops, will immediately ask this question: Who is going to pay for it all? Where is the money coming from to pay insurance on all the crops which might fail? Take, for instance, the situations which arose in southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta in the last three years. Throughout hundreds and thousands of square miles they have experienced total crop failure. But in this clause we find the expression "insurance against crop failure"; where will the money come from to pay for all this insurance?

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Young


An hon. MEMBER:: From Mr. Woodsworth.


Edward James Young: There is only one source from which it can come-from the farmer himself. The farmer cannot pay it. Hon. gentlemen in the comer of the house know perfectly well that is not a practical suggestion, and cannot be applied. They may get some votes from the unthinking by stating they are offering crop insurance, but the impracticability of the scheme is apparent to anybody who stops to think for a moment Then there is to be insurance against "unemployment during the transition to the socialist state." That is a provision for unemployment insurance. The farmer to-day is giving four days of his labour in exchange for one day of the other fellow's labour, and because he is no longer in a position to hire that other man to work for him we are going to make that farmer pay the other man unemployment insurance, without work.
Then in clause No. 5, we find:	"Equal
economic and social opportunity without distinction of sex, nationality or religion." Have we not that now? That plank could be in the platform of any political party in Canada. Our friends have no claim or monopoly on it.
Then clause No. 6: "Encouragement of all cooperative enterprises which are steps to the attainment of the cooperative commonwealth." Perhaps another speaker, whom 1 do not see in his seat to-night, will deal with this clause. One can easily demonstrate that cooperation and socialism cannot exist side by side in the same state. If we are going to have cooperation, as we understand it, we cannot have socialism.
Clause 7 provides for "socialization of all health services." Who is going to pay for all this? Those services must be added to the taxation. I said that in North Dakota taxes amounted to $4 an acre; if all these things are done, what will they be in Canada. Fourteen dollars an acre would not cover it.
Then, clause 8: "Federal government should accept responsibility for unemployment and tender suitable work or adequate maintenance." I wonder what is meant by "adequate maintenance"? I suppose that means living under what we know as the present standard of living. I think it is generally recognized that the present standard of living is a little higher than we are going to be able to maintain; we will have to settle down to a lower standard. But our friends of the new party say that the unemployed shall have this adequate standard of living, regardless
of the fact that when the total wealth production of the country is divided among all the people there will not be sufficient to give us all an adequate standard of living.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Why?


Edward James Young: Because we do not produce it. Mr. MITCHELL: What are we doing now?


Edward James Young: We are not producing it now. There never was such a scarcity of real wealth in the country as there is to-day. Take the total wealth production of this country, and subtract from it all that is necessary to maintain the equipment. Take that portion which is left available for human consumption and divide it among the population, and you will find there is no such figure available for consumption as hon. members in the corner of the house suggest.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. member interpret wealth only in dollars and cents?


Edward James Young: Measure it any way you like; dollars and cents offer the only yardstick we have at the present time. If the hon. member objects to measurement in dollars and cents, will he explain why Mr. Coldwell, the apostle of the new doctrine in Saskatchewan, tells the people that they will have the equivalent under the new scheme of $20,000 income per annum? Why does he measure it in dollars and cents?
Speaking a few days ago the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) made a definite suggestion as to what they would do. He said that if necessary they would print $200,000,000 new money.


Wilfred Hanbury: Why stop at that?
Mr. MoINTOSH: Why not drive on?


Edward James Young: He suggests they would print $200,000,000 new money, and that it would be given into the hands of the people. That action he describes as establishing purchasing power. He would get it into the hands of the people by granting wheat bonuses, building houses, building hydro-electric plants, highways, and so on. He states that he would be placing purchasing power in the hands of the people. What is purchasing power? Some people seem to think that money is purchasing power. Money is purchasing power only when it will purchase goods. Purchasing power I take it, is the power to give one form of wealth in exchange for another form. Money is not wealth; it is only a certificate of title to wealth. Money is no more wealth than the deed to a piece of land is, in fact,
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. COMMONS
Young
the land. You cannot increase the land in a country by issuing more deeds; you cannot increase the wealth of a country by issuing more money. Money is only a certificate to title. I cannot create an island in the Atlantic ocean by simply issuing a title deed to the land of which it is supposed to consist. Neither can we create wealth in this country by printing new money.
The hon. member is going to print this money and spend it on public works. Let us see what this means. You give employment to the unemployed and pay them with this printed money. This printed money is a promissory note, secured against the created wealth of the country. The unemployed will take that money to the farmer and with it will buy wheat, meat, dairy products; he will take it to the miner and buy coal. But what is the net effect of the whole transaction? It is that those who are engaged in the production of wealth will be feeding, clothing and housing, mien who are producing something that they, the primary producers, do not require and cannot use. They say to the farmer: You must, out of the meagre returns you are getting, feed and clothe all these unemployed, not while they are producing something that they can give you in exchange, but while they are building houses for themselves to live in, hydro-electric plants to light and heat those houses, making parks for themselves to sit in, roads for themselves to drive on and that the farmer will never drive on, houses he will never dwell in; you are making him support people who are making these things for themselves. Not only that, but so long as the farmer lives he is going to be taxed to maintain these improvements. Not only has he to feed and clothe the men while they are building these things for themselves and get nothing in return, but as long as he lives he is going to be taxed to maintain them.
My hon. friends argue that if they print this money it will inflate our currency, in other words depreciate its value, so that we will get more Canadian dollars for the goods *we ship to England, with which we can pay more Canadian debts and do more business in Canada. rI hey say that will act as priming to the pump, and industry will flourish. Mould it? Let us see what has been the effect of inflation so far. Our dollar to-day is down to about 85 cents. They say we should depreciate it to the level of the British pound, so then it would be down to about 70 cents. What good has it done to bring it down 15 cents? Will any hon. gentleman here .say that we have reaped any benefit from the 
present depreciation of the dollar? Is wheat any higher, are cattle any higher, have markets improved because of this?


An hon. MEMBER:: Have wages gone up?


Edward James Young: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Or 75 per cent?


Edward James Young: Or 75 per cent. My hon.
friends say we should inflate our dollar to the level of the British pound, but all the arguments they advance are in favor of inflating it to the level of the Australian. They are not consistent. If they really believed what they argue they should ask that we depreciate our dollar to the level of Australia. But no, they say to the level of the British pound.
If we brought our dollar down to a parity with the British pound, or said we would redeem British pounds with Canadian dollars, as suggested by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), we would be backing the notes of England. British pounds are Britain's promissory notes, as Canadian dollars are ours. When the British pound is below the value of our dollar and we redeem it at par we are backing and paying Britain's promissory notes. Suppose the shoe were on the other foot; suppose the condition of world trade were such that our dollar went below the pound-and in these days, while the pound is coming up the dollar is going down, that might easily happen-would Britain redeem our notes at par? I think not. Why should we give $4.86 for the British pound if she would not give 100 cents for our dollar?
But what is the probable effect of depreciating our currency on the price of wheat-or

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Nicholson
of world commodities; but take wheat as a specific example. The other day our dollar dropped about four cents. Did it have any effect on the price of wheat at Winnipeg? It should have sent it up two cents, but actually it went up only one cent, and stayed there only a few hours. The dollar stayed down but wheat did not stay up. What is the reason? As near as I can understand, the reason is that there was so much wheat ready to be put on the market that that advance of one cent a bushel drew out vast quantities and forced the market down again. The result was that we were getting the same number of cents, but of an inferior value, in exchange for our wheat. We were selling our wheat on the world's market for really less money than before. When we undertake to sell our wheat for less than before, what does the Argentine do, what does Australia do? In order to sell their wheat they have to meet our price, they come down also. So the net result of the operation has not been to raise the price of wheat in Canada but to depress the price of wheat in the world. That is the net result, as far as I can understand, of trying to depreciate our dollar.
What did we do in Canada when the currencies of other countries began to depreciate? We promptly put on an exchange dumping duty. If the currency of Japan went to half its previous value we raised the duty against Japan enough to make up the difference. Will not other countries do the same? Assuredly they will; they learnt the lesson from us. They learn all their evil lessons from us in these matters. The advantage which my hon. friends hope to get from a depreciated currency in getting their goods into the foreign markets will be immediately offset by the increased duties that other countries put on against us.
What I cannot understand is, hon. gentlemen in the corner were elected to this house in the first instance to fight tariffs, these insuperable barriers to trade. Now they are advocating inflation of currency, which is another form of tariff. When you lower the value of our dollar by 20 per cent you raise the tariff by that amount, and that is another restriction to trade. Those who advocate that policy, whether they know it or not, are advocating an increase of tariff.
Of all the arguments advanced by the supporters of this new policy this matter of inflating currency is the only one they have tried to explain. I wish some of them would explain exactly what they mean by their plans and exactly how they propose to carry them out, so that subsequent speakers on this side
may be in a position to deal intelligently with their proposals.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: In considering the resolution before the house I think we should first ask ourselves what our present position is in relation to the proposals made; then we can determine whether our position will be improved in any sense if we accept what is laid down for us. The resolution virtually asks us, if I may use the word, to scrap the constitutional, social and economic machinery of this country and to set up in its place some vague idealistic system which so far has not been explained in this house.
First of all I want to say this, and I say it without fear of contradiction from any side. There is no country in the world to-day where men and women have so great an opportunity for self-expression and self-development as in the Dominion of Canada. There is no country in the world that provides a greater opportunity for men and women to do what this resolution presumes to suggest that we should do, namely, to cooperate. The resolution asks us to set up a cooperative commonwealth. In the first place, in every province in Canada the law makes it possible for citizens to group together in cooperative movements for any legitimate purpose they have in view. They can cooperate in the production of goods, in the sale of goods, in the marketing of goods and in social services of every kind, and I say without fear of contradiction that if there is any legitimate plan of cooperation that can be put forward which is not now provided for, then the parliament of Canada or the legislatures of the provinces will be only too glad to enact the necessary legislation if that legislation has for its purpose the improvement of the condition of the people. We must therefore go outside the realm of cooperation if we want to find out what these gentlemen propose to do, assuming that their object is to improve our condition, because the resolution sets out that the government must at once set up an entirely new system. What that system is has not been explained. As a matter of fact, as stated so well this afternoon by hon. members on both sides, we must go outside the house to ascertain what it is proposed to do. I will give only one quotation which I take from a speech made outside the house by the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). He was quoted this afternoon in a speech he delivered in northern Ontario and I will carry on from the point where that quotation ended. This is what he said-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Where? '
1972	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Nicholson


George Brecken Nicholson: In the city of Port Arthur. The hon. gentleman asked, "Can this thing be brought about?" That was the conclusion of his speech after reciting all the plans that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had. He asked that question of the audience, he asked it of the country and he is asking it now of this House of Commons-Can this thing be brought about? Now I ask, What thing? Simply the proposals that he is putting before the countiy, proposals with which-I say this with all respect to his colleagues-he has deluded a good many people in the country. Can this thing be brought about? He answers his own question. He says:
It has been brought about in Russia, but with the loss of millions of lives and untold suffering.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


George Brecken Nicholson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He is referring to this plan which he is presenting to the Canadian people, and he answers his own question by saying that it has been brought about in Russia; but, he adds, with the loss of millions of lives and untold suffering. With that last statement I am perfectly in accord; the lives that were lost were innumerable and the suffering, which is still going on, is intense. As my hon. friend from West York (Mr. Lawson) said, the highest standard of living amongst the peasants and working classes of Russia is not as high to-day as the government of this country, which has been charged with failure to do anything to assist our people, is providing for our unfortunate citizens who to-day, because of a world-wide depression, are out of employment. But for a pacifist, one who in this house and out of it, up and down the country and everywhere, preaches the doctrines of pacifism, the bald statement that this "thing" was brought about with the loss of millions of lives and untold suffering, is a fairly good explanation of the attitude of the hon. gentleman towards all sides of all subjects.
But how will it be brought about? In Port Arthur he told how it was brought about in Russia. How will it be brought about in Canada? He said:
It nray very well be that force may prove inevitable, yes, if the attitude of certain gentlemen is persisted in and the pepole of this country are denied the right-
AVhat right? The hon. gentleman who fosters this plan has not told the house. I

ask, what right? If those who intend to put this system into force are met with opposition; if I resist the dictatorship that will be set up in this country to come and take my home from me; if the farmers resist when they come to take their farms from them- I wish my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Maephail) were here: how would she feel if this dictatorship undertook to follow the same course-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point
of order. I have never advocated a dictatorship. That is attributed to me; I have never advocated it.


George Brecken Nicholson: I do not wish to
attribute to the hon. gentleman anything that he has not at least implied. He asks how this thing can be brought about. What thing? He answers his own question by saying that it has been brought about in Russia. Well, will he undertake to say that there is not a dictatorship in Russia, the most ruthless, the most cruel dictatorship that has ever been known in history? And he says himself that this thing, which he had been talking about for two hours to the people of Port Arthur, has been brought about in Russia; true, by the slaughter of millions of people and with intense suffering. And he frankly tells the people of Canada, on the floor of the House of Commons, that force will be used by this dictatorship to bring about the same situation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is misquoting me; I never said such a thing. I ask that the statement be withdrawn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is not a point of
order for one hon. member to contradict another. If the hon. member wishes to deny a statement made by someone else in debate, or to point out wherein he has been misquoted, he can do so when he comes to reply.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have been
charged with having made certain statements in the House of Commons, which statements I did not make.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is not a point of
order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I insist that it is
a point of order. A statement has been made which is not true and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Nicholson


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no point of
order in that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask that the
statement be withdrawn, because it is not true.


George Brecken Nicholson: 
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: It is certainly not what we have to-day.


George Brecken Nicholson: Stable currency is a currency which is accepted at par in any country in the world, but you are not going to get it by any effort on the part of ten millions of people in the face of the whole world, simply by starting to issue fiat money or an inflated currency.


Mr. VALLANCE:: You certainly have not got stable money now.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Nicholson


George Brecken Nicholson: Sir Basil Blackett goes on to say:
If I put stable money in the forefront of what is needed for successful national reconstruction, it is because national planning ahead is so difficult as to be almost impossible without reasonable stability of prices.


Alfred Speakman: Price stability is really stable money.


George Brecken Nicholson: Price stability will be arrived at when we get stable money throughout the world-then and then only. Hon. gentlemen opposite to my right are always asking for stable money. Sir Basil Blackett says:
With stable money, industry can concentrate anew on bringing down the costs of production.
Sir William Beveridge says:
The third point is that this crisis is a world crisis, a common disaster of all the world. As such, it is a disaster that is only going to be made worse if each nation thinks purely nationally, thinks or acts in a narrow, selfish spirit.
We have heard a great deal about what happened when England went off the gold standard, and England's currency became inflated, as people say. As a matter of fact, England did not go off the gold standard in the sense of voluntarily leaving it. She went off the gold standard simply because she was forced off it.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: In just the same position as Canada, only Canada won't go off it.


George Brecken Nicholson: No, she won't as long as we can carry on our business, and as long as we remain sane.


John Vallance: Your dollar is fictitious now.


George Brecken Nicholson: Again, Sir William
Beveridge says:
Some people have hailed our going off the gold -standard as a means by which we can damage the trade of other people and benefit our own. *Going off the gold standard has helped us in certain ways, but it has thrown the trade of the world still more into confusion.
Every step that is taken in that direction to unstabilize currency and world trade makes it just that much more difficult for the nations of the world, Canada included, to get back into the position they were in before. As Sir William Beveridge says:
The small, immediate gain to us on one side has been offset on the other side by loss to the world and to us as in the world.
The trouble is that some hon. gentlemen who in and out of season have demanded that we should broaden our outlook and trade
with the world have now come forward with the proposal that we should draw ourselves into our shell and establish a credit and currency system that will be effective and useful in Canada, but of no use whatsoever beyond our shores.
One more word from Sir William Beveridge, and then I shall have finished with quotations from this book:
So I, for my part, come back to seeking a way out of the world's crisis within the frame work of the capitalistic system, by suppressing, through international cooperation, the anarchy of purchasing power-by suppressing the anarchy of purchasing power and keeping and increasing the liberty of production and exchange. That is the way of escape.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) referred to a statement concerning capitalism made in the House of Lords by Lord Marlev. In that same speech Lord Marley made statements similar to the one made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre at Port Arthur, that "there ia no unemployment in Russia." Another gentleman spoke in the House of Lords-I refer to Lord Snowden, parts of whose speech were quoted this afternoon. In a newspaper article before me he is quoted, in part, as follows:
At such times there have always been those who are proclaiming the collapse of the capitalist system.
Well, the system is not going to end just yet. Some of my socialist friends have never realized the tremendous recuperative power of capitalism.
Some hon. members in this house have never realized the tremendous recuperative power of the individual Canadian who, in his own way, is determined to work out his own destiny and not be subjected to the dictatorship of hon. members opposite. The article continues:
And we shall see ourselves through this crisis, although, mark you, I am not in the least ignoring the importance of changes in-to use the phrase of noble Lords opposite-our plan of national organization and national reconstruction. But I certainly cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Marley, in going to Russia for an example. The noble Lord said that there are no unemployed in Russia. I do not think lie would find many unemployed in Dartmoor jail.
This is the statement of Lord Snowden, the man who has been hailed as the greatest socialist in England. The article continues:
Russia is under a system of industrial conscription. Russia has confiscated all the capital, repudiated all public debts, and yet, starting without any capital liability at all, Russia has ever since been coming to the capitalist countries of the world cap in hand, begging them for export trade and loans.

1078	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mitchell
We have had a recent example of that in Canada, if we can be guided by statements from Serkau and his friends, who have come to us and asked us to buy goods, and pay cash for them.


John Vallance: Time is up.


George Brecken Nicholson: I should like to speak a moment more.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken for forty minutes.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member who preceded me that probably the fewer the quotations, the product of other peoples' brains, made by hon. members, the better will be the discussion. This House ol Commons is a fairly accurate cross section of the men and women who comprise the population of this broad dominion. It must reflect the moods and desires of those men and women. I believe that individuality may be better shown by accepting responsibility for our own statements than by reading from books the statements of others.
During the course of this debate we have heard the statements of hon. members both to the right and the left of Mr. Speaker who are suffering from the Russian jag. We have to take a realistic viewpoint of what is going on in that country, the forces that brought about the revolution, and the reasons for it, with which the Russian people and no others were thoroughly familiar. That country will work out its own destiny in its own way. May I observe that while in Russia there is poverty amidst scarcity, in this broad dominion there is poverty amidst plenty.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Which is better?


Humphrey Mitchell: Some one has asked which is better. I reply that poverty amidst plenty is at least a challenge to our good sense and our leadership.


Robert King Anderson: Is it?


Humphrey Mitchell: I believe it was the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) who made the observation a few evenings ago that this resolution was a challenge to democracy. I believe the challenge to democracy comes from the other side of the house. Certainly democracy would be challenged if the attitude of the men and women in constituencies such as West York were truly reflected by the statements made by their representatives in the House of

Commons. Members of the house have been forbidden to speak in the city of Toronto. Then they say that this resolution is a challenge to democracy. We have heard a great deal about freedom of speech. I have fixed opinions along that line; if I had my way there would be a forum in every town and hamlet of Canada in which men and women could express their opinions unfettered by those who disagreed with them. That is a good old British custom. I have before me a clipping which gives an account of a parade of 100,000 people which only a few days ago passed through the city of London and held a meeting concerning unemployment. If they can do that in Great Britain, it is only reasonable that we should be allowed to do it here. I want to say, however, that freedom of speech carries with it responsibilities. I do not believe any individual or group of individuals who preach the overthrow of democractic institutions, as we know them have a right to that freedom of speech. In my judgment it is only logical the democratic institutions should protect themselves from forcible overthrow. There is in my opinion a licence for freedom of speech. I make that observation because the statement is made that labour members are to some extent connected with the Third Internationale. I want to make this perfectly clear, that there is as much difference between the labour movement of this country and the tactics of the Third Internationale as there is between atheism and Christianity.


Mr. BAKER:: What is the difference?


Humphrey Mitchell: I think we will all
agree that very few know what the future holds for this country, or any other country for that matter. Fundamental changes have to be made to meet the problems that confront us. Within the precincts of this house a man that the Prime Minister of this country admitted was one of the brightest financial minds in the world to-day, Sir Josiah Stamp, made the observation, and members of this house applauded it, that he felt that we shall reach a stage halfway between our system and the Russian system. That is the opinion of a responsible man of the world who at least knows the way he is going.
Some have spoken of confiscation. Good heavens, why talk about confiscation? It is going on all around us. Among the people I pass my life with, their houses and everything they possess is being confiscated at this very moment, through circumstances over which they have absolutely no control. Yet hon. members talk about confiscation. I want.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mitchell
to say this, speaking for myself as an individual and without undertaking to represent the viewpoint of the labour movement of this country, that I am absolutely opposed to confiscation by the state. Any man who would suggest such a thing is not in his right senses, in my judgment.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Humphrey Mitchell: I am looking at you.
I believe the changes contemplated by this resolution should be made gradually and through the recognized constitutional channels. I believe they must be founded on conviction and on enlightened public opinion. I would remind you that cooperation or collective effort brought us through the greatest conflict in history, enabled the countries of the commonwealth to emerge successfully from the most destructive war that we know of. That is why I believe that the resolution is not so destructive as implied by some hon. members who have taken part in this debate. The hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) who spoke the other evening and said so much about the rights of the individual, I understand is a lawyer by profession-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is no crime.


Humphrey Mitchell: Someone says it is no
crime. But I want to say this, that the legal profession has developed out of the control of the individual by the state, in the progress of mankind from his lowliest stage up to the present. It deals with the law which controls the individual, defends him, prosecutes him, within the framework of the state. I sincerely believe that social control has made a greater contribution to the life of the people of this and all civilized countries than did the rank individualism that some people would have us drift back to.
I believe .this depression has reached the stage at which plain language should be used. I believe that one can love his country and yet use plain language and face facts. Some people think that a kind Providence is going to stick his hands through the clouds and pull the chestnuts out of the fire for us. Gentlemen, it is not done that way. We got ourselves into this difficulty and we have got to think ourselves out of it.


Mr. PRICE:: What are you going to do
about it?


Humphrey Mitchell: I will -come to that in a minute. I am not unmindful of the difficulties that stand in the way of the ultimate realization of the principles enunciated in this resolu-53719-125i
tion. I believe they will have to be met, as other problems in life, by trial and error. I believe that the social and economic forces of this -country are subject to -change, the same as any biological organism. We have had change sin-ce the dawn of history, improvement in social conditions, cultural conditions. More ample educational facilities have been provided. Surely few among those who strenuously opposed this resolution appreciate how far we have progressed from nineteenth -century individualism towards the ultimate adoption of the principles enunciated in this resolution. In my judgment .public control and regulation as they -have developed are all to the good of the body politic. In the province I come from we have the hydro-electric system, one of the greatest examples of practical cooperation on-e could wish to see, though I may say that it -may be wrecked by the private ownership mentality that we have seen displayed recently in the absorption of the assets o:f the Dominion Power an-d Transmission Company and the Abiti-bi Power and Paper Company. Such incidents have the power to destroy the influence of that wonderful undertaking. Then we have the Canadian National Railways, often criticized by hon. members here, but I think you will agree with -me that it was taken over by this -country because private enterprise completely fell -down. We had reached the stage where no money could be made out of it and the child was left on the doorstep of the Canadia-n people. Personally I still believe that the Canadian National Railways will reflect credit on this country when we return to more normal times.
Then there -is the radio, as mentioned by my colleague, the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. He-a-ps). In medicine again we have a good example of the desire of the individual to make some contribution to the wellbeing of his time, where the incentive- is not profit. Think of such men as Mackenzie, Osier, Pasteur, Harvey and Lister: thse men made great contributions to the science in which they were engaged-, and they did so without any hope of enormous rewards. I have often thought that if the problems -that affect us economically and socially were attacked with the- same vigour and with the same high ideals in view, for the uplift of men- and women in this dominion, we should soon be out of the trouble in which we find ourselves at the present time. Medicine knows no country; in fact, the profession lays down the principle that any discovery made by one of its members must be passed on for the good of all mankind.
Take the question of public health. Here great strides have been made. Lives have
1980	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mitchell
been, saved through the insistence of the state that the scourges that afflict mankind shall be eliminated. There are one or two figures which I would give with regard to my own city, to show the effect of medicine on public health as expressed in a cooperative way in that community. In 1905 the annual death rate was 14-4 per thousand, and in 1932, 9-4; the infant death rate in 1905 was 158-5 per thousand children born alive, and in 1932, 56-7 phr thousand. In connection with tuberculosis the death rate in 1905 was 120-9 and in 1932, 43-2, and in 1905 there were 20 deaths from typhoid fever whereas in 1932 there was but one death, and this person was infected while out of the city. Diphtheria has been practically eliminated.
A question has been raised with respect to the constitutional difficulties that confront the country in meeting the problems that have arisen from the depression. I am not unmindful of this but I would point out that it is constitutional difficulties that sometimes kill the individual. I believe that the constitution of this country as embodied in the British North America Act is just as amenable to change as anything else. The fathers of confederation, living as they did in a world where transportation and communication were so much slower than they are to-day, did a remarkably fine job; but if the problems arising in our industrial and agricultural structure in the year 1933 are to be met, I think it is absolutely necesary that the act be amended to cope with many of these problems on a national rather than a provincial basis.
History has taught us that it is best to build on experience and tradition rather than to trust entirely to abstract principles. It is seldom possible to predict what will happen under new conditions. Taking a broad point of view of the difficulties that face us to-day, I am of the opinion that there are two avenues of approach to our problem. We have either to scrap the present industrial system and go back to industry on a smaller scale and more individualism, through pure economics of laissez faire, or we have to plan and utilize our potentialities for the maintenance of the present productivity of the country. In this connection I would quote a passage from the report of the committee which was appointed by President Hoover to deal with social trends. The report states:
The committee suggests that there might in time emerge a national advisory council, including scientific, educational, governmental, economic (industrial, agricultural, and labour) points of contact, or other appropriate elements, able to contribute to the consideration of the basic social problems of the nation. Such an agency might consider some fundamental questions of the social order, eoonomic,

governmental, educational, technical, cultural, always in their interrelation, and in the light of the trends and possibilities of modern science.
It is clear that the type of planning now most urgently required is neither economic planning alone, nor governmental planning alone. The new synthesis must include the scientific, the educational, as well as the economic (including here the industrial and the agricultural) and also the governmental. All these factors are inextricably intertwined in modern life, and it is impossible to make rapid progress under present conditions without drawing them all together. . . . Fully realizing its mission, the committee does not wish to assume an attitude of alarmist irresponsibility, but on the other hand it would be highly negligent to gloss over the stark and bitter realities of the social situation, and to ignore the imminent perils in further advance of our heavy technical machinery over crumbling roads and shaking bridges. There are times when silence is not neutrality, but assent.
The foregoing is from Review of Reviews and World's Work, arising out of the report of the committee appointed by President Hoover, and this is the comment of the reviewer:
To all those who contributed to the success of the committee's work, and to the committee itself, the volumes will be a lasting credit. Americans may some day have occasion to feel that President Hoover's conception and inauguration of the work marked one of the high-points in his presidential career.
In my judgment, the state must take the lead. We find today that the leaders in finance and industry have fallen down. They are busy handing out advice and at the same time putting on the brakes on any governmental action. I am firmly convinced that so great is the drive of circumstances and events that the impetus to * collectivism cannot be checked. Men and women of all schools of thought see the inevitable logic in this; they realize that this must happen if civilization is to be saved. In my opinion the state is the only Stable thing left, it must be said in fairness that the state is one of the few institutions which has not gypped the investor. If I may visualize the drift of events, I see the establishment as part of our national life of agencies to direct and plan industrial stabilization, to establish minimum prices, to set up standards of quality, to reform the monetary system and to subordinate credit to industrial needs.
Much was said to-day by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) and the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) in connection with Philip Snowden, now Lord Snowden. He received some measure of praise from both speakers. Looking over my files to-day I came across a copy of the debates in the British House of Commons covering a

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bury
discussion almost identical with that now being held in this house. Apparently we are just ten years behind the times, because this debate was held on March 20, 1923. Mr. Snowden moved the following resolution:
That, in view of the failure of the capitalist system to adequately utilize and organize natural resources and productive power, or provide the necessary standard of life for vast numbers of the population, and believing that the cause of this failure lies in the private ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, this house declares that legislative effort should be directed to the gradual suppression of the capitalist system by an industrial and social order based on the public ownership and democratic control of the instruments of production and distribution.


Wilfred Hanbury: That government was in power for years after that and Philip Snowden could have put that resolution into effect.


Humphrey Mitchell: The Liberals had a platform, and so had the Conservatives.


Wilfred Hanbury: That government could have put that into effect.
Mr. MITCH ELI,: I just make that observation in passing. Those who took part in that debate are well known to hon. members of this house. The participants were Sir Alfred Mond, Mr. E. C. Grenfell, Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Briggs, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who closed the debate.
A question such as this should be discussed without rancor. I say that because I believe that within the next five years the drift of legislative effort and the functions of parliament will be in the direction of the purport of this resolution. We cannot go back, the niraeteeth century has passed with all its practices. This House of Commons, not necessarily this government, in meeting the problems arising out of mass production and agriculture and industry, will move in the direction of the purport of this resolution. I am not one of those who says that this can be done in a day; I am not one of those who go out and kid the people that that can happen. In 1930 we saw the spectacle of what happened when claims were made that certain things would happen if a certain government was returned to power. I believe we must take an evolutionary course. There are those who say that this civilization will crumble around us, but I want to make this observation:	We
differ fundamentally from such earlier civilizations as those of Greece, Rome and Carthage, which were built upon the sufferings of the great proportion of the population of those days. We have built up a magnificent educational system and that I believe will be the
driving force which will insist that the legislators of this country meet the problem of today, that the machine be controlled instead of permitting the machine to control us. It is even within the realm of possibility that the present government will take some steps in the direction we suggest before it again goes to the people.


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will have observed with a great deal of pleasure that the hon. member who last spoke, the member for East Hamilton. (Mr. Mitchell) is not proposing to support this resolution. As the bon. member for East Algorma (Mr. Nicholson) pointed out. the resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth-
The hon. member who has just spoken evidently is not prepared to endorse the resolution to this extent; the greatest length to which he is prepared to go is to move gradually in that ultimate direction. The house-no doubt also noticed that the hon. member, commencing his remarks by criticizing the hon. member for East Algoma for reading the opinions of eminent economists, ended them by himself reading a long screed from the Review of Reviews.
As a preface to what I wish to say upon the motion, may I assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who is responsible for the motion, that if I refer to his organization by its initials, C. C. F., rather than by its full and formal name of Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, it is not because I wish to disparage in any way the organization, its founder or its supporters, but, because the name is so fearfully and wonderfully made that I distrust my memory. I am rather reminded of the child who was christened by its proud and fond parents, under the impression of a tremendous destiny lying in front of it, with the name Sampson Agonistes Smith. No child could possibly survive that name, especially if, as afterwards happened, a bad attack of rickets left him in the position where 'the mode of his progress was that the right leg had to say to the left, "You let me go by this time and I will let you get by next." Of such an infant the only anticipations any of us could possibly form would be gloomy forebodings of his early demise.
The resolution which the hon. member and his supporters are urging the house and the country to endorse, appears to me to be in essence a conclusion that must depend for
1382	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bury
its validity upon two premises. The first is that our present social structure and economic and financial system have so completely collapsed thait even if we could restore them, we should not attempt to do so. The second premise is that the new organization, the C. C. F., is capable of doing what the old system failed to do, extracting us from our present situation and insuring us against its recurrence at any future time.
These are two rather extravagant statements to make; but they are the two premisses that are essential to the conclusion of the resolution and both of them must be proved. If the present system has not broken down, then there is no need for us to look for a substitute. If, on the other hand, it has broken down, but the proposed substitute is not able to do any better, then wherever else we may look for a substitute, it will not be in the southeast corner of this chamber. Therefore I disagree with my hon. friend, the member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), eloquent and plausible as he is, in his assertion that it was the present system and not the CiC.F. that was on trial. He kept reiterating that statement so often, that the only impression he left upon me was that he was trying to convince himself of its truth. "We are not on trial," he said, "it is the present system which is on trial." That might be true if the sole aim of those who are urging this resolution on the house were to displace the existing system. But they know they cannot stop there; they cannot leave us with a vacuum. We have not yet arrived- at the splendid isolation of the position of that mythical Ford car which was able after dropping its engine on the road still to keep running on its reputation. We have apparently, according to hon. gentlemen in the southeast comer, no reputation to run on. They are not merely attempting to displace the present system. What they are really attempting to do is to substitute their system for the present one. Under those circumstances, surely the onus rests upon them of proving the validity, w'orth and efficacy of the system which they wish us to adopt.
They are not merely dethroning Charles I and then executing him to prevent the possibility of a monarchical reaction placing him back again on his empty throne, but putting a commonwealth in his place. I may remind my hon. friends that the commonwealth which followed Charles I did not last very long. It lasted practically just the length of the lifetime of one man; and it lasted that long only because he, the man who founded, headed and governed it, was one of the greatest men of his day in England and raised the prestige, name and power of England among the na-

tions of the earth, and yet a man of such broad vision that, despite his theological views, he was able, without any idea of irreverence, to write to the Assembly of the Scottish Presbyterian Church: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ to think it possible you may be mistaken." The hon. gentlemen come to us really with the suggestion that we should throw out the water we now have because it is dirty and inadequate, and they resent our saying to them: Before we do that, will you please prove to us that the water you wish us to take in its stead is any cleaner or more adequate. We certainly refuse to throw out the water we have, even though it be dirty and inadequate, until we know' we are going -to get in its place something better.
I have listened to some of the speeches that have been made in support of this resolution and have read others of them, and I have yet failed to hear or to read from statements made either inside or outside the house, any real evidence of the truth of either of those two premisses. I invite the house to consider them for a few minutes. Previous speakers and others who will follow me will deal with other aspects of the question, will examine the structure and the principles of the proposed commonwealth with a view to criticizing them and showing their inadequacy, or will deal with other aspects of the subject. I do not propose to take that course; I propose to follow one specific line of thought and to confine myself to it, that namely, suggested by what I have said, that before this house should be persuaded to make any change in the way of the suggested substitution, it should have proved to itself beyond any reasonable doubt the two premises which I have mentioned.
Let us take the first of them: that the present system has so collapsed that it is incapable of functioning, and that even if we could restore it, we should not do so. Is that true? Well, it is certainly true relatively.
I am not going to deny that. Indeed, none of us would deny it. Not that we are opposed to admitting what we know to be true, but we regret that it is true. I have been rather wearied in listening to some of the speeches that have come from the southeast corner of the house, and particularly to the reiterated suggestion of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and her perpetual question: "I wonder, do hon. gentlemen opposite realize?" Well, we do realize.
I can assure my hon. friends and the lady member for Southeast Grey that neither has she nor have they a corner on the powers of observation or of intellect or of the faculty of sympathy. We both observe and under-

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bury
stand, appreciate and sympathize with those who are suffering in the present situation. Indeed, some of us think we understand a good deal more about it than do some hon. members who are so careful and anxious that we should properly appreciate the situation. We have seen the suffering which it has induced and continued, not in rural districts where that suffering is least, but where it is worst, in the hearts of some of our cities. We know all that the farming community of this country is suffering; we do not deny they are suffering and we do not deny them sympathy in their suffering and the expression of a determination to do whatever lies in our power to mitigate it. But we say: If you want to find the greatest degrees and the most desperate forms of suffering, you will find them not in the country parts of this dominion, but in the hearts of our cities. The first proposition is relatively true and nobody on this side of the house attempts to deny that; as a matter of fact, nobody anywhere in the house or of any party attempts to deny it. But is an admission of the present situation, deplorable as it is, tantamount to admitting that the present system is responsible for it? I am prepared to go the length of denying that the admission of the existence of the situation implies any responsibility for it of the present financial or economic system of this country or of our present social system. Its causes are of a nature vastly different. Even were I to go further and admit that our present economic and financial system is incapable of extricating us from the present situation and putting us again upon normal lines, that would not be an admission that it was responsible for the present situation. You are proposing to scrap a system which has been built up through generations and centuries, not from the motive of greed, as suggested by some who are constitutionally misanthropic, or by others who have become misanthropic by reason of the hard conditions through which we are passing, but which has been evolved scientifically with a view to elaborating a system that shall be in the best interests of the world as a whole; which through centuries has built up the civilizations of all civilized countries of the world, and which has drawn together the four corners of the earth by the trade facilities which it has afforded as well as by the facilities for social intercourse which it has made possible. And by reason of the influence which it has had on the development of trade and social intercourse it has bred, perhaps more than any other factor, a sense of the solidarity of
the human race and of the oneness of the human family, which is the greatest asset we possess.
Now it is proposed to scrap all that. Why? Because it has broken down lamentably. Surely it is a pertinent question to ask, why has it broken down? Surely you are not going to scrap it without asking and answering that question to your satisfaction. Has it broken down by reason of inherent defects which render it incapable of functioning under normal conditions and in normal times? Has it proved itself under normal situations unable to fulfil the purpose for which it was designed? Or has it broken down because suddenly it was brought face to face with abnormal conditions, conditions so abnormal that the mind of man never conceived that they could possibly exist? Has it broken down because a strain and burden was imposed on it which no system ever before in the world's history was asked to bear? If that is the explanation, then, Mr. Speaker, we are all astray when we attempt to put upon it the responsibility which hon. members who are behind this resolution seek to place there. It has broken down by reason of an abnormal strain that no system ever devised or that could be devised ever could have stood, the strain which has followed as a result and aftermath of the war. For four years the civilized nations of the world were blasting into nothing gigantic masses of wealth, and not merely destroying that wealth itself, but in its destruction destroying also other forms of wealth; and by the end of the war period there had been heaped up huge, almost inconceivable burdens of international debt on every civilized nation that was imbroiled in that war directly or indirectly. Our financial and economic system had to meet that strain, and in every country in the world it broke down. The great creditor nation to whom was owed a sum which is only a matter of figures on paper, because nobody can conceive of it in his mind, refused to accept anything but gold, and there was not enough gold in all the treasuries of the world to pay that debt. It refused to take goods in payment, and under those circumstances the system broken down. Is it any wonder that it broke down? Is not the marvel rather that it did not break down long before it did, and that the collapse was not more complete and more disastrous than it actually has been?
Let me use a homely illustration. Suppose one of my farmer friends wishes to break part of his farm which had never been broken before. He purchases a tractor and a gang-
1984	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bury
plough. I go to him when he is commencing to operate, and I find him beside the tractor and the gangplough using language which he would not wish his parson or his wife to hear-his parson particularly, because his wife probably would be more used to it. I ask him, "What is the trouble?" He replies, " See for yourself. There are the tractor and the gangplough broken down, and I put nearly $2,000 into this outfit. Just when I started to break the ground, the machinery broke down." I reply to him, "I do not wonder it broke down. What did you think you were ploughing? This is not just ordinary prairie land with a few prairie boulders, which your tractor and plough can uproot and roll to one side. What you are asking your machinery to do is to plough through the granite ribs of the earth itself. You cannot do it. If you will stop blasting the tractor and the gangplough and the implement dealer and start to blast the rocks, you will be a little nearer the mark. What you need is not a tractor and a gangplough, but dynamite."
That has been the whole trouble with the financial and economic situation not merely of Canada but of all the countries of the world with which Canada economically is inextricably bound. We have been trying to make the system do what it was never designed to do, and it has broken down in our attempting to do so.
Let me look at the other proposition of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. That proposition is that it is capable of extricating us from the present situation and ensuring us against its recurrence at any future time. Both of those propositions must necessarily be proved. If the cooperative commonwealth is not capable of extricating us from the present situation, it is no good; and if after we have been extricated from the present situation, assuming that that happy condition it attained, if we cannot be assured that the same unfortunate situation will not arise again in the future, again it is no good. Therefore I say that both propositions must be proved. Are they true?
In order to ascertain how far these two propositions are true, you will have to look at the causes which created and are continuing the present condition. What are they? They are too many for me to enumerate them all, and they are too intricate and involved.
I shall confine myself to the three major ones.
The first, as I have already mentioned, are the enormous war debts. Nobody denies that, nobody perhaps except a few gentlemen in the southeast corner of the house. The whole 
of the rest of the world admits that these are the basic cause of our present situation. Well, how is the adoption by the Dominion of Canada of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation going to help here? There are only three solutions to the war debt problem. One is complete cancellation; another is the reduction of the war debts and the payment of the reduced sum; and the third is payment in full. Suppose the Canadian parliament and the Canadian people adopt the C.C.F. and place it in power; would that influence the United States one little bit to cancel the war debts? Suppose that Canada adopts this resolution, not merely in this house, but that the whole country rises up and calls the horn, member for Winnipeg North Centre blessed, what is going to happen in respect of the reduction of war debt payments? Do they think the United States will reduce her war debts any quicker on that account? Take the third case-payment in full. Will the adoption by Canada of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation help the other countries of the world to get rid of this terrible load of debt from which they are suffering? Will it induce the United States to take goods instead of gold? I have only to ask that question to receive the answer, if not from the lips, at least in the minds of hon. members. Everybody knows that, just as stated in the citation read by the hon. member for East Algoma, these conditions are worldwide, and cannot be altered by a change in the domestic structure of any one country. To suggest that they can is absurd. If that be true, how much farther would we have gone towards the real solution of our difficulties or the real removal of the basic troubles from which the nations of the world are suffering to-day? Not one inch.
What is the second cause of our trouble? In my view it is the growth and elevation of tariffs and quotas which resulted in large part as an aftermath of the war. Nations which through generations had been struggling for nationality at last achieved their objective or were granted it as a result of the victory of the allies over the central European powers. Consequent upon the intense spirit of nationalism which burst into flame as a result of the victory of the allies and the espousal of their cause by the victors, not merely did these new nations build up barriers of trade and enact their quotas to make themselves economically independent and become robust and industrialized, but the older nations of Europe-Germany, France and Italy-determined also, by reason of the influence and the

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bury
lessons of the war, to become economically independent, at least in some lines of industry. They built up their tariffs and made statutory their quotas.
Then apart from any influence of the war, other nations developed their tariffs; particularly our great neighbour to the south, whose policy has always been one of high tariffs, and who from the introduction of the Hawley-Smoot tariff in June 1930 showed how far she was prepared to go in that direction. Do hon. members realize that returns indicate that as a result of and since the operation of the Hawley-Smoot tariff the trade of Canada has decreased $900,000,000? Can we suffer such a decrease and still expect to continue on an even keefl, without disruption and a disturbance of the equilibrium of our financial and economic structures? It is utterly impossible.


Mr. RALSTON:: Will the hon. gentleman tell us how much loss there has been in the trade of the United States since the introduction of that tariff?


Eccles James Gott: It has dropped 67 per cent.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I intended to state that my figure of $900,000,000 was not confined to one year, but represented the loss over a period of years.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. gentleman did not get-


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I must ask the hon.. .member to allow me to finish my remarks without interruption, as I have only forty minutes at my disposal. I .do not care whether the figures of our trade losses due to tariffs are with one country or with several, or amount to $900,000,000, $800,000,000 or $700,000,000. I simply ask: How could this country stand that loss? If hon. members would like to have some figures, I may tell them that in wheat alone, in a period of three years our income depreciated by $677,549,715. I think that justifies my statement that depreciation in trade is one of the major reasons for the financial condition in which this country finds itself to-day.
Will some hon. member tell me how the adoption of the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is going to affect favourably to us t'he fiscal policies of any foreign nation on the face of the earth? Will it induce the United States to lower her tariffs against Canadian goods? Will it induce France, Germany or Italy or any of the other nations of Europe to make changes in their fiscal policies or to sweep away or reduce their quotas? Everybody knows it will not. Then, what good can the C.C.F. do us in this respect?
What is the third cause operating to create and continue present conditions? I think it is the operation of our old friend, the law of supply and demand in overstocked markets. I am not going to argue between overproduction and underconsumption; one is but the obverse of the other. I do not care which term hon. members prefer. One fact remains true, that because of overstocked markets and the operation of the law of supply and demand we are not getting the prices we ought to get for our products. To-day we are suffering from two things, lack of adequate markets and lack of adequate prices. If we could supply those two deficiencies we could politely bow the C.C.F. out of the doors of this chamber. We would not need to listen to its advocates, charm they never so wisely. The farmers of this country would not feel they needed it, and would not touch it with a forty-foot pole.
Briefly, let me survey the statement of our wheat carry-over. By one authority I find that the world carry-over is 800,000,000 bushels; by another, namely the United Grain Growers,
699.000.	000 bushels. The bureau of statistics gives the figure of 632,000,000 bushels. I do not care whether it is 600, 700, or 800 million bushels. The fact remains that the carry-over has had an effect on 'the price of wheat. I am not a farmer. Hon. members will say, "what in the world do you know about it?" I shall read the opinions of two authorities, notwithstanding the criticism of the hon. member for East Hamilton. I have in my hand a .publication of the Seanle Grain Company, Limited, which contains an article headed "The Searle Farmers' Index." While some ho.n. members may not accept this authority, I am prepared to back it up by an authority they may be more disposed to accept. In this publication I find the sentence: "In course of time, as the burdensome surplus disappears, the price of wheat will certainly rise." So, it would appear that there is at present a burdensome surplus which under the law of supply and demand affects the .price of wheat. I now turn to a very interesting booklet called The Grain Market Situation, published by The United Grain Growers Limited, from which I read the following:
Roughly speaking, the world carryover is larger than comfortable by from 300,000,000 to
350.000.	000 bushels. This excess is less than ten per cent of the annual production and consumption of the great producing and consuming countries of the world and may be considered as the approximate equivalent of a month's consumption in countries outside of Russia and China. It does not seem remarkably large in relation to the possible variation in world production from year to year, but it is large enough to have a very important effect upon prices. And its location is also of importance.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bury
I ask again for the third time,-not with any hope of receiving a practical answer- what in the world will the adoption by the Canadian people of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation do to affect the stock of wheat in the world, to raise the price of wheat, to prevent the carry-over being excessive? What in the world will the adoption of a domestic policy of this nature in Canada do to improve the world's market for wheat or for any other commodity? Again I come back to the same truth; world conditions can never be altered or influenced by the domestic policy of one nation of ten million people.
What about the other proposition? If the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation cannot deliver us from the present awkward situation, can it guarantee that we shall not get into it again? Surely the same answer applies. If it was world causes that created the present situation, how can the domestic policy of Canada stop the operation of the same world causes in the future?
Or put it in another way. Assume that Great Britain and the countries of the empire had adopted the cooperative federation in 1912 and that we were now in August, 1914, what would have happened? If we had gone to war-but hon. gentlemen in the corner may say we should not then have gone to war. There they and I differ, and we shall differ to the day of judgment. I am not arguing with people who say Great Britain should not have gone to war to honour her pledged word. I say if we had gone to war-and I am perfectly certain that the masses of the people of Great Britain and every part of the British Empire would again endorse the action that was taken in 1914-if we had gone to war what would have happened? Precisely what did happen then; the enormous purchases of war material, the accumulation of gigantic war debts, the enormous demand for reparations. The cooperative federation would not have helped us one little bit. The same conditions would have occurred as did occur between 1914 and 1918.
Is there, then, nothing that this country and this parliament can do? I am not a pessimist and I am not a fatalist; I do not believe in a policy of laissez-faire or drift or muddling through. I think there are things this parliament can do. But I think those things are along two lines. There are two instruments or forces that this and every civilized parliament always has had, always will have; two instruments or forces by which progressive legislation has always been worked out. Those are the forces of legislation and morality, the only two forces that will ever
(Mr. Bury.]
get a nation out of a predicament such as this-social legislation, wise social legislation, informed, influenced and inspired by high morality.
I am not afraid of social legislation; I am not afraid of the word socialism even. I am not the slave of a word. But I want to know what is behind the word. I want to know what you mean by socialism. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), with his usual eloquence, made a very true statement the other day as to the attitude and history of Great Britain, especially England, on social legislation. If I may say, with deference to him, his statement was absolutely correct. The most shining examples of social legislation that stand on the statute books of England to-day were put there by Conservative governments. Mr. Sidebotham, in his Political Profiles of British Public Men, writes of Herbert Spencer that he "used to call socialism the new Toryism because both accepted the theory of the omnipotent state."
Let me give you an illustration of social legislation from the history of my own land. The great social problem that faced my country for years was the land problem. Two solutions were suggested. One was the Liberal solution, represented by the policy of that grand old statesman, Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, the policy of continuing the relationship of landlord and tenant and merely giving the tenant three things, what they called the three F's: fair rent, fixity of tenure, and free sale. The tenants would have remained tenants forever and the landlords, landlords forever. Then came the Conservative government, and with the Ashbourne Act of 1885 said: No, that is not good enough; we will buy out the landlords and make the peasants of Ireland the proprietors of their own holdings. And the great Ashbourne and Wyndham and other land purchase acts followed, purchasing the lands of Ireland on the credit of the British government for the people of Ireland, at a cost of probably 180 millions sterling, the greatest social land legislation that stands on the statute books of any nation on the face of the earth.
We believe that the state exists for the individual, not the individual for the state. We have no fear of social legislation. We have a long way yet to go, but we have come a long way. I was glad of the reference made by one hon. member bidding us, in effect, to have a long vision, not to look merely under our own feet but to look back at the road we have travelled, the development and evolution of the social legislation of the past. We will

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. McIntosh
go on as we have in the past until the reign of righteousness and justice and social equity prevails in this great dominion.
Mr. CAMERSON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) stated that the House of Commons affords a good crosssection of Canadian public opinion. Since that is the case we ought to foe able as members of this chamber to debate the problems of the nation in an honourable way. I think the statement a very laudable one, but I believe on the whole it is not necessary to make such a statement in this house, for I have been in different parliaments of the empire and I say that I believe we have in Canada one of the most, democratic parliaments in the world.
To debate a public question in the house or out of the house it is said one must pay attention to three fundamentals. One is that we must not lose our head. Sometimes hon. members do. Another fundamental is that a man ought to know what he is talking about. Psychology says: Man, know thyself. Knowledge is power. And lastly we are told that we ought to be able to think while on our feet. Now I believe that the majority of members in this house measure up splendidly to these three outstanding requisites of public speaking.
Listening to-night to the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) I am not sure whether I got his point of view exactly. I got the point of view of the hon. member who sits behind the Prime Minister of Canada- I have heard him speaking in this house since 1926 and I pay attention to what he says-I got this point of view, that the economic and industrial and political order as it exists to-day in Canada is practically collapsing. I do not believe any such thing. It almost borders, if it does not actually border, on insane socialism. Now that is not a fact. I believe that the Canadian people have all kinds of reserves, mentally and volitionally, to make a comprehensive and successful attack on the problems that confront this dominion to-day, and I believe that when they get down to cooperative and thoughtful action they will be able to make such a frontal attack on our problems that to a large degree they will be solved, and our social and political order will remain intaot. That is the conviction I have, and when I hear hon. members in this chamber telling anything else it reminds me of a happening of the Civil war in the United States-


An hon. MEMBER:: Are you that old?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, are you? For the
benefit of the hon. member I will say that the incident I am about to relate is part of continental history, and I hope he will take that for granted. When things were black for the north, when the south was moving forward to victory, as many people thought, and when the fear seemed to dominate the American nation that slavery would be enthroned and the rights of humanity lost, deluged in blood, what did the great Lincoln say? Did he get up before the American nation and as a great leader declare that all was lost, everything was undone, and that stark defeat looked the people straight in the face? No. Lincoln showed himself to be a great leader, and if ever there was a time in the history of Canada now is that time when we ought to show that we have equally great leaders in political thought and also, outside the House of Commons, fearless leaders of the Canadian nation. Lincoln did not say that everything was lost; he took it for granted that God was in His heaven and that all would finally right itself in the world. He acted on that belief and the day was won for the north, so that slavery was abolished and the right of man to hold property in man destroyed forever. I have no doubt that with the right type of leadership Canada can be led out of this threatening morass and put on her feet, and if she is I know that she can go forward, rejoicing in the days to come.
I listened carefully to the arguments of my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell), and I may say that I think a good deal of that hon. member. I like to think well of every hon. member in this chamber. I like every hon. member to play the game, and if he plays the game honourably with me I will play the game with him. If, however, as members, we differ in certain lines of thought, that should make no difference, for we are working for the upbuilding of a greater Canada. But what did that hon. gentleman say? He said that the forces productive of revolution in Russia was Russia's own business. I hardly think that is correct. That is not Russia's own business. Directly, it is true, but indirectly it is not. No nation can live unto itself. That is the foundation to a large extent of our economic nationalism to-day, which is fundamentally wrong and which has put the world almost on the road to ruin. That is the same foundation of empire nationalism in an economic! sense, and that too is just as unsound as economic nationalism. Consequently, when Russia undertakes
1988	[DOT] COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. McIntosh
a great social and political experiment, I think the other nations of the world have a perfect right to size up that experiment and discuss it from every angle, national as well as international. So that if Russia has been brought into this debate I do not think it is the fault of hon. members opposite, and I am sure it is not the fault of hon. members composing the Liberal opposition. In my opinion the responsibility must be placed entirely on those who sit in the southeast corner of this house, the members making up what is known as an economic class group. Therefore, I place the responsibility for that type of argument where it belongs, and I do it right now because, inasmuch as it has to be done in any event, it might as well be done in the House of Commons.
The hon. member also said that unemployment is a challenge to democracy. We all admit that it is and, as I have said, democracy accepts the challenge. Canadian democracy accepts the challenge, and if we cannot get from one party that leadership which will face that challenge squarely and put an end to unemployment, then the people will certainly get it from another party. The hon. gentleman said further that free speech should be an accepted fact. Well, you cannot have real democracy without freedom of speech, freedom of discussion and freedom of the press. But to have freedom of thought is not to have revolutionary thought; it is not to have revolutionary objectives nor revolutionary sentiments. So far as I am concerned, I am ready to stand up for freedom of thought in Canada, but I am the last to admit that there is any saving element in Russia that can tell me anything about freedom. No one can tell me that we can get any greater freedom of thought than we have by looking to Russia. Our fathers handed down to us that precious heritage and we do not have to go to Russia to find it. We had it long ago, and the Liberals of Canada did their part in gaining it.
In concluding his speech the hon. member for East Hamilton said he believed in state leadership, state control of certain activities, and then he referred to what he described as "rank individualism." I am going to deal with this so-called rank individualism before I am through. I shall not have time to develop my argument along the line of sound individualism as completely as I would like, but I am going to discuss the question nevertheless, and I am not going to classify individualism in the way the hon. member for East Hamilton classified it. I am not going to cast a slur on individualism by speaking of it is rank individualism, but I am going to uphold sound individualism as the foundation

of a sound state. It is not rank individualism but essential individualism that is required for any ideal democracy. As far as the Liberal party is concerned-I am not speaking for hon. members opposite-I think that as a whole we sympathize with these gentlemen. They have certain grievances, they see certain fundamental weaknesses in our government, in our industries and in our social order but although we sympathize with them in a way, we differ entirely in the matter of mapping out an objective and the manner of reaching that objective thereby removing these grievances from the minds of the people of Canada. We differ entirely in that way. We sympathize with them, as we should, but since they have gone out and have dared us to political battle-they are organizing in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta'-since they have told the country at large that they are not going to cooperate either federally or provincially with the wicked Grits or with the Conservatives; since they have challenged the Liberals and the Conservatives of Canada to political battle upon great national issues, as far as I am concerned, I am going to accept that challenge. I did it before and I intend to do it again.
The resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) is in three divisions. In the first part he says that the existing economic arrangement is responsible for unemployment. We have had unemployment since the world began and I guess we will have a large degree of unemployment until the world ends. I am the last to say that if you have unemployment you must place the blame absolutely upon the economic order. Standing as I do for a practical and ideal individualism, where any failure occurs, such as unemployment or anything else, I must place at least part of the blame upon the individual as an answerable entity. It may be all right to place some of the blame upon the economic order, but the mover and supporters of the resolution place the whole blame upon that order. We know why they do this; it is an extraneous and selfish effort to get into power. They do not tell the people of Canada exactly why they make that statement. No. Unemployment is not a new phenomenon; the responsibility for this unemployment condition has many angles.
In the second part of his resolution the hon. member states that the depression at home and abroad indicates that our social and economic order is fundamentally unsound, and he then goes on to argue what ought to be done. That is only a worthless and purely fictitious statement, it does not prove that

19S9
Potato Embargo
our economic order is fundamentally unsound. If things are wrong in Canada, before we place the responsibility upon any order, political, economic or financial, we must go back and place the responsibility primarily upon the voters who brought such a structure nationally into being. The order is not to blame. If there is any blame to be attached to anyone, the people of Canada must accept responsibility for the social, economic and political edifice erected in this country. They have been building this structure since confederation; they have been building up the Canadian nation and if things are not as they ought to be, then I say that the responsibility is largely upon the people. The cure is not to demolish our order overnight. Rather should men and parties go out and direct the people, inspire them to truer electoral decisions, help them get their mental machinery oiled and working more thoroughly so that when the day of voting rolls around, apart from any party our people as a whole, those in the maritimes, in industrial Canada, in the west and across the mountains, will render a verdict that will make this economic and political system more sound and more capable of meeting the strain it has to bear.
I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 10, 1933