1934-02-05

QUESTIONS '

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

Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	What was the value of Canada's export trade in 1920 and 1929?
2.	What was the amount of such export trade in the years 1932 and 1933?
3.	What proportions were grain products?
4.	What was the value of Canadian export trade with China and Japan, Europe, South America, United' States, the United States of Soviet Russia, in 1920 and 1929, and also 1932 and 1933?
5.	What was the value of imports from said countries during the said years?
[Mr. Brown.!


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Canada's domestic exports for the fiscal years 1920 and 1929, were:
Fiscal Years
1920....		$1,239,492,098
1929	 1,363,709,672
2.	Canada's domestic exports for the fiscal years 1932 and 1933, were:
Fiscal Years
1932		$576,344,302
1933		 473,799,955
3.	The proportion of grains and products of total domestic exports, for the fiscal years 1920, 1929, 1932 and 1933, was:
Fiscal Years
1920	
1929	
1932		
1933		
Per Cent .. 26-4 .. 40-6 .. 27-7 .. 35-5
4.	Canada's domestic exports to China, Japan, Europe, South America, United States, and the United States of Soviet Russia, for the fiscal years 1920, 1929, 1932 and 1933, were:
Exports to	1920
China	$ 6,665,805
Japan	 7,732,514
Europe	 665,628,495
South America.. ..	14,568,230
United States .. ..	464,028,183
United States	of
Soviet Russia..	..	1,492,041
Exports to	1932
China	$ 5,908,133
Japan	 16,555,690
Europe	 251,267,369
South America.. ..	8,890,776
United States	 235,186,674
United States	of
Soviet Russia..	..	55,197

5. Canada's imports from said countries during the said years, were:
Imports from	1920
China	$ 1205,229
Japan	 13,637,287
Europe	 152,561,542
South America.. ..	19,097,293
United States..	.. 801,097,318
United	States	ofSoviet	Russia.	..	14,496Imports from	1932China	$ 3,725,558Japan	
5,990,401Europe	
157270,395South America.. ..	17,281,500United States	
351,686,775United	States	ofSoviet	Russia.	..	18,001

Questions


PUBLIC DEBT
Mr. FONTAINE:: What is the amount of the public debt of Canada at the present time?


Mr. RHODES:: The net debt at the close of the last fiscal year-March 31, 1933-was $2,596,480,826.16. The net debt at December 31, 1933, was $2,687,122,482.26, subject to adjustments.


LOCKS BRIDGE AT PETERBOROUGH
Mr. BLAIR:: What share has the federal government agreed or offered to agree to assume of construction of new bridge to replace Locks bridge on King's highway at Peterborough?


Mr. MANION:: The Dominion government has for some time been negotiating with the provincial authorities in this matter with a view to an agreed arrangement.


RELIEF CAMPS
Mr. REID:: 1.	Are any relief camps being operated in the province of British Columbia by the Dominion government; if so, how many?
2.	How many men are being cared for in these camps by the Dominion government?
3.	How many relief camps in British
Columbia are under the supervision of:	(a)
the Department of Labour; (b) the Department of the Interior; (c) the Department of National Defence?
4.	Were any men transferred or taken to the relief camps in British Columbia, from Alberta or any other province, by the Dominion government?
5.	If so, what numbers were moved and from what provinces were they taken?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	1 Interior department.
55 National Defence department.
5 closed for winter months on account of climatic conditions.
61 Total.
2.	56 Interior department.
7,122 National Defence department.
7,178 Total.
3.	(a) None.
(b)	1.
(c)	55 projects in active operation at January 30, 1934, 5 closed for winter.
4.	Men have been taken from Alberta to National Defence projects in British Columbia.
5.	Number moved from Alberta to National Defence projects in British Columbia to January 30, 1934, is 1,573.


NICKEL AND SCRAP IRON EXPORTS
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How much nickel was exported from Canada in each of the years 1932 and 1933?
2.	To what countries was it sent in each
case?	_
3.	How many tons of scrap iron were exported from Canada in 1932 and 1933, respectively ?
4.	To what countries was such cargo
exported?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1 and 2. Canada's domestic exports of nickel, by countries, for the calendar years 1932 and 1933, were:
Exports to	1932	1933United Kingdom.	.Cwt.	68,530	262,978$	1,272,127	6,648,908United States.. .	.Cwt.	165,344	419,023$	3,924,189	9,995,125Australia	.Cwit.	-	56$	-	2,421Belgium	.Cwt.	-	2,781$	-	93,244Prance	.Cwt.	638	459$	23,280	18,154Germany	2,136	5,535$	76,973	242,939Italy	3,254	2,461$	121,811	113,527Japan	3,705	6,363$	130,064	268,076Netherlands. .. .	.Cwt.	18,394	89,199$	642,947	3,753,957Norway	58,376	91,963$	1,080,913	1,659,517Newfoundland.. .	[DOT] Cwt.	6	3$	200	100Spain	.Cwt.	336	-s	11,460	-Total exports.. .	.Cwit.	320,719	880,821$	7,283,964	22,795,9683 and 4. Canada's domestic exports of scrap	iron and steel in	short	tons for the	calendaryears 1932 and 1933, were: 1932	1933Exports to	Tons	TonsUnited Kingdom.	. .. 58	776United States.. .	. .. 16,520	69,218Belgium	. . . -	112China	. . -	163France	, . . -	3,728Hong Kong. .. .	. .. -	58Italy	. . . -	5,038Japan	.. 3,485	64,468Netherlands.. ..	-	16Newfoundland.. .	. .. 5	-Total exports.. .	. .. 20,068	143,577
Questions


ADVANCES TO PROVINCES
Mr. EULER:: What sums have been advanced in the years 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, respectively, to each of the provinces: (a) for payment of bonds or bond interest; (b) for general administration purposes; (c) for relief?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 
WAR PENSIONS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What was the total amount paid by the Dominion government for purposes of war
pensions: (a) for the year ending December 31, 1931; (b) for the year ending December 31, 1932, and (c) for the year ending December 31, 1933?
Mr. MacLAREN;
1931	1932	1933Pensions	
$10,199,310	74	$41,238,465	31	$40,633,738	04Retroactive adjustments	
3,318,176	65	1,750,914	30	1,146,489	04Final payments restored	
3,941,991,	56	832,851	23	190,168	87Total	
$47,459,478 95	$43,822,230 84	$41,969,395 95


DEPOSITS IN CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	W7hat was the number of deposit accounts (payable after notice or on a fixed day) held by the chartered banks in Canada on July 31, 1933, or nearest available date consisting of the following amounts: $2,500 or less, over $2,500 and under $5,000, over $5,000 and under

$10,000, over $10,000 and under $50,000/over $50,000?
2.	What was the total value of deposits in each of the above mentioned groups?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1. and 2. No information.
Statistics as to the number and amounts of deposit accounts are not required under the Bank Act.

Questions


NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA REGIMENT
[Stage Direction]
Mr. HANSON tskeena):
What grant was given 'by the federal government to the Northern British Columbia regiment, 102nd Battalion, C.E.F., for the years 1929 to 1933, inclusive, giving each year separately and showing: (a) the names of those drawing salaries and the amount in each case and for each year; (b) other grants and for what purposes in each year?
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: (a)	Mr. W. Howarth, part-time caretaker, Prince Rupert armoury:
1929-	1930-$225 00
1930-	1931- 225 00
1931-	1932- 225 00
1932-	1933- 202 50
1933-	1934-(-135 00 to 31st December, 1933.
Returns not yet available beyond that date.)
(b)	Pay:
1930-	1931f 1NlL
1931-	1932 (Company Sergeant Major H.
A. Ponder $134.40)
(Provisional Sergeant A. E. Palmer $76.80)
Attendance at Royal School of Infantry, Esquimalt, B.C., 14th January to 2nd March, 1932.
Allowances:
Year	Payee	Allowance for	TotalCommand and training	Care of arms, etc.	Books and postage	1929-	30 1930-	31 1931-	32 1932-	33 1933-	34	Lt.-Col. J. W. Nicholls	$ cts. 228 75 Less value o	$ cts. 370 00 deficiencies	$ cts. 40 00 of stores.... 40 00 40 00 40 00	$ cts. 638 75 396 28it it	242 47 40 00 40 00 40 00Maj. S. D. Johnstone, M.C	11 a	No payments yet made.


ILES DE MAY, QUE., TELELGRAPH OPERATOR
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	On what date Tvas Mrs. Lebel appointed telegraph operator at lies de May, on the north shore?
2.	On whose recommendation?
3.	On what date was this position of telegraph operator created and on whose request?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	May 1, 1925.
2.	Division superintendent, government telegraph service, at Quebec.
3.	November 8, 1907, on the request of Mr. R. H. Scougall, a lumber manufacturer. This is not a salaried position, but a commission
office operated at 25 per cent commission on the earnings thereof, and is open only during the summer months.


PETIT CAP, GASPE, WHARF
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has the government called for tenders for the reconstruction of a wharf at Petit Cap, between St. Maurice and Riviere-aux-Renards, Gaspe county, Quebec?
2.	If so, what are the names and addresses of each tendering party, also the amount of each tender?
3.	Was the contract awarded?
4.	If so, to whom and for what amount?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
Amount of tender at
2.	Name-	Address	unit prices(1)	Lewis MaLoney, Barachois de Malbaie, P.Q	$	28,253 25(2)	Ludger Lemieux Limitee, 267 rue St. Paul, Quebec, P.Q	
28,430 37(3) Thos. P. Charleson, 179 'Gilmour street, Ottawa, Ont	
28,975 80(4) A. J. Urquhart and Wm. D. Buckley, Barachois West, P.Q-	
33,588 90(5)	Dumont & Damours, Enrg., Riviere du Loup. P.Q	
39,389 253.	Yes.4.	(a) Lewis Maloney; (b) at unit prices, $28,253 25.
Questions
preventive service patrol work


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Have the officers of the preventive service of the Department of National Revenue and those of the mounted police, received instructions to patrol at the east of a line going from Pointe-des-Monts to Gap Chat? .
2.	Have they received subsequent instructions to patrol at the east of a line going from Pointe-au-Pere to Cap St. Nicolas?
3.	Have they received further instructions to patrol at the east of a line going from Pointe-des-Monts to Cap Chat?
4.	If so, why, by whom, and at whose request were these instructions changed?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I will answer this question orally. It is not considered in the interests of the public service to give the information sought by this question. It relates to preventive work in the customs service of Canada.


CAIRO POSTAL CONGRESS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the date of the opening of the postal congress at Cairo, which the hon. Postmaster General is attending?
2.	Will the hon. minister remain at Cairo during the entire duration of said congress?
3.	If so, will he return directly from Cairo to Canada?


Mr. DUPRE (for Postmaster General):: 1.	February 1, 1934.
2 and 3. No information.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who are the officers of the Post Office Department who are accompanying the Postmaster General to the postal congress at Cairo?
2.	What are the duties of each one of these in the department?
3.	What is the salary of each?
4.	What amount was advanced to each one for this trip?
5.	Are the advances allowed them sufficient to cover all expenses in connection with this trip?
6.	Are their salaries being paid during their absence ?


Mr. DUPRE (for Postmaster General):: 1,	2 and 3. H. Beaulieu, Director Administrative Services, $4,320 less 10 per cent, $3,888. E. J. Underwood, Chief Superintendent of Post Office Service, Postal Service Branch, $5,220 less 10 per cent, $4,698.
4.	$3,300.
5.	Considered sufficient to cover estimated expenses.
6.	Yes.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-MR. LEONARD
Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Is the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals aware that Mr. Leonard, conductor on

the train which runs from Vietoriaville, St. Angele do Laval to Montreal, does not speak French ?
2.	If so, will proceedings be taken so that the said Mr. Leonard be replaced by a bilingual conductor?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No.
2.	All questions pertaining to Canadian National Railway operation must be dealt with by the Board of Trustees, Canadian National Railways, Montreal. The Minister of Railways and Canals will be pleased to bring this complaint to the attention of Hon. C. P. Fullerton, Chairman of the Board of Trustees.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY-LOANS
Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	Sines August 1, 1930, did the government make any loan or loans to the Canadian Pacific railway?
2.	If so, what were the amounts, dates and conditions of such loans?
3.	Under what authority were they made?
4.	Since August 1, 1930, did the government guarantee any loan or loans for the Canadian Pacific railway?
5.	If so, what were the amounts and maturing dates of the loans guaranteed by the government?
0.	Under what authority were such guarantees given by the government to the said railway ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: 1,	2 and 3. On October 17, 1932, $1,447,222.71 was paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, under authority of P.C. 2171, dated September 30, 1932, passed pursuant to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, and the Unemployment and Farm Relief Continuance Act, 1932, on condition that the said sum be repaid to the government, on demand, without interest, as soon as the company resumes payments of dividends at more than at the rate of 5 per cent per annum. The payment represented wages paid in November and December, 1931, to employees of Canadian Pacific Railway shops, which the government arranged to have re-opened as an unemployment relief measure.
On August 18, 1933, $1,000,000 was paid to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, under authority of P.C. 2787 dated December 22, 1932, passed pursuant to the Relief Act, 1932, and amending order P.C. 1565 dated August 2, 1933, on condition that the said sum be repaid to the government, without interest, before any further dividends on the common stock of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are declared or paid. The payment represented wages paid for certain periods in November and December, 1932, and


19S4
[Stage Direction]
Questions
January, 1933, to employees of Canadian Pacific Railway shops which the government arranged to have re-opened as an unemployment relief measure.
4, 5 and 6. Repayment of loans of S60,-000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was guaranteed by order in council P.C. 2490 of November 29, 1933, passed pursuant to the Relief Act, 1933. The loans mature as follows, $35,000,000 on June 22, 1938, and $25,000,000 on December 1, 1938.

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	How much money was disbursed under the regulations governing the administration of the exchange stabilization fund, introduced by the Minister of Finance in the last budget?
2.	Upon what date did said stabilization fund begin to function?
3.	Upon what date did it cease to function?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	To date, $20,568.43.
2.	May 1, 1933.
3.	June 20, 1933.


AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION FUND
Mr. MacLEAN:: How much money was paid by the government of Canada under the agricultural stabilization fund, for each of the agricultural products entitled to aid from this fund, for [DOT] each month of 1933 ?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Payments to date by commodities (statistics not kept by months of shipments):
Cheese	$	5,437 33Bacon and hams	
9,006	41Cattle	
3,779	41Eggs	
409	80Canned Lobsters	
1,559	27Canned Salmon	
158	39$	20,350 61Administration expenses	
217 82Total to date	$ 20,568 43


DREDGE NO. 126
Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	Who is at the present time the watchman of the dredge of the Public Works Department at Havre aux Maisons, lies de la Madeleine?
2.	What salary does he receive?
3.	Are there other persons besides the watchman who receive a salary or a remuneration from the Public Works Department in connection with this dredge?
4.	If so, who are these persons, and what salary or remuneration do they receive?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Hubert Jomphe (caretaker of dredge No. 126 and plant, laid up at Barachois, Allright island, Magdalen islands, in the municipality of Havre aux Maisons).
2.	$50 a month, less 10 per cent.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


CARDIGAN, P.E.I., NO. 3 RURAL ROUTE
Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Was Cardigan No. 3 rural route, in King's county, Prince Edward island, let out by tender, last year?
2.	Were tenders of Cornelius Ryan and Joachim Sullivan equal?
3.	Was the tender of Cornelius Ryan accepted?
4.	If so, on whose recommendation was Ryan given preference over Sullivan?


Mr. DUPRE (for Postmaster General):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	On recommendation of Hon. J. A. Macdonald, MP.


PARCEL POST RATES
Mr. ROBERGE:: 1.	What was the postal rate per pound in 1930 for the transportation by mail of parcels of the following weights: 1 pound, 5 pounds, 10 pounds, and 14 pounds?
2.	What is the present rate for these parcels for transportation over a distance of 200 miles?


Mr. DUPRE (for Postmaster General):: 1.	Addressed to-	1 lb.
Any post office within 20 miles including place of mailing. .$0 05 Any post office beyond 20 miles, but within the province of
mailing	0	10Any post office in adjoining province	0	10Any post office in second adjoining province	0	12Any post office in third adjoining province	0	12Any post office beyond third adjoining province	0	125 lbs.	10 lbs.	14 lbs.	$0	10	$0	20	$0	250	30	0	55	0	550	38	0	73	0	750	48	0	93	1	150	58	1	13	1	350	60	1	20	1	50
Note:-The three provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are considered as one zone.
2.	This question cannot be answered in its present form as it will be observed from the answer to No. 1 that parcel post rates are fixed on a provincial zone basis rather than on a mileage basis.

Questions as Orders jor Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What was the number of wage-earners (as defined for census purposes), male and female by provinces, who reported incomes for the year 1930-1931 in each of the following income class groups: (a) under $1,000; (b) $1,000 to $2,000;	(c)	$2,000	to	$3,000;	(d)	$3,000	to$4,000;	(e)	$4,000	to	$5,000;	(f)	$5,000	to$6,000;	(g)	$6,000	to	$7,000;	(h)	$7,000	to$8,000;	(i)	$8,000	to	$9,000;	(j)	$9,000	to
$10,000; (k) $10,000 to $15,000; (1) $15,000 to $20,000; (m) $20,000 to $25,000; (n) $25,000 to $30,000; (o) $30,000 to $50,000; (p) $50,000 and over?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Dominion statistician advises me that there will be great difficulty in answering this question as it reads at present. I spoke to the hon. gentleman about it the other day and might I suggest that it stand as an order for return with the understanding that it will be answered as well as possible in conference between the Dominion statistician and the hon. gentleman.


TRENT CANAL STAFF
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	Who are the members of the Trent canal staff?
2.	What are their respective positions and salaries?
3.	When were they appointed?
4.	How many are engineers?
5.	What members of the staff are furnished with: (a) rent-free house; (b) rent-free telephone; (c) fuel and light without charge?


TRENT CANAL STATISTICS
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	What tonnage carrying freight passed through the Trent canal from lake Ontario to Georgian bay during each of the years 1929 to 1933 inclusive?
2.	What tonnage of other craft passed over this route during each of the same years?
3.	What has been the total costs of the Trent
canal detailed as follows:	(a) constructions
costs, repairs and betterments; (b) salaries of staffs; (c) settlement of drowned lands claims and' costs of lands expropriated or purchased?


TRENT CANAL INCOME AND EXPENDITURE
Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	What income from the Trent canal has the federal government received during years 1929 to 1933, respectively, as follows: (a) rentals of property; (b) rentals or dues from power users; (c) tolls?
2.	What was the expenditure upon Trent canal during 1932 and 1933 for: (a) salaries and wages; (b) construction and repairs; (c) all other expenditures?


TEMISCOUATA COUNTY POSTMASTERS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who were the postmasters on duty in the county of Temiscouata on August 1, 1930?
2.	Who are the postmasters on duty at the present time in the county of Temiscouata?
3.	Who were the postmasters dismissed in the county of Temiscouata for taking part in politics, since August 1, 1930?
4.	At whose request were each of these postmasters dismissed?


TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. DENIS:: 1.	What is the cost of translation of documents from Trench into English or vice versa, that the Secretary of State had done outside of his department during the year ending December 31, 1933?
2.	What are the names of persons who did this work, and how much was paid to each person ?
3.	Who translated the address of His Excellency the Governor General in 1932-1933 and 1934?
4.	Who translated the treaty signed' between Canada and the United States relative to the canalization of the St. Lawrence?
5.	On what date did the investigation take place, mentioned by the Secretary of State on January 29, 1934, and by whom?
6.	Were the investigators familiar with the French language?
7.	What administrative officers have been
examined by the investigators, and were their opinions recorded?	*
8.	If so, will the government communicate these opinions to the house for discussion on Bill No. 4?
9.	Has the Prime Minister or other members of the government officially asked for, or received from the officials of departments, reports, complaints or recommendations concerning the translation from the different public services?
10.	If so, will these documents be laid on the table of the house before the discussion of Bill No. 4?


DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many departmental reports were produced by the members of government at the beginning of the present session?
2.	How many of these reports were produced: (a) in the English language; (b) in the French language ?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. NEILL:: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, reports and agreements between the Dominion government, or the Department of the Interior, and A. B. Trites et al, or Base Metals Mining Corporation, Limited, relating to certain mining claims in the Yoho National park during the period between the 1st day of March, 1924, and date.

Motions for Papers


KOOTENAY PARK MINING CLAIMS
Alan Webster Neill: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, reports and other papers and documents passing between any member or official of the government and any other parties, relating to the staking, recording, assessment work, or in any other way, to the Albion group mining claims, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, in Kootenay park, British Columbia, such return to cover the period from March 1, 1929, to date.



LA DURANTAYE, QUE.-MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. BOULANGER:: For a copy of the complete file in connection with the cancelling of the contract dated April 29, 1933, for the distribution of the rural mail at La Durantaye, Bellechasse county, and relative to the request for tenders for a new contract.



&quot; FORTY DAYS IN CANADA &quot; ALBUM

Mr. POULIOT:: For the production of a copy of the album entitled "Forty Days in Canada," distributed by the Post Office Department.



QUEBEC COLONIZATION PROPOSALS-TEMISCOUATA COUNTY

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of memorandums bearing numbers 48, 54, 56, covering the work which the Department of Colonization of the province of Quebec proposed to have done in the parishes of St. Elzear, St. Emile d'Auclair and St. Benoit de Packington, Temiscouata county, and which were sent to the federal government for approval on August 30, 1933; also copy of all the correspondence, reports, telegrams, petitions, concerning the said work.



ST. CHARLES DE BELLECHASSE, QUE.-MAIL CONTRACT

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of the complete file relative to the calling of tenders for the contract which has just been awarded by the Post Office Department for the transportation of the mail between the station and the post office of St. Charles de Bellechasse.



CHARLES T. A. HART

Mr. GIROUARD:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence and other documents, and reports made on Charles Theodore A. Hart, formerly an employee of the Department of National Revenue, income tax branch, concerning his activities as an employee of the government in Drummondville, Quebec.



PETIT CAP, QUE.-WHARF

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, documents, requests for tenders, tenders, reports, plans and estimates, concerning the reconstruction of a wharf at Petit Cap, between St. Maurice and Riviere-aux-Renards, Gaspe county, Quebec.



AMEDEE JEAN, ST. ANTONIN, QUE.- POSTMASTERSHIP

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, requests and reports, concerning the appointment of Amedee Jean, as postmaster at St. Antonin, Temiscouata county, Quebec.



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.-ELEVATOR

Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, tenders, contracts, and other documents, relating to the leasing of the government elevator at Prince Rupert, British Columbia.



THREE RIVERS, QUE.-ICE BRIDGE

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all documents, correspondence and telegrams, relative to the breaking of the ice bridge between St. Angele de Laval and Three Rivers, on January 19, 1934.



MONTREAL POST OFFICE-JEAN BRUCHESI

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, recommendations, reports, orders in council, in connection with the appointment of Mr. Jean Bruchesi, of Montreal, to a position in the Post Office Department.



MAURICE LEBLANC, BONAVENTURE, QUE.-PAY LISTS

Mr. MARCIL:: For a copy of the pay lists in connection with the works done for the Department of Public Works by Maurice Le Blanc, in Bona-venture parish, Bonaventure county, during the year 1931.



PASSPORT, 1934-POSTMASTER GENERAL

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the passport granted to the Postmaster General for his trip overseas in 1934.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion I consider out of order, it is frivolous.
Motion dropped.



PASSPORT, 1934-MR. JEAN BRUCHESI

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the passport granted to Mr. Jean Bruchesi, of Montreal, for his trip overseas in 1934.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This I also hold to be out of order, as frivolous and not pertinent to the business of the house.
Motion dropped.



RAILWAY ENGINEMEN-MONTREAL AGREEMENT

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the Montreal agreement relating to locomotive engineers and firemen, and also copy of the amendments to same.
240	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heaps


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, in regard to that motion, the government has no copy of that agreement, as it was an agreement made between the management and the men. However, I have no objection to it passing, if the hon. gentleman wishes, I will ask Mr. Fullerton for it, and if he cares to give it to me I will table it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am perfectly satisfied, and I thank the, hon. Minister of Railways for his courtesy to me. I wrote to Mr.-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wanted to be gracious!



&quot;FORTY DAYS IN CANADA&quot; ALBUM

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the letter addressed by the hon. the Postmaster General to His Majesty George V. in forwarding him a copy of the album entitled "Forty Days in Canada," and copy of His Majesty's reply.


Maurice Dupré: I have no objection to this motion being carried, but I may say immediately that there was no such letter written by the hon. Postmaster General to His Majesty the King.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I move to amend by asking for a copy of his dedication.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think probably the motion will be dropped.
Motion dropped.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg) moved:: Whereas, there still exists in Canada an acute unemployment problem, and
Whereas, it is desirable that as many as possible of these unemployed should be absorbed into the industrial life of the nation;	_
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration the necessity of reducing the hours of labour of those engaged in industry, and also increase the purchasing power of the masses of our people in order that they may absorb the goods produced, thereby creating a more equitable distribution of our wealth production.
He said:	The motion I am submitting to
the house to-day is very similar to one which I introduced a year ago and which was not accepted by the government. Immediately after the house prorogued, in June last I resubmitted this motion, and although it is about seven months since that I felt at the time that the problem of unemployment

would be just about as acute at the beginning of this session as it was at the previous session.
Those who have read the resolution will observe that it could be divided into three parts; one dealing with the question of purchasing power by the great masses of our people, the second dealing with the reduction of the hours of labour, and the third with the question of more equitable distribution of the wealth produced. To me, Mr. Speaker, probably the most important of the three parts is the one that deals with the increase of purchasing power of the masses of our people. In the increase of opportunities to consume more of the goods produced lies, in my opinion, the crux of the present economic situation. To me that is the only way we can begin to bring about a solution of the present unemployment situation. I feel that if we are going to settle the problem of unemployment there must be achieved a reasonable balance between production and consumption. At the present time production altogether outstrips consumption, and because of that unbalanced situation we have vast numbers of people in our dominion both on the farms and in the cities, who produce enormous quantities of commodities without having opportunity to consume the goods which they themselves produce. It has been suggested quite recently in this house, as well as in other places, that we ought to cut down on our production. I think that is the wrong way to set about arriving at a readjustment of our economic condition. I would far rather attempt to increase the consumptive opportunities of the people, instead of cutting down on their productivity. In- fact only a short time ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), who I see in his place, was in Europe, and while discussing the wheat proposals of the various governments he suggested that instead of cutting down on wheat production they ought to attempt to increase the consumption in various parts of the world. I quite agreed with the sentiments then expressed by the minister, and I thought what an excellent thing it would be if he would in Canada preach here exactly the same thing he preached at the conference in London. The cutting down of our production is a form of industrial sabotage to which I am very much opposed. I feel that by cutting down production ultimately we are bound to have a reduced standard of living, and of course I am opposed to any reduction of our standard of living in Canada. I would far sooner see every effort advanced to bring about that increased consumption to which I have re-

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heaps
ferred, and a little later I will attempt to explain what I mean by that statement.
To-day we have a huge surplus of commodities. Often this is termed over-production but I think properly it should be termed the surplus production which should have gone back into immediate consumptive channels, to those who directly and indirectly served in its production. We find a tremendous spread between the return to the labourer or the farmer and the prices paid for different commodities. I think in our industrial life it is taken for granted that even the best wages do not represent more than about one-third the cost of what the labourer produces, so two-thirds of the value of the commodities produced go, in profits of one form or another, to those who neither toil nor spin.
I ask for a reduction in the hours of labour, and why do I do that? It is not because men do not want to work; given the opportunity I think men are only too anxious to perform some useful function in our social life. I ask for a reduction in the hours of labour because to-day we have reached the stage in our technical progress and industrial advancement where it is not necessary for men and women to work the long hours that they are compelled to work at present. Just before coming to the chamber this afternoon I received a letter. from one of the large industrial centres of Quebec which stated that in a certain industry girls are working 69i hours per week for a wage of about $8. Men are working somewhat similar hours at high speed and with great efficiency, producing goods far in excess of what can be consumed either here or elsewhere. To-day there is no limit to our productive capacity; I think that is becoming generally recognized on all sides. If we have reached the stage in our technical progress when we can produce more than sufficient to satisfy all our requirements in a comparatively short time, then I think it may be said with a great deal of truth that the masses of the people have earned the right to greater leisure than they have enjoyed in the past.
In this dominion we have vast numbers of men and women who are out of work, as well as great numbers who are working on short time; in addition we have quite a number who are employed. I should like to put this proposition to the house: Supposing all the able-bodied men and women who are capable of performing a useful function in society were put into productive and useful employment; how long would it be necessary for that human energy, so harnessed to the machinery of production, to work in order to produce enough to satisfy all our human requirements? I venture to say that in the course of about 74726-16
twenty hours per week, on the average, there would be sufficient produced to satisfy all our needs and also allow for a reasonable surplus. There are men who have gone into this question rather carefully from a statistical point of view and they claim that with even less than twenty hours of work per week there could be sufficient produced, with the use of modern equipment, to satisfy all our requirements. Then, as I said before, if there has to be a reasonable balance between consumption and production, we have to see that the hours of labour are not in excess of what our consumptive needs really are. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to deal effectively with the unemployment situation in Canada it is essential that we reduce the hours of labour, because so far as I can see that is the only way we can ever hope to absorb into industry the vast numbers of men and women who to-day are out of work. Even if our industrial conditions in Canada continue to improve; even assuming that we return to the status of five or even ten years ago, of the half million or more men and women who are out of work to-day there will be hundreds and thousands who never again will be absorbed by the industrial life of this country. The other day the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) computed the number of people out of work as
500,000.	I do not know whether or not that is a correct estimate, but according to my information I should be inclined to think it an under-estimate if anything. It is quite true that there has been a slight improvement in the past few months, but it is impossible to say whether this improvement is of a permanent or temporary nature.
Various remedies have been suggested to meet the situation. We have had the remedies brought in by the government during the past few years. We have had high tariffs* introduced as a means of increasing employment; we have had public works as another means of dealing with the situation, and then we have had the granting of relief to the hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of our people who have found themselves in the unfortunate position of being compelled to seek assistance from public bodies. The fact is that to-day we realize perhaps more than we have ever realized before that the so called remedies which have been put into effect in the past few years have not been remedies for the situation at all, for if they had been remedies we would not be confronted to-day with half a million people unemployed in this dominion.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heaps
to a life of continual unemployment unless we do something radical to change the basis of our whole economic system. Many of these unemployed are simply drifting to-day, and among them can be heard the whispering of ideas which were never even entertained by them a few years ago.
We have heard hon. members of this house boast, and quite properly so, of the traditions of parliament, for after all parliament as we know it at the present time is the result of many long centuries of growth and development. It has taken practically seven hundred years of uninterrupted parliamentary government to bring us to the stage which we have reached to-day in the Dominion of Canada. In this democracy our ways of doing business are modelled after the pattern of Great Britain, and there parliamentary government goes back approximately seven hundred years, during which parliament has gone on uninterrupted in its course through all those centuries except for a brief period at the time of the revolution under Cromwell. Many people are, unfortunately, becoming tired of present institutions because when we come to deal from time to time with our fundamental problems such as unemployment, which affects the very basis of our economic life, appropriate and concrete action is not taken, or we pass the buck between the federal government and the provinces. I think the time has come when parliament should take a firm hold upon the situation and say that we are going to do something that will ameliorate the present conditions and give a ray of hope to those hundreds of thousands of men in this dominion who unfortunately find themselves idle with no prospect of work. I would dearly like to see our government do something radical to solve this particular problem. The fact that a motion of the government passed this house a few days ago to appoint a committee to make a far-reaching inquiry is an indication that at times the government is willing to make a radical departure from past precedent.
I would ask the government to look for a moment at what is happening south of the line. I am not one of those who can say at the moment whether what the people of the United States are doing is ultimately going to be a success or not, but we must give them credit for one thing, for making a tremendous effort to get out of those chaotic conditions in which they found themselves twelve months ago. But what are we doing here? We are simply going along in the same old rut, following the same old line as in past years, trusting, like Micawber, that something will turn up and bring about improvement in

conditions. We have been hoping and praying for such an improvement for four or five years, but no improvement in conditions that is worth mentioning has materialized; we still have those hundreds of thousands of men out of work with no hope of ever being able to be reabsorbed into the industrial life of this country.
As I said at the outset, if we are going to deal with this question of unemployment, of reabsorbing the hundreds of thousands of men and women who are out of work into our industrial life, there is only one thing we can do, and that is to provide them with work, and the way to provide them with permanent work is not by the creation of public works, desirable as that may be as a temporary palliative. No, Mr. Speaker, the only way in which you can find them work of a permanent character is by finding a way to reabsorb them into the industrial life of the country, where they will be producing goods that will get into the consumers' hands, and where the consumer will have an opportunity of consuming the goods which he has helped to produce. If they are going to be reabsorbed into the industrial life of this country, it is obvious that if we are going to work eight and ten and twelve hours a day as people are doing at the present time, we shall be able to produce far in excess of the consumptive capacities of the people. On the other hand, if we are going to absorb these people into the industrial life of the country so that all men and women may be properly absorbed and become useful citizens instead of considering themselves, as many of them do to-day, more or less useless citizens, consuming things which they have never helped to produce, it is necessary that the work should be limited to so many hours per day.
I ask the government to take this matter very seriously into their consideration. I realize how very difficult is the task ahead of any government that attempts to attack the unemployment problem in a fundamental way, and especially when it is attempted to be tackled under our present economic structure with any hope of even partially solving the problem. But as I have said before, from my seat in this house, it appears to me that the only way we can begin to solve this problem is, first of all, to put into the hands' of the great masses of our people a largely increased purchasing power as compared with what they have at the present time. Secondly we must reduce the hours of labour all around in order that the unemployed can be reabsorbed into our industrial life. We must give to the great masses of our people an opportunity of consuming the goods they produce. There must

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Maclnnis
be a more equitable distribution of the wealth that is produced. We cannot have that lopsided situation which exists in this country to-day, as in other countries, where we find a superabundance on the one hand and poverty on the other. That I think is recognized by all hon. members in the house as a situation which we here perhaps shall not tolerate much longer. All parties recognize the fact that a more equitable distribution of wealth is desirable, and it is coming to be recognized everywhere that there must be a reduction in the hours of labour. The members of this house, I believe, realize now that the labourer who is worthy of his hire is worthy of something more than he has received in the past. Therefore I would ask the government this afternoon to make some statement that will impart to our men and women, all those who find themselves out of work through no fault of their own, the hundreds of thousands who are unwillingly condemned to a life of idleness, some real hope so that in the not distant future they can look forward to being reabsorbed as useful citizens into the industrial life of the dominion.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I think we are ajl agreed that the unemployment problem is the most serious question that faces not only this country but practically every other nation in the world to-day. It is not merely the fact that men and women are -unemployed and that they are suffering the misery and want which people in that condition necessarily suffer. The trouble is much deeper than that. There is something really more than the mere physical suffering to be considered; there is something more; the effect which this lowered standard of living will have on the future of the people of this dominion.
The social service council in the province of British Columbia held their annual meeting some little time ago and a very significant statement was made then by Miss Laura Holland, C.B.E., who by the way was one of the persons upon whom honours were conferred in the New Year's list. Apparently she was not troubled very much about whether she would receive an honour or not, but she was greatly troubled about the condition that, exists to-day in the ranks of the unemployed. She said that the greatest problem facing the country -at the present time was how to restore the destroyed morale of those who were affected through unemployment by this depression. This is the problem that is facing the Dominion of Canada to-day. If it were merely a matter of restoring tangible things,
they could be restored just as they were restored after the war in a very short time. But when, the spiritual and moral life of the people is destroyed it cannot be restored so quickly.
Now, no one can deny that deterioration in this direction has been taking place during the last four or five years. The committee on homeless men, at the same meeting, submitted a report in regard to these men. The homeless men are to a large extent young men who have reached the age of twenty-one and they are -then told by the relief department in Vancouver that thej' are no longer eligible for relief, so that they must go to the unemployment camps. But when they go to the unemployment camps they are met with the objection that they -are not homeless; their parents, they are told, are living in Vancouver and are responsible for their livelihood. But the fact is that in a large number of oases the parents themselves are on relief, so that the chairman of the committee, reporting on the matter, said that it had been amply proved that some of those young men had performed criminal acts in order that they might obtain the means of subsistence.
That is the condition that is facing the country at the present -time, and this resolution, I can assure the house, is not put forward as in itself a solution of the problem. Rather, it is put forward in the hope that it will receive some consideration, as one of the major questions involved in any plan that aims at the restoration of economic stability in this country.
I remember that when two years ago the hon. member for North Winnipeg introduced a similar resolution certain objections were brought forward against it. One objection was on the usual constitutional ground, that it was not within the constitutional powers of the dominion government to deal with the question of hours of work. That may be so, but to-day the government is finding itself in the position that, no matter how sacred we may consider the constitution, that constitution, as it is at present, no longer meets the situation. The government is therefore compelled daily to do things which at other times might be considered to be outside the jurisdiction of the dominion. So that in this regard the government has certain powers which it can bring to bear upon the provincial governments in order to make them act with respect to this matter of the reduction of hours. The other objection, as far as I remember, was raised by the hon. member for W'etaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), who pointed out that the reduction of hours and the increase

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Maclnnis
of wages was impossible under the profit system. I am willing to concede that point in the long run; indeed, I am willing to go further than that and to say that the profit system itself is impossible-and the impossibility of it has been conceded by almost everyone. It is because of that that in any general plan of reconstruction, not under the profit system but under a system of producing goods to meet the needs of the people, this question must be given due consideration. A few years ago, I take it, it would have been considered quite beyond the jurisdiction of the Dominion government to take any steps in regard to the reduction of wheat acreage, but that is being done to-day, and as a matter of fact the unemployment problem is approximately on all fours with the problem of wheat production. The only way by which the unemployment problem can be solved is through the provision of work for the unemployed.
Now, the only way to provide a solution for the difficulties that confront the wheat farmers is to ensure a market for their wheat; but if you cannot ensure a market for their wheat to the extent of its production, then the idea is to restrict the supply in order to meet the demand. Well, the same applies to the labour movement. If there are not enough jobs for, let us say, one million workers at eight hours a day, then the logical solution is not to put five hundred thousand to work at eight hours a day, placing the other five hundred thousand unemployed on relief, but to put the one million workers to work at four hours a day. There is another logical reason for this. We talk about the expense of unemployment but regardless of expense, the unemployed are fed, clothed and sheltered by those who are working. It is the men who are working to produce food, clothing and shelter upon whom the burden falls ultimately, and not on those who may be called upon to supply the money tokens by which relief is financed. So that from that point of view I think it would be far more fair to put the unemployed to work and thus ease the burden of work on those who are already employed.
The first year I was here, the first regular session in 1931, I pointed out that one of the root causes of unemployment, that is, outside the general capitalistic system itself, was that the producers do not receive enough in purchasing power to enable them to consume the products of their labour, while the owning class, those who receive their rewards in rent, interest and profit, are unable to consume the remainder of the goods thus produced. But 
during this depression this is what has happened: the share of the national income going to the producers of wealth has been relatively decreasing and that going to those who are not producers of wealth, but owners of property, has (been relatively, and in some oases actually increasing. In that regard I should like to give a few figures for the Dominion of Canada. These are for some of our sheltered industries. As regards oil refining the figures are as follows:
1929	1932
Dividends, etc. . . . $16,650,045 $16,758,977
Salaries and wages	8,153,000	5,980,000Wages	
6,900,000	4,612,000
So we see that owners of property during those years of depression increased the amount that they received, but the amount that went into salaries and wages was decreased by more than one-third.
Let us take the figures for the cement industry :
1929	1932
Dividends, etc. . . .	$1,364,870	$ 680,677Wages	
3,263,000	1,131,000
It will be seen that wages fell foy approximately two-thirds while dividends fell only about 50 per cent.
Let us look at the figures in connection with electrical apparatus:
,	1929	1932Dividend's, etc. ...	$ 2,215,413	$ 2,448,673Salaries and wages	26,756,000	18,916,000
Here we have a small increase in the dividends and a substantial decrease in salaries and wages.
Sugar Refining
1929	1932
Dividends, etc. ...	$ 52,500	$ 187,497Wages	
2,748,000	2,206,000These figures	go	to	show	that	the producers	in industry	have	carried	the	brunt	of
the burden of the depression.
It is not contended that if wages were slightly higher there would not be any unemployment, but it is contended that if less were going into dividends and more into wages which would be used altogether in the purchase of consumers' goods, the depression could have been eased considerably. So far as I know we have not general figures for the dominion, but we have them for the United States and conditions there are similar to those here. All we need do in most cases is to reduce them according to population and we have a picture of conditions as they prevail in this country. These figures are compiled by the Federal Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce of the United States in cooperation with the National Bureau of Economic Research and are for the period from 1929 to

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Pouliot
1932. The total income distributed to individuals in 1929 was $81,000,000,000. In 1930 it dropped to $75,000,000,000, in 1931 to $63,000,000,000, and in 1932 to $49,000,000,000. In 1929 the actual earned income was
183,000,000,000 or $2,000,000,000 more than the distributed income. In 1932 the earned income was only $38,000,000,000, the distributed income exceeding the earned income by almost $11,000,000,000. Of course this latter sum was taken from reserves accumulated in more
prosperous years.
There is another aspect in regard to these figures. In 1929 labour income was $59,000,000,000, or 65 per cent of the total income. By 1932 labour had lost 60 per cent of its income, while income on property declined only 30 per cent. The income of farmers declined from 6-3 billions in 1929 to 3-4 billions in 1932, or approximately 50 per cent. Thus we see again that the producers have carried the greatest share of the burden of the depression.
If we wish to come nearer home, let us take the annual report of the British Columbia Department of Labour for 1932 and we shall find the same state of affairs. This table shows the percentage of income in manufacturing industries of various kinds in the province, that goes to different classes of employees in the industries and how it has changed in the last five years:
Officers, superintendents and
managers	
Clerks, stenographers and
salesmen	
Wage-earners	
1928	1932
Per cent
9.29 12.77
9.31 14.93 81.40 72.30
Therefore, while the share of the total income of officers, superintendents and managers, clerks, stenographers and salesmen went up, that of the actual workers in industry went down. In my opinion there is only one logical way to deal with unemployment, or at least to ease the burdens of it, and that is through a better distribution of the income itself and then through a better distribution of the hours of labour of the workman.
I do not wish to take up any more time in connection with this matter, I believe we are all convinced of the necessity of a new approach to the question of unemployment, a new approach to the whole question of our economic condition. I hope that the government will take this matter into consideration, and that they will use whatever power they have to bring about a better distribution of income and also a better distribution of the labour that is required to produce that in-
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOLS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, the preamble of the
motion reads thus:
Whereas there still exists in Canada an acute unemployment problem, and
Whereas it is desirable that as many as possible of these unemployed should be absorbed into the industrial life of the nation;
This states that the unemployment problem still exists, and that something should be done at the earliest opportunity for the unemployed. I remember distinctly that during the special session of 1930, when the tariff was raised by the government after the abolition of the tariff board, this house was told by the Prime Minister that he had received assurance from the manufacturers who had been asking for higher protection that they would not dismiss any employees, and that they would pay the same wages. Members of the house cannot have forgotten that. How is it then that the unemployment problem has grown worse since? Did these manufacturers keep their promises? Some members of the house asked at the time, who were those who made such promises to the government? The facts have proved that these people have not kept their promises any better than the government kept their own.
When the government came into power the problem of unemployment was not such as it is now. We had poor people; our Lord said centuries ago, For the poor ye always have with you. It is a law of nature to have poor amongst us, but their number was much less than it is now. It has been increased by the policies of this government in spite of the numerous protests coming from this side of the house, from the official opposition as well as from my hon. friends in the corner. I am in full sympathy with the mover of this motion, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), as well as with the hon. gentleman who has seconded it. But now we must come back to common sense which has been forgotten and put aside by this government since it has been in power, especially with regard to the unemployment problem. Last year I humbly suggested to the government to classify the unemployed. Nothing can be done on their behalf unless they are classified. You cannot take a white collar worker and put him to dig some ditches or do miner's work. It is impossible for him to do so. Last year I urged that a classification should be made with care of the unemployed by charitable societies, like the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, and the St. Vincent de Paul society in Montreal and other places in the country. I was told by one of the workers of that society in Montreal that if the income.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Pouliot
formation was required it could be given within twenty-four hours by those interested in that charitable work. I do not ask for that information to come from the municipalities, which are interested in paying the least possible for the unemployed; it must come from the charitable societies, those admirable and powerful organizations that exist in every large centre. During the war was it possible to apply the same remedy to all? Was it possible to apply the same cure to all the wounded on the battlefield? No, because some were gassed, others shell-shocked, others wounded in different parts of the body; each one required special and particular treatment. That is the way to deal with the unemployed; they must be classified into railway employees, clerks of different kinds, miners, agriculturists, lumbermen into every class that is trained for a special kind of work. Sir, it is a very simple, very plain suggestion that I offer to the government in all earnestness. At first I thought that the government was afraid to give information about the number of unemployed in this country. Now we have had that information, it was given from the census a year afterwards. We did not know what was the real situation about unemployment. Information was given a long time afterwards and the information given to the house was not complete because many heads of families take care of the unemployed members of their families without assistance from the government.
During the last campaign, sir, the Prime Minister said that he would end unemployment. At that time the question of unemployment was made use of in political propaganda. Processions were organized of some unemployed and supposed unemployed, who attended the meetings held by the Prime Minister and others and shouted, "We need help to deal with unemployment," though the situation then was not as serious as it is now.
I have seen huge packages of postcards addressed to every community within range of the voice of the right horn, gentleman when he was speaking over the radio. They reminded me of circus advertisements; "Come and see the big bird that eats iron and steel; that is why we put it in a wooden cage." That is whait these postcards made me think of. The Prime Minister was hailed as a saviour; he was said to be a genius. I give him the benefit of the doubit, but at least in his mind luck and genius were confused. People expected to hear from him his recipe for getting rich, but he could not give it, for who can

give a recipe for luck? The Prime Minister mistook genius for luck; luck was offended and gave him the cold shoulder and having no genius he was left in distress.


Mr. GOTT:: You are certainly speaking to the subject.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am explaining why the unemployment problem is not solved yet.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. gentleman said he was going to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister. Since his own leader will not adopt his suggestions why does he make them to our leader?


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, Mr. Speaker, once more the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Gobt) is speaking through his hat when he is not wearing it. I am not making any suggestions to my own leader, but to the government, though very few of the practical suggestions that have come from this side, whether from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) or from any humble backbencher, have been accepted by the government.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that the unemployment problem as not settled yet, and it seems that the government are not in touch with the common people as they should be.
I have told my friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) many times that he should see to it that the Prime Minister has time to concentrate and to think about the problems of the state. Hon. gentlemen opposite should see ito it 'that no one looking for a position or far patronage of any kind should be allowed to bother the right hon. gentleman. He should have time in which to exercise his judgment.
I do not say that he lacks judgment; I say that lie does not make enough use of it. Since ithe right hon. gentleman has been in power we have had no evidence that he has very often used his good judgment in connection with any policies he has offered to the house and to the country. Now we have to speak very plainly on behalf of those who have nothing to eat and those who suffer from the cold. I say it is time for the government, the Prime Minister as well as the members of his cabinet, to concentrate on the serious problems of the day instead of boasting of miracles which they have never performed.
This brings us to the N.R.A. In a speech delivered in Port Hope last summer by one of the apostles of that experiment, he said they thought of it overnight and started to put it in operation the following day. They

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mitchell
must be extraordinary men, becauses I do not see how a plan such as that could be improvised overnight and put into operation the following day. We must go to the root of the situation; we must see what is the real problem in connection with unemployment. The information can be secured by the government at any time they wish it. It is essential that the foundation of a house be completed before the roof is started, so we hope the government will accept this very humble suggestion which has been made several times already. I hope they will at least get some information as to the classification of unemployed, because this great problem of unemployment never will be solved if they do not at first classify all the unemployed including those who do not receive direct relief from the state.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: Before the debate concludes,
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make just one or two observations on the resolution now before the house. I should like to tell the government that this resolution is in keeping with the time-honoured policy of the trade union movement in this country, which for many years has advocated, and insisted upon with some success, a reduction in the hours of labour, with no reduction in the consuming power of the workers. To me it is almost marvellous to see the crystallization of world opinion as to the soundness of the position taken by the official trade union movement as to hours of labour in industry. Had it not been for the very necessary educational program carried on by the American Federation of Labor I believe it will be agreed that the experiment embodied in the N.R.A. would not have been possible in the great republic to the south. Notwithstanding what views we may hold as to that experiment, in my opinion it is the greatest experiment in the history of democratic nations up to this time. After all is said and done it took some courage to make the decision that was made by the president of the United States, which launched this far-reaching campaign in an effort to adjust the output of industry and agriculture to the consuming power of the people of the United States.
I believe the world at large looks upon this experiment with a great deal of sympathy, in the hope that it may prove successful and give leadership to the rest of the civilized world. I was in London during the economic conference this year, a conference that was stillborn because the leaders of national thought in the various countries there represented had not the vision and the courage to appreciate the possibilities of the American experiment. I believe that had there been a world approach to the problem of unemployment and mass production in agriculture and industry, rather than a national approach on the part of the American government an entirely different condition would to-day exist in the world. Of course, the story of what happened at the economic conference was so simple and obvious that it is scarcely worth retelling. I mean simply this, that the gold bloc went there with the definite intention of destroying the usefulness of the conference, the British delegates sat on the fence and the Americans fell out among themselves.
Since the beginning of the session there have been a number of speeches. I should like to feel that the representatives of the people would spend as much time, effort and energy on an important problem such as that which is now before us as they would in a discussion on titles, a resurrection of the old cannibal days when men wore beads around their necks and rings in their noses. I would rather see hon. members concentrate on the real problems confronting our men and women. Even in the boom days of 1928 we were confronted with the same problem. We are apt to forget those days; we are apt to forget the difficulty with which we will be confronted if we ever emerge from this depression-I mean that of being too old at forty-five. That is the real tragedy in the life of this young and growing industrial nation. That is one of the aspects of the resolution presented by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). I believe it is fair to state that our progress is held in check by our inability to consume the products of the fields and the factories. The statement is often made to the industrial worker that his one aim should be that of increasing his leisure hours. That is not the correct view. The argument for shorter hours rests upon the practical foundation of our ability to consume in super-abundance. If this question of production and consumption is not dealt with it has the possibility of destroying the veiy civilization we have erected. In my view this problem is so simple that the arguments of those discussing it cannot be controverted. I believe it is fair to ask this House of Commons, reflecting as it does the aims and desires of the Canadian people, what it is going to do about it.
I believe it is fair to say that the industrial technique and makeup of Canada is somewhat similar to that of the United States. Between the years 1919 and 1933 in that
250	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Mitchell
country the productive capacity of the individual increased by 83 per cent. Between the years 1926 and 1933 it increased by 30 per cent. The remedy for the change is obvious and must, I believe, follow the suggestions contained in the resolution now before us. I remember that in my first session in the house, only two short years ago, I asked a simple question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) with reference to the activities of our delegates at a meeting of the international labour office, held in Washington in the year 1919. He made light of my observations concerning the necessity for a reduction of the hours of labour. He said, "Some day you will want a six-hour working day." I said, "Yes, I will live to see the day when there will be a four-hour working day in Canada." In those two short years we have seen the government of the United States, under the policy of the N.R.A. insisting upon a six-hour day in connection with certain industries and undertakings. That, Mr. Speaker, goes to show the soundness of the vision and the position taken by the men and women who go to make up the trade union movement in Canada. The problem of hours of labour is one in connection with which the government could take a lead. I believe it is fair to say that our industrial and financial leaders have forgotten that they ever led; I question very much whether or not they ever did lead. I believe they were just carried along on a tide of enthusiasm. Had the government adopted the resolution submitted last session by the hon. member for North Winnipeg there would have been no necessity for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) to speak as he did in the city of Toronto. Had the resolution been adopted the information would have been secured last year instead of this year. The resolution of last session would have brought out all the facts, and we would have approached the problem having in mind the points of view of the men and women engaged in various walks of life.
I sometimes wonder at our helplessness. We cannot say that science or nature has failed us. Our only difficulty is lack of common sense, and our inability to comprehend the real menace confronting us. Although matters of labour have been of international importance, unfortunately our dominion from a . governmental and official standpoint has probably been more backward than any country in the civilized world. Only last year the Italian delegation to the League of Nations introduced a resolution backed by the government of that country calling for the immediate introduction of a forty-hour week into the industry of the nations connected 
with the labour organization of the league. While it is quite true that no decision was made, we must admit that at least one government in the world has from its own experience realized the soundness of the position which for many years has been taken by Canadian labour.
Of course, there is not much use reducing the hours of labour if at the same time we do not increase consuming power. I believe that much of our difficulty has been brought about by the avarice of the investor and of the business men and financiers of this country. Unless you give the individual engaged in industry sufficient wages to buy back what he produces, inevitably you are facing trouble. You must make it possible for him and her to receive some measure of the fruits of technological progress. This is not a dream, it is not a theory; it is a positive fact predicated upon our past experience.
Those who believed that stacks of paper in 1928 were real wealth were just kidding themselves, and of course the inevitable windstorm came along and blew them out into the street. It would have been far better if they had given that money to the men and women engaged in industry with which to buy back the goods they produced, and thus keep the machine at least in some semblance of normal running order. I believe that that declaration is a . fundamental around which all society revolves, and until we are willing to meet that in a practical and realistic way this depression will not show any signs of lifting. What was the greatest tragedy of the machine era? Let me say that we are at the end of an era, whether we like it or not, and those people who think that the issue is between free trade and protection are just having a pipe dream, in my judgment. In the industrial era we concentrated on the machine to the exclusion of the human element in industry. We thought that so long as we produced and produced and produced, that was the solution of the problem, and we completely forgot the human being who, in the final analysis, is the basis of all civilization and life itself.
As an apprentice boy I have seen the development of the machine. I have seen men and women displaced overnight by an advancement in the technique of industry. Let me give you an illustration to show the extent to which the thing is drifting. Once upon a time we thought that all musicians were artists; in fadt, they thought so themselves. They thought that the machine would never affect their daily lives, that they were a class apart from men engaged in the

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Hanbury
normal industries of this country. Then the " talkie " was developed, and overnight it wiped out the means of livelihood of forty thousand musicians on the North American continent. Going even a step further, the mechanical hare was developed, to be chased by the whippets on the racecourse.
When I was crossing the Atlantic this year there was a Russian violinist on board, and I made this observation. I said it was passing strange that we from the great centres of civilization had to come out into the middle of the Atlantic to see one of the great artists play in the flesh. At home we got it through the medium of the machine. I went on to say that all we need to-day to complete the circle is to bring babies into the world in cans like tomatoes, and then of course there will be no use living at all.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government, in carrying out its building program announced in the speech from the throne, should set an example in fixing the hours of labour on such works at such a level that the employment possibilities under that plan would be greatly increased, and at the same time it would be setting an example to employers throughout the dominion.
Mention has been made of the necessity of amending the British North America Act in order to set in motion any machinery for carrying out the object of this resolution. I am glad to record, Mr. Speaker, that opinion in this country is crystallizing in support of the view that has been expressed from this corner of the house for many years in regard to the British North America Act. Only the other day the premier of Ontario expressed the opinion that the British North America Act was in need of revision to bring it up to the standard of modern requirements in a country so vast as Canada.
I know what the argument of the government is going to be in reply to this resolution. They are going to say that nothing can be done unless all governments in all countries of the world do the same thing. I do not believe that we can wait for that. I do not believe that it is practical to wait for that. I believe that leadership should be given by the government of the day in exploring every channel whereby the driving force of this resolution might become a practical reality, instead of the resolution simply being allowed to be another resolution of this House of Commons. I should like to leave that thought with the government in connection with this resolution. I believe that it is as pressing, if indeed not more so, as any resolution that appears on the order paper from private members of this
house, as viewed from the standpoint of the industrial workers of this dominion, and I would urge the government to lend its aid in meeting this very practical problem confronting the industrial workers from one end of this broad dominion to the other.


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: I notice that in the second paragraph this resolution says it is desirable that "as many as possible" of the unemployed should be absorbed. The question comes to my mind, why did the mover of the resolution (Mr. Heaps) limit it to "as many as possible"? Why did he not say "all of those unemployed"? In the same paragraph he says that it is desirable that these unemployed should be absorbed "into the industrial life of the nation." We have another life of the nation; we have the agricultural life of the. nation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is the same thing.


Wilfred Hanbury: The mover says that it
is the same thing, but I notice that none of those in that corner of the house representing agricultural communities has yet supported this resolution, and I would be interested in hearing their remarks in that connection. There is no question whatever that the regulation of labour must come sooner or later, but it is also a very interesting question how you are going to regulate the hours of labour in agriculture.
Again, in the third paragraph of the resolution, the mover urges the government to take into immediate consideration the matters there spoken of. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the government and all thinking people of this country are giving consideration to this question of unemployment at all times, and I think we all recognize the necessity of some regulation of the hours of labour.
Further on, the resolution-refers to increasing the purchasing power of " the masses." I really do not know whom the mover is referring to in his use of the words "the masses." I for one would like to have my purchasing power increased. Whether I am to be included in " the masses " I do not know. I think it is important that the purchasing power of all people in Canada should be increased. In the last line of the resolution he also refers to the equitable distribution of our wealth. I think it is important that we should have distribution, whether it is equitable or not. Of course, we should all like it to be equitable; but our problem to-day is that our production is not being consumed. If it were being consumed,

Unemployment Reliej-Mr. Fajard
whether equitably or not, there would be work for those at present unemployed.
The problem referred to by the previous speaker-and I wish to congratulate him on his remarks-was that of jurisdiction. At the present time jurisdiction in the regulation of hours of labour is a purely provincial matter. In the province of British Columbia from which I come, we have had what is commonly called advanced labour legislation, with regard to the regulation of hours of work and of rates of pay. We find in that province that, with higher rates of pay and shorter hours, and with many benefits to the workers for which industry must pay we are expected to compete with provinces in Canada where there are not such regulations. It must, however, be apparent to all the members of this house that such provincial regulation is really a restriction of industry. It is not only unfair to industry itself, but by virtue of the fact that it must eventually react against the worker, it is unfair to the worker in that province to that extent.
Then we come to the question of international trade. In the lumber industry of British Columbia, assume that we are obliged as a province to pay higher wages and further to regulate the hours of labour. Now, we are attempting to do, and are doing our lumber business throughout the markets of the world, but we are faced with competition with other nations where there are not in force the same regulations, and we are faced with some competition from those provinces of Canada in which similar regulations are not to be found.
These are problems which, as the previous speaker has said, must be met. We cannot continue as we are going at the present time and maintain the same degree of democracy and freedom if we do not come to some conclusion-not just consideration, but some conclusion-and at an early date, which will bring about a re-employment of those at present unemployed.
This of course raises a very great question, particularly in its international aspect. So far as I am personally concerned, and I think I can speak for many engaged in industry in British Columbia, we are quite prepared that the government should make some regulation that might have an adverse effect on our international trade, temporarily at least. We recognize that it would be a temporarily bad influence, but I think I can say that we also recognize that the national existence of Canada is probably more important at this stage than international trade. Therefore I wish heartily to support the resolution which is on

the order paper, and I would go further and suggest that instead of consideration something should be done and done at once.
In this connection, the first practical suggestion is that the provinces of Canada should gather with the federal authority and that we should have a realignment of authority in Canada. The regulation of hours of labour, rates of pay, conditions of lalbour-these do not constitute the only problem that faces the people to-day; nor is this problem the only one that requires that the Act of Confederation should be reconsidered and revamped. That is the first practical step, and until it is taken I do not see how we can make progress. We shall be receiving evasions and suggestions and criticisms for all time until that step is taken, and I therefore submit in all sincerity to the government that they should do what they can ito bring all the provinces of Canada into a conference that will redefine our confederation.


Mr. J. FERNAND FAFARD (L'lslet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution,
at present under consideration by the house requests that the hours of labour be reduced, and, at the same time, wages be increased. I did not think that this resolution would be discussed to-day. After closely following the speeches which have just been made, I deem it timely to make a few brief remarks.
If you increase the wages and reduce the working hours, it is evident that the manufactured products will cost far more and, therefore, our commerce will immediately suffer from it. I wonder if it is fair to request the farmer to work fifteen hours daily to sustain the workman who would only have to work six hours per day? It is said that the farmer is not obliged to work such long hours; however, any one who has lived among them, who has been brought up on the farm, knows fully well that the farmer must rise with the sun, that he must toil many hours, has no control over the working hours, nature sees to that; for instance, the morning dew is uncontrollable.
I wonder really whether it is fair to expect the farming class to work five or six times longer than the workmen, the consumers, and for less wages.
It was stated a few moments ago that the cause of the whole evil was not the tariff, but the various mechanical contrivances invented in the course of the last half century.
I cannot admit such an assertion. The real cause of the invention of machinery lies in the labour unrest which broke out everywhere. The workman always seemed discon-

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
tented with his lot, and man's genius applied itself to overcome the difficulties encountered, by inventing machinery to supplement man's labour. Moreover, I do not think that mechanical contrivances are actually responsible for the depression the workman suffers. Take, for instance, printing; years ago, no country hardly published any books, because it necessitated too much labour and, therefore, was too costly. To-day, there are millions of men employed in the printing of newspapers and reviews of all kinds. And if one studies the subject more closely, he will find that these mechanical devices invented to further develop printing have been the means of exploiting our timber limits as well as our pulp and paper industries, thus benefiting not only these large factories but all labouring classes of Canada. I wished to briefly point out these facts, although I am not prepared to discuss this resolution on its merits.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: Before this motion is put to the house I should like to make a few extemporaneous remarks with regard to the proposal. I notice that the object of the resolution is to lessen the hours of labour and to increase the purchasing power of the masses of the Canadian people, and I am sure that every man in this house is sympathetic with that object.
I believe we have come in our history to a time when we must recognize that the era of the machine, as spoken of by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) has given us in Canada and in the other industrial nations of the world a capacity to produce which means that our people are coming under the domination of the machine. In the first instance it was hoped that the machine would be the servant of man; he has now almost become its slave. I am not speaking in a way that is remarkable for one speaking from this side of the house. The other afternoon I heard a speech delivered by the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the Senate, and referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis). He spoke about the concentration of power in a turbine, for instance, which is capable of performing the work of 9,000,000 men. He spoke also of the development of power in the Muscle Shoals project now under construction by the United States government, whereby power equal to the physical energy of 18,000,000 men will be produced. He also stated that the world has now on its hands a problem of
30,000,000 unemployed and the time is coming, nay, more, it is at hand when we cannot very much longer say to those people who are
out of work and who, in the words of the right hon. gentleman, are suffering degeneracy of character, that it will be sufficient if we give them the mere necessities of life. We have reached in our civilization a stage when the burning of coffee, the destruction of cotton, the cessation of the wheels of industry must be looked upon as mere palliatives. There must be more heroism in our plans and more radiical leadership. It is very hard, even in following the hon. gentlemen who have supported this resolution, to ascertain just how they are going to work out the proposals which they have made. It is very easy for any man in this house or in any other public assembly to speak for the mass of mankind, to be moved by heroic and humane impulses. It is another thing, however, to have humanity accept one's gospel or doctrine, and to work one's scheme according to the law and the conventions of the constitution under which man must work and really achieve practical results. I believe it was the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) who spoke about the difficulties inherent in the constitution. Have we not reached the time when those difficulties will have to be overcome? After all, the constitution of Canada is only a law; it is only man-made and it can be changed. If the constitution stands in the way of orderly progress, the sooner that constitution is amended in a radical and progressive manner, the better.
But I should like to draw the attention of the house to something of a remarkable nature which has recently happened in the United States. Many constitutional lawyers wondered whether the program of President Roosevelt would be possible of realization under the strict constitution which they have in that country. It is common knowledge, no doubt, to every hon. member that in the United States constitution there is a clause which says that a contract is inviolable; that is, the inviolability of contract is protected by the supreme law of the United States. Yet just the other day in a judgment handed down by Chief Justice Hughes, who is one of the most outstanding jurists in that country, and who was, I believe, a presidential candidate on the Republican ticket, he makes in effect the following statement in regard to interference with contracts: "In this national crisis, contracts must in some way be interfered with in order to make it possible for contracts to be performed at all." That is the effect of his judgment.
There are many actions that could be taken. For instance, the other day, speaking without much preparation I stated that we are face to
254	COMMONS
Unemployment Relief-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
face with the problem of a minimum wage law in Canada. This was brought to my attention in a rather striking way just before I came to Ottawa. Invitations for tenders to supply overalls were advertised by the government. Submissions were made in accordance with that tender by clothing firms in Manitoba and Quebec, but it was impossible for the clothing firm in Manitoba to tender anything like as low a price as their competitors in Quebec, the reason being that there was no minimum wage law in that province.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is.


James Herbert Stitt: My hon. friend tells me I am wrong. Perhaps the minimum was so low, it was not effective, or perhaps it was not enforced; that might be the situation. At any rate, it was impossible for this industry in Winnipeg employing many operators, scientifically organized and not paying high wages, to supply in competition with Quebec firms any kind of reasonable product as required by the government.
I should like to make an observation which occurs to me, stimulated by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard in speaking about the limitations of the constitution. In this parliament we have extraordinary powers under the peace, order and good government clause of the constitution, and in Canada we have reached a crisis where, even if there is an increase in employment, there is not any appreciable decrease in the number of people who are going on relief. Might it not be said that the very fabric of the nation could be preserved only by having resort to that extraordinary power and that in this crisis we have more than ordinary powers to legislate concerning hours of labour, minimum wages and labour conditions than we would have ordinarily? I think an argument could be based on the peace, order and good government clause in the constitution to enable parliament now to go further than it could in 1929 or 1930.
There are some observations that I would like to make on the proposals put forward by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). He made the statement, I believe, that this government was wedded to a system.
I do not believe that this government is wedded to a system any more than are the hon. gentlemen in that corner of the house. But we are faced with a situation which exists.
I believe that the sweeping proposals enunciated in the speech from the throne, for instance that for the establishment of a central bank, are an actual facing of a situation which has been talked about for years [J. H. Stitt.]
and years, and are the best evidence that something is going to be done. The recent inquiry, moved by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), in regard to our internal trade, hours of labour and spread of prices between producer and consumer, is a most radical step. I feel that I can stand in this house to-day as a man who is supported by labour and by the farmers and fishermen of my riding, and say that I support a government that is more practical and more radical and that has more power and capacity to cope with the situation than any government that ever ruled in this country or any other body of men at the present time. When I made the statement last year that I was a Radical and at the same time a Conservative I meant what I said. And I believe there is evidence to prove that. I do not think that hon. gentlemen in the corner can expect very quickly to obtain a divorce from the present system. They will not get an interim judgment of judicial separation, or a divorce within three months to be made absolute within six months. I do not think they are accomplishing much by making the statement that this government is wedded to a system. Systems are not changed overnight. Systems were not created a priori; this system has grown. Liberals have contributed to this system, Liberals so-called have protected it, Socialists have declaimed against it, Conservatives have modified it, and Conservatives may change it. I have certain proposals to lay before this house with regard to increasing employment in this country, the reduction of interest rates, and embracing the marvellous opportunity which the government has to-day.


Mr. VALLANCE:: You had better come over to this side.


James Herbert Stitt: No, if I went over to that side I would only be a voice, I would have practically no power and no influence. If I wanted to play politics and perhaps be returned for the constituency of Selkirk I might go over there-	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Stitt: -mobilizing the forces of hatred and discontent but not accomplishing anything for the people of my riding or of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: You do not like that as well.


James Herbert Stitt: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that one of the great problems that we have to grapple with sincerely, honestly

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
and with courage is the problem of interest rates. Last year we discovered that the Canadian people in their corporate, governmental and private capacities were having to pay $421,000,000 of interest annually, and we had not a complete statement. It is conservatively estimated that our interest bill is $500,000,000 per annum. Now after all interest is only the wages of money.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has that to do with this resolution?


James Herbert Stitt: I will tell you what it has to do with it. If we cut down interest rates in a proper way we are going to put money into the pockets of spenders and take it out of the chests of hoarders.


An hon. MEMBER:: You might and you might not.


James Herbert Stitt: When you stand up there and ask me what that has got to do with it-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member will address his remarks to the chair.


James Herbert Stitt: I hope, sir, I was addressing my remarks to the chair. I do not want to transgress the rules of the house. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that if the hon. gentleman who interrupted has the notion that such an idea has nothing to do with this problem, he has a very poor comprehension of the ramifications of the problem which he is trying to solve. I believe it was the hon. member for Vancouver who spoke about the degeneracy of the unemployed. Now there is no doubt that something ought to be done to assist the people who are unemployed to retain their character and their capacity.
Mr. MUNN-: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege; the hon. member referred to the member for Vancouver. Which one? That covers a big field.


James Herbert Stitt: I referred to Mr. Maclnnis, the member for Vancouver South.
I believe that by mobilizing the educational forces in the country from the ranks of labour as well as from our universities, a lot could be done to make the plight of the unemployed more endurable. Of course when we look at this problem as we do this afternoon we recognize the tremendous difficulties with which we are faced. After all we are the fifth exporting nation in the world; if we are going to compete with other countries under a competitive system-and that is the system we have-we must bear in mind what the
forces of competition arrayed against us are.
I think the hon. gentleman who proposed this motion ought to recognize this; in fact by implication he recognized it I believe in his speech this afternoon. There is not going to be established heaven upon earth or the New Jerusalem erected in this country just by pious resolutions or by stating the plight of the unemployed and the poor in Canada. And when he talks about the health of the unemployed in Canada he ought to take note of the report by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company which states that the health of the Canadian people was never better than it is to-day.


Mr. BOUCHER:: They have plenty of rest.


James Herbert Stitt: I spoke last year in this house about the plight of the unemployed. I am worried about them, I want their condition improved. We want all the light we can get from any individual and from any corner of this house, but we can certainly do without a lot of the heat that has been engendered without light. When the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) talks about the promises and the nonperformance of the Prime Minister I would just refer him to the remarks of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) the other day, who paid perhaps one of the finest tributes to the leader of this government that has ever been paid to any leader in this house, a tribute that was well-deserved. After all it is a remarkable system that we have when you look at it from this standpoint; a system that has created so much wealth, that has produced so much science, that has harnessed the energy of the world to the extent that a million and a half people in this country could be without means and yet be provided with the necessities of life and have their health guarded as has been done in these very trying times.
I do not know whether, in the summation of his argument, the hon. gentleman who introduced this notion, or this motion-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Herbert Stitt: -can tell us how to carry out his proposal. Many motions are merely notions, Mr. Speaker; many hopes are not possible of realization, and there are many pious utterances. I do not think this resolution comes within any of those classes, however, because there is much that can be done. If we are to tackle these problems I do not think it is going to help to criticize the Prime Minister and his government for non-performance; in fact the official

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Barrette
leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has .publicly stated that the Prime Minister cannot be held responsible for the situation that exists. We are living in Canada in the year 1934. There has been an economic revolution throughout the world. The Bank of England has gone off the gold standard. Russia has been trying to work out her unusual experiment. The United States of America is moving in wondrous ways, and we do not know yet whether this experiment will accomplish very much good, though we trust that ft will. We are their neighbours, and with the very best of neighbourly spirit we say Godspeed to the NjR.A. and to the hopes of President Roosevelt and his advisers.
I want to thank the hon. gentleman who introduced this motion for the quiet way in which he did so and for the pleasant manner in which he advanced his arguments. I hope this house can accomplish something. I hope before long the day will come when the unemployed will not be walking our streets, when men will have more leisure to devote to the higher things of life, when we will not be grappling with a mere crass materialism which in time will destroy not only our bodies but our souls. 1 hope that this resolution may be something more than a notion. Possibly the government might establish a committee to go into the question and bring before this house some concrete measures by which we may hope to realize these aspirations.


Mr. J. A. BARRETTE (Berthier-Maski-nonge) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the reason I rise to speak, is because my hon. friend the member for l'lslet (Mr. Fafard) has just made some wise comments with reference to the resolution before the house. I admire the courage of my hon. friend and, like him,
I find it absurd to claim for the workmen a six hour day's work when the farmers toil twelve to fifteen hours daily. What the workman wants is not so much reduced hours as work itself. For instance, the dock workers at Sore], who only work seven hours per day during four days a week, greatly insist on an eight-hour day during five days a week. If their request was granted, it would greatly benefit their families.
I consider that charity is not sought by the workman because it tends to humiliate and demoralize him.
In my opinion, the resolution should be withdrawn, and I openly state that I shall vote against it, should a division be asked. [Mr. J. H. Stitt.)
I regret that the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) is not in the house, as I would have taken this opportunity to request him to grant longer hours of work to the dock workers at Sorel, who, I feel certain, would rejoice in having more work.
I had no intention to take part in this debate, however, I seize this opportunity to state that the best way of helping the working classes is to give them work.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, the object sought by the
mover of this resolution is very laudable, and his reasoning to the house in support of his motion was most praiseworthy. By this resolution the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) simply desires to bring directly before the government what is alleged therein, namely that the government give immediate consideration to the problems there set out. The government can have no objection whatever to this motion passing, and at this moment I do not intend to deal at any great length with the subject. I wish to say definitely that for a long time this subject has engaged the best consideration that the government has been able to bestow upon it.
I am sorry that on the present occasion the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), through indisposition, is not able to be present in the house and to take part in this debate, because of all the members of the government he is perhaps most familiar with the subject dealt with by this resolution.
The scope of discussion this afternoon has been somewhat broad. We have heard discussed such subjects as the machine age and interests rates, and a good deal of the discussion has had to do with what one might term the constitutional problems which confront the federal and the various provincial governments. In regard to the last point I can assure the house that it presents some very serious problems. The first object sought by the resolution is a reduction of the hours of labour, but when one discusses that question one is immediately confronted with what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury) so well pointed out, namely that the provinces of this dominion cling very tenaciously to their provincial rights in regard to all questions pertaining to hours of labour, regulation of labour, wages and the like. While it is easy to suggest that a conference with the provinces should be called by the

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Guthrie
dominion, and that a broad discussion should take place with regard to certain constitutional amendments, it is a very difficult thing when these conferences do take place to secure that unanimity of opinion which in my humble judgment is necessary between the various provinces of Canada before any radical or serious amendment can be made to the Canadian constitution as laid down by the British North America Act. My experience, and I have had some in regard to interprovincial conferences has been that the dominion and the provinces have never yet been able to agree unanimously on a single important proposal laid before a conference for agreement. The nearest approach to agreement so far reached was at the recent conference held in the city of Ottawa. On that occasion the proposal did not relate to labour problems particularly. The proposal upon which we appeared likely to reach some agreement or some uniformity of opinion was in regard to the organization and incorporation of companies, the issue of prospectuses, the sale of companies' stocks, and the like. After many months of intensive labour a draft bill was prepared and submitted to the representatives of the nine provinces of Canada to ascertain if we could unite upon a uniform law in respect to such matters, a law which would prevail throughout the whole length and breadth of Canada. We do not yet know whether agreement will eventually be reached. The provincial representatives have taken the bill home with them, where they will consult their respective governments, and I believe a subsequent conference will be held about a month hence, the hope being that some agreement will be reached for a uniform law. However that is the first instance in my experience where an agreement sums likely to be reached in regard to constitutional difficulties or constitutional amendments.
I realize as fully as do other hon. members in the house that there are anomalies in the present constitution of the dominion. The difficulty is to apply suitable remedies by agreed amendments. I hope the time is not far distant when we may be able to arrange terms with the provinces in respect of some of the more pressing matters, one of which is assuredly the question of hours of labour throughout Canada which has been discussed this afternoon in respect of the present motion.
We in Canada enjoy many advantages under what we understand as a federal system of government. The United States, in like man-74726- 17
ner, has a federal system of government. There are many advantages under such a system, and the people of Canada enjoy those advantages, but there are also limitations. I refer particularly to the limitations under such a system imposed upon the federal government in respect of legislative authority. We became a party to the treaty of Versailles and to the labour clauses involved therein. In that treaty we agreed, as far as a federal government could agree, to certain clauses in regard to labour and hours of labour, but we insisted upon fhe inclusion of a special reservation applicable to the federal system pertaining in Canada-and to any other country which enjoys a federal system-whereby we might consult the various provinces and, if possible, persuade the provinces to legislate in regard to the treaty obligations which the federal government had undertaken. So far we have not succeeded in doing so. The question of hours of labour was discussed in one conference which I attended, not this year but previously, but no agreement was reached. All we have obtained so far is the promise from the various provinces that they will give serious consideration to the proposal. We have not yet reached an agreement. I realize that apart from the subject of education there is no question to which the provinces hold so tenaciously to their strict rights as they do in connection with questions involving property and civil rights, under which subject come all questions of contract, of wages and of hours of labour. Immediately you lay hands on the rights of the provinces in respect of these matters, difficulty arises.
I do not despair that at some time, perhaps in the near future, some satisfactory solution may be found between the provinces and the dominion in regard to hours of labour. I agree at once that in so far as federal employment or any employment at the instance of this government is concerned we can and do control hours of labour at the present time. In dominion contracts for public works and the like we have power to control the amount of wages paid to workmen, and if we so desire we can also control hours of labour. However, this applies only to what we may call dominion or federal works or contracts which comprise only a small percentage of the total work performed in Canada through private agencies. I doubt therefore if at the present time this parliament can legally do very much in the direction sought by the resolution before us.
It is true, as suggested by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) that we might find a



Unemployment Relief-Mr. Guthrie
loop-hole in the general provision contained in the British North America Act which states that the federal parliament may pass legislation for peace, order and good government in Canada. We have already incorporated this provision in the federal statutes under the relief legislation of last session. However I doubt very much if at the present juncture we would be justified in treating the present situation as a calamity of such magnitude that the peace, order and good government of the country was actually threatened. There is an outstanding judgment of the judicial committee of the privy council in England which decides that grave emergencies may possibly arise when parliament would be entitled to take advantage of this particular clause in our constitution, notwithstanding all or any limitations which are otherwise imposed upon federal authority. But the instances cited in the judgment of possible emergencies are rebellion, invasion, plague, epidemics and the like. I doubt if any condition has so far arisen in Canada, serious as it has been in recent years which would justify this parliament in interfering with provincial rights by legislating in respect of the hours of labour in Canada under the peace, order and good government clause of the British North America Act.
The discussion this afternoon has been profitable and, in some respects, enlightening. Ail that is asked is that the government should give its serious and immediate consideration to two matters, the first being that of the reduction in the hours of labour and the second the increase of the purchasing power of the masses of the people in order that they may absorb all goods produced. I think I may state that these two matters are within the scope of the motion passed on Friday last by this house and that discussions in committee upon that reference will to a very large extent cover -the two matters now before us. A committee will be appointed within a day or two to consider the reference contained in the motion of Friday last. By the terms of that reference the committee is empowered to inquire particularly in regard to the "labour conditions prevailing in industries supplying the requirements of such department and chain store organizations and the extent, if any, to which existing conditions have been brought about by the purchasing practices of such organizations, and the effect thereof upon the standard of living amongst those employed in such industries and organizations." I fancy that under that this clause of the reference there will be a very full opportunity afforded the committee to cover 
all the ground which would be covered by an investigation under the motion now before the house.
Meantime I can assure the hon. member for North Winnipeg that the government will give serious and immediate consideration to his proposal as set out in the present motion. At the same time I can assure him again that for many months the government have been giving consideration to this problem, and if we have not found a complete solution to it it is not because we have not endeavoured to do so. The government will accept this motion.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, now that we have had
a few hours of debate in which there has been a great deal of mutual admiration expressed, and now that the government has accepted the resolution concerning the question of hours of labour I am wondering if we ought not to get down to talk about taking the necessary steps to put into effect the suggestion contained in the resolution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has said, "We will continue to give serious consideration to the matter." I should have been surprised had the government raised any objection to this pious resolution. I hope it was not drafted having in mind the thought that the government might accept it, because had the government refused to accept it it would have been committing political suicide, so far as any support from industrial workers is concerned. The resolution asks only for "immediate consideration." As the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) well styled it, it is only a pious resolution. But I am going to support it anyhow, although I would rather have supported a resolution urging a definite step forward, calling for something tangible, for some action in the matter.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) says: We have been giving consideration to this for a long time, and we assure the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that we shall continue to give it further consideration.


An hon. MEMBER:: For a long time.


Peter Heenan: It will not be for a long
time because they will not be in office for a long time.
The question of provincial rights has again arisen. There was one time in my life when I might have talked about provincial rights as the Minister of Justice has talked, had it not been for the fact that prior to 1930 we had leading the opposition in this house a man who was supposed to be the greatest

Unemployment Relicj-Mr. Heenan
constitutional lawyer in Canada, and it was he who showed us the way to go home-shall I say?-he and the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). He told us that there was no necessity of waiting for the provinces to do anything in this regard. We have the power, he said; we have the right, and let this parliament act. At that time the opposition wanted the government of that day to pass a measure bringing the eight hour day into effect in the steel industry in the province of Nova Scotia. Let me first read what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said, as reported at page 2371 of Hansard of May 21, 1930. Referring to the hours of labour and wages in the steel industry the minister said:
I was referring to the three (ministers) sitting in the front row'. Not a minister has offered an explanation, not a minister has offered any sympathy or shown any interest in this matter. I am not sufficiently an expert to say that items 377a, 377b and 377c cover the ambit of this particular industry, but I imagine that they would. In connection with these items we have an opportunity of saying to this industry:	"Yes, the parliament of
Canada is prepared to give you protection sufficient to enable you profitably to produce these articles"-the minister could do that just as easily as sitting there lolling in his seat-
He was referring to the Minister of Finance at the time. I just wanted to make it clear that he was not referring to myself. The minister went on:
-"but before such tariff will apply you will satisfy the governor in council that the conditions of labour, the hours of labour and the wages paid are such as will afford a decent living." That is what the government could do; that is what parliament could do, and I say right now that that is -what parliament should do before it goes a step further.
And the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he was in opposition, wanted us to do that before we passed a single, solitary item. Had he left it at that, and had the present Prime Minister not put his own interpretation upon what parliament might do, we might have let it go, but the present Prime Minister, speaking to the question of hours of labour in the steel industry, finished off his great oration and his argument by saying:
We have the opportunity and the jurisdiction; let us leave out all this talk about the province and assert that power affirmatively, and let it be understood in this country that when we agree to principles in treaties, in compacts and conventions, we mean what we say, and that our expressions are not mere sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.
And now, after three and a half years, we have the Minister of Justice rising in his place and telling us that the provinces have a say in this matter, and that the government can-74726- 17 h
not get the provinces to agree. He does not even tell us which province will not agree. Is it not time that the people of Canada should know what province is holding back progress? Why should not the name of that province be made public if it is blocking the progress to which this government has been giving so much consideration, but only consideration, for the last three and a half years? I think I can say without boasting, because the records speak for themselves, that the government of which I was a member did make some progress, although I will say that it did not progress fast enough. But still it did make some progress towards the end we had in view. We realized that there were constitutional obstacles. Up until 1930 when the present Prime Minister, the great constitutional lawyer of this country, showed me the way, I never had any doubt that the provinces had sole jurisdiction in this matter, but when the present Prime Minister, then leading the opposition, showed the way, the then Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said: Then we will apply it not merely to one particular industry, but to them all. And immediately a coolness came over the then opposition, and you will find in the records that there was a half apology that the matter had been brought up. It was stated that we should give the particular industry under discussion ample and reasonable time to bring their hours of labour into conformity with the treaty of Versailles.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal government did take some steps forward in this direction. You will find that under our jurisdiction as we understood it at the time the Liberal government on March 27, 1930, passed order in council P.C. 670, providing for an eight hour day for dominion government employees. The last, three paragraphs of that order in council are worth reading. What precedes is in the nature of a preamble. I quote from the order in council:
8.	Thait request has been made to the government for the granting of the eight hour day to its own employees.
9.	That it is desirable that the principle of the eight hour day should be applied to any branches of the public service of Canada in which it is not now observed.
And the order in council sums up by saying:
The minister accordingly recommends that, except in cases where the work of employees is intermittent in character, or the application of this rule is not deemed to be practicable or in the public interest, the hours of work of any employees of the Dominion government

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heenan
who are still required to work more than eight hours daily be reduced to eight hours daily, with a half-holiday on Saturday.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
(Sgd.) E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
In that same year we passed an act known as 20-21 George V, an act respecting fair wages and an eight hour day for labour employed on public works of the Dominion of Canada. That act cut down the maximum hours of work on all public works to eight hours per day, whether it was public works undertaken by the government or by a contractor. Let me point out that the present government in its regulations pertaining to relief works did, in the first order in council it put through, provide this same principle, but in later years they reversed it, and in their agreements now with the provinces provision is made, not for a minimum wage, but a maximum wage-that they ought not to pay more than the government of Canada pays; and this is the first country in the whole civilized world in which a maximum rate of wages has been adopted instead of a minimum. That is so far as this government is concerned.
Now, with respect to whatever regulations it may put into effect, is this government going to see to it that other bodies to whom it is contributing moneys out of the public treasury will observe an eight hour day and fair rates of wages? I have in mind the slave camps where men by the thousands have been working in this country for the state, under the most disgraceful conditions that can be found in any country, including Russia. I have here five or six cheques which these men have received after a month's work. Hon. gentlemen need not rush over here; the cheques are not worth stealing. One is for seventy cents for a month's work; another twenty-nine cents; the next twenty-six cents; one for nine cents and last of all, one for one cent.


Eccles James Gott: Have they all got stamps on them?


Peter Heenan: Yes. The stamp of the Ontario Tory government is on the face of every one. One cent! I want to tell you that at the next provincial election I am going to have photostat copies of these cheques made so that they can be shown to every citizen. I will show them not only what the provincial government of Ontario has being doing to the workers of this country, but the sort of thing to which this government has been contributing.


Eccles James Gott: And then you won't elect twelve men in the province.


Peter Heenan: There are some men in the dominion not worth one cent; that is one of them. The only good thing I see about this one cent cheque is that it shows that the Ontario government still believes in the holy bible, because it was made out to a man named Caesar. They were evidently reading the passage in which we are told to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. The Ontario government has actually paid one cent to a working man in this province, contributed to under the authority of the Minister of Labour of this dominion, who has jurisdiction to make them pay reasonable wages.
Now, I said that this was a very pious resolution inasmuch as it asks only for consideration. May I point to a resolution which was moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) in 1931, to be found at page 214 of The Journals of the House of that year. The date is Tuesday, May 19, 1931, and the record reads:
Mr. Heenan, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre), moved,-
Whereas, the Dominion of Canada is a signatory to the Articles of Peace of the Treaties of Versailles, thereby subscribing to the principle of a maximum working day of eight hours.
Therefore be it resolved that this house is of the opinion that the government of Canada should take appropriate steps to ensure, throughout Canada, the fulfilment of our treaty obligations and conventions arising out of the peace treaty, relating to hours of work.
It will be noted that the difference between the resolution now before the house and the resolution I have just quoted is that we asked that proper steps be taken to ensure action, whereas this resolution asks for immediate consideration. As the Journal shows, the resQlution to which I have referred, which was moved in 1931, was talked out.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the date?


Peter Heenan: May 19, 1931.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was wondering why it was not on the order paper two years before.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member ought
to know. He was in the house; why did he not put it on? When some member in some other part of the house rises to help those hon. gentlemen out of the dilemma they get into, they want to suggest something such as they did on previous occasions. They are content merely to ask for serious consideration. When we moved that resolution qsk-

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heenan
ing that immediate steps be taken to meet the unemployment situation, my hon. friend walked out of the house with the rest of the Progressives and refused to vote. I have got to the point where I have quit pussyfooting with the question.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Thanks for the admission.'


Peter Heenan: When this resolution was
before the house the Minister of Justice got up and complimented your humble servant upon having brought it forward and upon the way in which I had put the matter before the house.


Hugh Guthrie: You were only pussyfooting then.


Peter Heenan: The hon. member for
Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) professed to be sympathetic, and yet he got up and talked the resolution out. I drew his attention to the fact that it was one minute to eleven and that if he talked another minute he would simply kill the very thing he was professing to support; yet he talked it out and killed it.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, at the hour
of recess I had already stated the progress that had been made with respect to reduction of hours of labour in this country and I had put on record the fact that in 1930 the government of which I had the honour to be a member had passed the order in council providing for the eight hour day for all those employees in the government service who had been working more than eight hours a day and that we had had passed in the house and made law what is known as the Fair Wage and Eight Hour Day Act. At that time the government changed and when the Conservatives came into power that was the end of any consideration of the principle of the reduction of hours in industry in this country.
In order that the progress made might be continued, notwithstanding the fact that the resolution moved in 1931 was talked out, the government accepted the principle of it, but I regret to say that they failed to carry out anything promised on the floor of this chamber by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who was then leading the house. At the next session I had the honour again to introduce a similar resolution and in the
discussion that took place the Minister of Justice, speaking for the government, said that inasmuch as the resolution had not carried in 1931, no steps had been taken. In other words, the government said that they were in sympathy with the principle, yet one of their supporters talked the resolution out on a certain day in 1931, thereby defeating it; the government failed to carry out the principle of that resolution which they had accepted a few minutes previously. On February 17, 1932, I moved a similar resolution as follows:
Moved by Mr. Heenan, seconded by Mr. Beaubien:
Whereas, the Dominion of Canada is a signatory to the articles of peace of the treaties of Versailles, thereby subscribing to the principle of a maximum working day of eight hours. Therefore be it resolved that this house is of opinion that the government of Canada should take appropriate steps to ensure throughout Canada, the fulfilment of our treaty obligations and conventions arising out of the peace treaty relating to hours of work.
This resolution that I introduced in 1932 was agreed to by the House of Commons, but notwithstanding that, the present government has taken no notice whatever of it and has done nothing in connection with it. Since that time there have been many dominion-provincial conferences, and, so far as I know, not one word has been said in one of those conferences with respect to reduction of hours in the industries of this country. Therefore, when a definite resolution of this kind is carried, asking that the government take appropriate steps and they agree to it, what does the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) expect when he puts on the order paper a resolution asking the government only to consider the matter? This sort of thing is fast becoming a joke and, as I said before, it is time somebody called a spade a spade and made the government quit this pussyfooting. Either we are going to have the eight hour or the six hour day with a government in power that is in sympathy with the matter, or we are not; and I would give the hon. member for North Winnipeg credit for having more sense than to place on the order paper a resolution merely calling for consideration by a Tory government, because I know the hon. gentleman has his heart in the labour movement and I know the men who follow him have confidence in him. I have confidence in him myself, but I have no confidence in the resolution that he has moved.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member will not vote against it?

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heenan


Peter Heenan: Consideration is the only thing you will ever get from the Tory government. I am willing to vote for the resolution because that is all I ever expect from them.
In 1931 or 1932, I forget which, I moved a resolution seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) to the effect that inasmuch as the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett), when he was in opposition, went through the country fiom coast to coast, promising definitely that he would end unemployment or that he would perish in the attempt. That it was the opinion of the house that the government of Canada should bring down immediately measures to deal adequately with the unemployment situation. That was a liberal amendment and every Tory who was present in the chamber voted against it. I regret to say that my hon. friends of the Progressive group or the C.C.F. group or whatever they call themselves, walked out of the house and would not vote on it-


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will tell the hon. member why.


Peter Heenan: -because they said it was playing politics. To ask the government of this country to bring in measures to deal with unemployment-is that playing politics? My hon. friends should have voted for the resolution because it was a reprimand to men who went through the country as these men did in 1930 making promises they knew very well they never intended to carry out. It is the duty of every man who believes in democracy to vote lack of confidence in a government of that character.
This is not the first time I have brought up this subject. In 1924 I had the honour of having a resolution carried on the floor of the Ontario legislature, calling for a reduction, in hours in all industrial concerns. Realizing at that time that the question of wages and hours of labour came under the jurisdiction of the provinces, I moved that resolution, and the then premier, Hon. Mr. Ferguson, moved an amendment to it which in effect stated that until all the provinces and all nations of the world adopt a similar measure its adoption here would handicap the industries of Ontario. That amendment was carried and of course destroyed the whole purport of the resolution. As I said before recess, we are continually passing the buck from the dominion to the provinces, and then the provinces say they cannot do anything until all the nations of the world adopt the same thing. Yet we have a government in power to-day that disregards conditions all over the world; hon. gentlemen 
who in 1930 said: No matter what the conditions are in other nations, we in Canada have sufficient resources to see that every man and woman in the dominion is working, and if you elect us to office we are going to see that that happens or perish in the attempt. But now jve have the spectacle of that government saying it cannot do anything because the provinces have jurisdiction. The present Prime Minister when he was sitting in the seat of leader of the opposition contended that we have jurisdiction; that any industry that gets the benefits of our tariff measures we should make conform to the hours of labour and wages that would give Canadians a proper standard of living. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), when he was sitting on this side of the house, jumped up and told the ministers of the day that they were lolling in their seats and would not take part in the discussion, and he said that before parliament went a step further we should see that these industries that are working their employees more than eight hours a day should put the eight hour day into effect. I say that the ministers, those who are now present, are themselves lolling in their seats after putting into effect policies diametrically the opposite of what the hon. member's resolution asks for. The resolution asks that more workers of this country be incorporated into industry; but the policies of this government are taking men out of industry and putting them into slave camps to work for the state. Men are working-I hope the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) is within the sound of my voice-at Lac Seul for five dollars a month and board-no; it is not five dollars a month, it is twenty cents a day; for if they lose a day they are docked for it. The Ontario government is bad enough at ten dollars a month, but this government goes one better when it puts men in camps to work for twenty cents a day and board. They have three gangs up there, one working, another quitting and going out, and another coming in. Then when those poor fellows come out and get to steel they have to violate the law in order to get home; they have to steal rides on the trains at the risk of their lives. I know what I am talking about, because I have been on a railroad engine during the last six months, and in temperatures of twenty-five, thirty and down to fifty degrees below zero you can see from ten to fifteen of these young men riding on the brake riggings, between the cars, on the tender. Are they doing that because they don't like work. That is the greatest hardship any man could endure.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heaps
. Mr. GOTT:	The hon. member has two
good jobs, white there are thousands of Canadians out of employment.


Peter Heenan: I want to talk to men
who understand labour conditions, not to a man who never laboured in his life. This is one gentleman who promised to end unemployment and give higher wages or perish in the attempt; now he is telling them they do not want to work.
I said when I started that I was going to vote for this motion. I hate to do it, because it is a pious resolution that means nothing. If the hon. member would only put it that they should immediately take the necessary steps to do something I would vote for it gladly, though even at that I realize that the government would not do anything. However, I am going to vote for this pious resolution which says: Please give the matter further consideration.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Perhaps I may be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to say a word or two in closing the discussion?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member in
speaking will close the debate, so that if any other member wishes to speak he should do so now. ,


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am impelled to rise after
the remarks of the last speaker; I would not have done so had it not been for the fact that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) made certain statements which are entirely unwarranted and wide of the mark. He is using his seat in the House of Commons at this moment not to further the cause of the men who are out of work but to further the cause of the party of which he happens to be a member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter Heenan: Applause from the government benches!


Abraham Albert Heaps: In my talk this afternoon I
tried to keep entirely to the motion; I did not deviate from what, in my opinion, ought to be the mode of discussion in introducing a question of this kind. Since I have been in this house I have always refused to allow the unemployment situation in Canada to become a political football, and I do so to-night. I take objection to the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. He kept entirely away from the motion, and merely criticized the government for its action or inaction since it. has been in office. In that respect I have criticized the government just as much as the hon. member, but I believe the time has come when we might for a
moment forget our partyism, cease to put our party before our principles, and discuss the question of unemployment on its merits and nothing else. It was for that reason that in 1932, when the hon. member who has just spoken brought in a resolution, a pious resolution with a bunch of whereases covering much space in Hansard, we in this corner refused to be a party to it and for that reason walked out of the house and refused to vote. Was it because we had no interest in unemployment? Certainly not; for when the hon. member was Minister of Labour we introduced motions similar to this, and on those occasions did not have his support.


Peter Heenan: Y'ou got action.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I remember very well that
when the hon. member was Minister of Labour in 1930, I introduced a motion dealing with unemployment, and the then Minister of Labour could not see any unemployment in the Dominion of Canada. But in 1930 he put on new spectacles and he has done nothing but see unemployment ever since. I do not want to say anything against the hon. gentleman, but I do say that hon. members of this house should not make a political football out of such a grave and emergent situation. There are to-day half a million or more unemployed in the Dominion of Canada; yet has any word fallen from the lips of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River that could give them any ray of hope? All he has said is that we walked out in 1932, and that the government of the day will accept this resolution because it is nothing but a pious declaration,
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that some hon. members sitting to my immediate right have the idea that there is some form of collusion between those of us in this corner of the house and the government, because of this resolution. That came to my attention during the dinner recess. Let me assure the hon. member who has just spoken or any other hon. member who thinks as he does, that I never even spoke to any hon. gentleman on the government side of the house with reference to the resolution that is now before the house. I have not spoken to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) since the house has been in session, and further than that let me say that the motion standing in my name was placed on the order paper for this session at the end of June, 1933. If the hon. gentleman will look up the records of the house and observe the date it was filed he will find that I am stating the fact correctly. Yet, forsooth, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River comes along and hints that the government

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Heaps
accepted the resolution because it just happens to be a pious wish.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the motion was not introduced to-day because it is a pious hope; far from it. It was introduced in this house because I and one or two of my colleagues in this corner thought it was the only kind of resolution we could draft that would cover the situation and meet the rules of procedure of this house and the conditions we have to meet under the British North America Act. We cannot instruct the government to do anything contrary to that act, but we can ask them to take something into consideration and to devise ways and means of overcoming the difficulties inherent in that act. That is why we asked the government to take this matter into consideration, and I am glad they have accepted the resolution. I appreciate the fact that they have accepted it; I think perhaps that is why the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River is so much disappointed. I was a little surprised myself when the government accepted the motion, though in the last few days they have shown rather forward tendencies. Last Friday they introduced a motion which represented a very radical departure from their past policies and declarations, and to-day they have gone a step further. I do not care how much further they go, and I do not care from what corner of the house these forward declarations come.
Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that when the government accepted this motion to-day they accepted three cardinal points to which they would not have agreed had they been opposed to the motion. They have accepted the principle that in the industrial life of Canada it is desirable that those engaged in industry should work shorter hours than they are working at the present time, in order that industry may be able to absorb those men and women who to-day are out of employment. Is that not a laudable and proper objective for parliament to aim at? In the second place we ask the house to accept this resolution with the idea that the masses of the people of this country should have an increased purchasing power. Could anyone object when the government accepted that principle and said they were considering the matter and had been considering it for some years past? Then in the third place we asked for a more equal distribution of the wealth produced. Is there anything wrong with that? It is true that this is only a resolution, but I think it essential that we get a declaration of principles adopted by the house, that is what I think we have done this evening. We have induced the government to accept a declaration of principles which I hope, before parlia-
IMr. Heaps.l
ment prorogues and the government appeals to the country, will bring about some effective action by this government and this parliament to bring into being the very principles that have been enunciated in this resolution.
Some hon. gentlemen have asked how we are going to bring about these changes in our economic life. Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is the will to do a thing the way will be found. Just as in the United States they are reducing hours and putting codes into effect, so will we in Canada be able to bring about these changes when the time comes, if there is the will to do so. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I appreciate the attitude taken by the government in accepting this resolution, which I sincerl.v hope is only the forerunner of definite action on the part of the government at the very first opportunity.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Wffiereas, Canada still faces a serious economic situation, and
Whereas, the existing economic system is failing to function in the interests of the masses of the people, even denying to large numbers access to the means of livelihood;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the present system should be superseded by one based on the principle of cooperative production and distribution in which human needs should be the first consideration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, two years ago, when I introduced a resolution on the cooperative commonwealth, the proposal may have seemed very academic. Last year I was able to announce the formation of a cooperative commonwealth federation and this year I am glad to be able to present a carefully considered program. This program, adopted at Regina last August, re-states and develops the point of view and the measures advanced for years in this house by the labour group and the United Farmers of Alberta group.
Frequently it has been said that labour men and farmers cannot work together. I know there are some superficial differences, but in the face of the great difficulties which exist at the present time many of these differences fade into insignificance. As a matter of fact in this house these two groups have found it possible to cooperate to an increasing degree year by year. Perhaps before going on to the program I might make a statement that will

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Woodsworth
help clarify the situation in the minds of some of my fellow members. Our group is not strictly a party; it is rather a federation of provincial organizations. At present we have affiliated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Alberta the Canadian Labour party-Alberta	section-and	the United
Farmers of Alberta; in British Columbia the Associated C.C.F. clubs (B.C.) and the Socialist party of Canada, (B.C.); in Manitoba the Independent Labour party of Manitoba and Manitoba Farmer section of the C.C.F.; in New Brunswick the New Brunwick section of the C.C.F.; in Ontario the C.C.F. clubs of Ontario, the Labour conference of Ontario, and the LTnited Farmers of Ontario; in Quebec the C.C.F. clubs-the Quebec organization committee-and the Labour Partie du Canada; in Saskatchewan the Farmer-Labour group, and I may say that there are several other provincial groups whose applications have not been formally accepted as yet.
The resolution which I advance on behalf of our organization states that the capitalist system, as we now have it, has failed to function. I fancy a great many members will agree. Many however would say that this is merely a temporary defect in the system, and that one of these days we will come back. After an analysis of the general world situation and the history of the last one hundred years I cannot believe that this is possible. It is true that we may have some revival but I believe such revival must be very temporary in character. We believe that the only possible way of overcoming our difficulties is by the setting up of an economic system on an altogether different basis. But I can fancy a great many hon. members in the house tonight will ask, as they have asked before: "But what other system is there, and how do you propose to establish it?" Our manifesto gives the answer, and I beg the indulgence of the house to read the preamble to it, because it gives the general viewpoint that we are trying to advocate and makes intelligible a great many of our motions. I read:
The C.C.F. is a federation of organizations *whose purpose is the establishment in Canada of a cooperative commonwealth in which the principle regulating production, distribution and exchange will be the supplying of human needs and not the making of profits.
We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity, by a social order from which the domination and exploitation of one class by another will be eliminated, in which economic planning will supersede unregulated private enterprise and competition, and in which genuine democratic self-government, based upon economic equality will be possible. The present order is marked by glaring inequalities of wealth and opportunity, by chaotic waste and
instability; and in an age of plenty it condemns the great mass of the people to poverty and insecurity. Power has become more and more concentrated into the hands of a small irresponsible minority of financiers and industrialists and to their predatory interests the majority are habitually sacrificed. When private profit is the main stimulus to economic effort, our society oscillates between periods of feverish prosperity in which the main benefits go to speculators and profiteers, and of catastrophic depression, in which the common man's normal state of insecurity and hardship is accenuated. We believe that these evils can be removed only in a planned and socialized economy in which our natural resources and the principal means of production and distribution are owned, controlled and operated by the people.
The new social order at which we aim is not one in which individuality will be crushed out by a system of regimentation. Nor shall we interfere with cultural rights of racial or religious minorities. What we seek is a proper collective organization of our economic resources such as will make possible a much greater degree of leisure and a much richer individual life for every citizen.
This social and economic transformation can be brought about by political action, through the election of a government inspired by the ideal of a cooperative commonwealth and supported by a majority of the people. We do not believe in change by violence. We consider that both the old parties in Canada are the instruments of capitalist interests and cannot serve as agent of social reconstruction, and that whatever the superficial differences between them, they are bound to carry on government in accordance with the dictates of the big business interests who finance them. The C.C.F. aims at political power in order to put an end to this capitalist domination of our political life. It is a democratic movement, a federation of farmer, labour and socialist organizations, financed by its own members and seeking to achieve its ends solely by constitutional methods. It appeals for support to all who believe that the time has come for a far-reaching reconstruction of our economic and political institutions and w'ho are willing to work together for the carrying out of the following policies.
May I pause for a moment to point out that this document answers a great many of the charges which have recently been made against the C.C.F. and its program. We do not believe in dictatorship; we believe in democracy. We would point out that to no small extent we have a financial dictatorship in Canada; we wish to have a democracy which will really represent the interests of the people. It has been stated very often when we have brought forward our proposals that they are identical with those of the Russians. I would say distinctly that we have no Russian affiliations whatever. Again and again we have stated that we have no connection whatever with the Communist party. Probably the body that has been working the nearest to the lines which we advocate is the British Labour party. We do use the term "a planned
266	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Woodsworth
and socialized economy," and therefore a great many people seek to put an end to us simply by calling us socialists. Well, everything depends upon the definition. Personally I have no objection whatever to the word "socialism," but I would point out that socialism has a great many meanings to-day. In the co-operative commonwealth we have chosen a phrase into which we have the right to place whatever meaning we wish. I believe I could not do better than to repeat that which I said in my presidential address to the conference:
Socialism has so many variations that we hesitate to use the class name. Utopian socialism and Christian socialism, Marxian socialism and Fabianism, the Latin type, the German type, the Russian type-why not a Canadian type?
Perhaps it is because I am a Canadian of several generations, and have inherited the individualism common to all born on the American continent; yet with iiolitieal and social ideas profoundly influenced by British traditions and so-called Christian idealism; further with a rather wide and intimate knowledge of the various sections of the Canadian people-in any case, I am convinced that we may develop in Canada a distinctive type of socialism. I Befuse to follow slavishly the British model or the American model or the Russian model. We in Canada will solve our problems along our own lines. We have a goodly heritage, not only in natural resources but in pioneer traditions and social equipment. If we have the spirit of our fathers we can overcome the difficulties even of our complex modern world.
It has been charged again and again that we wanted to bring about changes by means of violence. At our conference we expressly and deliberately repudiated the charge, and said we wished to bring about changes in a peaceable and orderly fashion. The statement has often been made that the cooperative commonwealth which we advocate involves a highly centralized bureaucracy. There is nothing in our program to suggest that. We do believe that there are certain things which will have to be under the control of the federal government. There are other matters which will come under the control of the provincial governments and other matters which, as now, will come under the control of the municipal governments. We hope that there will be the possibility of a much wider degree of free cooperative effort than we have at the present time.
We start out to bring about these changes by the old and tried political method of electing a sufficient number of people to parliament so that there will be a majority in favour of the program we advocate. At the very outset of our program we place:

1.-Planning.
The establishment of a planned, socialized, economic order, in order to make possible the most efficient development of the national resources and the most equitable distribution of the national income.
To-day a great many people are convinced of the necessity for some form of planning. Even the Conservatives in Great Britain are beginning to talk planning. Mr. Roosevelt has made this idea almost a commonplace here on this continent. I noticed only within the last few days in a pamphlet published by the authority of the governments of the dominion and of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, dealing with the world wheat problem and the London agreement, that these words are in the introduction:
The issue was clearly-Drift or Plan.
That certainly is coming to be the case. I quoted the other day a very striking passage from the speech of the Hon. Vincent Massey on the New Economic Nationalism, in which he said very clearly:
It must suffice for me to say that national planning will have to be the foundation of Canada's international relations.
I think we shall have to come to that. We point out in the explanatory note, one of which is attached to each plank in our platform, that-
The first step in this direction will be the setting up of a national planning commission, consisting of a small body of economists, engineers and statisticians assisted by an appropriate technical staff.
To-day there is no relationship between the giving of credit and the general national welfare. People have been going along in a happy-go-lucky sort of way. The old laissez-faire doctrine has predominated up to the present, and it has brought us almost to disaster.
Especially I would point out, as was done incidentally by one of my colleagues in the debate on the previous resolution, that to-day there is no proper equilibrium between the production of this country and the consuming power of the people. I am not going to-night into the knotty question as to whether this is purely a financial problem, as that may be touched upon by my hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) under another resolution. But whether it is purely a financial problem or whether it is not more fundamental and has to do with the ownership and control of the real wealth of this country, the fact is that we to-day are living in a age of abundance and yet a great number of our people are facing

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Woodsworth
poverty and thousands are experiencing a great deal of anxiety.
I wish I had time to go into the concentration of industry which has taken place in Canada in recent years. I might refer to a very excellent article in a recent issue of the Canadian Forum dealing with Concentration in Canadian Industry. This article points out what we have tried to say again and again in this house in the last few years:
There were once more than forty banks in Canada. There are now ten. Of these the three largest have for some years done about seventy per cent of the business.
And so with trust companies. Four of the largest trust companies together have over seventy-seven per cent of the assets. And so with loan companies, three of which account for eighty-two per cent of the total assets.
It is the same with life insurance companies, * three of which control almost half of the total assets. The investment trust situation is very much the same. In our railway transportation we are facing to-day the prospect of amalgamation. Some of us remember that the fact was brought out years ago that Atlantic shipping is dominated by the North Atlantic Conference, of which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is an important member. Five of the Canadian Pacific Railway directors are directors of Canadian Airways. And so . on. I shall not take time even to outline the article, but may I read a few words from its concluding paragraph? After referring to a few men of outstanding influence in this country it says:
Besides these titans there are some sixty others, including eleven directors of the Bank of Montreal and seven each of the Royal Bank and the Canadian Bank of Commerce-who, with a few powerful foreign interests, constitute the controlling group for Canadian finance, transportation, communications, powder, paper, electrical supplies, iron and steel, motor cars, agricultural implements, nickel, copper, chemicals, paints, cement, oil, rubber, textiles, milling, packing, tobacco, brewing, distilling, and motion pictures. Perhaps a hundred persons, here and abroad, decide what we shall eat, what we shall drink, wherewithal we shall be clothed, and most other of our activities.
One other very significant statement I quote:
At most only about 144.000 people in Canada receive income enough to be taxable; about 82.000 of these get $4,000 a year or less, and three per cent of the population gets twenty per cent of the income.
Surely that is sufficient evidence of the concentration of wealth in Canada, and the concentration of wealth has meant the concentration of power, and I think I am free to add that it has meant political power.
We say in our explanatory note:
The Cooperative Comomnwealth Federation will provide that in Canada the planning shall be done, not by a small group of capitalist magnates in their own interests, but by public servants acting in the public interest and responsible to the people as a whole.
We pass immediately from the idea of a plan to-
2.	-Socialization of Finance.
Socialization of all financial machinerybanking, eurency, credit and insurance, to make possible the effective control of currency, credit and prices, and the supplying of new productive equipment for socially desirable purposes.
The control of finance is undoubtedly the first step in the control of our whole economy.
I noticed that not very long ago the press quoted Mr. Taschereau as having said:
In 1920 there were one hundred paper mills in Canada producing $100,000,000 a year in products, capitalized at $22,000,000, employing 31,000 employees and paying them $45,000,000 yearly. At the end of ten years there were 109 mills, producing $215,000,000 in products, but capitalized at $714,000,000. There had been an increase of 2,000 in employees but payrolls remained the same as in 1920. While product increased 115 per cent capitalization increased 3,500 per cent, roughly speaking.
Under those circumstances we feel that it is highly necessary that there should be a national investment board working in cooperation with a socialist banking system to mobilize and direct the unused surplus of production for socially desirable purposes. I can understand that a program of this kind would not go very far without the question of ownership being involved, and we pass to-
3.	-Social Ownership.
Socialization (dominion, provincial or municipal) of transportation, communications, electric power and all other industries and' services essential to social planning and their operation under the general direction of the planning commission by competent managements freed from day to day political interference.
That, of course, visualizes the extension of our present form of administration by commissions, only we would insist that on these commissions the workers must be given a right to participate, and further that workers in public industries must be much more free to organize than they are at the present time.
We believe that only under a regime of public ownership and operation will the full benefits accruing from centralization of control and mass production be passed on to the consuming public. That I think is really where the difficulty will be found in controlling the mass buying that is taking place to-day by the big departmental stores, and which is shortly to come under review by the
268	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Woodsworth
committee that is to be set up. I do not see how we are ultimately to pass on the economies of mass buying unless we have public ownership or effective control. Let me point out that, contrary to the charges made, the C.C.F. has never thought of socializing all industries. The charge is without foundation. Perhaps I had better read what we ourselves declare in the explanatory note:
Transportation, communications and electric power must come first in a list of industries to be socialized. Others, such as mining, pulp and paper and the distribution of milk, bread, coal and gasoline, in which exploitation, waste or financial malpractices are particularly prominent, must next be brought under social ownership and operation.
That is not so radical as some of our political opponents would have you believe. If the province of Quebec can as a province handle the distribution of liquor, I cannot for the life of me see why a province or municipality cannot handle the distribution of milk. If Ontario can handle the distribution of electrical power, through the hydro-electric system, I cannot see why a province or municipality cannot handle the distribution of coal. We have already proceeded a very considerable distance along the line of public control over these essential industries.
A great many people have told us that this means confiscation. That is a question which, at the Regina conference, we very carefully considered; and whilst we agree that it would be impossible beforehand to consider what should be done in each particular instance, we did lay down certain principles which we propose to follow. I will here read from the explanatory note, for I do not want any misunderstanding to exist on this very important point:
We do not propose any policy of outright confiscation. What we desire is the most stable and equitable transition to the cooperative commonwealth. It is impossible to decide the policies to be followed in particular cases in an uncertain future, but we insist upon certain broad principles. The welfare of the community must take supremacy over the claims of private wealth. In times of war human life has been conscripted. Should economic circumstances call for it, conscription of wealth would be more justifiable. We recognize the need for compensation in the case of individuals and institutions which must receive adequate maintenance during the transitional period before the planned economy becomes fully operative. But a C.C.F. government will not play the role of rescuing bankrupt private concerns for the benefit of promoters and stock and bondholders.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor derelicts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, nor of enterprises which in the Prime Minister's own

words are derelicts. There is the position of investors to be considered. We recognize that institutions and individuals are dependent upon certain investments, and the members in this corner of the house would be the last to see widows and orphans neglected. But we do not propose to allow men of great wealth to hide behind the widows and orphans. We want to see that security is given, not merely to the privileged few, but to all.
4.-Agriculture.
Security of tenure for the farmer upon his farm, on conditions to be laid down by individual provinces; insurance against unavoidable ciop failure; removal of the tariff burden from the operations of agriculture; encouragement of producers' and consumers' cooperatives; the restoration and maintenance of an equitable relationship between prices of agricultural products and those of other commodities and services; and improving the efficiency of export trade in farm products.
Again and again it has been stated by critics of the C.C.F. that we were going to take away the farms from the farmers. From the very first there has been nothing of that kind in our minds. We tried, in the very first conference we had a year ago, to guarantee the security of tenure to the farmer upon his farm. We recognize that the farmer is not an exploiter; rather, he is one of the worst exploited. To-day farming is still in the family farm stage, and as long as that is maintained there is no reason why under our scheme there should be any alteration in the ownership of farms.
I may say that in the province of Saskatchewan there are certain supporters of the C.C.F. who advocated that with respect to a limited number, farmers who were hopelessly mortgaged, their farms should be taken over by the state in order to save the owners from eviction.


John Vallance: Does the hon. member deny any relationship to this C.C.F. handbook?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There have been a good many different pamphlets. I was explaining that a year ago, before this program was adopted, some of the farmers in Saskatchewan did advocate that, with respect to those hopelessly bankrupt, the state should take over their farms in order to save their owners from being evicted. What we stated was that we would leave the arrangements as to how the farmer should be enabled to retain ownership of his land to be worked out by each province. As hon. members know, conditions in the various provinces differ very widely.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Woodsworth
We advocate in that connection a great increase of purchasing power made possible by the social control of the financial system. Control must be directed towards increased employment, as laid down elsewhere, and towards the raising of prices of farm commodities by proper credit and foreign exchange policies, and by the extension of consumers' and producers' cooperatives.
5.	-External Trade.
The regulation in accordance with the national plan of external trade through import and export boards.
We are firmly convinced that the old controversies between free traders and protectionists are now largely obsolete. In a world of nationally organized economies, Canada must organize the buying and selling of her main imports and exports under public boards, and take steps to regulate the flow of the less important commodities by a system of licensing. For that reason we would advocate the formation of a wheat board. That is in line with the developments we have in view. During the war we learned a good many things that should now in time of peace be carried into practice.
6.	-Cooperative Institutions.
The encouragement by the public authority of both producers' and consumers' cooperative institutions.
The trouble to-day is that the small local cooperative institution is like a cake of ice in the gulf stream; it can exist only a short time: the influences opposed to it are too great. But under an arrangement such as we envisage, it would be possible for free cooperative institutions to flourish.
7.	-Labour Code.
A national labour code to secure for the worker maximum income and leisure, insurance covering illness, accident, old age, and unemployment. freedom of association and effective participation in the management of his industry or profession.
I do not think it is necessary for me to go into details as to what would be involved in a labour code. I think we labour members in this corner, during the past thirteen years, have made it abundantly clear what we consider the minimum for the labouring people in this country. I would call attention however to one fact that always comes in to block us; it did so only a few minutes ago. I refer to the British North America Act. Now, we believe that it will be necessary to revise that act in order to make a proper labour code possible. We propose that the necessary amendments to the British North America Act shall
be obtained as speedily as required, safeguards being inserted to ensure that the existing rights of racial and religious minorities shall not be changed without the consent of those minorities. What we need chiefly to-day is to place in the hands of the national government more power to control national economic development. In Quebec there have been misrepresentations. I venture to say that no political party so far has so clearly safeguarded the rights of minorities as we have done in the section which I have read to the house.
8.	-Socialized Health Services.
Publicly organized health, hospital and hospital medical services.
We believe that health services should be made at least as freely available as are educational services to-day. We are not concerned with whether the cost is borne by the dominion, the province or the municipality. We suggest that this is an enterprise in which dominion, provincial and municipal authorities, as well as the medical and dental professions, can cooperate.
9.	-British North America Act.
The amendment of the Canadian constitution, without infringing upon racial or religious minority rights or upon legitimate provincial claims to autonomy, so as to give the Dominion government adequate powers to deal effectively with ui-gent economic problems which are essentially national in scope; the abolition of the Canadian senate.
As regards what we have in mind with respect to changes in the British North America Act, may I read this from the explanatory note:
The principle laid down in the Quebec resolutions of the fathers of confederation should be applied to the conditions of 1933, that "there be a general government charged with matters of common interest to the whole country and local governments for each of the provinces charged with the control of local matters in their respective sections."
So far as the Senate is concerned, I have not time to enter upon that, but we do not believe there is any place for a second chamber in a democracy such as we are supposed to have in Canada. Perhaps the least said at this time about the Senate, the better for the senators.
10.	-External Relations.
A foreign policy designed to obtain international economic cooperation and to promote disarmament and world peace.
We stand resolutely against all participation in imperialist wars. And we do not believe in maintaining the empire as a means by which one group can exploit another. By all means let us stand together for sentimental and
270	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Woodsworth
cultural purposes, but as H. N. Brailsford said not very long ago: "Empire is debt." That is shown in the case of Newfoundland; we do not propose to submit to that kind of thing.
11.	

Taxation and Public Finance.
A new taxation policy designed not only to raise public revenues but also to lessen the glaring inequalities of income and to provide funds for social services and the socialization of industry; the cessation of the debt creating system of public finance.
I think we in this corner have again and again explained what we mean by that, and perhaps under other resolutions during this session we shall have further opportunities of discussing the matter.
12.	-Freedom.
Freedom of speech and assembly for all; repeal of section 98 of the criminal code; amendment of the Immigration Act to prevent the present inhuman policy of deportation; equal treatment before the law of all residents of Canada irrespective of race, nationality or religious or political beliefs.
I have on previous occasions expressed myself pretty fully with regard to section 98 of the criminal code and what is involved in it. I shall not enter upon that to-night, but shall simply quote again from the explanatory note:
We stand for full economic, political and religious liberty for all.
We have sometimes been accused by some of our opponents of being anti-religious, notwithstanding the fact that we have expressly stated that we want the fullest religious liberty for all and guarantee the minorities their full religious and cultural rights.
The next plank should perhaps be properly headed: " Humanizing the law." It reads:
13.	-Social Justice.
The establishment of a commission composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, socially-minded jurists and social workers to deal with all matters pertaining to crime and punishment and the general administration of law, in order to humanize the law and to bring it into harmony with the needs of the people.
I hope at a later stage in this session the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail) will be here and able to -say a little more with regard to what this plank might involve.
14.	-An Emergency Program.
The assumption by the Dominion government of direct responsibility for dealing with the present critical unemployment situation and for tendering suitable work or adequate maintenance; the adoption of measures to relieve the extremity of the crisis such as a program of

public spending on housing, and other enterprises that will increase the real wealth of Canada to be financed by the issue of credit based on the national wealth.
May I add a few words with regard to this:
Unemployed workers must be secured in the tenure of their homes, and the scale and methods of relief, at present altogether inadequate, must be such as to preserve decent human standards of living.
Perhaps, as I have only a few moments left, I might read another paragraph from our explanatory notes:
We propose to provide work and purchasing power for those now unemployed by a far-reaching program of public expenditure on housing, slum clearance, hospitals, libraries, schools, community halls, parks, recreational projects, reforestation, rural electrification, the elimination of grade crossings, and other similar projects in both town and country. This program, which would be financed by the issuance of credit based on the national wealth, would serve the double purpose of creating employment and meeting recognized social needs. Any steps which the government takes, under this emergency program, which may assist private business, must include guarantees of adequate wages and reasonable hours of work, and must be designed to further the advance towards the complete cooperative commonwealth.
We conclude the manifesto with this sentence:
No C.C.F. government will rest content until it has eradicated capitalism and put into operation the full program of socialized planning which will lead to the establishment in Canada of the cooperative commonwealth.
We have been told by some editorial writers that in Canada we already have altogether too much paternalism, but what of the way in which big business has drawn upon the resources of this country by way of charters, franchises, bonuses, tariffs and privileges of every description?-surely this is paternalism run wild. What we want to have in Canada is the planning and organizing of the productive and distributional agencies of the country in such a way as to provide for the needs of the Canadian people.
We very often have eulogies of capitalism. But what is the real situation to-day?


John Vallance: I listened with a great deal of interest to the previous speaker (Mr. Woodsworth). Since the prorogation of parliament we have had three politically outstanding events. I was interested in hearing the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation read from the convention number of the Saskatchewan C.C.F. Research Bureau a resume of what

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Vallarice
happened at the convention held in Regina. That is one of the outstanding events about which I wish to say something, another being the by-election in the province of Saskatchewan. What the hon. gentleman has said tonight was very much the line of argument that was used during the Mackenzie by-election. But as I look at this pamphlet that was read and quoted from so frequently, I find that it does not agree with the propaganda that was put over at that by-election-at least that was attempted to be put over.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Put under.


John Vallance: I hold in my hand a
copy of that pamphlet, but before dealing with it I would like to refer to some things that happened at that convention which do not appear in the pamphlet. There was at that convention, a famous visitor from the old land, a Mrs. John Paton, the wife of the secretary of the Independent Labour party of Great Britain. On July 17, she addressed the convention. I do not propose to read all her address, but I wish to call attention to some of the things she suggested to this convention that they must adopt in order to be effective.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. Mrs. Paton never addressed the convention.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not a point of
order; it is merely a contradiction.


John Vallance: I read from the Saskatoon Star of Monday, July 17, 1933:
Stresses Necessity of Changing Present Ei onomie Conditions.
Ills. John Paton addresses meeting and relates history of I.L.P.; sees striking identity in aims of Canadian and British parties.
Calling for an intelligent rather than a violent and passionate revolution against the present 'system, and emphasizing the necessity of obtaining power and fundamentally changing the present economic and social system by peaceful means, Mrs. John Paton, wife of the general secretary of the British Independent Labour party, addressing a large gathering in the Canadian Legion hall last evening, related the history of the I.L.P.
You will notice that at that date this convention was in session. I think the dates were the 19th, 20th and 21st

I would like the hon. gentleman to correct me if I am wrong.-She had this to say to them:
The first task of the socialists, the speaker asserted, was to obtain power-complete power over government and all the functions of government so that any insurrection from the ranks of the deposed class might be met with and subdued by military operations.
I merely draw the attention of the house to that. It was not denied at the convention that they would adopt such means.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Pardon me; as a
matter of privilege-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member raising a point of order?


James Shaver Woodsworth: A point of order.
The statement that was made was definitely denied, that she attended at the convention.


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


John Vallance: We have listened to
the group in the " haw corner," as the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) called them, quote quite a few authorities to back up their assertions. I would like to quote to them G. D. H. Cole, the British authority on socialism. I wonder if , they will agree to this:
We cannot put limits to the pace at which we shall have to proceed when once we set our feet upon the way; nor can we put limits to the degree of dictatorial power which, under the stress of emergency, our socialist government may have to assume. It will be best, as soon as parliament has conferred on the government the necessary emergency powers, for it to meet as seldom as possible, leaving the socialists to carry on.
I now turn to this convention number, the authenticity of which I do not think they will deny, because if you turn to the centre you will find there a photograph of the entire delegation. I find in the front of this a speech delivered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the leader of this group. In his address, speaking of democracy, what has he to say? I quote:
"Democracy,"-the rule of the people-is a much discounted word. Little wonder. The democracy which we have known in this country has been government of the people by party machines for the profiteers. The parliamentary machine is antiquated and its procedure obsolete. Government has functioned largely in the interests of the exploiting classes. The untrained masses-*
Whoever they may be.
-are quite unfitted to pass judgment on the complicated problems that face modern executives.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Read more.


John Vallance: I will. "The untrained masses "-who are they?
Mr . MACKENZIE (Vancouver):	The
Tories.


John Vallance: No, they are trained.
You and I are "the untrained masses," the great Canadian people. Would not that suggest to you that if it were possible for this group ever to get control of this parliament-
272	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Vallance
Mr. MU'NN:	They would murder everyone.


John Vallance: -"the untrained masses" would be denied the only-not privilege-the only right they have to state by the ballot whether or not they agreed with the policies in vogue.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: "There
ain't goin' to be no " ballot.


John Vallance: The hon. member said, "read on"; I will do so:
But having said this, I must confess that I still believe that the will of the people should prevail. This may appear a hang-over from the high-sounding but empty doctrine of Liberalism. But fundamentally it is sound.
Will you laugh now?
An intelligent and alert citizenship is the only guarantee of freedom.
That is Liberalism. That is what we are preaching. That was not preached in Mackenzie by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. In that by-election they even had what they thought was a hand-picked candidate-


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: We picked him.


Mr. YOUNG:: We kicked him.


John Vallance: Yes, it was just too
bad. Here he is, L. St. George Stubbs. They brought him from Manitoba-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. 1
hard.


John Vallance: -and they proposed
to elect him on the theory that he was a victim of the old political parties. Do you know what they said up there? That there is no difference between the Grits and the Tories.


Robert James Manion: Oh, shame!


John Vallance: There was at least this
difference: the Grits made a judge of him and the Tories undid him.
The hon. gentleman said he did not deny this handbook, but that there was some propaganda put out by provincial organizations with which they probably do not agree. Certainly they do not; I do not find any two C.C.F. speakers travelling about the country who are in agreement with each other. Right at the very beginning of this book I find:
Handbook for Speakers. Compiled from reports of conferences held in Saskatoon and Regina, January 7 and February 11 respectively, 1033.

So it is not so very obsolete, is it? They have a preamble here, and then the handbook goes on:
Socialization of the banking, credit and financial system of the country, together with the social ownership, development, operation and control of utilities and natural resources.
Now I ask the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, what is the greatest natural resource that Canada has to-day?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Land.


John Vallance: Absolutely; land, but
they found that this was not being accepted. Then they said, "Oh, but we are taking no chances; we have a planned economy, and there is nothing haphazard." I wish we had a blackboard here; to me this is a very interesting document. It states:
This chart is submitted by the central office. It may not be complete in so far as all details are concerned, but is given as an interpretation of a plan on which it would be possible for us to base a new order of society. It is given also as an outline to substantiate the beliefs of the farmer-labour group and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as a whole that fundamental economic changes can be made constitutionally.
Let us assume in the explanation of this chart that in the next election the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has elected the largest group of candidates. The Governor Gtneral would ask the leader to form a government; the cabinet would be set up and would proceed along the following lines:
Five boards of commissioners, the personnel of which must be experts in their particular capacities, would be created at once, namely:
1.	Economic planning board.
2.	Price fixing and adjustment board.
3.	Purchasing board.
4.	National marketing board.
5.	Debt adjustment board.
Time will	not permit me	to read it	all, butI	think	it would be rather	interesting	just toturn to	the	plan and have	a look at	it, andI	am going	to deal with it	pretty much from
an agricultural standpoint. Vou will notice that there is to be a purchasing board. That is the board that purchases the entire production of Canada, everything that is created here, wheat, industrial products and everything else. They will buy them all and then, after they have supplied the needs of the Canadian people, they will give to the national marketing board that which we do not need. If you had this chart, Mr. Speaker, you could follow it along and see exactly how it works out. They proceed to deliver the excess goods to the world's markets, and then

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Vallance
they use a unique illustration to demonstrate just how this board will function:
As an example of the way in which we can serve our internal and external prices. Let us assume that our national marketing board has one million bushels of wheat-
We usually have between four and five hundred million bushels; they use one million as am illustration, and I want you to remember this while we are dealing with it.
-for which our purchasing board has paid $1 per bushel in Canadian currency.
Get that Canadian currency.
This million bushels of wheat is placed on the world markets, and we receive 25 cents per bushel in international currency.
I do not know whether that is going to be the actual basis of their plan, that every 25 cents we bring from a foreign country for our surplus goods will be multiplied by four and become a dollar.
This creates a credit deposit in our international currency department-[DOT]
They have a national and am international department. This is high finance, Mr. Finance Minister.
-of $250,000.
Now let us see how we spend it.
With this amount our import board

This is another board; the one imports and the other exports.
-buys $50,000 worth of sugar, $50,000 worth of coffee, tea, cotton, etc.
Now I ask hon. members of this house to realize that in Canada we produce between four and five hundred million bushels of wheat annually, and while we use for our own purposes about 120,000,000 bushels, a great deal of that is exported as flour. We will say, however, that we use 120,000,000 bushels of a total crop of say 420,000,000 bushels. We have left 300,000,000 bushels for which we must find a place on the world's market, and there they propose to dump that wheat on that market and bring into the country, according to their own illustration, about twenty-five per cent of what we paid for the wheat in Canada. Do they want to try to convince the fanner that be is any better off if they give him $1 per bushel for wheat and he can buy only 25 cents worth of sugar with that amount? I do not care if you charge me $10 a pound for sugar if you give me $10 a bushel for wheat; you get the same thing. That is what is happening to-day in connection with our exports. I am buying as great a volume of Canadian goods, even with the market as it is to-day, 74726-18
as I could buy under this system. You do not give me any more money; you do not give me any less. You give me just the same as I am getting now. I have to give a bushel of wheat for a pound of sugar, relatively, or 25 cents worth of sugar, so what is the difference to me? This does not mean a thing.
No, this was not acceptable to the farmers, and the C.C.F. know, just as the two old political parties know, that without at least some following from agriculture they can never hope to sit to your honour's right.


An hon. MEMBER:: They never will.


John Vallance: Oh, I would not say that.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand a very interesting book which was written by one of the hon. members in the far corner, entitled An Interpretation of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and its Policy, by William Irvine, M.P.


Mr. IRVINE:: Read it all.


John Vallance: Why, Mr. Speaker, I have read it so often that I could almost recite it without looking at the book, but I want to be fair to the hon. gentleman. I noticed that the leader of this group was very emphatic as to how peaceful they were going to be. I can remember, as I am sure most hon. gentlemen can remember, when some three hundred unemployed marched on parliament in 1930-or was it 1931?-because the present government took the precaution of having the police reinforced just a little bit, the leader of the C.C.F. got up in his place and denounced the government. I had no sympathy with the government at that time and I have none now in connection with that incident, but when you read such things as these-


Edward James Young: Read it.


John Vallance: The hon. gentleman said they did not want British socialism, and he enumerated various types of what he called socialism. I know of only one type; whether it is applied in Russia or anywhere else it has to meet the particular conditions existing. It is environment which makes the change; it is the problem that it attempts to solve. That is what makes the Canadian problem different from any other, because our problems are not those of Russia. This gentleman, William Irvine, has the following to say about it:
While it is neither practicable nor desirable for the movement for a new social order in Canada to repeat the methods and acts of

274	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Vallance
Russia, we may well be proud if we can achieve as much for our people in this generation as Russia has achieved during the last five years. Whatever else may be said of Russia, her people are at work; they are fed and clothed-
I wonder if the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) agrees with that. I know he does not. To continue :
-they are fed and clothed and have an assurance of equal economic security.
Since the group which now controls the destiny of Russia took office, how many times have the people had any say as to whether or not they agreed with their government? Not once. The socialists themselves assert that it is not possible for the people to have a say in the government. Then, to continue reading:
Whatever else may be said of Russia, her people are at work; they are fed and clothed, and have an assurance of equal economic security; they have a great ideal towards which they are moving under the direction of intelligent planning, and they have a hope of ultimate success which we as a people lack in Canada.


William Irvine: Would the hon. gentleman mind quoting the first part of the paragraph?


John Vallance: I have quoted the whole paragraph.


William Irvine: That is misrepresentation; that is what I would have expected my hon friend to do.


John Vallance: I do not wish to become personal. Now, Mr. Speaker, we know what happened in the Mackenzie by-election. The C.C.F. cannot stand even to be criticized, but they want to be allowed to run at large across the country denouncing everybody, and making each person appear to be a crook. They want the people to think that no one is working in the public interest except themselves, and that all the rest of us are here just to fill our own pockets and to live a life of luxury. Why, only the other day my friend from Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) who has so much to say, mentioned the fact that very few hon. members were in the house. I have counted the members of this group time and again, and have reason to know just how well they attend, if this resolution were not now under discussion there would not be three of them in their seats. There is no group in this house large or small that gives such a small attendance as they do. Why, half of the time there are not three of them in here; there should be a roll call every half hour.
No, Mr. Speaker; the people of Canada are well aware of the conditions we are passing through. I will say this for the C.C.F., that their leader is sincere.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not all the time.
LMr. Vallance.]


John Vallance: Yes, I think he is; but there are a good many attempting to follow him who are not as sincere as he is. In the past year the people of Canada, "untrained masses" as they may be, by their ballots registered disapproval of anything the C.C.F. had to offer.
The handbook from which my hon. friend read is well worth reading. I believe even those of us who are most prejudiced against their policy will admit that in this book they have attempted to write something which would appeal to the electors. The convention was held in July. Since then three byelections have been held in Canada, one in New Brunswick, one in Quebec and one in the West. The "untrained masses" spoke, and there was not one C.C.F. victory. In British Columbia there was a provincial election and again the people spoke, but probably not as emphatically as they did in the rural centres. The C.C.F. realize, as I stated before, that without the huge rural vote they can never hope to sit to the right of the Speaker. In the last year their whole effort has been towards winning the confidence of the farmer and his support of their political viewpoint.
Last summer I did considerable travelling, and happened to be in Mackenzie constituency for a couple of weeks during the by-election. While in that constituency I met many people, and there was a disposition on the part of some to believe in the C.C.F. theories-and I use that word, because they are only theories. I see sitting in this chamber to-night others who were there at that time, and who were not supporting the candidate who won; I believe they will agree with me that as the day of the election approached we could see the C.C.F. fall as grain before the sickle. Had it not been for the storm on the Friday before the election, instead of John Angus MacMillan winning by 1,600 votes he would have won by 2,600. Throughout the campaign the C.C.F. attempted to tie the two old political parties together. It was suggested even that the Conservative candidate would be taken out and that we would bind our forces together. Nothing like that happened; we fought the Tory just as hard as we fought the C.C.F. and the United Front. It seemed to me a tragedy that two groups so closely related, the C.C.F. and the United Front, much more closely related than the Grits and the Tories, could not have united. There was only one reason they could not unite and that reason was Lewis St. George Stubbs. That was the reason they could not unite. I think they learned a lesson in that by-election. During the campaign we denounced the Tory policies and the record of the government. The Tory

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. MacNicol
party has a record and a history; we have a record and a policy. All the C.C.F. had to offer was a program, but the people chose to believe in some group that had accomplished something and had a hope for the future.


Mr. J. R. MacNIOOL (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution on the order paper and now before the house has been very carefully worded. It reminds me of the old fable about the wolf in sheep's clothing: the "wolf" part appears about the middle of the resolution, and is contained in the words "the principle of cooperative production and distribution," and the soft, gentle, "sheep" part is in the last few words, "in which human needs should be the first consideration." It is too cold now, the parks are filled with snow, and the soap boxes have been taken away but all summer long the people of Toronto and of other cities have had to listen to speeches on this same sort of resolution in various parks and from a hundred and one soap boxes and platforms throughout the city. As the speaker who has just sat down (Mr. Yallance) has intimated from soap boxes and platforms men of finance and men who have been successful in business and commerce have been denounced every night in the week. There has been never a good word said of those who have been successful in business and who have given employment in this country-only denunciation of all they are trying to do.
The question of profits has been mentioned. Production is to be without profits. Of course, no one in his right senses would produce without profit in any event, if he could help it; but the party in the southeast corner are expecting to produce without profits. A Cooperative Commonwealth Federation speaker,
S.	W. Cheshie, speaking in Queen's Park, Toronto, on August 22, and reported in the Toronto Telegram of August 23, made an address advocating the C.C.F. doctrine, and then he advised his hearers to take the C.C.F. magazine, a weekly paper, and he made this statement:
A profit of three cents per copy will therefore find its way to the coffers of the various clubs.
I might say that the paper sells for five cents a copy. I never heard of a manufacturer asking for a profit of 150 per cent on his product.
I have in my hand a letter from the Fuego Oil Company, dated October 1, 1930, from which I quote this sentence:
The usual profits from a guslier oil well are such that even the smallest stockholder can benefit remarkably. Remember also we have 10,600 acres of leases, and after one gusher blows in our leases and stock will rise to tremendous values.
7472U-18J
Another letter was sent out on August 9, 1932, by the Fuego Oil Company. It says:
It holds untold promise for those of you who now take up the fight to make this field a truly successful oil field. It is already proven as a producing field, our well has opened up many miles of new potential production area, and with your help we will go on to make it pay you what you have expected from your investment.
I hope this oil company makes money. I hope that any company and any investor makes money. I hope that the directors of this oil company makes money. The directors are as follows: Agnes C. Macphail, M.P., Ceylon, Ontario; Margaret Macgregor, Toronto, Ontario; Mr. H. B. Miner, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; A. O. McArthur, Oyen, Alberta; Herbert J. Kelly, Toronto, Ontario. From this list of directors you will see, Mr. Speaker, that human frailty as evidenced in the desire to make profits is common to the whole human race, and everybody', when he or she gets the chance, likes to make an odd dollar or two honestly.
There is nothing new in this doctrine of cooperative production and distribution in which human need should be the first consideration. This doctrine was advocated in the time of Plato, which was long, long ago. It was advocated in the 18th century by Rousseau and Weishaupt, whose articles and speeches had much to do with causing the French revolution. It was advocated again in the 19th century by Karl Marx, who added to the theories of Rousseau and Weishaupt some of his own, together with those of Louis Engels. So there is nothing new in this at all, and it amazes me how men will get up on soap boxes in the parks and try to make their hearers believe that there is something new in this doctrine. Wherever it has been tried it has never gotten any'where, except in Russia at the present time, and certainly it will never get anywhere in a country like this.
I was very pleased with the very mild manner in which the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation spoke to-night. He was nothing like as strong in his language as I have heard him on other occasions, but that should not mislead anybody, he would not do that, but in all revolutions, once the revolution gets started, the mild-mannered leaders of the commencement are discarded and more vigorous leaders take charge and run the country through all the ramifications of a real revolution. That is what happened in France, where Mirabeau and Danton were sidetracked, and Robespierre came in. The same thing happened in Russia where Kerensky was sidetracked and the present group of rulers
276	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. MacNicol
inflicted the cooperative commonwealth policies on Russia, which were responsible for the slaughter of 500,000 Russians and destruction from one end of the country to the other, and for the annihilation of all forms of democratic and responsible government. It has been well said by the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) that there has not been any election in Russia since the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation of Russia took hold of the reins in that country.
I state, and I do not think it is necessary for me to bring quotations to my support, although I have ample quotations to prove it if I am challenged, that cooperative commonwealth federationism is socialism. There is no contradiction of that.
I go further and say that socialism and communism have identically the same objectives. There is no difference in their objectives. The final aim in each case is cooperative commonwealthism, and that is what is advocated for this country.
The speaker who sat down said something about violence, and I should like to quote something in that regard. I quite agree that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) does not by any means advocate a revolution, but I can hardly reconcile his mild manner to-night with the statement he made in parliament on February 1 of last year, when he said:
Let me say that we must distinguish clearly between the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and communism. It i.s quite true that both believe in a changed social order, in a new economic system. The communists are convinced that this can be brought about only by violence.
That is right; that is the communist doctrine. The objective is the same in each case, but the communist says; We must reach our objective quickly by violence, while the socialist says: Let us have an educational campaign to try to attain our objective if we can by the vote. But the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation does not say how it would get its objective if it did not get it by the vote. But here is one clause in the cooperative commonwealth platform that was adopted at Regina, and if I am in error I hope that some member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation will correct me. This plank reads:
The object of the confederation shall be to coordinate the activities of member organizations in order to promote through political action and other appropriate means, the establishment in Canada of a cooperative commonwealth in which the principle regulating production, distribution and exchange, will be the supplying of human needs and not the making of profits.

That little phrase in there, "and other appropriate means", is the joker as I see it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is all very well to laugh about it, but you will not likely get it by voting, so what are the appropriate means? The various speakers of the C.C.F. say that it must come and the leader of that party in his speech on February 1 last made this statement:
The communists are convinced that this can be brought about only by violence. They think it cannot be done in any other way. We believe that it may come in Canada by peaceful methods. . . . It may very well be that force may prove inevitable.
That corresponds to the joker. Now, the whole concentration of Marxism is contained in this resolution before us to-night. The resolution embodies the very first principle of the platform of Marx's doctrine, the principle of surplus value, which means that the profits of the factory do not belong to the capital invested in the factory, that the difference between what a factory sells its goods at and the cost at which they are manufactured belongs to the workers and none of it to the factory itself. Weill, no factory will remain in existence under such conditions.
Mark you, I am a firm believer in a fair return to labour. My whole life has been associated with labour-I am referring to the actual operatives, the men who work with their hands and heads and not so much with their tongues. I am referring to the man who produces in a factory and not the man who talks on a soap box; the man who does something with his hands or his head to develop the country, and not the man who tries to pull down the country. I repeat, I am in favour of labour getting a fair return, but I am satisfied that no industry in this country, no member of the C.C.F., would attempt to produce unless there was the possibility of a fair return. I think I am correct in that statement after having quoted what has been sent out by the concern to which I have referred, one of the directors of which is a leader in the C.C.F. This doctrine advocated in the resolution before us to-night has never been adopted in any country except as the result of class struggle in which the workers have massed together to overthrow the government of the country and thereby destroy not only the government but industry as well. I am opposed to class struggle. I am in favour of cooperation between the producer and the man who works in the factory to produce, and between them and the consumer. I cannot

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. MacNicol
, see how anyone of these three factors in the industrial system can be dissociated from the others. It seems to me their interests are identical, and if one fails all three parts of the industrial fabric of the country must also fail.
Now, the leader of the party, as he sat down, referred to the abundance under our system; the country, he said, has broken down while it has an abundance of everything. Arid of course, I inferred that could not possibly prevail, according to his argument, under a cooperative commonwealth. Well, there is a cooperative commonwealth in Russia and I look forward with great interest to what the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) will say in this regard when he gets up to speak, because I enjoyed reading what he said when he returned from Russia- not of course the trouble in Russia, nor the distress and suffering, because trouble and distress and suffering are to be deplored anywhere. I wish the Russian people every success, and I do not like to see trouble anywhere. The Russian people have behind them long years of success, but see what they have fallen to to-day under a cooperative commonwealth. As reported in the Toronto Daily Star on July 31, the hon. member for East Hamilton is reported as follows-and he will know whether he was correctly reported or not:
There are conditions in their factories which the Canadian people wouldn't stand for one minute. Girls walking around barefoot on iron filings, and that kind of thing. But worst of all, is the shortage of food. It's not too bad in Moscow, it's a little worse in Leningrad. But out in the country, it's terrible-especially in the south, where much of the food is grown. I saw I don't know how many hundreds of people starving, in Kharkov and Kiev.
The reporter asked him a question:
How did you know they were starving? "I've got eyes. You don't need to be a scientist to know a person is starving. When whitefaced men and women, and children with distended bellies, crowd around the train at every station begging for money or food-then it's a pretty sure guess they're starving. I saw hundreds of them in Kharkov and Kiev. They didn't even have the traditional dried fish and cabbage soup. They were down to bread and water-and sometimes less than that. . . .
There may be a lot of nonsense talked about liberty-
Yes, Mr. Speaker; there has certainly been a good deal of such talk in this country and in this house-I am not referring to any particular comer of the house.
There may be a lot of nonsense talked about liberty; but you appreciate it after you have
been to Europe. Life is too short for that kind of thing. When I say this back home, some of them won't like it, but it's the truth; things are bad in Russia.
That is the effect which a cooperative commonwealth government has had on Russia, and no matter how bad conditions may be in Canada, I think it will be agreed that they are infinitely superior to anything in that country. I call to witness the hon. member for East Hamilton, who went over and made an investigation and was good enough to grant an interview to the press. I for one choose the Canadian system, and I am sure that that hon. gentleman will too, in preference to the Russian plan which the resolution calls for-* in my opinion straight communism as practised in Russia.
There was a Regina platform and a good deal has been said about it to-njght. I want to say a word or two in regard to it myself, not so much with respect to the planks particularly as in regard to what took place there. I agree with the leader of the C.C.F. that his desire is to keep communism out of his party, but he cannot keep communism out of it. The objective is communism or the result of communism, and this cropped up very vigorously at Regina. At the C.C.F. convention there was a delegate named William Moriarity, and I should like to quote what he said. A resolution had been moved to abolish violence from their platform. An amendment was moved by Mr. Moriarity, a delegate from Toronto seconded by Mr. E. K. Winch, delegate from Vancouver, and in the course of his remarks Mr. Moriarity said:
"The methods suitable to capitalism are those of force," declared Moriarity. After citing examples where peaceful methods in Europe had failed, he declared, while he was in favour of constitutional methods: "If the ruling class opposes the will of the people, we must use a method suitable to the occasion."
Force is communism; force is what distinguishes communism from socialism, the objects of each being the same.
Mr. Moriarity attended the communistic convention at Moscow in March, 1925; in May, 1925, he attended the communistic convention at Glasgow, and in October, 1927, he was appointed organizer for the communist districts eight and nine, Alberta and British Columbia, with headquarters at Edmonton, Alberta. . At Regina there were other delegates who had communistic tendencies. I said once before and I will say again that if all those who have communistic tendencies are banished from the C.C.F. party, a large number will be put out of the party.
278	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. MacNicol
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated that farming was not included in his program of socialization, but on February 1, 1933, he made this statement in giving a short definition of the cooperative commonwealth :
A community freed from the domination of irresponsible financial and economic power, in which all social means of production and distribution including land, are socially owned and controlled either by voluntarily organized groups of producers and consumers.
That includes land and land means farms.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to say that if I recognize that, it was the statement as prepared two years ago by the United Farmers of Alberta.


John Ritchie MacNicol: So that as the farmers are not in accord with socialization of land it was decided to delete that. I do not think the farmers will swallow that, hook, line and smker. The farmers in the old counties of Ontario who hewed their farms out of the forest, cultivated their land and handed it on to their families are not going to support any party which has even a back door design on their land.
I should like to quote what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) said at Regina:
If the farmer wants a cooperative commonwealth in which everything is socialized but himself

Apparently there was a great deal of opposition at Regina to socializing land.
-then he had better have a cooperative commonwealth of his own.
If the farmer is to enjoy the benefits of cooperation, he will have to come half way.
There never was any half way in revolution; revolutions as a rule, once they got started, went all the way. If the farmer thinks he can afford to support the C.C.F. plan of socialization and will escape having his land socialized, then he is very much mistaken; it cannot be done.
The mover of the resolution spoke very strongly against the capitalistic system. Well, it is communism to denounce and advocate the overthrow of the capitalistic system. I should like to quote one of the clauses in the thesis of the Third Internationale at Moscow:
The communist international is the concentrated will of the world revolutionary proletariat; its mission is to organize the working class of the whole world for the overthrow of the capitalistic order and the establishment of communism.
So that the overthrow of the capitalistic system is the platform or plank of the Third Internationale communistic organization at

Moscow, and being a plank of the C.C.F. in Canada, that plank in any event is communistic.
I should like to say what the C.C.F. is proposing to do as announced on the soapboxes and platforms in Toronto during last summer, Mr. Philpott on May 27, made the statement:
The C.C.F. is adamant on one thing the whole banking system must be socialized.
And again, on June 3, he is reported as saying:
The C.C.F. was going to socialize all the essential tilings of society on a basis of service, not selfishness; on a basis of huma'n needs, not the satisfying of human greed. Among the essential things would be medical health service, milk, meat.
If the house will keep track of the number of things that are going to be socialized, it will observe there is hardly anything left. On June 10 Mr. Philpott is reported as stating that the capitalistic system must go. He goes on to say that it is: "rotten," "insane" and "dead." I shall have a word to say about capitalism later on. Another C.C.F. speaker is quoted on July 16 as saying that the British North America Act, which is the basis of all our rights in this country must be abolished.
Then the hon. member for Southeast Grey is quoted on June 1 as stating that the insurance of Canada must be nationalized. Again Mr. Buckley, one of the C.C.F. leaders in Toronto, stated on August 29 that the Senate must be abolished. In Trinity park at Toronto, on August 30, C.C.F. speakers announced that when they obtained power there would be no salesmen. Of course salesmen would not be required under the system as announced tonight by the leader of the C.C.F., so that travellers and others engaged in selling throughout Canada would also be out of jobs.
Speaking at Stratford, on September 9, the hon. member for Southeast Grey is quoted as wishing to abolish all the businessmen in Canada, in a joking sense:
"I believe that what makes the C.C.F. most appealing," said the speaker, "is that it is so blatantly idealistic. We have had enough of the hard-headed business man and the superman. They should be dumped into the lake."
Pretty hard treatment!
On November 18, Mr. Philpott, speaking in Massey hall, Toronto, announced that the public utilities, gasoline companies, milk, meat and coal companies will all be socialized and that the stock exchanges must be abolished. I wondered where all the money is to come from with which to do all this,

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Luchkovich
because, as the leader of the opposition well said in speeches in many of the western provinces during the summer, confiscation without compensation would bring about civil war, or words to that effect. But the hon. member for Southeast Grey stated in a speech at Walkerton that a central bank would be established when they obtained power, with authority to print bills and lend same without interest. That kind of bank would be . as sound as the snowbanks out in front of this building.
Something was said by the mover of the resolution in reference to the concentration of wealth. I would like to give a few figures in that regard.
There are 80,568 depositors in Canada's eleven loan companies. The average deposit is S358.
There are 70,808 in Canada's thirteen trust companies. The average deposit is $384.
There are 2,821,876 credits to policy holders in Canada's twelve life insurance companies, the average deposit being $478.
There are 4,460,000 depositors in Canada's banks, the average deposit being $413.
I have not the figures of stock holdings in Canadian industrial companies, but I venture to say that in many they do not average any greater amounts than those I have just recounted. This all goes to show that the great masses of the investing Canadian people are investors in good securities, and the amount of their investments is far greater than the amount of the investments that we were led to believe earlier in the evening were held by the very rich.
Now I would like to say a word in reference to the capitalistic system. I am a believer in the capitalistic system, and I am opposed to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation system. My observation of history is that the world owes more to the capitalistic system than it does to any other finance system under which man ever operated from the beginning of this world. The capitalistic system does give every man and woman an equal opportunity to strive, to study, to acquire knowledge, to achieve, to invest money in business, to give employment and to make what he can. It teaches them the laws of thrift; it teaches them that a man must live right to get along, and let his brother man do as he himself would like to do. I think it exemplifies the golden rule in its principles better than any other system. I am quite aware that there are and have been things going on that should be remedied, but these are violations of the capitalistic
system; they are not principles of the system, and members of this house, and those who sat here before us, have been trying through the years to improve these things. But the principles of the system itself in my humble opinion are the best that have been devised for the conduct of business in this world and for providing employment and giving people wide opportunity.
I have noted of late with much satisfaction that great labour unions in several cases have been dissociating themselves from the principles of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. And well they should; there is little in common between true labourism and the principles of this federation. I worked for a quarter of a century with men associated with (he labour unions; I know what they have done and I am glad to give them credit for what they have done in alleviating conditions that men worked under a quarter or half a century ago. The labour unions have done a great deal of good in this country. They have had sane leaders who have cooperated with the governments of the day in trying to promote legislation beneficial to labour. I am in accord with any legislation that is good for labour. I worked with 900 men for many years. If in this house I can lift my voice in favour of raising the status of the average man who is called the workingman or labour man, I am going to do so.
I am glad to see that these organizations that have nothing in common with socialism or communism have dissociated themselves from the soap box oratory that has been flooding this country for the last two or three years, but which, thank goodness, is on the downgrade. It may have flourished a little for the last year or two, but to-day it is going downhill. Let me tell my good friend the hon. member for South Battleford that he need have no fear of the members in the southeast corner of this house or their party ever sitting to the right of the speaker as a government.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, certain things that have emanated from at least two of the speakers to-night have brought me to my feet, and I intend to follow up the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), and the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mac-Nicol), who has just spoken.
I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver who interjected a remark during the speech made by the hon. member for South Battleford, that the members in this corner of the house do not agree. Well, I remember a speech that was made on the floor of this house last year by the very eloquent member for
280	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Luchkovich
Vancouver, in which he twitted the member for Weyburn about his lack of knowledge of finance. The hon. member for Vancouver said: You know nothing about finance; you should stick to the tariff. There are others in the group also who hold that view with regard to these questions. Now I am not a communist; I agree with what the last speaker has said in regard to certain things that are taking place in the southern part of Russia especially in regard to agriculture. A little later I intend to say a few things about how agriculture is being carried on in Russia.
Speeches in . this house, not only on this subject but on other subjects, have disclosed three distinct orientations. Hon. members on the other side very frankly say they would conserve everything good we have in the system at the present time on the protective principle. Hon. members on this side would let things take their own course and, Micawber-like, wait for something to turn up; while the group in this corner would welcome planning on the cooperative principle. Whatever we may think about the policies of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), we at least must agree that he has very frankly advocated the policy of protection. He said he would raise the tariff, and he did so. On the other hand the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) as much as said, "Put me in power and I will lower the tariff," As one speaker said in the west, the right hon. gentleman starts out by lowering the tariff and ends by raising it higher than it ever was during his regime. The other day I saw a cartoon in Maclean's magazine. The Prime Minister was pictured hunched on the back of a donkey, looking very dejected, and behind him were seen many unfulfilled promises. In an oval inset the leader of the opposition was sitting in a chair warming his feet at a fire.


Eccles James Gott: The last round-up.


Michael Luchkovich: The Prime Minister was pictured as going to the last round-up, singing, "Get along, little doggie, get along," but the leader of the opposition was pictured dozing near a fire, oblivious to the storm that was raging outside. I believe that no matter what we may say about the policy of the Prime Minister, to me and to hon. members even on this side of the house he looked more like Richard the Lion-Hearted on a very spirited prancer fighting what to many looked like a losing battle.
When I listened to the lengthy speech of the leader of the opposition I marvelled that a man could speak for four hours without uttering a single sentence in respect of the
[Mi. Luchkovich.]
policy through the instrumentality of which he was going to get this country out of the mess in which it now finds itself. There are people in Canada who still think that all we need is to change the government and put the other party in power, but during the next three, four or five years they will realize that the leader of the opposition cannot play the part of a magician and pidl out of a hat rabbits that are not there.
So, Mr. Speaker, the policy of one party in Canada is protection and the policy of the other party is low tariff. I have often heard members say in this house that all we need to do is lop away the mouldering branches. That argument is all right as far as it goes, but what are we to do if the whole tree is rotten? I suppose we will have to chop down the whole thing. Having this in view the resolution proposes that we set up in this country a cooperative commonwealth. So far as our friends to your left are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the only policy they have to offer is the old policy of the tariff. That has been a political football down through the ages; it is a policy that has been fought out between the tweedledums and the tweedledees ever since confederation. All this talk about the tariff reminds me of a bashful young suitor who was sitting beside his lady-love on a sofa. He saw a cat meander into the parlour with its tail in the air, and he said, "Mary, look, isn't that wonderful?" Mary answered. "I don't see anything wonderful about that." "No," he said, "that is true, but just the same it gives me something to talk about." That is all the tariff does; it gives the old parties -especially the party to the left of the Speaker,-something to talk about. The hon. member for Weyburn laughs. He is the Liberal medicine man who usually employs these tariff incantations, not only in this house but throughout the country. He has done so in his own constituency, and he did so during the last by-election in Mackenzie.


Edward James Young: Rather effectively, too.


Michael Luchkovich: Well, I was there
and I know a little about what went on in that constituency, but I do not intend to deal with that to-night. But if this tariff weapon were taken away from him he would feel like a hen in the lake, or like a fish out of water.


Edward James Young: Is that why you want to
take it away?


Michael Luchkovich: If we were to honestly ask ourselves how much the tariff would have to be lowered in order to get out of this depression, no doubt the best economists of

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Luchkovich
the land would tell us that the whole thing would have to be wiped out in order to help the people of this country. A reduction such as has been practised by the Liberal party since confederation, when in power, will have about as much effect in solving the problem of the present economic situation, to use the words of the Ottawa Citizen, as a small garden hose would have on a large forest fire. Nevertheless, this tariff talk goes on and on. The fakir on the street never lacks listeners, and Liberal tariff incantations also draw the crowd, as the hon. member for Weybum has said, sometimes very effectively, as in the Mackenzie by-election.


Eccles James Gott: Did he display his socks up
there?


Michael Luchkovich: Well, it was pretty
cold up there, and I think he had on a couple of pairs.
The group in this corner has always advocated low tariffs, but we believe that words without deeds would be as sounding brass and tinkling cymbals. Living in a world of reality we know that Liberalism will not lower the tariff enough to do much good, and therefore we have turned to something which we consider more fundamental in times such as these; we have turned to a reform of the monetary system, the bringing about of a better medium of exchange and a better means of distributing the great abundance of the goods we have now to a public bereft of the purchasing power with which to buy the necessities of life. Personally I think the laissez-faire policy practised by our friends to the left of the Speaker, the attitude of sitting by the fire and waiting for the clouds to roll by, is still the only policy they have to offer, notwithstanding what the hon. member for South Battleford told us a short time ago, which was nothing at all.
Therefore I do not see, Mr. Speaker, what in the world they have to go into ecstasies about in regard to the next election, for I believe that if the leader of the opposition does not run into his usual luck, with the help of providence, his lot will be far more miserable than he feels the position of the Prime Minister to be at the present time. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) spoke the truth when he referred to the sullen apathy of the public towards aid administrations, be they Liberal or Conservative.


Edward James Young: Or C.C.F.


Michael Luchkovich: There is no C.C.F.
administration at the present time.


Mr. DAVIES:: What about Alberta?


Michael Luchkovich: It has not been
proven yet; we have had no election there, and there is no criterion by which we can measure the Alberta government at the present time. But anti-government feeling does not necessarily mean a pro-Liberal sentiment throughout the country. I feel deep down in my heart that what the people of Canada want is not a change of party but a change of policy, because merely bringing the Liberals back into power without a radical change of policy would be grasping at the shadow and letting the substance go by. I believe if the Liberal party has nothing more to offer than a measly reduction in the tariff their efforts will be met with the odium and reproach of a public sinking deeper and deeper into the mire of ever-increasing bad times.
At a gathering of farmers last summer the relative prosperity of the country under Conservative and Liberal regimes was under consideration. One old timer longed for the old Liberal party and the good times which existed when they were in power. Another old timer, replying, stated that under the Conservative regime times were just as good. "What about the price of wheat, of hogs and of cattle under Mr. Borden's government?" one asked. He declared they were higher than they had been in the days of other governments. Well, those days were different, and I believe everyone will agree with me that it did not take exceptional statesmanship to administer the affairs of Canada in good times, but I hold that it takes near genius to administer the affairs of Canada in times like this. It is no use for any leader to bask in the sunshine of the past and to refer continually to what men have done for Canada in days gone by. The people are not asking themselves what Sir Wilfrid Laurier did for Canada, or what Sir John A. Macdonald did for Canada, but they are asking: What is the leader of the opposition going to do for Canada when he gets into power? They want to know what his policy is going to be. During the four hour speech of the right hon. gentleman I certainly did not hear of one principle or plank through the instrumentality of which we are going to get out of this depression.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Did the hon. member read a speech delivered by the leader of the opposition last February in which he laid down the policy?


Michael Luchkovich: No, I did not read that speech, but I certainly could not get anything out of the four hour speech he delivered the other day. He paraphrased a prayer, and I think that is about all he did. The mere paraphasing of the Lord's prayer will not impress anybody.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Luchkovich


William Richard Motherwell: That was not the Lord's prayer.


Michael Luchkovich: What we need is a plan to increase purchasing power, a plan to raise price levels and to coordinate the various industries. An hon. member who spoke earlier in the evening said that cooperatism-I believe that is the word he used-is akin to communism. May I say to him that if I thought that was so I would not believe in cooperation. When Canada is ever brought down to an agricultural system administered as it now is in Russia I will no longer give my support to a cooperative movement. Of course I am going to be told that we cannot regiment people without destroying individual initiative and personal liberty. But I would like to ask this question: What does initiative mean in a world where it can no longer be exercised, a world where people are on the verge of starvation in the midst of plenty? There are hundreds of mechanics and technicians without work to do, through no fault of their own. They are just as able as other men who have been fortunate enough to secure positions. Where have those young men and women a chance to exercise any initiative? What does that initiative avail them when they cannot find work to do? The best that can be said of their liberty is that the right is not denied to them to degenerate in enforced idleness and to pine away in the misery of thwarted effort. Therefore I believe that work, as well as subsistence, whether we like it or not, is bound to be given to them by the government of the day, whether that government be Conservative, Liberal, U.F.A., Labour or C.C.F. As one lecturer has put it, if we could regiment men and industry to kill Germans during the war there is no reason why the same cannot be done to rehabilitate Canadians in Canada during times of peace.
I deprecate the insinuation that the policy of nationalization and planning advocated by this group would inaugurate a system of communism such as is now being practised in Russia. The soviet method of ruthless force, terror and autocracy could never be tolerated in a democratic country such as this. The ballot and not the bullet will be our method.
I personally would not tolerate belonging to a group if I felt that its plan were to be modelled on the bolshevist prototype especially in regard to agriculture, and I submit my reason for that attitude.
For many months rumours of extreme hunger have been rife in regard to what formerly was the richest, the happiest and the most fertile part of Russia, namely the Ukraine. Letters have percolated into Canada.

I have read dozens of them, in which conditions in the southern part of Russia were painted. Many demonstrations have been held in New York, Boston and in other places on this continent against the hunger existing in the Ukraine. Hundreds of resolutions have been sent to the President of the United States and, I am sure, many have- been sent to the Prime Minister of Canada. Possibly the following resolution which was sent to the President of the United States will convey some idea of the conditions which now exist in the Ukraine:
Whereas, the population of the Ukraine, the richest and most fertile agricultural section of Russia, commonly known as " the granary of Europe " now part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, is at the present moment in the throes of famine, many persons died and many are dying on account of the lack of food; and,
Whereas, the present condition of famine and starvation in the Ukraine has been brought about by systematic and ruthless collection of all grains and foodstuffs by the Russian Soviet government from the Ukrainian people and by using same for export and military purposes; and.
Whereas, the Russian Soviet government officially denies all reports of famine and starvation in the Ukraine, and denies to the civilized world the right to assist these starving people; and,
Whereas, Ukrainians in the United States are continuously receiving letters from their relatives in the Soviet Ukraine reporting deaths, disease, sickness and privation from lack of food; and,
Whereas, great newspapers of the world have substantiated these private reports in so far as their correspondents have been permitted to do so; and,
Whereas, requisitions of all grain in the Ukraine by the Soviet government is still going on, regardless of the fact that thousands are starving in this district for the want of food: and,
Whereas, in view of the above facts it appears that the Russian Soviet government is deliberately trying to wipe out the masses of the Ukrainian people.
Now therefore be it resolved:
I shall not read all that follows because it is too long. It gives the number of people at the meeting, and the place at which it was held, and concludes as follows:
We protest in strongest terms against the action of the soviet government in removing the grain and foodstuffs from the Ukrainian provinces so as to leave the inhabitants in such provinces in a starving and helpless condition, and we appeal to the public opinion o! the civilized world in the hope that they will protest and force the soviet government to cease this ruthless policy of starving the people oi the Ukraine.
The chairman of this mass meeting was a man by the name of Petrowsky, but the chairman of a similar meeting held in Boston was a man by the name of Sullivan, an Irish-

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Luchkovich
man. I have also in my possession, a letter written to Nation's Business, Washington, in December, 1933, by Mr. Witting Williams. I do not intend to read that letter at any great length, but I shall refer to a few of the remarks which he has made in regard to the famine over there. He says:
Famine, last winter and spring, caused fully
5.000. 000 deaths!	_	,	.
1.	Though unbelievable here, this situation is no longer news in Europe.
2.	Practically all foreign-born but resident observers put the figure higher than the
5.000.	000 victims of "Hungary '21." This
hunger has been more widespread. It has also not been lessened by '21's	$70,000,000 of
American relief. (Party members-3,000,000- last autumn denied the situation and frowned upon helping the starving.)
3.	Amongst themselves upper-class Russians are reported to discuss whether the dead have totalled 15.000,000 or only 10,000,000! Nobody can know: Doctors (all government-employed) dare report death only as due to "Weak Heart" or "Exposure." Big increase in death-rate-also in number of tuberculous young -remains unexplained.
4.	Moscow eoi'respondents last August were denied access to the district I was visiting. One well known correspondent pooh-poohed all hunger rumours, but now confidentially admits "five million."
5.	Two other reasons for America's ignorance of conditions are: (a) Army control has lately made censorship both stricter and dumber; (b) "We residents didn't know why Yalta was suddenly, one morning, empty of all beggars and starving-until, about 11 o'clock, we saw hundreds of foreign tourists!"
6.	I personally saw children and grown-ups dying of starvation.
I do not intend to read any more.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question? Did he state some moments ago that a meeting was held in Russia or in Boston?


Michael Luchkovich: In Boston there was one mass meeting and another in St. Louis. The chairman of the meeting in St. Louis was a man by the name of Petrowsky.


Charles A. Stewart: I thought
the hon. gentleman said that one of the meetings was held in Russia.


Michael Luchkovich: No. Many protest
mass meetings were held in the United States against wThat was taking place in Russia.
I might be asked how I know all these things. I might be asked to substantiate the numbers who have died of hunger in Russia. It would be impossible for me to do so. All that I can say is that I have read dozens of letters coming to Canada from relatives in Russia, and some spoke of cannibalism and others of the population of whole villages

being decimated. I have some of these letters with me now but for lack of time I do not intend to read them.
Suffice it to say that agriculture is in a very bad way in Russia at the present time. In Europe Cardinal Innitzer of Vienna has sent out an appeal to the Roman Catholic world, especially in Europe, for help for these suffering millions. Appeals have also been sent from France and other countries in Europe. Mr. Mowinkel, the president of the league council, has tried to put this matter on the agenda of the League of Nations, but without success. There were too many axes to grind, too many impending non-aggression pacts, and so finally he handed the whole matter over to the International Red Cross. Dr. Am-mende, the secretary or president of the Minorities Association, also sent out an appeal to the civilized world. Even Leon Trotsky, the former leader of the bolshevik party, said in a recent article:
The agricultural policy in Russia is leading to bankruptcy.
Hon. gentlemen may ask what has all this to do with the resolution before us? I only bring the matter up because it has already been brought up on the floor of the house to-day. I bring it up because if any such thing should happen to agriculture in Canada I would be the first to dissociate myself from any form of cooperation that would result in anything happening in this country such as happened in Russia during the past year.
Walter Duranty, in a book called Tragedies of Russia, says that many former admirers of the policies in Russia who have been over there have now come back to this continent and in sullen silence have refused to answer any questions. Why? Because, as Duranty has said, no one who has not seen the reality would believe the report, and that the power of the dream will be greater than any truth.
The United Farmers of Alberta have always stood firm on the principle of equal rights for all and special privileges to none. It is my duty as a farmer member to sit in eternal vigilance in behalf of the farmer interests of the people who sent me here, and certainly any attempt to fetter the farmer such as is evidently taking place in Russia to-day would meet with my most vigorous condemnation and disapproval. No system of planning that would relegate farming to a position of inferiority should be tolerated. It would be hard to imagine the industrial east sending soldiers and tax collectors to the agricultural west as is now being done in Russia, and get away with it. Yet there are
284	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Luchkovich
many in Canada to-day who say that an exorbitant toll is continually flowing from the prairies to St. James street. The economic structure of Canada is being destroyed at its mainspring notwithstanding what has been said in regard to Russia. So unbalanced and lopsided has it become that the outworn, rickety affair may topple over at any time, with the farmer, incidentally, at the bottom of the heap. And when a basic industry like agriculture fails it is bound to affect adversely all the other industries in Canada.
In my opinion no plan can succeed unless it accepts the principle of equalization of industrial opportunity as the guiding principle, and supplants the present pursuit of economic reward with the ideal of service as a motivating force; and no new social system can succeed unless the various elements are brought into systematic and harmonious working order for the common good. I believe that agriculture is in need of economic planning possibly more than any other industry. As a primary producer and ultimate consumer, the farmer gets hit both ways. Look at the great discrepancy between the price the farmer gets for his products and what he has to pay for other goods and services. Industrial equality and efficiency are thus essential to his best interests; and furthermore all inefficiency or waste that goes on in distribution reacts to his detriment, either as a producer or as a consumer.
I have spoken of cooperation as a third distinct orientation both in and outside of this house. As an essential working principle in helping the farmer to solve his difficulties it manifests itself in three ways-cooperative selling, cooperative buying and cooperative credit. Naturally the farmer must sell somewhat above the costs of production to make farming pay; since the price at which the farmer can afford to sell is determined by production costs, the intelligent buying of the goods and services that make up those costs is the second important problem; and the necessity for getting credit as cheaply as possible to facilitate selling and buying constitutes the third major factor.
The proper relation of prices will need special attention as it is not so much a problem of how much a farmer gets for his wheat as how much he can purchase when he gets it; that is, keeping the purchasing power of the agricultural dollar on a par with the dollar of other industries in order to bring about an equitable basis of exchange.
This, sir, is the problem of the farmer. It will require economic planning and radical monetary changes, and to this end it is

desirable that the present system should be superseded by one based on the principle of cooperative production and distribution in which human needs should be the first consideration.
On motion of Mr. Morand the debate was adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GUTHRIE moved the adjournment of the house.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: What will be the business to-morrow?


Hugh Guthrie: To-morrow will be a government day and we propose to take up supply. We shall take the departments in the following order:	Trade and Commerce;
Marine; Agriculture and Justice, and if there is any time left, government orders. The first will be the bill respecting the Precious Metals and Marking Act; then the bill to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act; and Bill number 4, respecting the Bureau for Translations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Tuesday, February 6, 1934