1935-01-22

PRICE SPREADS AND MASS BUYING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the Prime Minister if he is in a position to advise the house as to when the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying is likely to conclude its proceedings and how soon the house may expect to receive its report? I think the Prime Minister will agree that if there is legislation to be based upon the report the house should have it as soon as possible.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, the government has no control over the price spreads commission nor has it sought in any way to limit or restrict its operations or to suggest to it the course of action it should pursue. I was last advised that the commission was endeavouring to close

its business by the date of the opening of the house. That however was impossible. My last information was that they were now endeavouring with every expedition to prepare a report for submission not to this house but, as it will be recalled, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson). By that minister the report will be laid upon the table of the house.
I quite agree with what the right hon. gentleman has said as to the desirability of having the report concluded as soon as possible in order that the government may take cognizance of its contents, and determine to what extent legislation may be introduced founded upon the recommendations that are made. But I believe for the same reasons the right hon. gentleman will realize it would not be proper for the government to indicate to the commission how or when it should determine its hearing, but that we should rather leave it to the discretion of the commission as to the manner in which it would discharge its duties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with the Prime Minister in his concluding remarks. He will observe however that all I wished to know was whether or not it would be possible for him to ascertain from the commission when it might be in a position to report so that we may be guided in our actions accordingly.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) when we may expect the Bank of Canada to commence functioning?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I am not in a position to make an announcement definitely, but it is anticipated it will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of March 1.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) based on a telegram I received this morning from the city of Stratford. It is as follows:
Lodge 103 International Association of Machinists at Stratford with over 400 members protests that contracts for new equipment for Canadian National railways be let to private

Electoral Lists
companies while railway shops have worked only sixteen days a month for the past three years.
W. Lyons,
Recording Secretary,
73 Dufferin street, Stratford.
My question to the minister to-day arises out of his answer yesterday to a similar question. I could not quite hear the minister's reply to my question yesterday and I did not know what his answer was until I read it in Hansard this morning. He says that the government has not come to any decision with regard to this equipment which is to be made either by private companies or in the railway shops, but that the matter has been considered. My question of the minister to-day is how long will it take the government to make a decision, and when they do make a decision, will the minister immediately inform the house and the country what it is?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any answer coming to the hon. gentleman. The government, if it makes a decision on this question, will submit it to the house at the proper time.
RADIO BROADCAST OF OPENING On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). I should like to ask if the statement appearing in the Vancouver Province of January 17 is correct, that millions of Iisteners-in in Great Britain were deprived of hearing the broadcast of the opening of the Canadian parliament because the Canadian Radio Commission did not consider the broadcast momentous enough to send outside of this country.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The article referred to has not come under my notice, but I shall be glad to take cognizance of it and give the answer I shall receive from the radio commission.
ELECTORAL LISTS On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I should like to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) arising out of the statement he made on Friday last, appearing on page 5 of Hansard, to the effect that the electoral lists would be completed about April 15. In that connection may I point out that under the Dominion Franchise Act a very important work begins on April 1, namely, that of clearing the electoral lists of names of 92582-5J
persons who are dead or who have moved, and so forth. The only time at which objections to names on the basic electoral list can be made is during the month of April, and I put it to the Secretary of State that if the lists are not received by hon. members and their organizations until after the fifteenth day of April, it will be extremely difficult to proceed with the important work of clearing the lists. My question to the Secretary of State is as to whether it would not be possible, at least in the congested urban constituencies, to supply the lists earlier so that this important work may begin at the time provided for by the statute, namely, on the first of April.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: As at present advised I do not think there will be any difficulty in supplying the urban lists and placing them at the disposition of the franchise commissioner at such time or times as are necessary for him and the revising officers appointed by him to carry out the terms of the act.


Charles Gavan Power: May I point out, as perhaps the Secretary of State has misunderstood me, that this is a non-controversial matter and that it affects all members from urban constituencies. The act by section 25 provides that notices to objections to names on the list shall be made during the month of April, not at the time of revision in the month of May, but during the month of April, in writing. Now if the lists have not been circulated and are not in the hands of members and their organizations during the month of April it will be extremely difficult for them to take means to register their objections. That is the point I wish to lay before the Secretary of State. I would ask him to make a further study of the Dominion Franchise Act in order to ascertain whether the point I bring before him is not well taken.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The point which the hon. gentleman makes may be considered well taken, but these lists are being printed from day to day and week to week, and I think there is no doubt that from time to time the urban lists will be placed in the hands of the franchise commissioner for distribution probably during the months of February and March.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. W. E. Rowe for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
The Address-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. 13. BENNETT (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, when the house rose last night I had been referring to some figures with respect to trade, and the position which Canada occupied, and the efforts that had been made to expand our trade during the great depression.
It is somewhat satisfactory to be able to point out this afternoon that Canada occupies fifth place among the nations of the world, although at one time she had fallen to sixth place. It is important that we should bear in mind that comparisons of incomparable things are very unfair and do not lead to any sound conclusion. From time to time I have observed throughout the country, and particularly by hon. gentlemen opposite, an endeavour to make it appear that the trade of Canada had suffered more than that of any other country, and they would compare the figures of 1928 and 1929 with the figures of 1932, 1933 and 1934. Such a comparison, of course, is not only unfair but I consider it to be more or less of an insult to the intelligence of the people to whom it is directed, for it is perfectly obvious that if you want to be fair you must compare the figures that existed amongst other countries of the world with the figures of Canada at the time to which reference was made and to-day.
The fact is that this country has more than maintained its position among the countries of the world as a trading country during the depression. Notwithstanding all that has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to restrictions and barriers against trade, this Dominion of Canada has continued to maintain its position amongst the nations of the world in a rather more forward position than other countries of the world. The truth is, according to the figures supplied by the Bureau of Statistics, that at the end of December, 1934, we took fifth position, exceeded only by the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany.
It is also true that during the depression at times we dropped to sixth place by reason of Japan or Belgium exceeding the volume of our trade. But it is, I repeat, a matter for satisfaction that we now occupy the position which we do. Our empire trade has expanded in a phenomenal manner under the operation of the Ottawa agreements. To take up the time of the house this afternoon in giving the percentages of increase, the extent and volume of our trade with our sister dominions and with the motherland would serve no useful purpose, and I shall not take up the time to do it as opportunity will be afforded later on.

I once more say, notwithstanding all the attacks made against the Ottawa agreements, notwithstanding the fact that the Liberal party as represented in this house stood in its place, with one exception, and voted against those agreements, notwithstanding that they have declared from time to time in this house and elsewhere that the agreements were worthless and useless and not satisfactory, and in one instance declared that they would repeal them if the opportunity came, the fact is that this country by these agreements has been saved from national bankruptcy. What is more, when I make that observation I make an observation which is supported by the statements of economists and others who realized that this country had one certain market during the depression, one market to which it could turn under all conditions, one market in which we had a preference over other countries of the world, a market to which we had free access as against the payment of duties by other countries. Had it not been for the markets thus afforded in Great. Britain and in other parts of the overseas dominions we would not under the conditions that obtained have been able to survive. I think that is fair, yet in season and out of season hon. gentlemen opposite have seen fit to decry these agreements and to render it difficult indeed particularly with respect to one commodity, lumber, to maintain the position of Canada with respect to the English importer. We were told that the agreements and the arrangements with respect to preference did not represent the view of the Canadian people; that is what the traders were representing, and that the real view of the Canadian people was that put forth by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Well, sir, I trust that once more the opportunity will be afforded hon. members of this house to record their opinions as to whether or not the operation of these agreements has been in the public interest. I am curious to see whether, in the light of what has transpired, hon. gentlemen opposite will say these agreements have been favourable or unfavourable to the welfare of this country. That is for them to say, and I do not believe that the misrepresentations that have been made with respect to those agreements have been based on at. appreciation of their real value. I believe that hon. gentlemen opposite, when they begir. to realize that value, will take a forward course, renounce their past, deny their vote and support the agreements in their constituencies. That is what I believe will happen. In fact signs are not lacking that they are already thinking of doing so, if one is to

The Address-Mr. Bennett
attach any importance to an observation made by the leader of the opposition a short time ago. In the midst, I think, of a speech on disarmament. I believe the right hon. gentleman desired to make it known to the people of Canada that they now would be disarmed from the opposition which he had previously taken against the agreements which have served this country so well.
So I say that on all counts, if ever a country should be proud of its achievements in a period of great depression-and you will observe I say a country-under the policies of a government that was not slow to realize the difficulties and dangers that threatened our whole commercial fabric, that country is Canada. Most Canadians, I think, feel that sense of pride and express it except when they are on the hustings or in this chamber. Then they think it their duty to decry Canada by decrying the government; they decry the government and so decry Canada, and preach blue ruin and ruin of all kinds to this dominion. I think no good purpose is served by that. It certainly is not the position that was taken by the opposition in my time. I do recall, and I say it with great frankness, that when this country went off the gold standard owing to the export of $40,000,000 of gold, it is a matter of record amongst my own supporters at that time that I asked caucus not to make any observations in the house lest they might embarrass the administration and the country. That is a fact that can be verified by reference to any hon. member who was then in this house. There are times when matters arise which are far more important than any question of party advantage. When I find this country being held up to the people of the world as a country whose trade has fallen off and been destroyed through the actions of the government; then when I turn to the figures supplied by the League of Nations and other independent statisticians and find that these ten and a half millions of people occupy fifth position among the trading nations of the world, I say to hon. gentlemen opposite that they should be ashamed of themselves for putting forth observations of that sort.
That reminds me further that yesterday the right hon. gentleman twice referred to the fact that there are a million unemployed in this country, whereas there were only a hundred thousand unemployed in 1930. The figures given in 1930 were the best that could be supplied at that time, and it was indicated by the department supplying them that they were very uncertain. However, it is clear that the million referred to were those receiving relief, men, women and children, not the unemployed. On the contrary the figures show that the number of employed in this country, as indicated by the reports from industrial and other sources, has steadily increased instead of decreasing during the last few months. There is no evidence to support any such figure as one million, for as I have said that includes men, women and children receiving some form of relief in this country, from any source. It is	well known
that 160,000 people or thereabouts are receiving relief in the drought areas of Saskatchewan. They should not be regarded as unemployed in the real sense of the word. That condition was not brought about by the government, though I understand that an effort has been made to induce the people of those areas to believe that the government was responsible for the drought.
I recite that fact merely that it may be clear in the minds of the people that when he spoke of 1.000 000 unemployed in this country the right hon. gentleman was doing his country an injury and a wrong, for there is no warrant for any such figure unless you include every babe in arms -and every child from babyhood to the age of sixteen or seventeen as being among the unemployed.
Mr. YOUNG:: What are the correct figures?
Mr. BElNNETT: It has been exceedingly difficult, the department states-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is less than half a million in any event, but the department states that it is exceedingly difficult to make any statement that would be exactly correct, because we have no method by which we can make such a computation. Mr. Cudmore of the statistical department has made a report in which he has indicated his view as to the number of unemployed, from the information in the hands of that department. He says:
In view of the uncertainty mentioned above an effort was made at the census of 1931 to collect complete information on the matter, as for the date of the census by securing from every wage earner in the country a statement whether he was or was not working on June 1, 1931, together with the reason for not being at work. On that date approximately 395.000 of the 2,570.000 wage earners of Canada had no job while 43,000 more were temporarily laid off. This figure of 395,000 gives us a basis for subsequent estimates as to the number of unemployed, though certain observers claim that the 43,000 temporary lay-offs should also be considered as unemployed. On the basis of the combined figure of 438,000 on June 1. 1931, it was estimated in a paper prepared by Professor Jackson and others of the University of Toronto that 726,000 were unemployed in
The Address-Mr. Bennett

March of 1932. This bureau, however, has always questioned the propriety of the addition of persons temporarily laid off to those with no job, but it was certainly the case that from 000,000 to 650,000 must have been out of employment in March, 1932, and probably 750,000 at the same date of 1933 when employment was about at its low point and when the total number of employees on the staffs of the firms making monthly reports to this bureau fell to about its lowest level at 698,000 on April 1, 1933.
Since April 1, 1933, the number of employees of reporting firms has been steadily increasing, with slight seasonal exceptions. Between April 1 and December 1 of 1933, 147,000 persons were ad'ded to the employees of the firms making monthly reports to the bureau, while between December 1 of 1933 and December 1 of 1934 an additional 75,000 were added, being a total addition of 222,000 to the staffs of reporting firms, some of which was due to the inclusion of additional firms in the records and some to the increase of employees in the unemployment camps maintained by the Department of National Defence and by certain provincial authorities. After making allowance for these two elements in the situation, it would appear that the number of unemployed wage earners in the country as a whole has been reduced from 750,000 at the worst point of the depression to something like 400.000 at the present time.
That is the position with respect to that.


Mr. RALSTON:: Would the Prime Minister state whether or not the numbers of unemployed include those employed on relief works for which money was voted by this parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman had followed me and had not been listening to the suggestion of his leader that he should ask this question, I read these words-


James Layton Ralston: Is the question still good?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and I am reading the answer, as I gave it before the question was asked:
After	making	allowance	for	these	two
elements in the situation-
That is, those who were working in the camps, the number of which is not given, and those covered by the additional firms reporting.
After	making	allowance	for	these	two
elements in the situation, it would appear that the number of unemployed wage earners in the country as a whole has been reduced from 750,000 at the worst point of the depression to something like 400,000 at the present time.
I submit that this is something of which the Canadian people should be proud. Why should anyone, in politics or elsewhere, desire to show to the world that the number of unemployed in this country was 600,000 greater than it actually is? That is the question which I ask. The information could have
IMr. Bennett.]
been obtained at any time on application to the same source from which I obtained it, the statistical department; it was open to anyone who desired to receive it. Allowance was made in consequence of the suggestion made last year by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in respect of single homeless men in camps maintained by the National Defence department as well as by the provincial departments, and those are the conclusions of the statistical department of Canada. I know of no reason to cast reflections on the accuracy of its figures; they have stood up against any statements made to the contrary anywhere or by anyone. I should think therefore that those who are seeking power in this country would desire at least to leave with the outside world, where the credit of Canada is important, an impression in accordance with the facts. It is not desirable to paint your country's reputation any darker than it is. Why blacken the reputation of this dominion amongst the nations of the world? I say that members of parliament, whether supporting the government or in opposition, should rejoice in the fact that the number of unemployed has been reduced from 750,000 at its highest to 400,000 as it stands now. That I think is a fair statement. It is necessary to say that the figure given yesterday does include men, women and children, and includes those in camps and elsewhere. To be exact, the figure is slightly less than 1,000,000, but it was at its highest point 1,500,000-that is to say, the number of those on relief, those receiving as low as one meal up to complete relief, or relief in some form. The number has fallen to something less than 1,000,000.
That is all I propose to say with respect to that matter, because while I regard it as important I feel bound to make the statement at this time in order to prevent that erroneous impression going abroad to the world to blacken our record. It was only a short time ago that an American paper made a review of conditions in this country and took that figure as the one that represented the unemployment in Canada. Is there any good purpose on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite in making statements of that kind when by a little effort they could satisfy themselves that such statements are incorrect? Why rejoice because you believe that there are more men unemployed than in fact there are?
That has been the course followed by the opposition sinice the depression began. Does it serve any purpose? When I suggested that the policy of the Liberal party was activity against every measure proposed by this gov-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
ernment and against any improvement made in this country, when I made that statement in the broadcast, I was simply stating a simple fact. What is more, there is not an hon. member who heard the right hon. gentleman's address yesterday who does not realize how sound was that statement which I made. I repeat, why blacken Canadian history? Why disparage the position of this country amongst the peoples of the world? Why endeavour to make it appear that this country is suffering to a greater extent than it is, when people outside Canada, who are viewing the situation here dispassionately, observing our progress, and seeing what we are doing, point to Canada and say, "That country occupies the brightest position of any nation in the world to-day."
Here are hon. gentlemen wailing, wailing, wailing while foreigners who look on disinterestedly and see our progress are glad to think that this country in the northern half of the American continent has made the progress it has. It is time that hon. gentlemen opposite realized the fact that the people of Canada fully appreciate this progress and are thankful for it. Why therefore should hon. gentlemen wish, in their reckless opposition to the government, regardless of what happens to the reputation of this country, to blacken Canada's position in order to maintain their thesis that this government is all bad and entitled to no credit for any good. That is their position.
Further, when attention has been directed to these matters in times past they have not desisted but have rested their case on an effort to vilify and libel and slander and attack, by every means in their power, the leader of the government. That is what they have done. In constituency after constituency they have gone out and endeavoured to do

what?
Mr. HANBUItY: Win elections.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. And then the light hon. gentleman talks about chivalry, as he did yesterday. Let him read the speeches made by his principal supporters; let him read the statements that have been made on the public platform, and then let him talk about chivalry. Chivalry! Why, it is a word unknown in his vocabulary except to mouth in this house for the purpose of advancing his own political fortunes-a word misunderstood and unknown. Yesterday afternoon the right hon. gentleman spoke of our having shown disrespect to the crown in introducing these measures in the way in which we did. Well, I will say this, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon.
gentleman desires to deliver any lecture on that point, I suggest that he go to Queens park, Toronto, and address his remarks to his right lieutenant. And if he has any qualms of conscience about doing that, let him cast his memory back over the past and think of the general election of 1926 in which his supporters went to and fro throughout the country, trying to make the people believe that Downing street was interfering with the domestic affairs of the Dominion of Canada, when he himself, on the 28th day of June, had written a letter to the then Governor General, Lord Byng, asking him to refer a matter to Downing street, which His Excellency refused to do. The right hon. gentleman talks about disrespect and discourtesy to the crown. Let there be no talk of discourtesy to the crown, nor any talk about chivalry when it comes to a matter of that kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister read the letter he has referred to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He will read this part of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read the whole of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he does not intend to read the whole of it; he will just read such part as that to which he referred:
If there is anything which, having regard to my responsibilities as Prime Minister. I can even yet do to avert such a deplorable and possibly farreaching crisis. I shall be glad so to do. and shall be pleased to have my resignation withheld at Your Excellency's request pending the time it may be necessary for Your Excellency to communicate with the Secretary of State for the Dominions.
The right hon. gentleman, by a single word, could have stopped that agitation against the representative of the crown; he could have read that letter. But he fed on it, he lived on it, he appealed on it to the passions and the prejudices of the Canadian people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On a question of privilege. When the Prime Minister says I made use of any letter which at any time I wrote to the Governor General-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -I say that
I made no reference at any time during the campaign referred to, to any communication, nor did any member of the party other than members of the ministry have any knowledge of any communication, that passed between the Governor General and myself, and I still ask the Prime Minister to read the entire letter, from which he has quoted only an excerpt. I regarded the correspondence at the time as confidential.
The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no question of
privilege in what the right hon. gentleman says. I repeat, he could have stopped that agitation by one single wave of his hand; by reading the letter he could have done so. But he kept it secret. From time to time, throughout the country, the papers were filled with columns of attacks against the Governor General, and the suggestion was made-he was looking at hon. gentlemen opposite-that Cromwell was endeavouring to do so and so. You will find all this in the newspapers of 1926. By a single lifting of the hand, however, the right hon. gentleman could have stopped the agitation. But he said, " I wrote a letter to Lord Byng and asked him to do this; was it done "7 But did he read the letter then?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never made
such a statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where was the chivalry then? Where was the discourtesy to the crown? I am compelled to make these observations because an endeavour has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite to make it appear that the government of the day has been derelict in its duty. I submitted to his Excellency, as I believed I should do, the fact that I proposed to make the broadcast addresses I did before the meeting of parliament; I conceived that to be my duty and 1 did so. The fact that speeches that have been made by public men and the causes and policies they have advocated have been included in speeches from the throne will be found alike in the lives of Gladstone and Chamberlain. Every lion, gentleman knows or should know that that is so. It has never been the practice of prime ministers to refuse to indicate what they have in mind with respect to large policies merely because they have not had an opportunity to put them in i speech from the throne before discussing them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the Prime Minister leaves that part of his remarks, as he has referred to Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain, would he tell us where Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Chamberlain ever informed the public in advance of the speech from the throne as to what was to appear in the speech from the throne when it came down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I repeat, when Mr. Gladstone, for instance, went down to Greenwich to make the famous speech he did, he dealt with matters that were subsequently placed before parliament for its consideration, fill. Mackenzie King.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where did he say what mention of these matters would appear in the speech from the throne?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know what the right hon. gentleman means except that Mr. Gladstone put it in the speech from the throne. That is the answer. He did not put it in his little book but he put it in the speech from the throne.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister had not written any book to put anything in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only difference between my right hon. friend and me is that he put these things in a little book; I put them on the statute books.
May I proceed to point out in addition that it was observed yesterday that there had not been any consultation with the party such as was necessary for the purpose of enabling the legislation to be brought down that is contemplated by the speech from the throne. The solicitude of the right hon. gentleman for the party which I have the honour to lead was very great. It was almost as great as his solicitude for the British preference in 1919 and 1923, but I should remind him that the very purpose of the broadcast messages was that the people of this country should be informed of what was proposed so that they might communicate with their members before they came here and the members would then be able to make known their views. That is something which I know hon. gentlemen opposite would not understand, but it was to afford that wide opportunity to the people to know exactly what was proposed so that their members when they came here would come informed and with an opportunity to express their views. I am delighted and honoured to say that the Conservative party, true to its great- traditions and its mission, is prepared to carry forward the reform measures which are indicated in the speech from the throne.
It is true that they expect to meet opposition as usual. The right hon. gentleman yesterday pledged the support of his party, but he surrounded it with conditions as usual and limitations as usual, in such a way as would interfere with the government of the day in the transaction of its business. He suggested that we should join with him for reform. When did an opposition ever reform anything? Why should we join that opposition to bring about any .reform?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Because the
Prime Minister is masquerading as a Liberal.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now the cat is out of the bag. I put these things in a book, he says. Masquerading as a Liberal! If that be so, there should have been no objection on the part of the right hon. gentleman to placing these reforms upon the statute book when he had the opportunity. Why did he not do so?


Mr. DONNELLY:: There was no need for them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no need for
them! Go and ask the thousands of people who have been bankrupted by the speculation that took place during the regime of the late government.


James J. Donnelly: Who is speculating in
wheat to-day?


An hon. MEMBER:: " My government."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the right hon.
gentleman raised an objection to the use of the word "my." How short his memory is! I suppose it is because he has no government that he now forgets. It is true it is not usual to refer to " my opposition," and I judge if he did so, it would not meet with universal approval. There are not lacking signs of that too, if one can pay attention to the remarks made and the gossip one hears from time to time, carefully guarded though it may be. I merely remark that the use of the word "my" has been common for at least two hundred years. Anyone who will take the trouble to look at the lives of any of the eminent British statesmen will find that that word is used in Hansard. So far as my investigations go, it has been used frequently in this country by all prime ministers and I presume it will be used again by whoever is fortunate enough to become a leader of the government from the opposition side although I see no sign of anyone there yet. Be that as it may, I merely mention the fact that the reference made in the speech from the throne by the representative of the crown to " my ministers " is certainly the only form that is ever used, either " my government " or " my ministers." Usually the two forms are used in the same speech from the throne, either " my ministers " or " my government," and they are used alternately.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct. I never took any exception to His Excellency the Governor General using the expression either "my government" or "my ministers."


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say to the right hon. gentleman that yesterday he did raise that objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he did not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then he objected that I had used the expression with respect to the government and I had spoken of it as " my " government. Later on I think I shall give him the number of times he used that term in at least one speech of his. Incidentally he also suggested that the time had come when the government should terminate its life by resigning or precipitating a general election. Let us review the situation so far as this government's support is concerned. If we take the general election in 1930, as compared with to-day it has exactly the same support from British Columbia as it had on that occasion; there is no change. In Alberta it has increased its support by one. In Saskatchewan its support has not changed although the Liberal party have added one to their number by defeating a Progressive. In Manitoba there has been no change. In Ontario the Liberals succeeded in the' old seat of North York, which is normally Liberal and which was held by the late Mr. Lennox for purely personal reasons, as everyone knew, and they also succeeded in Frontenac-Addington. There were two Liberal gains. The Labour candidate carried the Hamilton vacancy, which was a further loss to the government. In Quebec we gained one seat since the general election -Three Rivers. Therefore up to that point there were three losses and we had gained two, or a net loss of one seat as compared with the standing at the general election. Then we went down to New Brunswick and lost a seat there under circumstances that are well known to every man who knows the history of that province. In Nova Scotia there was no change, in Prince Edward Island no change, and the net result over four years has been that the government has lost two seats. That is the position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister if with four vacancies existing he has the same number of supporters to-day as he had when he took over the government?


Mr. GOTT:: Another interruption!


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will deal also with that, but first I desire to point out to this house and countiy that the net position of the government is that after four years of the greatest depression the world has known the government has lost two seats out of 245 in the House of Commons.
With respect to the vacancies I think there is a general, almost a universal rule that to precipitate a by-election, with the expense incident thereto, when a general election is not far distant has not been the course usually followed.
The Address-Mr. Bennett


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yesterday the right hon. gentleman himself said it would not be expected that a by-election would be held in the case of the recent vacancy in the constituency which was represented by the late Mr. Nicholson.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say anything of the kind. I said it would not be expected that by this time that particular by-election would be over. I would have expected the writs would have been issued immediately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that he will have opportunity to make speeches in due course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the Prime Minister must not misrepresent what I say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not misrepresent. I desire to point out that it is the course that has usually been followed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I go further, and state with very great frankness that there is no evidence that this country wants a general election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not only is that true, but the fact is that the business people of this country are wholly opposed to a general election at this time, as is well known-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -not only by hon. gentlemen on this side of the house but by hon. gentlemen opposite. But in addition I say there will be a general election in due course. It will come, just as all other general elections have come, in an orderly and proper manner. But when the charge was made yesterday that there had been a deliberate attempt on the part of the government so to arrange the Dominion Franchise Act passed last session as to secure some benefit from it, I say to the right hon. gentleman and those who supported him that they must have overlooked the provisions of the statute to which they took no objection when passed by this house; not only that but provisions to which they subscribed.
Parliament was prorogued on July 3, 1934, and the Dominion Franchise Act was among the bills assented to on that day. The Dominion Franchise Act was proclaimed in the Canada Gazette of July 6, 1934, and came into force on that day. Section 14 provided that not later than six months after the act came into force the dominion franchise com-
JMr. Bnnnett.l
missioner should publish in the Canada Gazette a proclamation calling for a general registration of electors to commence and end on respective days to be set in the proclamation. Therefore the position was that the right hon. gentleman was a party to the enactment of a section that gave to the franchise commissioner six months from July 6 to commence registration. That was arrived at by common consent. The hon. gentlemen within sound of my voice were parties to it. Then why come to this house and endeavour to make political capital of that to which the right hon. gentleman and his followers were parties?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say to the Prime Minister that the attitude of the opposition was based upon the assurance given by the minister of the crown who presented the measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I assume that with his high intelligence the right hon. gentleman understood the English language. Six months from July 6 was the time given to the franchise commissioner within which to commence to make his lists.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We were assured that he would commence immediately after prorogation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the franchise commissioner, Colonel Thompson, having under the terms of the act published this proclamation, proceeded with his work. The names of the returning officers for electoral districts were published in the Canada Gazette extra of August 25, 1934. These returning officers proceeded as required by section 13 to divide their electoral districts into polling divisions. No complaints of any delay in their work have reached any member of the government or the office of the Secretary of State. Two weeks after the returning officers were appointed, that is in the Canada Gazette of September 8, 1934, the dominion franchise commissioner published the names of those appointed by him as registrars of electors. In the meantime the dominion franchise commissioner with the assistance of the chief electoral officer was engaged in preparing all the forms under the act and instructions in English and French for the use of registrars of electors and of the enumerators appointed by them. Listen to the work he had to do. All these forms and instructions had to be printed at the printing bureau for distribution, and required approximately seventy-five tons of paper. The registrars also procured at local printing offices the printing of the public notices in form 4, and

The Address-Mr. Bennett
over this printing the government had no direction or control. On September 22 the dominion franchise officer published in the Canada Gazette a proclamation pursuant to section 14 that the registration of electors would commence on October 15 and end on November 17, 1934. It will be observed that from the date he made his proclamation, which was two weeks after the returning officers had been appointed, the matter was entirely in his hands and the government had no responsibility whatever. None whatever. On November 20 the dominion franchise commissioner commenced to deliver lists of electors to the king's printer for printing, and on the same day the king's printer began the printing. On November 3, the dominion franchise officer published a notice in the Canada Gazette that all appeals from decisions of the registrars of electors should be adjudged by December 22, 1934.
There is the story, told from the records, showing that the government itself not only had no responsibility, but no opportunity to control the matter, for the publication of the names of returning officers was not made until two weeks after they were appointed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt the Prime Minister if he prefers that I should not-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go ahead.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When he says the opposition was a consenting party, may I ask whether this opposition did not very strongly oppose the striking out of the section in the old election act which required that the returning officers who had been appointed during good behaviour should be continued?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is another statute
altogether, another provision.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But it had
an immediate effect on the question as to the time at which the franchise officer would be in a position to begin his duties.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not in any
sense militate against the soundness of the position which I submit to this house, which cannot be challenged, namely, that the law granted six months within which the dominion franchise officer was to commence his duties, and he only took two months, he proceeded promptly with his work, and immediately after he issued his proclamation, which was two weeks after the returning officers were named. It was no light job, he had to print something like two million documents, involving the use of some seventy-five tons of paper. I mention that because it is not desirable that it should be thought that the government of the day were seeking any advantage with respect to these matters; they were not. It is well known that in the appointment of franchise officers the chief franchise commissioner gave forty per cent to each of the two older parties and twenty per cent to the other groups, as a result of which, although the government of the day had the majority of members in the bouse, instead of taking the recommendation of each of the members, forty per cent of the recommendations made by members on this side were accepted, forty per cent by members on the other side, and twenty per cent from parties who sit opposite to my right, so it may be that part of the delay arose because of difficulty in connection with that, to which possibly reference may later be made. But that is the fact. It is not desirable I think that the impression should be left in the public mind that any effort was made by the government to interfere with the preparation of these lists, or that they had any object in mind in dealing with this question other than that a fair list should be prepared. And when it is remembered that six million names are on these lists one gets some conception of the magnitude of the task imposed on the chief franchise officer as well as those responsible in the several constituencies.
I confess to having been surprised when I found that there were 6,000,000 names or thereabouts on the lists, a greater number than I had believed possible with a population such as ours. The fact is that with so many names on the lists the work involved has been very much greater than was thought, I believe, by any of us. I do say to the right hon. leader of the opposition that I think a little fairer attitude than that which he has indicated is desirable for this reason: I suggested that I thought a basic electoral list should be prepared. The right hon. gentleman opposite expressed himself as being wholly in accord with that view. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who had charge of the bill met with representatives of the party opposite and it was concluded that a basic list was desirable. Everybody seemed to think it was desirable, and in the effort to secure it there was not the slightest indication of any intention to bring about any favouring or to grant any concessions, benefits or privileges to the government of the day. Rather it was the intention that we should have a basic list upon which elections could be honestly conducted in

The Address-Mr. Bennett
Canada without scandal, as has happened in some cases. That was our object and I do deprecate more than I can say that the right lion, gentleman should endeavour to leave the thought in the minds of the people of this country that the government desired in thought, word or deed to do anything which would in any sense impugn the validity of these lists, or would endeavour to secure any benefit through their creation and in their revision. That I think would be action which would not be calculated to advance democracy. It was for the purpose of enabling democracy to speak with a somewhat more certain voice than it had done that a basic list was suggested and agreed upon. If in the preparation of that bill six months was given to the chief franchise officer to commence to do his work it was done because it was realized he had before him.a heavy task and one which he could not rapidly perform. If he took only two months to do it he would do it in a shorter time than parliament thought might be necessary. I do not know of anything in any way shape or form connected with the preparation of the lists as they stand which will leave them open to any charge levelled against those who have prepared them or any charge of dishonesty in so doing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never have questioned the accuracy of the lists or the efficiency of any work the franchise commissioner has performed. It is the government's action I have questioned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Naturally. Anything the government proposed would naturally be opposed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman has just said I agreed with him in this measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now the right hon.
gentleman desires to indicate his complaint against the government in connection with something to which he was a consenting party. That is all that can be said about it. I must say that is not a new position for the right hon. gentleman to take. It is nothing new, and never will be, because the difficulty is to find any position which he takes at any time which he will take at another time in connection with any question of any kind which may come up.
Yesterday further reference was made to the question of the platforms of the contending parties, and promises made by the Conservative party in 1930. When it met in convention in 1927 at Winnipeg it laid down a certain platform; certain policies were set out
|Mr. Bennett.]
and I endeavoured to the best of my ability to bring them to the attention of the Canadian people. I did so. And I say this: If you will look at those policies as declared at Winnipeg and then look alt the statute books of this country together with what appears in the speech from the throne concerning this session's program you will find that since confederation there has not been any government which has carried out in such detail its ante election promises to a greater extent than has the present government.
I hold in my hand the platform of the Liberal party of 1919 in national convention assembled. That is the convention which brought into being the right hon. gentleman as leader of that party. I ask any hon. member of the house to take the trouble to read the platform of the Liberal party of that day, the party which brought him into being, and then ask himself if after having been in office for nearly ten years any political party has failed to the same extent as has the Liberal party to implement the promises made in a political document.
Yesterday the right hon. gentleman read his trade policy. Yesterday he read his policy with respect to the British preference. But what did he say? Be used the word "substantial"-that is not what he said in the House of Commons only a few short months before. He said if they came into power they proposed to bring into being the Dunning budget and a British preference of 50 per cent of the general tariff. I repeat the expression: 50 per cent of the general tariff. I read in this document of 1919, mark you-not 1935- the following words:
Resolution on the tariff: That the British preference be increased to 50 per cent of the general tariff, and the Liberal party hereby pledges itself to implement by legislation the provisions of this resolution when returned to power.
You will find that those are the words under which they sought power. In 1923 when they went to England to attend the economic conference the English, the British people, expected that the then government, pledged, as it was to bring into being a 50 per cent preference, if they had the power, would proceed to do so. Did they have a chance to do it? Did they have an opportunity to do so? Have they done it? Did they do it? Did hon. members observe that yesterday the right hon. gentleman did not refer to "50 per cent," but referred to "substantial." When did he change from "50 per cent" to "substantial"? During the debate which took place on the Ottawa agreements, to which I shall presently refer, time after time he re-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
ferred to bringing into effect a 50 per cent British preference. He promised that as his platform. One of his new members stood in his place and read the platform of the Liberal party. I shall read something of the extracts from parliamentary debates. I will ask him what he means. There was his promise in 1919; there was his pledge in 1919; there was his majority to carry out his pledge from 1921 to 1930. Did he do it? Did he attempt to do it? Did he endeavour to do it? Did he suggest that it should be done in any way, shape or form? Why, why, why to-day does he espouse the cause of capitalism? Why today is he so anxious about his friends the capitalists? Why to-day is he so concerned about what will happen if the reforms we have suggested should come into being? Why? Because he knows if he puts into force a provision of that kind, namely a 50 per cent preference on the general tariff, the effect would be to close up 60 per cent of the industries in Canada. His friends the capitalists have warned him what will happen. The big interests have told him what will happen. And so yesterday he appeared in this chamber reading from the Montreal Gazette his certificate of character. St. James street forever,- the Gazette, the Free Press and the Financial Post; by these we swim! In hoc signo vinces! Is it not time that we had secured an understanding of what he means? What does he mean?-"50 per cent" or "substantial"? What does his pledge to the electors of Canada mean? What does at mean? What is meant by it? The right hon. gentleman attaches a great deal of importance to trade, and rightly so. In 1921, 1925, 1926 and 1930 he condemned platform after platform of the Conservative party; he condemned our Canada first policy. Why did the right hon. gentleman forget his promise of a 50 per cent preference? He and his colleagues went to England in 1923 to attend an economic conference; while there he proposed a preference, but it was not a 50 per cent preference.
Mr. MACKEiNZIE KING: He did not do anything of the kind.
Mr. BElNN'ETT: Well, he put it this way: He said, " Far be it from me to suggest to you what you should do, but I will tell you what we will do"-and so he put it in the little book. There you have it. That is as far as he got. There is the story.
Now, sir, let us go a step further. It has been contended in this house by hon. gentlemen opposite that the government of the day have erected barriers against trade. The League of Nations in its pamphlet recently
issued pointed out that the whole trend of affairs during the last ten years has been towards tariffs. Why? Because it was the only way by which countries could prevent the destruction of their industrial fabric and their national life when other countries were producing goods which they were willing to dump upon the countries of the world that did not protect themselves. I wonder what my right hon. friend meant when he said that we took steps to prevent dumping in this country. Does he favour dumping? Does the Liberal party favour it? I want to know. Does the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young)-oh, I see he is not here. Do hon. gentlemen opposite believe in dumping? Now is the time to answer. Do not be silent in both languages. Rather speak in both, yes or no. Do they believe in dumping or not?


Mr. DUPUIS:: We want to dump the
government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I thought.
We are getting a lot of truth out of them this afternoon. That is something. That is all he cares about. He is not interested in anything else.


Vincent Dupuis: It is high time to do it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman from Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) says: We want to dump the government. But do they believe in the dumping of goods on the markets of Canada? That is the question, and now is the time to get up and answer it. If they do not believe in it, and we must take it for granted that they do not, then -what follows? The only methods by which dumping can be prevented in this country were the methods pursued by this government. What have you to say about that? That is what we put to the opposition. We took steps to prevent dumping by the methods that were indicated by the Minister of Finance, by tariffs, by fixing values, and by protecting our people from the depreciated currencies of other countries. Do you believe in protecting this country from the depreciated currencies of other countries or not?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you believe in depreciated currencies being the basis upon which Canadians have to compete? Did my hon. friend from Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) say something?


James Layton Ralston: I say, make your own
speech.
7S
The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am doing that, but I
am seeking an answer to pertinent questions raised by the right hon. gentleman. These questions were raised in this house yesterday, and now I ask an answer. I ask you whether or not you believe in this protection that has been afforded to Canadians, or do you believe in affording to those who manufacture so cheaply that our people cannot compete with them, facilities that they would not otherwise enjoy?


Thomas Reid: What about the cheap wages
in this country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I put this to the hon.
gentleman. Only last week we had to deal with a problem of great magnitude, great in one sense but not in another. Rubber and cotton and other things go into the production of tennis shoes. They are made in very large quantities in Czechoslovakia. There you have one of the greatest, if not the greatest, shoe-producing industries in the world, the original proprietor of which was killed, as hon. gentlemen may recall, in an airplane accident. They have a branch now in England. Bear in mind this fact, that rubber is not indigenous to Czechoslovakia, cotton is not indigenous to Czechoslovakia. Therefore they were producing tennis shoes in Czechoslovakia under substantially the same conditions as to importing the raw materials to produce them as Canada, and they were putting them into this market at a few cents a pair, relatively-the exact figures I do not carry in mind. Were we to allow that to continue and destroy Canadian industry? Does the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) believe that that should be done? Do hon. gentlemen opposite believe that this foreign manufacturer should be permitted to strike Canadian industry under such conditions, or do they believe that we should take adequate steps to protect Canadian labour from that form of competition. They have to buy their raw [DOT] products; we have to buy ours, and let me say that there has not been a day when the Canadian rubber industry has taken advantage of the full extent of the tariff. Everyone knows that.
Now shall that shoe industry in this country be destroyed or not? This government gave long and careful consideration to the matter.


Mr. DUFF:: What about the consumer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The consumer? Well,
there would not be any consumers if you destroyed every possibility of production. That is the answer.


William Duff: And there would be no producers if there were no consumers. You have the horse by the wrong end.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They condemn provisions against dumping, against depreciated currencies and against these other things. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have taken the only course provided by our institutions to protect Canadians. And yet I hear these means reviled in this house, spoken of as barriers to trade. Yet the League of Nations says that barriers to trade naturally have increased during the last few years. Can the Canadian people of ten and a half millions be sacrificed as an example to all the nations of the wmrld? That is the problem.
I have indicated this so frequently that it is not desirable for me to do so again beyond making this simple statement, that I have never believed in high tariffs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have never believed in high tariffs except when we use them as an emergency measure to prevent this country from becoming insolvent, and we did use them that way. We have recorded our belief with respect to tariffs. We have recorded it time and time again. I could not in the broadcast addresses discuss the question of tariffs. Why? Because we were then carrying on our negotiations with our great neighbour to the south, and there is not an hon. member here who does not realize that we could not discuss these matters at such a time without injuring our ease. There are many, of course, who would like to see our case injured, and judging from the speeches made in this house I would say that a good many of them will be found on the other side of the chamber.


William Duff: Why didn't you put to a vote the resolution that I moved last session? You were frightened to put it to a vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think possibly the hon. gentleman might keep order. I have concluded what I desire to say with respect to that matter. I shall only add this, that it has never been the custom in this or any other country to discuss publicly a question that may have a prejudicial effect upon the negotiations the country is carrying on. Usually all parties are agreed upon that, and the very nature of the matter was such that I have refrained from any specific discussion of these matters for months, during which time we have been carrying on these negotiations.
Now may I refer to two other matters that I regard as of some importance because they

The Address-Mr. Bennett
are mentioned in the speech from the throne? One is the Marketing Act and the other the Farmer's Debt Adjustment Act. How is the opposition's mind now upon the Marketing Act? Does it believe in it or not?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has promised to repeal that act if it gets into power. .


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: It will amend it all right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When did it promise that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did not say amend, but ,'epeal. I read in the press in Ontario that they said that if they were returned to power the act would be repealed, but I am glad to see signs of repentance now and recantation, as usual, with respect to anything that has proved to be useful to the people themselves. Last year day after day they opposed this act, this act that was proposed for one purpose, namely, to enable the producers of natural products to cooperate rvith one another for the sale of their products just as labour has cooperated, just as capital has cooperated, just as other forces have cooperated to do the best they could for themselves. They have opposed it. They have placed themselves on record as being opposed to it, yet they also opposed the provision that the government of the day might, in case of emergency, take measures for the preservation of peace, order and good government. They opposed that provision, yet I lived long enough to see the Premier of Quebec and the Premier of Ontario send a delegation to the government of the day asking them, through the combined force of the peace, order and good government provision and the marketing act-which did not apply-to take such steps as they might suggest to save the newsprint industry from demoralization. The very emergency which we thought might occur did occur; the emergency arose and the executive power was clothed with authority from this parliament to take the necessary steps.
When I hear the right hon. gentleman talk of the derogation of the rights of parliament I am surprised. I do not know that I am so much surprised as astonished, for it seems impossible that anyone who has been in this house as long as my right hon. friend has been, who has seen bills introduced and given first, second and third readings and passed through both houses of parliament, that conferred upon given individuals the authority and power to exercise certain functions if the occasion should demand, should know' better than to say that this is a usurpation
of the powers of parliament. What has happened is this: Parliament, in the manner known to all, by enacting legislation has conferred those powers upon specific individuals, to be exercised in time of emergency. It will always be so, for you cannot keep parliament in session all the time to exercise its powers. So it grants or confers these powers upon the executive or upon named individuals. The power may be conferred upon the railway commission; it may be conferred upon a marketing board or some other board. It matters not; these powers are delegated by parliament to the individuals or boards that may be named. And more; the courts have declared time after time that unless and until parliament has so delegated its power there is no validity or strength in any order that may be made by any executive or board that is not clothed with such power. The privy council decided that long years ago. There must be a delegation of authority by parliament or by the dominant power to its agent or to the delegated authority which may exercise that power. That has been done on every occasion, regularly and properly, and in accordance with the institutions of this country. It has been done time after time. It always will be so until the parliamentary institutions themselves vanish. When it is suggested, as it has been; when it is whispered, as it has been, that this government or its leader desires to deprive parliament of its power, I say that the leader of the government on all occasions has not only set forth but has demanded that parliament shall, in specific terms, clothe the executive with the powers which it is desired should be exercised, before they can exercise them.
But, sir, that has not always been the case with the right hon. gentleman opposite. He set up an advisory board on tariffs and taxation, and when I asked the Minister of Justice for the power and authority to do so he had to admit that no such authority had been granted by this parliament. So we had a body that had no authority behind it for its creation, a body that was without authority for its creation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Parliament
voted the money for the constitution and salaries of a tariff advisory board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parliament voted money, but the right hon. gentleman knows that did not create it. Parliament pays it, but it does not confer authority upon it to do any particular thing or exercise any power. The order in council in that case is just as harmless as the order in council, for instance,
so
The Address-Mr. Bennett

conferring the title of "Honourable" upon somebody while those passing the order in council object to someone else conferring a similar title upon some other person. It is almost unthinkable that a student of the constitution should endeavour for a moment to make it appear that this parliament has done other than clothe certain named individuals or boards or bodies or organizations with power. The marketing board stands as a body created by this parliament, clothed with the powers and authority delegated by this parliament, for the benefit of those for whom the board was created.
Now, I fancy there will not be the same violent opposition to that board that we found a little while ago, and why? Because it has succeeded; because it has discharged the function for which it was created. Those who sit opposite are always anxious to agree that they had a part in the making of that which functions properly, while if it fails they take credit for having said "I told you so." That is the position with respect to that. Let them stand up one after the other, those who voted against the creation of that board, and say they are opposed to it to-day. Let them go back to their constituents and say they are opposed to the marketing act. Let them go back and say they are opposed to the adjustment of farm debts in this country. These are the acts in connection with which we say we have made a movement towards reform, having regard to the conditions that exist in this country.
I did not think the right hon. gentleman would have had the hardihood to mention the central bank. What did he do on the third reading of that measure? He desired to be on all sides of it, so he moved a resolution stating that one of three things should be done; there should be government ownership, government control or part one and part the other. When his motion was found to be out of order he had to vote as St. James street indicated, for his former Secretary of State arose in his place and said, "Why do you not follow the advice of the bankers of St. James street, Montreal?" Then, one after the other, they got up and voted against the third reading of the bill. Sir, there never has been a measure in this country in connection with which the government has had more power than it has with respect to that bill. The comment that is urged by many is that the government has too much power.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: In connection with the central bank?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; it is said by many
that the government has too much power,

for in the hands of the governor and the appointees of the government rests a responsibility and power that many think entirely too great. But having regard to the conditions to which I referred the other day, I still believe that the only method by which it could function successfully is to confer upon those three officers, the governor, the deputy governor and the assistant deputy governor, *the powers that are indicated, the Deputy Minister of Finance being the liaison officer between the government and the bank. But let us see, after listening to the right (bon. gentleman yesterday, what he said on April 26, 1932, when the hon. gentlemen who sit opposite me and to my right moved a subamendment, stating:
That in the opinion of this house, as a first step towards general economic reconstruction, our financial system should be nationalized-
The right hon. gentleman laughed at that. He said:
That is the substance of the subamendnient. It suggests two things: First, the nationalization of our financial system and, second, the direct adoption of a policy of inflation. May 1 in the first instance ask this question of those who have moved this subamendment: If onr financial system is to be nationalized, whom are you going to entrust with that work? Are you going to entrust the government opposite with it? Are you going to entrust hon. gentlemen opposite, who have dealt with the tariff in the manner in which they have, under the freedom which has been given them, to nationalize the finances of this country? Yet that is what this amendment is suggesting, because it is addressed to parliament as it exists at the present time. May I ask another question? Were a Liberal administration in office would you entrust a Liberal administration with that task? May I ask still another question? Were you in office yourselves, would you undertake the work of nationalizing the finances of the country? I do not believe that any group of persons who have given thought to these matters would attempt a task of that kind in Canada at this time.
Yet what did he mean yesterday? Either he had seen the light and adopted the argument of the hon. gentlemen who sit to his left, or his words meant nothing. He talked about the direct government control of credit. That is what the hon. gentlemen opposite and to my right said; that is what he jeered at a few months ago. But now, because a central bank is coming into being which will function under officers appointed by the governor in council, with a liaison officer in the person of the Deputy Minister of Finance between the bank and the government, thereby securing all the benefits that come from independent private ownership in an institution directed in the manner I have indicated, with the control

The Address-Mr. Bennett
of the government such as it is under that statute, stronger than I can possibly conceive under any other method, with the government itself nationalizing and going into the credit business, now he finds this political factor. That was what the right hon. gentleman said in 1932. What does he mean by what he said yesterday? What is his policy? He speaks of the nationalization of credit. Does he mean that a political party is to determine what individual credits shall be, or what the credits of the customers or of the banks shall be? If he does not mean that what does he mean?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
the Prime Minister if he regards nationalization and control as one and the same thing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only reading what the right hon. gentleman said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but he is putting a wrong interpretation on the words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said:
And, if we ourselves would not undertake a scheme such as this, what would be thought of Canada by other countries if it were announced to-morrow that this House of Commons had attempted any such task as the one indicated in the subamend'ment ?
Now, the subamendment which I have read in part contemplates the very thing which the right hon. gentleman yesterday said he supported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it relates to nationalization.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it did not stop at nationalization, but control of credit. And this government has endeavoured by every means within its power to prevent credit and politics being mixed, the one with the other. We have endeavoured to secure for the people -,f the country the widest possible credit facilities, based not on inflation, not on the principles of nationalization and of the granting of credit on any terms whatever, but upon a comprehensive, appreciation of the importance of finance in the life of a country such as this. I confess that after listening to what the right hon. gentleman said yesterday, and comparing it with what he said in 1932, I find it somewhat difficult to understand just what his observations really mean. I suggest that possibly they are not unlike the observations he made when the matter was under consideration in the house before, namely, the suggestion on third reading that we should beyond all question straddle the fence and have three policies so that per-adventure he might 'be able to get someone to 92582-6
support him on each. That is about all that can be made of it.
I have here statements made from time to time with respect to these matters, but I will not trouble the house to deal with them at this time. I simply say this. If the right hon. gentleman is correct in the statements he made yesterday as to the attitude of the Liberal party in the past towards reform, then why were reform measures not passed? The time to pass reform measures is when conditions are prosperous.
It has been suggested that I have changed my attitude towards these problems. That is what has been suggested.


James Layton Ralston: Stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what is stated, then. Those who have stated it are not aware of the facts. When the world economic conference was called into being, over two years ago now, I .told my colleagues, as I told caucus, if I might refer to that, that if the conference failed-if it failed-it would be the duty of this government itself to propose reform measures for Canada. Those who are familiar with my own course in parliament and who will consult Hansard of 1913, those who care to look into my attitude on the railway question, when I broke with my own party and voted against the action taken then, will realize that I at least had a clear appreciation of the dangers of exploitation of the Canadian people in the manner in which they have since been exploited.
Let us consider the suggestion made yesterday. The suggestion was, "Don't legislate; just lot the people get together".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was no
suggestion of the kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I may have misunderstood the right hon. gentleman but he said, "Let the community and labour and capital meet together and arrange matters to their mutual satisfaction." For, he said, the community had an interest, capital had an interest and labour had an interest. Now, I have read a little of history and I have always been interested in the life of one great man, Lord Shaftesbury. It is very difficult at times to mention the name of that great man, especially on an occasion such as this, because his greatness was such that even to refer to it should, it appears to me, induce every hon. gentleman who hears it to pause a moment. What did he find? Labour, capital and the community,-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not working together.

The Address-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly not. How were they brought together?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they were.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were brought together by statute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were not and are not yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were brought together by statute, because it was realized that they would never come together so long as capital was in the position in which it was. And so legislation was enacted that curbed its power. Even those who recall Morley's Life of Gladstone will remember how he objected, as a breach of the tenets of Liberalism, that there should be no interference with the free power to contract, even with respect to hours of labour. That was the Liberal doctrine, in the days of free competition and open markets, the days before combinations of capital made it impossible to have the one or the other. And so parliament has been asked to intervene. Why do we ask the intervention of parliament, why do we invoke the regulatory power of parliament? Because parliament represents all the people and not a few of the people; and the interests of all must be protected by that institution set up in the state, called parliament, for the purpose of enacting laws for the protection of all who may suffer from the inequalities of freedom on the part either of capital or of labour.
Lord Shaftesbury found it so; others have found it so. Others have said that it is not desirable nor necessary that there should be any interference with the power of men to conciliate with one another. That might have been so once, it is not so now. There must be the collective power of the state, as indicated by its laws, to curtail the power of capital, which, unbridled and unrestrained, means ruin absolutely to the community in which it flourishes. Is there any one who has any doubt about that? If so, he has only to read the history of Canada from 1920 to 1930. All he has to do is to read the history of mergers and combines and the exploitation that took place by men sitting close in council to the right hon. gentleman. They were not curtailed; their power was not lessened; they were not restrained but encouraged, because the Combines Investigation Act was circumvented-how? By mergers, which took the administration of business out of the control of those who had built the business and rMr. Mackenzie King.]
knew it, and placed it in the hands of the exploiter. If you have any doubt about it, you might read the proceedings before the tariff board in a very important case which it is not necessary for me to mention.
I have in my hand the Life of Shaftesbury. The right hon. gentleman has asked me from what source I have derived such impetus as is given my mind to survey these problems. I say, it has come from reading the lives of great reformers-not reformers who have been content to put these things in a book but who have insisted that parliament should legislate and enact them in the statutes of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where did the right hon. gentleman get his knowledge of the views of these reformers if not out of books?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly. I found their views recorded in the pages of Hansard. Those who remember Lord Ashley's speeches in the House of Commons, or his speeches after he succeeded as Earl of Shaftesbury in the House of Lords, will find his position indicated in his public addresses-recorded, it is true, in books, but not books such as the one to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. His views are recorded in a book though he had an opportunity for nine years to place them on the statute books. But he declined to do so and permitted capitalism, untrammeled and uncontrolled, to destroy thousands of our citizens.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister told us yesterday that he had not read the book; how does he know what is in it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, pardon me; I did
not say that. He suggested that I had gathered my ideas from his book. I did not. I disclaimed that, as I disclaim it now. But years ago I did read part of his book. I cannot say I read it with great care, but I did read it and I congratulate him on his industry. Not for a moment would I decry his industry, but I do say this, that in the realm of actualities and realisms, fine spun theories in books will not accomplish reforms. Shaftesbury put the matter in this way, according to his biographer:
Finally, Shaftesbury's creed never ceased to emphasize the sanctity of personality over property; and to urge the God-imposed duty of cleansing the atmosphere from all vicious diseases, mental and physical, "spawned in the cesspools" of social corruption. Hence he pointed, with shame, to the incongruity that society treated many "as swine when children, and later expected them to walk with the dignity of Christians." To Britain's foremost
JANUARY 22, 1935	S3
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
reformer it was a primary demand of Christianity that society create an environment conducive to symmetrical growth; and for him symmetrical growth meant such development as that of the child Jesus, who "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." During his half century crusade for child welfare, Shaftesbury never wavered on this point.
If from that source and from others I have learned that it is my solemn duty and obligation, when I have the power and authority, to introduce those measures of reform which are referred to in the speech from the throne, I shall go forward; we shall go forward -with that work to the end that this country may h" purged of the inequalities and iniquities that have grown up under the system which, unrestrained and unregulated, not in all eases but in many, now finds its protagonist and support from those who on the one hand whisper of disdain and contempt and on the other say: We support it; on the one hand seeking support from the sources from which those iniquities have grown and on the other condemning them with their tongues in their cheeks. Not with such half measures will we carry forward our efforts. With those efforts for the improvement of society, for the overcoming so far as it may be of the inequalities to which I have referred, we shall endeavour by every means in our power to bring about those reforms.
I am convinced that the good sense and high intelligence of the Canadian people who have suffered long and patiently from the circumstances to which I have alluded, who have seen their savings taken away by speculation unbridled and uncontrolled, who have seen their properties lost, who have seen their children impoverished by reason of that speculation, will give to those measures that warm support and allegiance which will be found far beyond, shall I say, the range of parties but in the hearts of the people themselves.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that both parties have seen the light, there remains very little for us to do. I have sometimes wondered, as I have listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his denunciation of the evils of capitalism, whether if he could appreciate how fundamental those evils were and how inherent they were in the system itself, he might not become a fine soap boxer for us.
The speech from the throne makes reference to the maintenance of peace. May I call attention to an incident that a few years ago would have provoked an international crisis? ft is one of those things of which all parties 02582-61
may very well be proud. I refer to the settlement of the I'm Alone incident. A few years ago we would have had an outcry that we had to maintain Canada's national honour. Fortunately wiser counsels prevailed and the case went to arbitration. Now we find that the commission have declared that although it was a British ship of Canadian registry it "was de facto owned, controlled and at critical times managed, and her movements directed and her cargo dealt with and disposed of, by a group of persons acting in concert who were entirely, or nearly so, citizens of the United States." It was actually handled by Dan Hogan of New York and the late Marvin J. that is "Big Jim" Clark, a roving former convict, on a profit sharing plan. The arbitrators decided that an apology which I think has been tendered, was due to Canada by the United States for the sinking, and of Canada's damage claim, $25,000 was granted. The opinion of the international jurists is revealed in their conclusion there should be no compensation to the owner of the ship or indemnity for its cargo. An incident of that kind, the significance of which was hardly noted by our press, should encourage us greatly as to the possibilities of international arbitration and other methods of bringing about peace.
Last night the Prime Minister won a great deal of applause when he rather ridiculed the idea that anyone should avoid taking action that might be considered provocative in character. It is that very attitude that has so often caused international complications. I wonder if I might read a paragraph in a speech recently delivered by the United States Secretary of State, the Hon. Mr. Cordell Hull, who said in that country:
Just as we set the vicious example of erecting the trade barriers of high tariffs which induced others to follow us, so now we are asking other nations to join us in an attempt to undo the damage our collective action has worked. We wish to break down all the artificial and excessive impediments put in the way of world commerce, not only in our own interest but for the benefit of all others as well, sine? only by restoring the whole world can individual countries hope, in this day of rapid communication and interdependence, to remain economically healthy long. A hermit nation means a hermit civilization.
If we are to have better conditions in Canada we must be willing at times to make some immediate sacrifice in order that we may ultimately attain a position which will be of advantage both to Canada and to the world at large. In this connection may I quote another statement, really not inconsistent with the preceding but emphasizing an important aspect of the problem. Henry Wallace,

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
wonder this program has fairly taken away the breath of the public.
Of course one must reserve judgment until the bills are introduced, but I think that at this stage several observations are pertinent. First of all, why has the government waited until the eve of the election? The Prime Minister's explanations are not convincing Again, unless some method is evolved of settling the matter of jurisdiction it is not fair to introduce legislation which may be challenged in the courts. I am not a constitutionalist, as a good many people would testify, but I do not think it is wise to plunge into a long legislative program which in the end may mean nothing to our people. But having said that I think we are surely in a very happy position to-day. The Conservative party has pledged itself to these reforms. The Liberal party states that they were pledged back in 1919; I hope they are still pledged. Then it would seem that we are all pledged, and the reforms should be passed in the present session.
In his radio addresses the Prime Minister said that he is going to reform the capitalist system, and that his legislative program will solve our troubles. I want to say that that program offers no solution of our major economic problems. If in spite of constitutional difficulties and opposition, the government is able to carry out 100 per cent of the reforms it has listed in the speech from the throne, I would say that Canada would come up only to the position in which Great Britain stood in the days of Lloyd George's famous program of social insurance, or to the point Germany had reached before the war. I hope the reforms are carried out but in such event, let me repeat, we would then only be in line with the more civilized nations of the world. I hope no hon. member in this house or any person outside will be deluded into the belief that this program constitutes a reform of capitalism. Capitalism still stands as a menace to the Canadian people and to the world.
I take it the speech from the throne must be read in the light of the Prime Minister's speeches over the radio. His earlier broadcasts were very startling; we were led to believe that capitalism was doomed and that Mr. Bennett was about to administer the coup de grace. I believe that was the general feeling. Later speeches rather descended to a vigorous criticism of the Liberal party and the laissez-faire policy which had been adopted by it. I am inclined to think the criticism was fairly well done, because although to-day Liberals may disclaim the term their record shows that on the whole they have been opposed to gov-

ernment interference. If I may take the Winnipeg Free Press as an example of Liberal policy-and it is generally considered such- I would state that almost every issue is devoted to a denunciation of those who put forward regulatory policies.
The speeches also advocated1 certain specific reforms which are very desirable. If they are passed they will not in any sense undermine the capitalist system; on the contrary I think they will bolster it up. However, even in that case they may help out a number of individuals who to-day are in very bad circumstances. Whatever his motives may be I take it that the Prime Minister has made a great contribution to political discussion in Canada. There will probably be several permanent gains. First of all, the capitalist system is no longer sacrosanct. Whenever in the past anyone has spoken in denunciation of the capitalist system he was apt to have hurled at his head the cries of " radical," " bolshevist," " dangerous man." Now Mr. Bennett heads the procession in denouncing some of the evils of the capitalist system.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Perhaps I should
not have said Mr. Bennett, but Mr. Bennett has been speaking outside, and I was not speaking of what the Prime Minister had said in the house but of what Mr. Bennett had said outside.
The Prime Minister further declared, and I want to give him credit for this, that the capitalist system must be considered on its merits. In the past, most of us have taken the capitalist system for granted. It had come into existence before we did, and we grew up with its development, and so we never thought of questioning it, much less of suggesting that there could be any other system. But now the Prime Minister has said that it is a system of comparatively recent growth, that its most dangerous evils manifested themselves since the war, and that we should consider that system on its merits. All that is to the good, and I hope we shall do that in this house in the days to come.
Again, I would point out that the Prime Minister made a great contribution when he declared definitely for the regulation of industry. Anyone who has read the history of the last hundred and fifty years, especially of the last half century, must have recognized that the situation to-day is very different from that which existed in the earlier days of capitalism. Then the policy of laissez-faire may have been a very good one, the policy of reducing interference by government to a minimum;

The Address-Mr. Woodsworlh
but now even the leader of the opposition is obliged to concede that there are circumstances in which there must be a great deal more of government regulation. Twenty-five years ago the present leader of the opposition stood for government regulation of a rather mild type, but since the evils of capitalism have developed a great deal since that time, we must go a great deal further. I know that the idea of government regulation of industry is anathema to the old line Liberals, and a great many of them will never swallow it. A man said to me the other day: "You never can force us by legislation to do those things." I simply point out that there are a hundred and one things that we are being forced to do to-day, all sorts of things in our civic affairs, for instance. You cannot drive as you please, left or right; you have to drive to the right. You have to stop and go with the signal lights, and so on. We are accustomed to these things, but we have not yet carried them into the sphere of larger industry. Regulation is almost instinctively opposed by the children of the old pioneers, and as one of them I understand their feeling. We have been so accustomed in the simpler forms of society to going our own way that we hate to be regulated. I confess that I hate to obey the traffic signals on the street; in face, I can hardily see them. I like to go in spite of them, and yet I know perfectly well that the traffic of a modern city cannot be kept moving on the old uncontrolled basis. We cannot get through to our destination unless we observe the rules of the road.
We must recognize the changed conditions of business. We talk about individual freedom and individual initiative, but there is not a business man or a professional man or a labour man to-day but recognizes that in practice very few persons do have much individual freedom or individual initiative. They can hardly call their souls their own. Even university professors are being told they cannot enter politics. Labour people are being told that if they speak on their job against the party of the boss they will be fired, and with their wives and children dependent on them they hardly dare take the risk. I should like to ask what freedom in practice is left even to the branch bank manager, much less to his clerks. What freedom is left to the employee of a great commercial firm like Eaton's or Simpson's?


Mr. IRVINE:: Freedom to starve.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, freedom to
starve. In practice what freedom is left to the individual in a great industrial concern? Very little, and political freedom becomes
absolutely futile unless we have freedom in the teonomic world I think that has been amply demonstrated by the revelations of the price spreads and mass buying commission. Big business takes advantage of the old time psychology to urge freedom, but I submit that what we call freedom from government restraint means in practice that the big industries and the big commercial concerns control us body and soul.
It is a curious thing that to-day a great many business men are saying: We should have less government in business. Do these people stop to think that Canadian business to-day is almost entirely dependent upon government support? What about our railways with their charters, their grants, their subsidies, and more recently their guarantees? Aet if you were to talk about wages on the railways immediately the president, of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would get up and say: We must not have any interference by government with business.
What about those gaining control of the natural resources of the country, the timber limits, the mineral resources and the water powers? A few years ago we had Beauharnois, and I noticed in the papers only a few days ago that the Sifton estate was to receive $50,000 from Mr. Sweezey because of the services that Mr. Sifton had rendered in securing from the government the right to go ahead with that development. Is that the way we treat the people who come here lobbying, and getting $50,000 for persuading the government to do what the government never should have done? And now the natural resources are gone


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was there not also mention of having a lobby of members of parliament, apart altogether from the government?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is just as bad.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, certainly. I agree with my hon. friend's point of view. The whole business is bad.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is bad to have the members lobbied, but of course the government really has control, and that is why I refer to the government.


Mr. SPOTTON:: It was done by order in
council, was it not? Why should members be lobbied? It could only have been the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I need not refer to what big business has been able to secure from the government in the way of company incorporations and charters through which they
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth

have been able to exploit the public. I need not refer to the tariffs under which a great many of our big manufacturers have been enabled to charge the people sometimes double what they ought to be charged for protected products. I need not refer to the bank charters which have given practically a monopoly of the financial affairs of this country into the hands of a group of private individuals. Such is the situation and yet today the bankers and these big business people have the assurance to come to us and say that there must not be any government regulation in business. I give the Prime Minister credit for challenging that position. I think we can never go back to the old position.
The fundamental weakness of the Prime Minister's speeches seems to me to be that his proposals would stabilize the present capitalist system. He divides people into producers and non-producers, and incidentally I would point out that he leaves out most business men and professional men who are not usually classed by economists as producers. He says the producers are those who live by investments on money, either earned or given to them. I want to say here that in my judgment the big fortunes of this country have not been earned by the sweat of the brow. Some of the big fortunes have been founded on war profiteering; others have been built up by a series of special privileges. They came out of the public; there was no other place from which they could come. The Prime Minister did not suggest that any of these big fortunes should be investigated, so I take it for granted that he assumes that they are to remain much as they are to-day.
As to fortunes that have been inherited, let me say that if we in this house had been doing our duty for the last few years there would not have been these big inherited fortunes at all. What does an inherited fortune mean? It means that if I inherit a fortune my children have a claim on your children before the children are born. It means that the man who inherits the fortune has the right to the services of others in the community, and while I am just as anxious as anybody can be to look after the widows and children, I want all widows and children to be looked after. The time will come when the position will be as it was very well put in the first labour manifesto issued years ago in Great Britain, that after comparatively small allowances are made for the immediate dependents, it should be that naked the man came into the world and naked he shall go out again.
What about these great fortunes? I take it that according to the Prime Minister we

are to continue to have two classes of people, first of all the people who live by owning and secondly the people who live by working. That is where I part company with the Prime Minister. He would stabilize society with its present two classes, the people who live by owning and the people who live by working. The people who live by owning form a very small proportion of the people of Canada. I know there are the small investors, but not so very many. When we consider that less than two per cent of the people of Canada are wealthy enough to pay the federal income tax we begin to realize how small a proportion of the people are benefited by the present arrangement.


Mr. GRAY:: Do you not think the owner works?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not talking about the owner; I am talking about the two classes into which the Prime Minister has divided society, the people w'ho live by working and the people who live by owning. If the owner is working he comes into the class of producers. If he is living on the earnings of other people he comes into the class of non-producers.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he has exhausted his time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think by the clock I have two minutes left.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


James Shaver Woodsworth: With the permission of the house I will go on for another five minutes; as hon. members know, I have only forty minutes.
With regard to the specific proposals, I think we shall all be glad to support those having to do with minimum wages and maximum working hours. The British North America Act has been held to be an obstacle, but many times in this house I have said, and I thoroughly believe, that where there is a will there is a way, and I am quite confident that there is some way around the British North America Act. If not, it can be amended.
With regard to unemployment insurance, we have advocated that for years. It is a good idea, but may I suggest that you can build up reserves, we will say, for a fire insurance scheme when there is a time of tranquillity, with no big fires. If you have your reserves you can pay the loss when one house burns. If another house across the city burns you can pay that loss also, but when the whole city is going up in flames it is not time to begin to build up the reserves necessary for a fire insurance scheme. The

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
same is true with regard to unemployment insurance. How can the people who are now out of work contribute to such a scheme? How can the poorly paid people of to-day do so? It cannot be done. Under these circumstances I would say that the measure as proposed does not solve the problem of the half million people who are now out of work.


Mr. NEILL:: We have not seen the measure yet.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It will not solve
the problem, because it is on a contributory basis. If the so-called dole is to be abolished, the relief as we give it at present, the latter state will be a great deal worse than the first, because I think we all recognize that a number of our provinces and many municipalities are practically bankrupt.
With regard to old age pensions the same might be said. With regard to any provision for health insurance, again we are heartily in accord with that step. I remember a slogan adopted a good many years ago by the women of Alberta; " The hospital as free as the public school." By all means let us have the hospital as free as the public school. I think it must come. When we were at war and a man was injured did we wait until he could secure a private doctor to take care of him? Did we wait until the ambulance man was assured that his fee would be paid? Not a bit of it; we said it was in the interests of the army as a whole that the man should be looked after. I believe that what is true in war time is equally true in peace time, and that it is to the interests of the community as a whole that our sick should be looked after.
How are such schemes to be financed? I submit that under the present system this is going to be extremely difficult. Does it mean new taxes?-surely our people generally cannot stand very much more in the way of taxation. Does it mean that the cost is to be borne by the bondholders? I have advocated that for years, but the proposal has been frowned upon and we were told that those are sacred obligations. I have tried to say that the obligations to the men, women and children of this country are much more sacred than those to the bondholders; perhaps now the Prime Minister is willing to take that view. Does it mean that the burden is to be passed on to the business men of this country, then I urge that business is hardly in a position to stand the additional load.
Now I come to the main problem, on which I should like to say just a word. How can we increase the prosperity of the country?
Everyone says "increase trade," but that trade must be either foreign or internal trade. We can sell either abroad or at home. The Prime Minister has well said that the open market is a thing of the past. I do not think he has quite so clearly realized that the world market, the expanding market, is also a thing of the past. All the nations to-day that have adopted this capitalist system are producing in huge quantities and seeking markets. Under those circumstances we are not going to get the market abroad which we would all like to see. So we come to the home market, and the only way in which we can increase the purchasing power of the people is by putting into their hands a larger measure of purchasing power in the form of services and wages. In the past, instead of doing that, the government has tended to curtail both the wages paid its own employees-thus setting an example to the outside community-and the services rendered. That is the difficulty we face to-day.
Years ago, I remember reading the older socialist economists who pointed out that we had to face certain inherent contradictions in the capitalist system. I confess that formerly I was not able to understand that, but I understand it to-day. We have reached the point when such contradictions are evident. The very steps the government ought to take to save the situation they cannot take and meet their obligations. The very steps the business community ought to take in the way of putting into the hands of the people increased purchasing power they cannot take because of the huge capital indebtedness which has been piled up.
So now we face the need for a new social order. I think the Prime Minister was right, in words at least, when he said the old order is gone. Yes, I said "in words," because I do not believe the Prime Minister with all his knowledge-and he has a capacious mind-has yet realized that the present economic system is doomed. If he had realized that he would not have talked about a few of these reforms saving the system. We are facing one of the world's great crises, and while we attempt to do these things, which some of us feel pretty sure cannot be accomplished under the system, we might as well frankly face the larger issues. I believe that in this election, as in no previous election the issue that will face the people of Canada is this: capitalism on the one side and a new social order on the other.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Democracy and socialism.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Democratic socialism, if you like.
The Address-Privilege


Ross Wilfred Gray: I said democracy and socialism.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the issue which we have to face in the days to come. I wish to thank the house for having so kindly extended my time for a few minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. In the course of his speech this afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) quoted from a letter which I had written to His Excellency the former Governor General in 1926. The Prime Minister quoted only a part of the letter and I asked him to read the entire letter so that the paragraph which he quoted should not be misconstrued.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not a question of privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking to the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I object to its being raised as a question of privilege, which it is not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), as I take it, has the right to rise to a question of privilege. I have not yet heard the question stated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When a communication of an hon. member has been partly quoted in this house in the course of debate, and he asks the member quoting it to read the entire communication, in the event of the member who is speaking refusing to comply with that request, has not the writer of the letter the right to have the entire communication put on the record?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No, I think not. The
right of a member to speak again is confined strictly to an explanation in order that there may be no misunderstanding or misconstruction by some other member of anything that he has said. There is however no authority of which I am aware that permits the subsequent reading by an hon. member on a question of privilege, of the entire communication, a part of which has been quoted, or of some statement made on a previous occasion. The right hon. gentleman, if the Prime Minister in his remarks misconstrued something which he said, has the right to correct such an error; but I certainly know of no rule that authorizes the step which the right hon. gentleman proposes to take.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is, Mr. Speaker, that by reading one paragraph of the letter, divorcing it from its context, the Prime Minister has misconstrued and mis-
represented my attitude, and the only way in which that attitude can be correctly represented is by reading the full text of the letter. As a member of this house I claim the right to have the entire letter placed on the record, seeing that, the Prime Minister having quoted only a portion of it, he has in so doing misrepresented the main purport and intent of the communication.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That, I regret to say, is not my interpretation of the rule. May has covered the point with respect to explanations that may be made by one who has exhausted his right to speak. At page 313 of the 13th edition he states:
The proper time for explanation is at the conclusion of the speech which calls for it:

That is one point on which perhaps the question of privilege is not correctly raised at this time, although I should not be inclined to rule in that regard.
-but it is a common practice for the member desiring to explain to rise immediately the statement is made to which his explanation is directed,-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Quite true.
-when, if the member in possession of the house gives way and resumes his seat, the explanation is at once received: but the explanation cannot then be offered, if the member who is speaking declines to give wray.
That is as far as the rule goes. So far as my limited experience and knowledge go, it certainly does not afford the right to the right hon. gentleman to read the rest of the communication, a part of which has been quoted. That would be my ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Your Honour having occupied the chair only for the past few days, I will not attempt to appeal from your ruling. I do submit however that hon. members will be placed in a very embarrassing position if it is free to any member to quote from a communication any paragraph he chooses, unless the member whose communication is quoted from is given the right to have the entire communication read. I think Your Honour, by referring to the other rules of the house, will find that this is a privilege enjoyed by hon. members of this house.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, I avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to the very ancient and responsible position which you now hold. Your appointment was the one oasis of unanimity which a parched house has come across in a week of wandering in the desert of controversy. You are not un-

The Address-Mr. Hackett
fitted by temperament and experience for the difficult position which you have assumed, and I am sure that in the discharge of those duties which are incumbent on your office you will receive all the support which the house invariably gives to the fearless and the fair.
It is not my intention to take a very extended part in the debate. I do wish however to refer to a reform which has not been specifically mentioned in the speech from the throne and which I believe would bring great relief to the section of the country which I represent. The farm loan board has come under some criticism. It may be that the officers who are in charge of the operations of that bureau are carrying out the law. It may be that loans from that source are to be made as a private lending corporation would make them. If that is the case, then it is true that little can be said in criticism of the board's administration. But many of us had thought that the farm loan board was an agency to which had been allotted the task of coming to the succour and rescue of a very substantial and important element in our community which had been sadly smitten by the events of the past few years.
I must say that the operations of the farm loan bureau in the province of Quebec have been absolutely futile. The bureau has made practically no loans in the past year, and, instead of refusing categorically to make loans, has pursued a policy of attrition, aggravation and embarrassment to the applicants for relief. It seems to me that if this agency is to fulfil any useful function the spirit which animates those who direct it, and the policy which they pursue, must be modified or radical changes made in the law to permit of a broader and more sympathetic program of operation. In the eastern townships I have discovered that at least one hundred applications from one county have gone without any effective response whatever. The result is that the would-be borrowers have come to the conclusion that in so far as Quebec is concerned the farm loan board is without point, without purpose, and gives no aid whatever to the necessitous farmer. It is true that in Quebec there are disabilities which are inherent in our legal system. By the amendments passed here last session the board was authorized to lend on security which may not be accepted as security in Quebec. We have not in that province the chattel mortgage, and as a consequence, unless and until the legislation of this parliament is implemented by legislation by the Quebec legislature, that particular type of loan may not be made. Whether the provincial legislature will seek to aid the farmers of that province by enacting the necessary legislation remains to be seen but I have observed nothing in the newspapers to indicate that such legislation is on the program of the legislature for the current session.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) announced yesterday that a trade treaty with the United (States was now a possibility. I can only say that the border counties of southeastern Quebec, which for many years supplied to a great extent the large centres of New England with dairy products, will greatly welcome any reentry to that market. It is difficult for people who are not familiar with populations that suddenly find all outlet for their product cut off, to realize how greatly has that element suffered. Rivers of milk and cream were dammed back at the border and literally flooded the local market. If the market for butter, milk, cream and meats can be reopened, much will be done to rehabilitate the farming community of southeastern Quebec.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has commended the government on the speech from the throne. Naturally he found somewhat inadequate the program of reform which has been enunciated by the leader of the Conservative party. I suppose it is natural that he should not be entirely satisfied with any program which aims at correcting and maintaining the capitalistic system. There are. however, many who believe that system, despite the many abuses which have crept into it, is useful and one which can be made yet to serve a happy and satisfied population. Until recently many thought the capitalistic system was the one best suited to all civilized peoples and the surest vehicle to a permanent golden age. The vehicle has been ditched, some think because the driver was blind to danger and deaf to warning. The government, without wishing to discard the system, has decided that the driver shall be disciplined and that new rules of the road shall be enacted. I believe everybody who forms part of the Conservative party will hail with pleasure any legislation that will tend to bring relief to many and put an end to the disorders from which we are now suffering. It is plain to everybody that, where there are so many people unemployed, where there are so many plants shut down, an attempt must be made by somebody to regulate the system and to bring order out of disorder. Order is unity arising from the apt arrangement of a plurality of objects. It cannot be left longer
The Address-Mr. Speakman

to hazard; it cannot be left longer to the so-called forces of nature and much less to unrestrained competition. I believe this session will see many of these ills cured, the old system greatly revived and our country much benefited by these reforms.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne and the addresses made by the leaders of this house upon that subject are so comprehensive in character and so all-embracing in the number and importance of the matters discussed that it is impossible for any man in the space of forty minutes to deal with them as a whole. Therefore I make no apology for confining myself at this time to one phase of the situation as we find it in this country, and to one reference in the speech itself. I refer to the Natural Products Marketing Act, to the attitude of the producers towards that act as far as I have been able to ascertain that attitude, and to the plans which thus far have been brought forward and presented by the producers under its provisions.
Lest I should be challenged as to my familiarity with that subject may I make this brief statement; upon my return home after prorogation, I found interest among the producers so intense that in view of some familiarity on my part with the bill itself I was in receipt of numerous invitations to speak on the subject throughout the west, particularly in Alberta, and I availed myself of as many of those invitations as was possible. In addition I have had the pleasure of being associated with various committees and boards which the producers themselves set up in Alberta and throughout the west for the preparation and presentation of their plans, and I have taken part in their discussion and consideration. At the request of the poultry producers of the three prairie provinces and of the live stock producers of Alberta I have assisted in presenting those plans before the federal board in Ottawa. I make this statement for one purpose and one only, which is to indicate that I have had some opportunity of acquainting myself with the general reaction amongst the producers in respect to this act, and with the work done and the plans in process and in contemplation by the producers under the provisions of the legislation.

Wherever you go throughout Canada to-day among the farming population, and certainly in the province of Alberta and throughout the west generally, you find this question being, asked, and asked with increasing interest and increasing vehemence:	Why it is that during,
this and all depressions, when general business-is curtailed and meets difficulties through restriction of sales and through falling prices, the agricultural industry and agricultural products have been the greatest sufferers? This question does not embody an argument; it embodies a statement of fact. It is generally recognized that the farming population has suffered more than others not only in the falling of prices but in something which is more important, namely the relative exchange value of their products when translated into terms of those goods and services which they must purchase. It makes comparatively little difference, apart from the payment of debt and interest, whether wheat, for instance is fifty cents a bushel or two dollars; what counts is how many bushels of wheat it takes to purchase a given quantity of machinery, of household effects, of personal necessities. That is the question that is asked. It was in seeking an answer to that question that I believe this act v'as introduced, and it was because of that question that this intense interest has been aroused amongst the producers themselves. In the opinion of most of those definitely and directly affected, the chief factor which has brought about that differentiation and that lack of parity in exchange value is that during modern times there has been a disposition on the part of most productive enterprises gradually to centralize the control of their operations. The merging of small factories into larger, the centralization of production and control has proceeded. With this I am not quarel-ling; it may be sound; it may be in the interest of efficiency; at any rate it certainly is the tendency at the present time. But you find this also, that as business becomes centralized, and as the controlling executives of the various industries become fewer and fewer, it becomes more and more simple for them to control by agreement both the production and the merchandising policies of their industries. And because of that they have been able to withstand, in some degree at least, the shock of the depression in relation to their price levels.
Now we turn to agriculture. Whatever the future may bring-and I am no prophet-up to the present time as far as we can ascertain the individually owned and operated farm has been the most efficient form of agriculture; it certainly is the one most in vogue in this

The Address-Mr. Speakman
country and on the North American continent. With that also I have no quarrel, but based on that fact we find this, that throughout the prairie provinces alone there are scores of thousands of individuals who themselves control not only their production policy but their merchandising policy also. You find also- and again this is not stated as argument but admitted and acknowledged as fact-that when this is the position the basic price of the commodity produced is set not by the strongest man, the man most competent in merchandising, the man who financially is best able to choose the time and manner of his sales, but by the weakest man, the man who is forced to sell and who may be driven to the lowest possible price. The price he will accept controls the basic price of the entire production. Upon the recognition of this fact was based the response of western Canada at least, and the producers of western Canada, to this act. They saw in it a possibility of removing that disability by their own effort and of placing themselves on a parity as far as sales management is concerned with those industries with which they must do business.
The act itself I shall not discuss, for every member of this house is familiar with its terms and provisions. The charge has been made that it is complex, that it is drastic, and that it is an interference by the state with the personal rights and personal business of individuals. Yet if properly understood the principles of this act and of all the plans formulated and brought forward under it are neither complex nor difficult. They embrace one principle, which is this-I will put it in the form of a question: Is there any productive industry in Canada outside of agriculture which is without a sales department as a part of that industry, functioning in the interest of that industry, and disposing of the product of that industry to the distributing trade? I think the answer will be that there is none. Indeed, I think it will be admitted by those engaged in other industries that they could not possibly function without such a sales department. Imagine for a moment every manager of every branch factory of some great manufacturing industry making sales to the trade on his own initiative, without coordination, without executive control, each manager of each unit and branch competing with the other units and managers in the same industry for the sales to be made. The answer would be that such a situation would bring about bankruptcy. Then, when we turn to agriculture we find that there are not a few unit branches, not a few independent managers, but scores of thousands of independent managers each making his own independent sales with
results such as I have indicated. That is the principle of the act, and the principle of every plan so far formulated under the act, namely to create for the agricultural industry sales departments which will place that industry upon a parity with others with which it must do business. At the present time I am referring only to agriculture, but I have in mind the fact that the act is possible of broader implications.
Of the plans thus far brought forward I think that the two presented from western Canada-and I say western Canada advisedly because the three prairie provinces are embraced-are perhaps by far the most important, the most comprehensive and most allembracing. As a matter of fact it is not too much to say that the poultry plan which was the first to be presented on the part of all three prairie provinces was the first plan brought forward under the act taking advantage of all its provisions. I believe when the plan is outlined it will commend itself to the sympathetic understanding of every hon. member. The producers found many difficulties: they were largely unorganized: they were without full knowledge of what the act implied and in many cases they had no basis upon which to commence their operations. In each of those provinces what were known as provisional boards or committees were set up. In some instances the movement was inaugurated by the pools then in existence. In other instances, as happened in Alberta, the Minister of Agriculture in that province was asked after discussion with and in cooperation with the various organizations in the poultry industry to appoint a board which would be representative of the industry as a whole. To this board certain limited functions were allocated, namely to prepare a plan, to organize at least in some degree, to call a meeting of the producers themselves and to lay before that body either for endorsation or rejection the plan they had formulated. This took place and in each case-and I say "in each case" advisedly-the plans were identical in form, because each of the three prairie provinces recognize the fact that their problems are the same and that their organizations must extend beyond the bounds of their own territory. Those plans were presented to the bodies of poultry men, the men and women engaged in the poultry business, and in each case received the almost unanimous endorsation of the assemblies.
Then another step could be taken. Those gatherings authorized the temporary or provisional boards to make the initial presentation of their plans to the federal board in
The Address-Mr. Speakman

Ottawa, and eventually the plans were presented. They were scanned and examined; they were submitted to the law officers of the crown; they were approved as being sound and practical; they were approved as being within the provisions of the act and therefore legal. Then, referring to the poultry plan, in order that absolute fairness might be observed, a period was set aside for public advertisement during which time anyone in opposition to the plan or anyone who might have an amendment to suggest was invited to present his opposition or amendment before the federal board. At the conclusion of that period another hearing was held at which those opposed were invited to be present and indeed were present. The plans were again discussed in the light of representations made, and after some changes in wording and some slight amendments, were given final approval by the board.
I think hon. members will agree with me that up to that point the utmost fairness and the soundest business practice was followed. Then the question arose as to whether or not those plans did or did not have the real approval of the producers themselves. It followed that the local boards, the bodies responsible for the introduction and presentation of the plans, asked that an opportunity to cast a vote should be given to every producer whose product had come under the operation of the plan. In this arrangement the minister concurred. An order in council was to be passed which would create under the terms of the act what would be known as a registered producer. In the case of the poultry producers every poultryman in the three prairie provinces having a flock of twenty-five birds or more would be included; in other words every producer whose product might be subject to the plan would be affected. The list having been prepared a proclamation would be issued. Every producer within the provinces whose product would be affected would be given ample opportunity to register, thus attaining a threefold objective: first, to designate those whose products would be handled by the boards; second, to provide on the same basis a list of those ivho would be entitled to vote, and third, in the event of a plan coming into operation, to provide a definite summary or definite detailed statement of the amount of poultry products which might be raised or sold from every farm in western Canada. As I understand it arrangements have now been made under which the producers will be entitled to vote by ballot under the jurisdiction not of an interested party, not of those i Mr. Speakman. 1
who have organized the plans, but of a tribunal set up and created by the government, as in every other election or provision which is made for voting. I believe no one may cavil at the fairness of the proposal. Now the promoters themselves have asked that only after a substantial majority of the producers pronounce themselves in favour of the plan shall such plan come into effect.
The live stock men followed a somewhat similar procedure. I might add, however, that in these plans each province will have a local board to be elected and reelected by the producers. The three provinces will then combine to create a sales agency which they shall control, and which shall designate and carry into effect the various sales policies of the producers. As to live stock a similar plan was followed, the minister was asked again to appoint a board of fifteen or seventeen men representative of every phase of the live stock industry. In that connection something happened which might almost be called a minor miracle-of course I am speaking more particularly of Alberta although the plans in Saskatchewan are on identically the same terms. Hon. members who are familiar with the history of the live stock industry know that there has always been a complete lack of understanding between the individual producers, the large ranchers and the small cooperatively organized farmers. I was delighted to see this board, composed of representatives of the largest live stock producers in Alberta or in Canada, representatives of the cooperatives, of the breeders' and feeders' associations, agree unanimously as to the objectives to be achieved and the plans to be effected. This committee devised a plan under which they hope their business may be operated. When that had been done a public meeting was called in the city of Calgary to which something like 160 live stock associations in that province were invited to send delegates. There were present some two hundred delegates representing about 140 organizations and about thirty or forty of the largest individual ranchers, and by a vote of 195 to 5 they approved of the plan and empowered the provisional committee to present that plan before the federal board That will indicate, Mr. Speaker, the steps which have been taken and the unanimity which has prevailed throughout those industries in respect of this undertaking.
These producers have in mind certain objectives, which are very clearly defined. They may be stated in a sentence: to create in that department of the industry a sales department which for the first time will

The Address-Mr. Speakman
function in the interests of the industry, and give the producers an effective voice in the sale and in the manner of the sale of their products.
It has been suggested that this is wholly unnecessary, that the present system, with a little control, a little checking, a little renovating, will amply serve its purpose. May I place before the house one illustration of the situation as it exists?-for I shall not labour the point. It is an illustration that is familiar to every member of this house and to every producer in Canada. Thirty-five years ago as a young man I was in the business of raising cattle and I sold my cattle, as everyone did in those days, on the one basis of $30 a head for three-3-ear old steers on the hoof, and we sold them by the bunch. That was the basic price which was graded down for females and small stuff. A short time ago one of my neighbours who has been raising that class of beef cattle for forty-five years made a sale, and he netted $15 for three-year old steers of the same class and quality that thirty-five years ago brought $30. So in thirty-five years the price of that product has fallen by one-half, while in the same time the cost of producing these animals has doubled. Thirty-five years ago we raised our stock on the open range and to-day they are raised upon privately owned and municipally taxed land, and. as well, the price of many of the things that we must purchase from our proceeds has greatly risen.
I think the house and the country will perceive at once that no industry cau carry on under those conditions, and that for us to remain in our present position is intolerable and impossible. The conditions in part, of course, are beyond our control, but there is a part that we believe is within our control, within the control of the producers themselves. They propose by their plans to eliminate the factor by which those purchasing our products are able to bid one. against the other, gradually beating the price down until finally the weakest man accepts the lowest price, which is then set as the market price for the entire product.
We speak of the law of supply and demand, and I will admit at once that inherently and inevitably the law of supply and demand must function. But does it function? I have come to this conclusion, as have those for whom I speak, that the law of supply and demand can function only as between parties of equal strength. It cannot function as between organized purchasers on the one hand and unorganized agriculture on the other, no
more than it can function as between organized employers in industry and unorganized labour; hence the rise and growing strength of trade unions. If the law of supply and demand is to function it is necessary that there be some parity of bargaining power between the two parties who are doing business together.
As I have stated, the purpose and objective of the plans of which I have spoken is to create this sales department. We go a little further in these plans than voluntary cooperation of industry itself has gone. On the one hand these producers and the producers' boards have the power of licensing the trades which are dealing in their products, and anyone who is familiar with the trade dealing with poultry and live stock is aware of this that attached to that trade and an incubus upon it is what is known as the bootlegging section, those unethical operators who evade all laws, federal and provincial, and who will act in any way which may suit their purposes which are to bring to themselves greater profit -operators who are the curse of the trade and of those dealing with the trade. Only through some power of licensing can we confine the handling of our products to those who are legitimately engaged in the business and carrying on the business in an ethical way for the advantage of producer and consumer. So licensing is necessary.
On the other end of the scale, we find that principle which is commonly referred to as that of compulsion. Compulsion, yes, in a degree; that is to say, the power of a substantial majority of any branch of the agricultural industry to lay down and to enforce the methods and regulations and practices under which their sales shall be made.
May I call this to your attention, Mr. Speaker-and it is something which is overlooked by many who are opposed to this legislation and to these plans: Compulsion is not brought into effect or exercised by governments or by government officials or by (he state or by anyone save the majority of those who are engaged in that same line of industry; and who else has a better right? It is the expansion into the field of farm marketing of the democratic principle which is accepted in almost every field of human endeavour, namely, the right of a majority to lay down the rules under which society shall be governed, and to force, if necessary, the minority to obey those rules. I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, what development could ever have taken place, what organizations could have been achieved under civilization- could even civilization itself been brought about-had not that rule been applied?
The Address-Mr. Speakman

Democracy does not mean the unrestricted right of the individual to do as he likes. Democracy, I say again, implies the right of a majority within a community in any country and in any industry to lay down the rules and regulations under which that industry shall function. And this compulsion, so called, can be exercised only in the interests of the producers themselves, of those engaged in that particular industry; because anything which will redound to the benefit of the great majority must inevitably redound to the benefit of all. All sell on equal terms, all sell in the same markets, all are affected by the same conditions, and all receive the same advantages. So much for that.
The next thing to which I should like to call your attention, sir, is a question which has been discussed very widely throughout this country, namely, the capacity of the producer to handle and administer his own business on so gigantic a scale. Those who are opposed to this plan-I do not mean politically opposed; I am speaking now of those who are economically opposed because their interests may be affected deleteriously, those who have been battening upon and profiting from the farming industry-these people question the administrative ability of the farmer himself to handle this business. They say in effect that all the experience, all the wisdom and knowledge of market conditions are to be found in the ranks of those who are at present carrying on that business; that is, in the ranks of those who are doing the packing and processing and dealing in these various products. They have intimated that during all these years they have been acting in the interests of the producer. They have been functioning as the producers' sales agents, and they say that the interests and advantage of the producer have been their chief motive. To that I simply answer that you can judge the efficiency of men only by the results which they have achieved, and if those at present engaged in this business have been acting to the best of their ability in the interests of the producer, then, when under their administration we see the conditions which have been brought about and which are familiar to everyone here, conditions which are depressing and ruining the agricultural industry, I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that the producers of Canada are not unduly impressed by their assumption of efficiency, and they feel that a few years more of that kind of efficiency will see the live stock and poultry producers put out of business. They are, therefore, prepared to take over that responsibility. They believe, and they have [Mr. Speakman.J
so stated, that the only men really familiar with the problem are those who live with it; that the only men genuinely interested in the solution of the problem are those whom it affects; that the only men who can really understand and put into effect beneficial policies are those in whose interests such policies shall be administered and those who have lived with and understood those problems and suffered from a lack of their solution. They are prepared, therefore, to put these remedial policies into effect.
May 1 say also that two of our cattle men came down to Ottawa, representing the live stock producers, in order to present their plans. They included the largest single producer in Alberta-and when I say in Alberta that means in Canada-a rancher who runs about 12,000 head of stock. At present he is the chairman of our board. With him was the manager of the largest and most successful cooperative in our province dealing in live stock products. Those men came into contact with some of the leading men in this city, men in the highest branches of the civil service, men in government and business circles, and everyone who met them formed the impression that they were men competent to administer any business with which they were familiar, men competent to deal with, to handle and to control their own affairs. Indeed it is not too much to say that any man who has carried on the live stock industry for thirty-five years without going absolutely bankrupt is a business man of very high efficiency indeed, and is quite competent to deal with any further problems in respect of his own industry. That, at least, is the opinion of the producers, themselves, both of live stock and poultry.
Naturally I have discussed with those boards what their policies and objectives should be. I find that, with unanimous voice, they fully realize the limitations placed upon them. They realize that the final effective factor in connection with prices received is the ability and willingness of the consumer to buy and consume their goods. Their objective is not to sell a part of their product at a high price and restrict consumption, but to sell all their products at a reasonable price. Their objective is not to enhance the price to the consumer, but to eliminate the chaos and the losses incident to the manner in which their business is now carried on; to eliminate many of the charges and so-called services; to eliminate or control many of the exorbitant profits, and to secure for the producer his rea-

The Address-Mr. Speakman
sonable and legitimate share of the consumers' dollar.
But may I suggest this to you, Mr. Speaker. Assuming that this plan did raise the prices of some commodities to the consumer, as perhaps it might; I do not know, but supposing it did; I am going to ask any man in this house who is familiar with labour conditions to say when labour in this country was in the best position. Was it during the time the farmers were receiving little or nothing for their products, or was it during those periods when the farmers were receiving fair prices and therefore were in a position to buy the products of their toil? 1 ask any labour man or any business man; I think anyone will say. if he is an honest man-and most of us are-that the country is always more prosperous, wages are always more satisfactory and work is always more plentiful when the farmer is receiving a fair remimeration. That is all they anticipate; that is their objective; that is all they are asking. That is the purpose of their organization.
I think there is no man in this country who is familiar with conditions, no business man, no producer of farm or other products, no citizen of Canada and above all no member of this parliament who would not welcome and support anything which, legitimately and properly put into effect, would improve the situation of the agriculturist. I think it is recognized as one of the outstanding facts of this time that any policy, sound in principle, properly administered, which would improve that position and raise that standard is one which should merit the support and cooperation of everyone. But I am going to ask this further question; if I repeat it, it is because of its importance. Who is the man best qualified to say what measures will bring about that situation? It is the producer himself, and under the terms of every plan suggested it is only if the majority of the producers have come to that opinion as their confirmed and settled belief that those plans will become operative. I would ask every man who is a good citizen-and that embraces every member here-to leave it to the producers, to give them every encouragement to cooperate and organize and to support them if those producers come to the confirmed opinion. I think that is not too much to ask.
Other questions, of course, arise in connection with the details of such plans, and care is being taken in that regard by those who have drawn up and presented them, since they all are producers. No one save a legitimate producer may have a place on the board; every member has had years of experience in the business. They know the intricacies of the 92582-7
trade, and plans are carefully drawn in detail to meet the minor difficulties which might arise. For example, in connection with poultry care has been taken that nothing shall interfere with the mutually beneficial trade carried on between the producer and the individual consumer, that sale of poultry, eggs and so forth which is made directly by the producer to the consumer. It is true that those carrying on such trade must secure a permit from the board, a permit which costs nothing and which, in the words of the plan, may not be unreasonably withheld. Anyone familiar with the business will recognize the necessity for that permit system, because without it, under the guise of selling directly to the consumer the bootlegging trade would find its source of supply. In connection with breeding, hatching, incubating and all that sort of thing, all the details are taken care of and the proper exemptions made. The purpose is not to interfere with that business; the purpose-and these plans specifically set out that purpose- is to deal with and control the product which comes on the commercial market, that and no more.
In connection with poultry, if these plans come into operation the poultry producers may reasonably anticipate real success, for the three prairie provinces provide the entire surplus in Canada for interprovincial and export trade so far as poultry and poultry products are concerned. Other provinces, large producers, consume more than they produce and must import, and the total surplus is found in those three provinces. That augurs well for success if these three provinces coordinate their efforts.
In connection with live stock the situation is somewhat more complex, but I am sure that if these plans fructuate and achieve success, even if it is only a modicum of the results which reasonably might be anticipated, you will find throughout Canada a gradual movement towards that organization until, for the first time, we will have a national policy in dealing with live stock, which this nation has lacked in the past and the want of which has been so deleterious to our national wellbeing.
Someone asked about wheat. I am not discussing wheat, which, with its enormous sales on the world market, stands in a different position to that of any other farm product. I am speaking of live stock, of poultry and of dairy products, the organization of which will follow the organization of the first two commodities if they succeed. I am speaking of those commodities in which, in each case, you will find from ninety-five per cent, to ninety-eight per cent of the entire product sold within Canada. I should like to ask

The Address-Mr. Speakman

this question:	Why should the Canadian
market be demoralized and brought to chaos; why should Canadian farmers be ruined in connection with ninety-five per cent of their market for the sake of the five per cent exported? Our producers will have to extend their export trade. They purpose, through their own organization and their own efforts, to put forth various improvements as to grading standards and quality, and as to assurance to the customer, which is lacking at present, that when he pays for a number one article he can be sure of receiving that article. No government law or regulation so far has been able to bring about that result.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to appeal to this house and to the country to give sympathetic consideration to the efforts of those producers who, under the authority of law, now for the first time are striving to bring themselves out of their difficulties and place themselves upon an equality with other industries, and to make a real contribution to the welfare of Canada. I need not perhaps appeal to the producers to consult their own best interests, not to listen exclusively to those in the trade benefiting by the troubles, benefiting by the chaos, who are the instigators and promoters of every petition which so far I have read and which has been presented to the producers for their signatures against the plan. I suggest that they study the plan on its own merits, make up their own minds, and vote in their own interests.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: The Address-Mr. Mitchell
gets into power by trading on the disabilities and weaknesses of the party in power. There is nothing new about that; we have seen it in countries quite close to us, and in other parts [DOT]of the British dominions. I have no qualms in saying that I have come definitely to the opinion, having taken some part in the movements of the working people of this dominion, that we do not care who does it so long as it is done. We must not miss the opportunity; if this is the psychological moment when the foundation stone-merely the foundation stone -of these reforms is to be laid, then we should avail ounselves of it. If the government of the day can be the instrument of policy for the launching of these reforms, God speed them! That is why the addresses of the Prime Minister created such a profound effect upon the Canadian people; not because his suggestions were new, or came through some divine vision, but because of their source and the time at which they were enunciated. The Prime Minister said very definitely-perhaps it is a bad habit for men in public life to say these things too definitely; we have seen that in the last couple of days- that the old order is gone never to return'; that the time for reform and government control and regulation has come. He said, I gave a promise in 1930 to end unemployment, and by that I stand." He will have to get a move on. Then to give effect to this program he enunciated the following policy:
Establishment throughout Canada of a uniform wage and a uniform maximum working week;
Abolition of child labour and sweatshop conditions;
Creation of a permanent system of sound and scientific unemployment insurance and abolition of the dole;
Present obsolete Old Age Pensions Act to be replaced by a new, scientific scheme of old age pensions;
Health, accident and sickness insurance to be developed;
Further taxation of non-producers who derive their incomes from securities, mortgages and other wages of money;
Protection against exploitation of producers by monopolistic purchasers and certain types of middlemen and' distributors who are "economic parasites";
For consultation with other groups and the establishment of a national economic council.
What has been the reaction to the speeches of the Prime Minister? Some people say that the promises and the projected policy of the leader of the government stand in the same relationship to his political program as those of 1930. Some say that the policies enunciated smack of fascism, some say they are bolshevism, and one of the ministers of one

of our provincial governments said they are pure Marxism. I have had some experience among radical thinkers in this country and in the old land and can count on my fingers the number of men who have been able to wade through the three volumes of Marx. Frankly I believe that these last observations were merely a smoke screen to frustrate the possibility of forward movement by this House of Commons. I speak now of all the political parties; because the government has enunciated its policy, the leader of the opposition has agreed with him in connection with these suggested measures, and I am doing the same thing, so it seems we are almost in line for a national government. I am not making that as a suggestion, but merely as an observation. There is not a great deal to fight about, on the principles at least.
The other day I was reading the autobiography of Philip Snowden. I do not often quote from books in the House of Commons, but after the nasty names that have been given to the Prime Minister, it might be just as well to read this. This happened before Philip fell from grace; I am speaking of the time when he fell from grace from the viewpoint of many of the active Labour lights in the old country. This was before he went to the great beyond in the House of Lords; it was when he was a real radical in Great Britain, and it just shows how hard the way of the reformer is. I quote:
The views on the budget-
This is speaking of the historic budget of Lloyd George of some years ago when some of the reforms we have in mind to-day were introduced in the British House of Commons.
The views on the budget expressed in the lobby after Mr. Lloyd George sat down were very diverse. The Labour party welcomed the budget as the first real effort the government had made to grapple with the problem of wealth and poverty. Many Liberal members did not conceal their dismay at the prospect opened up by Mr. Lloyd George's first essay in finance.
That reads pretty true in connection with some of my friends on the other side-I am not speaking of members of the house-if the newspapers are to be believed.
One Liberal member, who considered the budget from the point of view of how it was going to touch his pocket, declared grimly: "He will never introduce another budget! His reputation is gone."
No budget in prewar days ever exposed so many vulnerable points of attack. It was bound to excite the bitter opposition of a large number of vested interests. The opposition of the income taxpayers would be incurred by the proposed increase in the tax.

The Address-Mr. Mitchell
The liquor interests would fight the increase in the licence duties to the utmost of their powers. One brewer asserted that these increased licences would mean ruin to half the brewers of the country!
They are still doing pretty well over there.
The city was up in arms against the increases in the stamp duties, and, of course, the landed interests were infuriated by the proposed land taxes. Next morning the press took a party view of the budget. It was denounced in the Tory newspapers without reserve under such headings as "the Red Flag Budget."
That sounds familiar.
The Liberal newspapers in their commendation of the budget varied according to the degree of their radicalism. One thing everybody agreed upon, that the budget was so controversial that it was doubtful if it would be carried without modifications.
We might almost imagine this written in the month of January in the year of Our Lord 1935.


Mr. COOTE:: What was the date of that?


Humphrey Mitchell: That was in 1911.
The Labour party gave a warm welcome to the budget, and their general support to it was assured. We regarded it as chiefly noteworthy because it was largely based on the idea that socially created wealth must contribute more generously to national purposes.
I have always maintained that men are the instruments of policies and not policies the instruments of men. Frankly, I believe Lloyd George will go down in the history of the British commonwealth as one of its greatest statesmen in the last fifty years. He practically redistributed the wealth of Great Britain through the instrumentality of the social insurances without any of the consequences that to-day are visible in many of the countries of Europe. What I like about him is that he did things; he moved. I know one classic example of a prime minister of Great Britain who, in my judgment, attained that office on the basis of his good looks and poetry. When he got the instrument of policy in his hands he did not know what to do with it and he had to go over to the Tories to help him out. One does not need any imagination to know who that was. I have always maintained that you cannot justify inefficiency or lack of action on the basis of good intentions.
I want to say this also very frankly to the government, that if for some reason this might be merely the instrument of getting into power again, they are tampering with the very democratic institutions of this country. The working people and farmers of the dominion have been very patient under the adverse circumstances through which they
have passed, because after all is said and done they were not responsible for the depression; they were not consulted about it. Those who thought the stacks of paper they had in 1928 represented real wealth were, of course, badly disappointed. As I have said before, the inevitable windstorm came along and blew it out on to the street. That was inevitable, because unless the operatives in our industrial and agricultural life can buy back the products of their labour, I do not care what policy any government initiates, we are bound to pass through periods of very severe depressions such as we are passing through at the moment. After all, the real wealth of this and every other country can be expressed only in the ability of its people to engage in productive labour to such an extent and of such a character as to permit them to buy back the products of their labour.
I cannot at this time pursue a discussion of the various proposed measures except to say that while at the moment I am agreeing with them in principle, of course I reserve the right to criticize the details. I am not unmindful of the tribulations that surrounded the development of unemployment insurance in Great Britain and, for that matter, in every other country in which it has been established. Those who in their unguarded moments think unemployment insurance is a solution of the unemployment problem are just kidding themselves, and we might as welt be frank about the matter. But I believe it is a constructive policy to meet the problem; of unemployment, to meet the very difficult situation in which the municipalities find themselves at the moment, the end of which has not of course yet been reached. Whatever system exists, some insurance against the ravages of unemployment is necessary, because change in its very essence under any system of government creates an unemployment problem. Last year when I was in Great Britain they celebrated the twenty-first anniversary of the doctrine of social insurance by a dinner given to Mr. Lloyd George at which were represented the leaders of all political thought in Great Britain. It is necessary sometimes to say these things in view of the enthusiasm that has been developed in connection with certain forms of legislation, and I might point out that the British act has since its first passage undergone twenty-eight major operations. They have been moving in the direction of trial and error in their own way to make the legislation more nearly fit the needs of that country. I say this because I believe we must not get ourselves

The Address-Mr. Mitchell
into the mental condition that because we are setting in motion these policies, the very grave question of unemployment may be shelved and dismissed from the minds of the members of this house and other governmental institutions in this country. Some means must be found whereby we can tie up production to consumption; some means must be found whereby we can put a suit on a man's back and permit him to work and earn the necessary money to pay for it without its being an act of charity.
Comment has been made to the effect that the British North America Act stands in the way of many of these suggested policies. If such action is necessary I believe it is the duty of this government to seek the cooperation of the provincial governments. I hold the view that it is the patriotic duty-and I do not often use that word-of all governments in Canada to lend their aid towards bringing the British North America Act to the point where it may meet the requirements of the present century. I have no criticism to make of the framers of the act. They acted in the light of conditions existing at that time and possessing only that limited vision possible to mortal humans. They could not have contemplated the tremendous developments that have taken place in transportation, communication, industrialization and agriculture. To those who stand in the way of any movement towards amendment of the act I should like to say that after all is said and done it was passed for the benefit of the Canadian people; it was passed to meet their everyday needs and to make possible the legislative functions of government. With the changes in the functions of governments it is inevitable that there must be changes in our constitution. Among people from one end of Canada to the other the opinion is crystallized to the point where they believe one of the greatest requirements is the amending of the act.
I believe it was the leader of the opposition who raised the discussion concerning the Senate. I am making reference to all these points because I believe one would do better to put his finger on the spot where the sand may be put into the machinery. The right lion, gentleman has said that we have a Tory Senate. If I gather anything from the temper of the Canadian people, and if it is the policy of the Senate to put sand into the machinery, then we will have to reform the Senate. The time has long since passed when the Senate should be used as unemployment insurance for many of those in political life. I am of the opinion that anybody charged with preparing legislation should be responsible to our people. This has been a question of wide

discussion for many years; if I remember correctly both political parties have discussed it sympathetically. I am not making these observations in a spirit of criticism of members of the Senate, because I believe if they stand in the way of reform there will be plenty of time to do that.
I see that the time allotted to me has almost expired. In conclusion I should like to make one or two	observations.	It	hastaken me twenty-five years to learn some things; that is one of the tragedies of life. It takes us a long time to learn anything, and then we pass out	of	the picture and	our
children have to learn all over again.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Unless you write a
book.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, unless you write
a book. I remember a very good Liberal once saying to me, " Humphrey, never write a book." I do not think I ever will. I am not unmindful of	the part played	in	thehistory of this dominion by legislative bodies, nor do I forget the real progress which has been made since I came to this country about a generation ago.	I	want to say	to	the
labour men and farmers of Canada that there is no substitution for organization among those engaged in their occupation. To the working people I say there is no substitution for a free trade union. Lawyers and doctors learned that many years ago. If the Canadian people think that by giving three cheers at a political meeting their problems may be ended, they are only fooling themselves. It is essential that people vitally interested in the passing of certain legislation should have some form of organization capable of speaking for them, one which can take care of the changes found necessary to protect their interests. No matter how good the intentions of the government may be, it is quite necessary that through organizations interested parties attend to their own well being and destiny. We have seen that on many occasions. I believe the leader of the opposition referred to the vocational education bill; if some organization had been interested in carrying out the policies laid down in that legislation, something might have been done, and that applies to all legislation.
I should like to state that I will support the proposed reforms so long as they are in conformity with the opinions I have long held. And may I add that I would be most unfair if I failed to congratulate the government upon at least attempting to lay the foundation stone of reforms which have been successfully carried out in other sections of the British commonwealth

The Address-Mr. Bourassa


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, while agreeing entirely and unreservedly with the suggestion to shorten the debate, made by the leader of the opposition, may I be pardoned if for a few moments I take the time of the house? Once more the views I wish to express are not those of any party or group in the chamber, but they are held by a number of people, difficult to count and living in all parts of the country, who consider me as their representative.
I do not purpose entering into a consideration of the various subjects contained in the speech from the throne. When they appear before us in the form of bills I shall register my votes and perhaps express my opinions in connection with them. The idea of speaking to-night has been suggested to me not so much through arguments urged in this debate as by the impression created on my mind by the two remarkable addresses of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) respectively. That impression I propose to state frankly to them and to their friends; not that any feeling I may have is of any importance, but because I sincerely believe that my reaction is that of a large number of people throughout the country, whether they belong to one party or the other, or to no party at all.
I have listened to the whole speech of the leader of the opposition, and to part of that of the Prime Minister, and I propose to read carefully to-morrow the rest of it. As to my friend the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group I unfortunately did not have the pleasure of hearing him, but I shall read his speech also. Only, a little while after he had taken his seat, a friend of mine, not belonging to his group, told me: "Woods-worth has spoken and has been very reasonable," which did not surprise me. Seeing that the leader of the government is rapidly preparing for the evolution of the Tory party towards socialism and that the leader of the Liberal party is inviting the leader of the Tory party to join his ranks in order to enhance Tory socialism, I suppose my friend to my left (Mr. Woodsworth) is preparing to lead the remaining Conservative forces of Canada; all of which shows that political principles and programs are very changeable things indeed. But let us leave that for the time being.
May I say, first, that I am a sincere and personal friend of both leaders? I have known both for many years. I really believe that I know them more intimately perhaps than many of their followers. For them both I have an equal sympathy and admiration. I have known the leaders of parliament and of government in this country for forty
years. As a boy I assisted in the galleries of the old parliament to the last encounter between Sir John A. Macdonald and the then new leader of the Liberal party, Mr. Laurier. In the years following, as a member of the house, I have been a witness to the debates led by Laurier on the one side and Tupper on the other, and then Borden and the able men accompanying him. After having left parliament I still followed the course of men and things pretty closely. Now I say with all sincerity that, although Macdonald and Laurier may stand high above the other statesmen we have had in this confederation since its inception, we have not possessed two abler men, two men more sincere in their respective ideas and policies, or tiwo men more capable of giving service to tiheir country, than the Prime Minister and the leader of the apposition. I believe equally in tiheir sincerity; but I must tell botlh of them and their followers quite frankly that the number of people who are ceasing to believe in the sincerity of their leaders and of public men generally is fast increasing. If the debates that are going to take place in this house, as a preface to the debates that will take place before the nation in the next few months, are to be carried on in the same manner, with the same bitterness, with the same attacks and counter-attacks between the leaders and followers of both parties, the respect of the nation for its leaders and the belief of all sincere Liberals, Conservatives and independents in the sincerity of party leaders will fast diminish.
I have not heard by radio the five speeches which the Prime Minister delivered preceding the session. I never listen to the radio; I have none. But I have read those speeches most carefully. I have annotated them for my own use and benefit; and I am free to admit now what I will repeat elsewhere, if necessary, that they contain much that is good, many suggestions which I hope will be adopted by parliament, whatever party is in power, and carried out for the benefit of the people of Canada.
It has been suggested that the Prime Minister is not sincere and that this is only preelectoral talk. I hold no brief for the Prime Minister. I am glad for five minutes that he is not here. I am not a follower of his. I have fought, his policies in the past; but when I hear his sincerity being challenged I feel bound to protest. Not only do I believe, but I know that he is sincere. He may have been mistaken in having waited so long to suggest these reforms. Some of them stand in dire contrast to the policies of his party and his

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
own policies in the past; but I know that these thoughts have been in his mind for months and for years; and when it is suggested all over the country that the Prime Minister is a selfish financier, associated with St. James street, and that this is only a smoke screen to prevent other parties from bringing in true social reforms, I know it is untrue. I know that the pontiffs in the financial circles of Montreal and elsewhere dread the effective power of R. B. Bennett, if I may be pardoned for naming him, more than that of any other man.
But that being said, I am bound to say that, after reading his speeches, I deeply deplored the observations made by the Prime Minister against the leader of the opposition. He has spoiled his own argumentation. He has diminished himself and his policy; and moreover he has been unfair to an opponent who is equally worthy of respect with himself. The leader of the opposition I have known for a longer time than the Prime Minister. With some of his policies, I have both agreed and disagreed. As to his sincerity in the views which he held long before he was a member of the house, when he was the youngest official in the service of this country, I know how sincerely bent he was in bringing about reforms in the social and economic structure of this country. Much laughter has been raised in this house because the leader of the opposition said: " Nineteen years ago I wrote a book." I suppose the joke will go on. No wonder. If a Conservative had said the same thing-


Mr. McINTOSH:: It takes a real man to write a good book.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Pardon me if I give it in my own way-my Liberal friends would have exploded with laughter, just as the Tories did when the leader of the opposition said that. Will that little and cheap joke take 'with the people of Canada? Maybe. We are the worthy representatives of a young and childish nation that makes much noise over very little thinking. It is but too unfortunate that we have so few men in the service of the nation who have had the intelligence and the energy, the knowledge and the proper study to write books from which, from whatever source they come, we coidd derive some useful information. There are names standing in the annals of all nations, of people who never did anything but write books, and some of them only one book; yet from that one book flowed rivers of thought which inspired men of action. Great matters of policy, national or international, social or economic, are attributed by the casual reader of history to this politician cr that, to this business man or that great captain

of industry; but the original thought creating those reforms will be found, by those at least who know how to read, in some one book or perhaps in some speech.
Not only that; not only has the leader of the opposition done service to the country by writing that book. By his acts, first, as a humble servant of the crown, then, later on, as a member of his party and as leader of the government, he has done many things in conformity with his principles. The Conservative party would lose nothing of the credit due them on account of the mental energy, the true and proven patriotism of their leader and, I say without hesitation, his disinterestedness-and I insist on the word because of the prejudices that have been broadcast from Cape Breton to British Columbia against what is perhaps the most admirable quality of that man-by admitting that the leader of the Liberal party is also a good Canadian who has done service to his country.
That is what I have had in my heart, because I love both of them; but I have had another thought in mind also. The more I travel and come in contact with people of all races and creeds in this country, the more I am convinced that what I am now going to say, as next to the dean of this house, is a bit of useful and friendly advice to all hon. members. We are on the eve of a general election. Within a few months this country will be flooded with oratory, over the radio, with articles in newspapers and speeches of various kinds on all the platforms of this country. It will be called "appealing to the reason of the people," but hon. gentlemen must admit that the average politician-and I have committed this sin long enough myself to confess it- does not appeal to reason. He usually appeals to sentiment and interest, and unfortunately these two chords are much more responsive than reason, conscience or intelligence, even in the triumph of democracy which is very often the triumph of stupid mobocracy. Well, what I have to say to my Liberal friends is that they have the chance of their lives to do their country a service which perhaps their party has not been able to do before. You know you are going to win this election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course; it would be
ridiculous not to admit it. You know you are going to sweep the country. As a personal friend of the leader of the opposition I said to him at the end of last session; "My dear friend, I am praying to God that you do not come back with too big a majority!"

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
Therefore what reason could you have, from even the smallest, narrowest or basest point of view, to carry on a campaign of slander, of bitter attacks against Bennett, Cahan, or this one or that one? I would go further, or perhaps lower down: what interest would you have in carrying the election in the same way that your opponents carried the election five years ago? The main reason which will bring about the defeat of the Conservative party will not be the policy of the government. On the whole I think their policy has been fairly good. I will go further:	because of the
mental power, the energy, the persistency and, I repeat, the personal disinterestedness of the Prime Minister, the policy has been better than it would have been if the government had been led by an ordinary man; and it has not been as bad as it could have been, having regard to the past record and principles of the Tory party. So I repeat the question; why will they be snowed under this summer? It will not be because of their policy. It will be because there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of people in this country who will not listen to argument or Reason; they will simply say; "We trusted the Tories in 1930. They deceived us. We do not trust them any more." That will determine the votes of thousands of men and women all over the country. Not only will the Liberals who voted for the Tory candidates five years ago return to the fold; many Conservatives will do the same thing in connection with this government that many Liberals did in connection with the Liberal government in 1930.
I am sorry for that, in a sense. I hope I will have nothing to do with the election, that I will be altogether out of the scrap. My sincere wish for the welfare of the country would be that one party or the other, it does not matter to me which, should be returned with a very small majority and that a sufficient number of members should be returned in this corner to hold the balance. I do not say they should blackmail the government. There ought to be enough intelligent men among them to realize that a blackmailing minority may gain something immediately, in one way or another, but that it soon loses the confidence of the people. If they also consider the possibility of one or two of their leaders becoming associated with the reigning party, either by going into the cabinet or becoming members of the Senate, as happened to two or three of the past leaders of the Progressive party, they will soon realize why, having come to this parliament some 69 in
number in 1921, they dwindled down to the number returned at the last election.
As an old man, an old Canadian and, may I say, as a Christian, my appeal to all my colleagues is this: Let us resolve now to carry on this campaign, first in this house and later throughout the country, in a broad spirit of citizenship and Christianity. It can be done. You should do it in your own interests. You need not sacrifice the basic principle in your policies, if such thing exists; you need not sacrifice any article of your program, or to use the American slang expression, any plank in your platform. You could suggest your arguments to the people and endeavour to prove that your policy is better than the other, without saying that the other party have never done anything good, without saying that your opponents are not sincere, without saying, as the Tories did in 1930, that the Liberals had done nothing for the people during ten years and that the Conservatives alone could save the country. They ought to have known then, as I said last year in this very chamber, that no party, no man, either yesterday or ten years ago, or to-morrow, or five or ten years hence, could or can save the country through the efforts and cooperation alone of men belonging to one party, if they antagonize the rest of the country or create such a feeling of bitterness in their opponents that in their turn those opponents will profit by any accident of political fortune, or by any crisis, economic, social or international, to turn the game against them.
That brings me back to my starting point, which will be my conclusion. My Liberal friends will win. But I say to them, make no mistake. The votes that will be added to your actual majorities, the votes that will give you back the constituencies which you have lost, and many others, will not be given to you because the confidence of the country in the Liberal party has been restored. It will be one of the last tests, perhaps the last test which a rapidly increasing number of Canadians will make of the party system. If you win this election by outdoing your opponents, by promising to undo all that they have done and to replace it by perfection ; if you win the election by promising more butter than bread, when the people come to realize, two or three years from now, that it is the same old story, then you, Liberals, as the Tories four years ago, will have done more not to advance the interests of this group, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, but to further social unrest and future revolutions and true bolshevism, which lies not at the door of my friend from Win-

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
mpeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) but at the door of the true communists who have been continually attacking that hon. gentlemen, whom they rightly regard as the most effective obstacle to social revolution. That advice which I have already given I offer especially to my good friends from the province of Quebec or, broadly speaking, to my French and Catholic fellow members. To them I say: In the principles of your faith, in the traditions of your race, to which so many of tlhe leaders of this country, of Protestant faith and of British origin, have rendered testimony, in these two great moral forces there lies your greatest strength to save the country. And it is acknowledged now. I was reading only to-day an admirable pamphlet issued by a social committee of the United Church in Toronto, a pamphlet which I commend to the reading of every member of this house. It is published under the signature of Sir Robert Falconer and of the secretary, whose name I forget. I shall write to them as a Canadian and as a Christian, thanking them for that admirable program of social reform. What pleased me profoundly was to find therein a paragraph endorsing the opinions expressed by Pope Pius XI in his great encyclical. Do you not see that tremendous spiritual force, which has been dormant in Canada for so many years, now rising? Could the old men in this house imagine that a time would come when a gathering of Methodist or Presbyterian ministers would render testimony to the teachings of the Pope in Rome? I am afraid that some of my dear old friends of the house in the past must have trembled in their tombs, some of those stout leaders of the Orange order, if they have read an expression of opinion, in the name of the whole United Church, endorsing the views held by the Anglican bishops in Lambeth Palace last year and the views expressed by the Pope.
Now are we, responsible in some sense to the people of Canada for their spiritual and moral welfare as well as for their material good, going to neglect that tremendous spiritual upheaval? Nothing is further from my thought than to suggest that any party should exploit the opinions either of the Pope or of the United Church or of any other church for party ends. I have always deprecated the introduction of religion into politics 

which unfortunately has been done for so many years in this country by all parties- by making use of clerics or of clerical opinions as a means of bringing votes to one party or another. It is a thing to be despised and condemned. But surely the spiritual forces which might be used to bring the people of 
Canada to think of these matters, social and economic, from the highest point of view, a point of view higher than the mere material interest of the labourer, the working man, the merchant or the land owner, should be considered rather than neglected by all men responsible for the laws and the government of this country.
Would it not be possible for the Conservatives to expound their program and for the Liberals to expound theirs without bitterly attacking one another? It is perfectly fair for the Liberals to say, as my friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) said to-night, that a good deal of the reforms proposed by the government can be laid at the door of their own party and that therefore they should be given credit for them. That is quite legitimate. It is quite legitimate for the Liberals to point out to the electors that promises made in 1930 have not been fulfilled. It is quite legitimate for the Conservatives to reply that their task has been rendered much more difficult because of the lack of vision of the Liberal government prior to 1930-and it would be quite true. I well remember that during the session of 1930, I, as a humble independent member, warned some of the Liberal ministers against the dangers that were coming-the depression, unemployment and the crisis. I told them that they ought to take means right then to meet that situation. But no; it was a small passing matter; Dunning would settle that in his little budget. Well, that delusion was as great as the delusion of the Conservatives at the present time, that the sole pronouncement made by the Prime Minister is going to save them from the consequences of their language in 1930. Chickens come home to roost every time; sometimes it takes four years and sometimes ten years, but they always come back.


George Spotton: Pretty old chickens.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, and sometimes they are the worst.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Why did you betray Laurier?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my friend knew
something more about the political history of the country he would know that I fought Laurier when he was at the height of his popularity. When the Tory party was denouncing him from the Atlantic to the Pacific as the instrument of Catholicism and French domination, I stood by him. When he was the idol of Quebec, I stood almost alone against him in defence of the principles for which I have fought all my life. But when

The Address-Mr. Thompson (Lanark)
he was betrayed by his Liberal friends, when he was downtrodden during the war, I came to him and1 freely tendered him a helping hand, not to carry but to go through the elections of 1917. But since I have been provoked by a gentleman who may or may not be in his senses I will add this. The last letter which Laurier wrote in his own hand, he wrote to me, to express his sympathy for the most cruel bereavement I have had during my life; and the answyer I wrote came to him the day after his attack and two days before his death. But he knows now that although I fought him because of differences in principle, I loved him all my life; and he knew it then. The day I passed in his house in 1917, when he wras betrayed by men whom he had covered with honours and favours-I never received anything from him and never asked-that day he pressed me on his bosom and said to me: " Bourassa, what has happened to me to-day you predicted eleven years ago. I know now where my true friends are to be found." May I be pardoned for having disclosed that feeling of intimacy? Perhaps much may be pardoned to an old man in his closing days; but this is as sincere as the sentiments I have expressed with regard to the present Prime Minister and the present leader of the opposition. If I go out of public life with one feeling, with one conviction, it is this: a deep regret for many bitter words that I have used in my life, deep and sincere repentance for all my violences of language; but I hope they will be forgiven me by God and man because not once in my life have I attacked anybody unjustly, from my point of view at least, and without believing it was my duty to do so.	.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Rowe) and the seconder (Mr. Dorion) on their splendid addresses; they have maintained and upheld the high traditions of this house. The speech from the throne was the most comprehensive and far reaching that has been delivered in this chamber since confederation. It clearly indicates that a new consciousness has arisen in the hearts of the Canadian people and that henceforth first things in this country will have first place and the welfare of the masses of the people will have first consideration.
There are many questions that must be dealt with by the Canadian people in the near future, questions of vital importance to our national welfare. One of them is our railway problem; another is our national debt, and another is government reform. We have too much government in this country. It is
nothing short of financial suicide that ten and a half million people should continue to support ten governments. We have more governments to govern ten and a half million people in Canada than Great Britain has to govern forty-five million. I am quite sure that one government would suffice for the western provinces and one for the maritimes, but whatever alterations are to be made, the question must be solved by the Canadian people in the near future, because we cannot continue to support the multitude of governments that we have at the present time, and nothing, whether it is the British North America Act or any other act, should be permitted to stand in the way of promoting the happiness and welfare of our people. Conditions are constantly changing and changed conditions must necessarily bring new remedies, but any alteration in the economic life of a nation to be productive of the greatest good must be made with a wholesome distrust of the unknown and a love of the old familiar paths, coupled with a reverence for religion and authority and the protection of our civil and property rights. It is true that the dead branches must be pruned from the tree and new branches grafted on to it, but great care must be exercised that the life giving trunk and roots of that tree are not destroyed.
Under our present capitalistic system there have developed social and economic injustices that must be remedied, but this does not mean that the capitalistic system is to be destroyed or that individual initiative is to be suppressed. There is no greater motive power known to man that will develop in him the faculties which his Creator gave him than the profit system, but that profit system must not be permitted to run wild; it must be regulated and it must be curbed. When a man contemplates making an important change in his own private business, if he is wise he does two things: he looks back to see what has caused him to make those changes, why it was necessary that he should make them so that he may avoid similar pitfalls in the future, and he looks ahead to ascertain if possible what the result of those changes is going to be on his future welfare. A survey of our national life in Canada at the present time is dictated by both wisdom and by common sense.
The difficulties confronting the Canadian people at this time did not arise yesterday or the day before or last year or ten years ago; they are the product of many, many years. They began when machinery, the steam engine, electricity, the automobile, each in its turn drove the human element from almost every walk of life. At first we noticed the handicraft workers in our towns and
108	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Thompson (Lanark)
villages closing their doors, having been forced out of business by the factories. Those dislocations were easily adjusted in the earlier stages, but as industry developed there grew up, almost imperceptibly and unnoticed, evils in our economic and financial systems, and under cover of the unwarranted prosperity of war time those evils ate into the very vitals of our economic system and imperilled our national life. During the years that followed the war we saw nation after nation engaged in a mad scramble to save their economic life, raising insurmountable barriers around their borders, making it impossible or almost impossible for other nations to trade with them. We saw the United States of America closing their markets to our products; we saw England, the mother and the home of free trade and the champion of sea-going commerce, take her place among the protected nations of the world, until economic nationalism stifled international trade. We also had to contend with the products of Russia, of her slave camps, her forced labour, her mines, her wageless farmers. These were dumped on our markets, depriving our own people of the Canadian market. Between the years 1921 and 1930, while the markets of the world were being closed to our Canadian exporters, our friends of the Liberal party sat idly on the treasury benches and permitted the markets of Canada to be made the dumping ground for the surplus products of every nation of the world. During the nine years immediately prior to 1930 there were formed in this country 120 mergers, which gathered into their relentless maw hundreds of our small well-organized industries and formed them into over-capitalized stock watered companies that bled the investors of this country of their hard earned savings. Surely these things must be purged from our national life if Canada is to live and prosper. It was with a view to eradicating these evils that the price spreads committee made their investigation.
When the present government took office the depression was well under way. There was an adverse trade balance of around $100,000,000. There was an immigration policy that was adding thousands to our already large number of unemployed. This government took charge of the economic life of Canada in that very diseased condition and immediately set to work to revive our industries and protect and open up markets for us. They increased the tariff against countries that had raised their tariffs against us, they cut government salaries b3? ten per cent, they initiated the Ottawa trade agreements which put millions of dollars into the pockets of our farmers and also protected them against fMr. T A. Thompson.]
profiteers in marketing. I do not know what answer our Liberal friends who voted against these agreements will make to their farm supporters, in view of the statement made under oath by Mr. MacLean, president of Canada Packers, before the price spreads commission that there had been distributed among hog growers in Canada for bacon shipped to the old country $36,000,000 more-than they would have received had these-agreements not been in effect. The government also revived the textile business and put new life into the lumber business. They instituted the central bank; they passed1 the Natural Products Marketing Act and the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. All this legislation was passed against the bitter opposition of our Liberal friends, who opposed all these acts brought in by this government in an honest endeavour to raise this country out of the slough of depression into which it had come; and this without one constructive suggestion being made by the opposition as to what should be done in the existing emergency, when Canada was fighting for her national existence.
It may be asked why the government did not bring in some measures of reform during those trying years. Our friends ask why the government did not perform a major operation upon the country when she was struggling for existence and almost at her last gasp. I answer, for the same reason that the skilled surgeon will not operate on a patient in a weakened and dying condition. They must administer palliatives, they must build up the body until it is in a condition that it can be operated on. So it was with Canada; the present government has nourished this country back to at least some degree of prosperity and into such a condition that it caD stand being operated upon. The government has decided that it is necessary to change our system. We shall be asked to give our consent to a reform that will assure our old folk that they have no longer to look forward to a destitute old age. We shall be asked to consent to a reform that will assure the wage earners that they will no longer be obliged to work for starvation wages. You will be asked to give your consent to a reform that will lead to a more just and honest distribution of both the wealth and the taxation of the people of Canada. You will be asked to give your consent to a reform permitting the farmers to make a decent living from the products of the soil and the labours of their hands, and that in the marketing of their products will protect them from the exploitation of get-rich-quick racketeers. You will be asked to consent to a reform that will

The Address-Mr. Neill
ensure the honest industrialists of this country against being crushed by unfair and unjust competition of men whose only interest in business is to heap up wealth for themselves with utter disregard for the human element, which in every phase of our national life must be protected if we are to continue to exist.
There are those who tell us that the evils we now have arose during the last five years. I will ask them to take what consolation they can from the fact that these evils reached their height in 1929, the last year that our friends opposite were in power. To those who say that the proposed reforms will lead to fascism, I say that fascism is the very negative of the reforms proposed. Fascism is not government-controlled business, it is business-controlled government. I ask you to search out the hidden power behind a Mussolini, behind a Hitler, behind communistic Russia, and you will see the iron hand of big business with its world wide, interlocked directorates, crushing the very lifeblood out of the people without any thought or regard for the welfare of the masses. In this country we must come to a true conception of the ideal progress of a nation, realizing that true progress does not consist In superabundance piled up for the enjoyment of a few, but in plenitude honestly distributed for the welfare of all. Students of history tell us that the downfall of the Roman and the Grecian empires began with the oppression of the common people. They forgot the true elements of national greatness and their glory faded because they forgot the humanity of their people.
We must realize that if our industries are to prosper we must make it possible for them to sell their goods. Their products must be consumed or prosperity would be impossible. Clothing manufacturers cannot succeed if thousands of our people are underclad; our food manufacturers, our millers and bakers cannot prosper if thousands of our people are hungry. There can be no prosperity in Canada until the purchasing power of the farmer and the working man is materially increased. The proposed reform in our economic system is not an attempt to make the rich man poor; rather it is an honest effort to make the poor man rich or to give him at least a fair share of the wealth his labours have produced. It is not a levelling down to a common mould, as our socialistic friends would describe it; it is not an effort to make all men on a common basis, but it is a levelling up from the undertrodden. In Canada the body politic has been nursed back
to a state of convalescence, and health has been so far restored that blood is again circulating in the veins of our industries and the body politic is in a position where it can stand a major operation. The people of Canada will shortly be asked to decide who shall perform the operation. Will they pass the patient back to the care of the laissez-faire rugged individualist opposite whose blundering had brought it to the point of death? Or will they not rather trust to the hand of the skilled surgeon who has so cleverly nursed it back to its present condition?
The democratic control of industry will I am sure bring about a wider distribution of the nation's wealth which, after all, is the product of the labours of all the people. The day is past, long past, when we can cry with Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" No man can live to himself, nor can any nation live to itself. Then let us march forward into a new era of security and peace, an era of decent standards of living for all. In the introduction of these important reforms we are this session taking one of the most forward steps the Canadian people have taken in many decades. Why not let us be united in our efforts? Let us throw aside our political differences. Let us discard our sectional bitterness and march with an united step towards the horizon of a brighter and happier day.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I had not thought the debate was so near conclusion and must speak without preparation. I believe I can put in a few sentences the observations I wish to make. Before doing so, however, I should like to say a few words concerning the remarks of my deskmate, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). He indicated his intention not to aspire to be a member of this house again. I hope he will reconsider that decision, we could ill spare him. We could better spare a better man, as the saying goes. He fills a niche in this house which, due to his vast store of knowledge of the long past and his association with the leaders of those days, can never be filled. It is an inspiration to have him among us. During his observations he described himself as an old man and a Christian. I am sorry I cannot adequately qualify to compete with him in that regard, but I do not think he is sufficiently either one or the other to prevent his conducting a campaign and, I trust, being elected. He struck a note of pathos in his concluding remarks when he said he hoped the house would forgive him for any harsh statements of which, as he put it, he had ever been guilty. As the hon. member is not in his seat
The Address-Mr. Neill

at the moment I might reveal a different aspect of his character. What a man says when he is on his feet sometimes reveals a side of his character different from that known to the man sitting beside him. I have upon many occasions been impressed with the friendly, courteous and tolerant opinions the hon. member expressed to me concerning those who apparently were bitterly opposed to him. There was one hon. member who sat on the opposite side of the house who used to attack the hon. member for Labelle in what I can only describe as a mean manner. I used to be indignant on behalf of my deskmate, but he would check me up, and if upon occasions I suggested retaliation he would simply reply that the hon. member was entitled to his opinions. When misfortune and illness overtook that man the hon. member for Labelle was one of the first to show his sympathy in a practical way. I know the man's inner feelings are much more tolerant than the remarks he sometimes makes politically in a debate.
I am not quite so sure that I join with him in his absolute conviction that the next election will establish the Liberal party in power. The right-about-face of the Prime Minister and the promises he has made and proposes to carry out have attracted a great deal of attention throughout the country. I must warn him, however, that he will be judged not upon anything written in the speech from the throne or spoken over the radio, but simply and solely by that portion of the program he puts into effect this session and which is passed not only in this house but in the other house, for whose actions, should they defeat any legislation passed in this chamber, he with his political affiliations will be held responsible. On that and on that alone will he be judged.
I believe the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) struck a very fine note yesterday when in order that a free hand would be given to the government to bring forward the reform measures, he forgot his constitutional objections and waived the motion of want of confidence which he promised last session. I appreciate that attitude, because before leaving home while speaking with my friends I stated that was the stand I hoped he would take. If the Prime Minister and his party are sincere in bringing forward these reform policies the very best way the Liberal and other groups in the house could serve the country -would be to facilitate their passage.
I wish to call attention to only one or two lines in the somewhat lengthy speech from the throne. I quote as follows:
Better provision will be made for the security of the worker during unemployment, in sickness, and in old age.

The reference to unemployment undoubtedly has reference to some form of unemployment insurance which the Prime Minister promised three years ago when discussing a motion introduced by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and seconded by myself. He promised that before leaving office he would crystallize into legislation, his investigations into the matter. From statements appearing in the press and from his radio talks it would appear that the plan would be accompanied by a system of contributory insurance. I am quite willing to follow him in that connection because in the eight years I have advocated the measure I have stated that would be necessary. My hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) said to-night that unemployment insurance was in no sense a cure-all for unemployment. I quite agree. Certainly it is not, any more than life insurance prevents people from dying; but both are a palliative when trouble comes. It helps to absorb the shock of the blow of unemployment just in the same way as the old age pension, which took ninety thousand people off the unemployment dole, was a useful help.
Then there is the suggestion of better provision for old age. That is somewhat ambiguous. Judging from the notice of motion which the Prime Minister gave the other day, although it is mixed up with several other subjects, there is almost the suggestion that the old age pension might be connected with a contributory system also. If that is the intention I very much regret it, and would feel compelled to oppose it, and I will oppose it to the bitter end. It is no use telling men or women who are old and destitute and feeble that they should have done something in their younger days- that " if you had done something, as I did, or somebody else did, when you were young you would not be in this position to-day, and because you did not, you must starve now." That is not the view that humanitarianism suggests. You have the old and destitute people on your hands and you have to take some care of them, and my suggestion would be-I hope this will be developed into the policy when the bill is brought down-to reduce the age for receiving the pension from seventy to sixty. I know that that would add enormously to the expenditure. To reduce the age from seventy to sixty-five would also add very considerably to the expenditure, but is it not better to have a man from sixty to seventy years old idle, even though we are paying him an old age pension, than to have the young man from twenty to thirty years

The Address-Mr. Neill
idle in a camp? The man. who has worked until he is sixty will not get into any mischief, and a rest is at that time of life appropriate, but the young man of from eighteen to twenty-eight, if he has not learned to work by then, will never learn to work; the only thing he will learn will be to become either a hobo or a criminal. I can speak feelingly of that because I have passed through the experience of being idle as a young man, and there was no relief and no dole then. I learned from my own experience and that of my friends how insensibly one can deteriorate in a period of idleness. In six weeks a man becomes a potential hobo, in six months a potential criminal. I say again, let the old man lay off and receive an old age pension. That would be far better and far cheaper than having the young fellow of from twenty to thirty years idle in a camp, learning nothing but everything that is bad. But whatever age is decided upon, I repeat that the scheme will have to be on a noncontributory basis after a certain age, because we have to deal with things as they are and not with them as they should be.
Then again the speech makes reference to action that will be taken-
-to ameliorate the conditions of labour, to provide a better and more assured standard of living for the worker, to secure minimum wages and a maximum working week, and to alter the incidence of taxation so that it will more directly conform to capacity to pay.
With regard to the minimum wage I must be on the alert, coming from British Columbia, to say that unless it is arranged in the form of a sliding scale I would be compelled to criticize it very strongly. There would have to be recognition of the fact that our standards in British Columbia are very different from those in the province of Quebec. I do not suggest that they are inferior in Quebec; I merely say that the cost of living is higher in British Columbia, and we cannot afford in that province to accept as a minimum a standard that would be acceptable in the province of Quebec. I am not in a position to quote ordinary articles of food, but take a cheap car, for instance: it costs from $200 to $250 more in British Columbia than in the province of Quebec. That is only an illustration. We cannot afford in British Columbia, with our high cost of living as compared with Quebec and the eastern provinces, to accept the same minimum wage standards.
Reference is also made to the adoption of a maximum workmg week. I am heartily in favour of that. I have advocated it for years
as the real solution for the unemployment caused by intensive machine production. During the war the production by machinery W'as speeded up to such an extent that it far overtook the hours of work. The hours of work were not shortened in accordance with increased production by machinery. In the past that was done gradually, but during the war machinery was so speeded up that the shortening of hours did not keep pace with it, and it is decidedly a very necessary thing to adopt maximum working hours. It is one of the biggest things that could be done to promote better conditions.
But I cannot read that sentence without thinking of the conflict that is inevitable in connection with provincial and federal jurisdiction. It is all very well for people to get on the platform and say, "If the constitution gets in the way, so much the worse for the constitution." That sounds very nice, but we do not want to be put in the position they are in across the line where almost a catastrophe will happen if the decision of the supreme court in the gold case is against the policy which the United States government has adopted. These things must be considered. It is no use passing legislation and having a nice catchy policy if later on it is going to be ruled out by the supreme court or by the privy council.
The speech goes on to say that measures will be enacted to safeguard the consumer and the primary producer. I am glad to hear that the consumer is going to have a look in, because I did not see much provision for him in the marketing act, for instance, that we passed last year. The primary producer is certainly entitled to have recognition. I would rather have seen notice given by the government that they proposed to make substantial amendments to the marketing act in order to render it workable, which I submit it is not. We have heard a great deal about the benefits conferred by the act, but they are all in the future. What particular product in Canada to-day has been materially benefited by the enforcement of the Marketing Act?


Mr. HACKETT:: Tobacco.


Alan Webster Neill: It may be so. I will not oppose the hon. member's suggestion, because that is not a matter with which I am familiar. As far as I know the only progress made in British Columbia under the act is to appoint half a dozen people with high salaries, and apparently there is some provision for getting government assistance for propaganda. Imagine those who want to get up an agitation for
The Address-Mr. Neill

some particular form of marketing board being subsidized by the very people who are opposed to that propaganda 1 They on the other hand, without cohesion and without union or funds, have to oppose it as best they can, and very often they are in practical ignorance of the thing until the paid propagandist who hopes to get a position under the particular scheme, has put it over.
I had also hoped to see in the speech an intimation that the government proposed to amend the Canada Shipping Act which was introduced last year and which was flopped through the house without anything like due consideration. I predicted then that we would be meeting this year to amend it, as it certainly needs amending. I myself have brought matters before the Minister of Marine, urging his earnest and immediate attention, and if it is not too late yet, I would like to see proper amendments made to that act this session.
I have just a few other words to say, and I do not think I would have troubled the house at all if it had not been for the notice given by the Prime Minister the other day that the United States propose to negotiate a trade agreement with the Dominion of Canada. That is one of the most vital things I think to the whole of Canada, but certainly to British Columbia. I remember three years ago, or it may have been two, advocating reciprocity between the two countries, and I remember some of the British Columbia papers alluding to my action as if I had taken my life in my hands and had shown a great deal of courage, indicating that I had rather more courage than sense. What I then pleaded for and urged to be considered was reciprocity in fish and lumber, and I might add copper and some forms of paper. I know that the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) when Minister of Fisheries, was fully seized of the advantages of having a reciprocal deal in the matter of fish. I believe that had he remained Minister of Fisheries possibly something of that kind would have benn achieved. At any rate, I want to be the first, so there may be no doubt or obscurity in the matter, to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister, British Columbia's needs in the way of reciprocity along those lines.
Of course by the word " reciprocity " I do not mean that they should let our fish in and we should let their fish in, because naturally when there is a movement from one country to the other there is hardly likely to be any movement of the same commodity in the opposite direction; it would have to be compensated for by allowing some United States

product of a different character to come into our country. But I repeat that if the Prime Minister could negotiate a treaty giving us access to the United States market with our fish and lumber, we would forget all about the Russians wanting to sell lumber to Great Britain. That w'ould give us a market right at our door, where we can sell the kind of lumber we want to cut, and where we can send it cheaply and profitably. Wages in the British Columbia lumber camps would go up to-morrow if it were believed that we would have reasonable access to the United States markets.
I believe the same is true, though now I am speaking of something with which I am not so familiar, in connection with copper. There is a threatened shut down at present of one of the largest copper mines in British Columbia, largely, I believe, due to our inability to ship copper to the United States market. I believe newsprint is allowed free entry to that market, but I understand there are some forms of paper as well as pulp on which there is a duty. If the Prime Minister could give us a reciprocal deal of which our fish, lumber, copper and some forms of paper and pulp would form a substantial part, I can assure him that we in British Columbia would rise up and call him blessed.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Speaker, owing to
the lateness of the hour and the sparseness of the attendance in the house, I would ask you to call it eleven o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I can hardly call it
eleven o'clock except with the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by this debate to draw attention to the forgotten man. I am referring now to the men in the national defence concentration camps. This matter was brought to the attention of the house yesterday by a question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), to which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) replied. Having taken some interest in these men and having been closely connected with them when they came to Vancouver some time in December, I wish to direct the attention of the house to the situation which prevailed there and to the situation prevailing in regard to the men in these concentration camps.

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
The telegram which was read yesterday by the Minister of National Defence was from the Prime Minister of Canadla to the attorney general or the premier of British Columbia, I am not sure which; in any case it went to the government of British Columbia. That wire shows that there was an arrangement, a conspiracy if you like, between the federal and provincial governments to force these men, by starving them, to go back into the camps without having any of their complaints investigated. In that telegram I find this statement:
Later a conference was held between Attorney General Sloan, Mr. Griffiths, provincial administrator, and a representative of military district number eleven, at which it was made clear that the only means for keeping men in the camps was the guarantee that they could not obtain relief elsewhere.
That is a striking point. We are dealing with men, with human beings like ourselves. Yet at this conference, which vitally affected these men, they were not called in, though they had representatives who might very well have been invited to participate. That is a point which substantiates the statement I made, that these men were forced to either go back to the camps or to starve on the streets. Very fortunately, possibly, these men came into the city of Vancouver at about the Christmas season, when possibly we are inclined to have a little greater feeling of humanity than ordinarily may be the case, a time when peace and good will towards men is more prevalent than it is at other times. Very shortly, and possibly immediately, after the men came to the city of Vancouver the council of social agencies, not a radical organization at all, interested itself in the men and made provision for keeping them. That is what the wire of the Prime Minister objects to more particularly.
Very shortly after that, these men came to an organization to which I belong and asked for our assistance in order to help them rectify some of the conditions which they maintained prevailed in the camps. We took up this matter, and here may I say that in taking it up we had the wholehearted cooperation of the Liberal members of parliament for greater Vancouver, of the Liberal members of the legislative assembly, and of the Vancouver city council. It was quite easy to see that the military authorities, with the cooperation of the federal and provincial governments, were trying to create a situation under which these men would be driven back to camp by force. It was only through the intervention of those I have already mentioned, together with other citizens, that a reasonable and satisfactory solution was reached, under which these men
went back to camp without some trouble occurring.
The men asked for an investigation. It was stated that anyone could go and investigate these camps. We had a similar situation in regard to the penitentiaries, and the same statement was made. Now we find, according to the speech from the throne, that some reform is to take place in connection with our penitentiaries. Surely when complaints are made the easiest way to ascertain whether or not they are well founded is through an investigation by reputable citizens. That is all these men were asking.
The Prime Minister also states in his telegram:
We think it most undesirable that agitators should destroy the value of the camps which have been provided for homeless single men, and we seek your earnest cooperation to the end that the agitators may be dealt with by the attorney general's department as provided by law.
It is the easiest thing in the world to call a man an agitator if we are not in accord with what he says, but we have various kinds of agitators. As a matter of fact we had a very able agitator in this dominion prior to the election of 1930, but instead of dealing with him as agitators are usually dealt with we made him prime minister. We had similar agitators in the province of British Columbia, and we made them the government of that province.
I have listened to the complaints of some of these men. It was suggested that when they asked for a little more syrup on their mush in the morning they were considered agitators. Well, I know the consternation that takes place in institutions of this kind when someone asks for a little more of something. Those of us who have read Oliver Twist will remember the consternation that was caused in the workhouse when he asked for more soup. What a terrible thing it wasl Possibly Oliver Twist and others needed the soup, and possibly these men needed some more syrup and other things mentioned. But we cannot find what the needs are unless an investigation is held by reputable investigators.
Now as we are on the verge of having what may be called a new deal, I suggest that the first movement in a new deal is to treat human beings a.s human beings regardless of their station in society. We shall have to treat the unemployed man as a human being just as we treat members of the chamber of commerce or of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; otherwise there is nothing to our so-called new deal or reforms.
I am of course greatly pleased at the evident swing to the left which has taken place in

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis

this dominion during the last few weeks. Possibly we in this corner of the house should feel gratified that many of the contentions which we made are to-day substantiated by those who at other times opposed us. I think it was towards the end of the session of 1932 that the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) asked the Prime Minister whether it was his intention to put legislation on the statute books to institute a six hour day. The Prime Minister remarked on that occasion that the government had no intention of doing anything of the kind. He said that as we were an exporting nation it was impossible for us to Shorten the hours of labour and compete with the rest of the world in the world's export markets. He made the same statement in Montreal after his return from Great Britain in 1933, in reply to a question as to whether we could expect in Canada something similar to the NRA in the United States. In 1932, after he had made that statement, I made a prophecy which has to some extent been fulfilled. I said. Hansard, 1932, P. 3429:
While the government at the present time state that they have no intention of bringing down legislation with respect to a six hour day, let me say that this administration are doing many things that they had no intention of doing in 1930, and they will do many things in the next few years that they have no intention of doing this year. And still they will not be able to keep ahead of the game.
That is, keep ahead of collapsing capitalism. And they will continue doing it. The longer that capitalism continues the more will these reforms be necessary. It is quite amusing to see how easily the words "capitalism" and "capitalist" roll off the Prime Minister's tongue at this time, but I have been waiting for someone to give us a definition of capitalism. So far as the people outside are concerned, it might be some sort of breakfast food. We have not heard what it is. What are the particular faults that are developing in it? As I look over the many members of the Conservative party I think particularly of my friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol), who stood up last session and maintained that these conditions which are causing us so much concern were not the fault of the capitalist system, which was perfect. However, when his leader tells him that the system is not perfect he agrees quite heartily and there is no more about it.
But what is this capitalist system, and in what respect does it differ from other social systems that have existed heretofore? What are the peculiar characteristics that make it inoperative at the present time? It is rather difficult to find in the dictionary any very concise definition of capitalism, but I have
[Mr. Maclnni3.j
a definition which I believe can be accepted by hon. members:
Capitalism is a system under which the instruments of production are privately owned by a limited class, and most men get their living by selling their labour to an employer for a wage.
It goes on to say:
Modern capitalism is based on large scale power production and the gathering of capital (means of production) into large masses under joint stock ownership.
This definition is taken from How Capitalism Works by G. D. H. Cole. I think there is a slight error in the last part of the definition. What the wage earner sells to the capitalist is not his labour but labour power. Labour is the misery he goes through while delivering his labour power, as clearly demonstrated by the evidence brought out before the price spreads and mass buying commission. What the labourer sells is his life's energy, his labour power-and this he sells at a price, wages, in order to make a living.
What are the peculiar characteristics of capitalism which have caused the dislocation of ordinary business such as we find all about us to-day? One of the first characteristics is that there is continually and ever present a tendency towards concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands, and in this dominion as well as in other parts of the world that concentration has almost reached its limit. The total wealth of Canada as represented by the assets of all its transportation systems, its utilities, mines, construction equipment, pulp and paper and industrial plants of all kinds and wholesale and retail stores, according to the latest statistics available at the end of 1933, amounted to $10,662,526.000. The survey of corporate securities of Canada published by the Financial Post of Toronto lists 325 corporations operating in these fields, which alone account for $8,800,000,000, or all but a small fraction of the total wealth of this dominion in the means of production which I have just indicated. The one hundred largest non-banking corporations in Canada have total gross assets amounting to seventy-five per cent of all the wealth in this country, represented by all enterprises, whether corporate or non-corporate, engaged in transportation, construction, mining, public utilities, merchandising and manufacturing of all kinds. Those one hundred largest non-banking corporations dominate every major and essential Canadian industry upon which we depend for food, clothing and communication. Someone suggested this afternoon that the alternative at the present time was between socialism and democracy. This would seem

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
to imply that we can have democracy under capitalism. Is this democracy when the great bulk of the means of wealth production, the means by which the people in this country live, is concentrated in the hands of very few people, less than one hundred, in this dominion? I said less than one hundred; it is approximately fifty men or, as someone has called them, Canada's fifty "big shots" who through interlocking directorates control the majority of those one hundred large corporations and their numerous subsidiaries.
Just to show the house how this concentration has been going on and the power that is vested in the hands of a few people, I will give a few figures. I believe it was mentioned yesterday that the key to a solution of our problems was control of the money power, whatever that means. I suppose we have a money power in this dominion but we also have control of industry in almost the same hands as the control of finance. For instance, let us take Sir Charles Gordon a banker. Does anyone suggest that if you took the power of Finance away from Sir Charles Gordon he would be any more benevolent as an industrialist? Would he deal as an industrialist any more kindly with his employees than he does as a financier with the rest of the Canadian people? One can say the same thing about the rest of them. Let me give a few instances of the power wielded by a few of those individuals. Sir Herbert Holt is a director of the Royal Bank of Canada; until recently. I believe, he was president of that bank. He is a director in eleven financial institutions, three insurance institutions, five transportation institutions, seven public utilities, two pulp and paper organizations, four merchandising and sundry institutions, six mining organizations, three construction institutions, fifteen manufacturing institutions, in all a total of fifty-six companies representing a total capital of 84,764,577,000. That is one man, controlling almost one-half of the capital of 810,000,000,000 which I have already mentioned. Then we have the second one, William A. Black, a director of five financial institutions, one transportation, three pulp and paper, one merchandising and sundry, two mining, one construction, seven manufacturing, or twenty institutions in all, representing total assets of over 81.000,000,000. Then we take the next one, Sir Charles Gordon, also a banker, I believe, president of a bank, a director of five financial institutions, three insurance, two transportation, one public utility,
92582-8i
one pulp and paper, one merchandising and sundry, three mining, fourteen manufacturing, with total capital assets of $3,735,000,000. These figures give some indication of the concentration of capital that is going on and has gone on within this dominion, and that almost completely controls the whole of our industrial life-the lives of our people controlled by less than one hundred men. That is one of the peculiar characteristics of capitalism, the characteristic that differentiates capitalism from all the other systems of society that have preceded it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What is capitalism?


Angus MacInnis: I have already twice stated the definition of capitalism, and if my hon. friend cannot catch my words, he can wait until to-morow when he can read them in Hansard. Why is capitalism falling down at the present time? What are these faults that have grown up in capitalism in the last few years? As a matter of fact there is not in capitalism to-day a single fault that is not inherent in the system, that was not in it from the first beginnings of it and will continue as long as capitalism continues. But certain things are necessary for capitalism to continue, and while I am dealing with this I do not wish to say that capitalism has not performed useful functions; it has some achievements to its credit. Possibly it was necessary as an evolution in social organization, because without capitalism we might never have been able to advance to a better form of organization than we now have. It has built up the capital structure by which human society lives possibly better than any other system could or would have done. In any case it has done that and for that reason we may thank capitalism for what it has done for us. But just because capitalism served us well at one time, and just because comparatively few people in the social organization are benefiting from it even now, is no reason why capitalism should continue. I submit that no matter how favourably we may receive the proposals put forward by the present Prime Minister in the speech from the throne, they are nothing but an attempt to rescue capitalism and to try to make it work.
I shall continue my remarks at the next sitting.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Business of the House-Procedure
Wednesday, January 23, 1935