1936-02-13

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Superintendent Gen eral of Indian Affairs) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Indian Act.
Mr. BENNETT:: Explain.


Mr. CRERAR:: The amendments suggested to the Indian Act are all of a minor character, as I recall them now; it is some little time since I have seen them. They relate to the disposal of the property of an Indian on a reserve to someone off the reserve; to the manner in which the council meetings of the Indians may be held and the giving of a casting vote to the presiding officer; and there are also some regulations to control what is termed a potlatch that still exists on one reserve on Vancouver island. As I have said the amendments are more or less minor in character and a fuller explanation will be given when the second reading is moved.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN HOUSE OF COMMONS EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day are called, I beg to rise to a question of privilege. I am informed that this morning at ten o'clock, and thereafter, a number of employees of the House of Commons were called into the office of the sergeant-at-arms and summarily dismissed, without cause being alleged or given. In some cases this means a very great hardship. I wrote to the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) this morning as follows:
I regret to have to inform you that I propose raising the question of the privileges of the House of Commons in connection with the dismissal this morning, under instructions from the Speaker, of a number of men who have been employed in the house for some years past.
Some of those persons thus dismissed have been employed for many years, some for six years or thereabouts and others for lesser periods of time. I am not discussing their fitness for their positions, because, as I shall point out presently, if they have been guilty of misconduct or if there is any charge against them, that charge must be investigated. If

Dismissals-Mr. Bennett
it is found warranted by the facts, then, of course, the statute provides that the Speaker may dismiss them.
The words with which I opened my observations are words which I have read in an address made by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in this house on Tuesday, February 28, 1888.
I mention that because later he presented a motion to the house, to which I referred the other day. A debate ensued and definite action was taken by the house, holding that the translators came within the ordinary rule and were not exempt from the provisions of the statute. This is the privilege of this house that I want to bring to the attention of this chamber: Our statute provides that the Speaker of this house shall exercise certain powers only under certain conditions. Section 21 of chapter 145 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, which in terms is the same as the statute referred to by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1888, reads as follows:
If any complaint or representation is at any time made to the Speaker for the time being of the misconduct or unfitness of any clerk, officer, messenger or other person attendant on the House of Commons, the Speaker may cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct or fitness of such person.
2. If thereupon it appears to the Speaker that such person has been guilty of misconduct, or is unfit to hold' his situation, the Speaker may, if such clerk, officer, messenger or other person has been appointed by the crown, suspend him and report such suspension to the governor general, and, if he has not been appointed by the crown, suspend or remove him.
In other words no man serving this House of Commons is to be dismissed by the Speaker until he has been given notice of the misconduct charged against him and has had an opportunity to give his defence, and then only after action is taken in the manner indicated by the statute. Therefore there has been a clear breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.
There is the statute. This morning, without notice as to the cause, men were called into the office of the sergeant-at-arms and told that their services were ended. The Speaker is bound by the statute; the sergeant-at-arms, carrying out the directions of the Speaker, also is bound by the statute. Some of these men were returned men; one of them has six children and his wife was ill all summer. He is dismissed without notice, just told to go and check out. Obviously, not having had an opportunity to ascertain the fact because I could not ask either the sergeant-at-arms or the Speaker with relation to it, all I can say is that I was told on what I regard as good authority that a large number of these men
have been thus dismissed from their positions, in this cold, winter weather, without warning, except as I understand, that notice was sent by one of the members of this house, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) some days ago that they were engaged only from day to day. But he was not the Speaker of this house at that time and I think it is quite clear that he had no authority to send any such notice.
In the case to which I referred, in 1888, the matter was discussed at great length. There seemed to be no doubt in the mind of anyone that an employee of this house could not be dismissed unless he had a chance to be heard, unless he had notice what his fault was. In that case Mr., later Sir Adolphe Chapleau, wrote a letter to the Speaker making his complaints against the individuals in question; the Speaker at once passed it on to them and they filed their defence; on the strength of that the matter was then sent by the Speaker to the committee on debates, and subsequently it apparently reached the committee on privileges and was dealt with. This is what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said as to the method that was adopted:
In fact the complaint which was made -against them is not in reference to their services as officers of this house, but the charge is that they went out of their proper sphere of action and grossly insulted some, members of this house. The charge was brought forward by my hon. friend, the Secretary of State, in a letter dated the 22nd May, 1887.
I will not read that because it is not pertinent to what I have to say:
Upon receipt of these complaints, you, sir, very properly referred them to the officers themselves for their answer. They sent you their answers, and you afterwards sent the whole correspondence to the chairman of the debates committee. The debates committee investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that it had better be left in your hands to be dealt with. They reported to the house, but that report never was taken up, it never was even moved in the house. It must be regretted that this report was not considered by the house, because then the whole matter could have been dealt with by the house upon its merits, and the house could have determined at once whether these gentlemen had been guilty of such an offence as warranted their dismissal.
I am not going to do more than point out that in all the discussion that took place there seemed to be no doubt that the provisions of the statute in any event must be observed, that complaint must be made and when the complaint is made opportunity should be given to the person charged to defend himself, and thereafter the action mentioned in the statute may be taken.
Dismissals-Mr. Bennett

Now, sir, I bring to your attention the fact that one of the privileges of this house has thus been violated. It was regarded by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and by all those who spoke in the house then as a matter of first rate importance, not as something trifling and insignificant. That men could be dismissed without notice and without cause assigned seemed to be something that every member of the house regarded as impossible because of the statute-it was not then chapter 145, but I have taken the trouble to have it compared, and that statute still governs this house. How are we to deal with it? Obviously the proper course is indicated by the action taken by the House of Commons in 1888. And it must have been before this house since-I have not had time to look it up-because I observe this copy of Hansard is underlined with pen and pencil by some persons who evidently have been giving it careful consideration in years long since past-


Mr. DUNNING:: Perhaps 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the question what was done in 1930 does not in any sense enter into this.


Charles Avery Dunning: It certainly does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It cannot possibly.


Charles Avery Dunning: We shall see.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I admit the hon. gentleman is right in saying he can call up his majority-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: No one said that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one has raised the question of this statute in this house since I have been in it. I confess I was not, until I looked into it, aware of the fact that the provisions of the statute were as they are.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: As the right hon. gentleman says they are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not what I say the statute is; I am reading it. In order that there may be no misapprehension I again direct attention to section 21 of chapter 145, which says:
If any complaint or representation is at any time made to the Speaker for the time being of the misconduct or unfitness of any clerk, officer, messenger or other person attendant on the House of Commons, the Speaker may cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct or fitness of such person.
2. If thereupon it appears to the Speaker that such person has been guilty of misconduct, or is unfit to hold his situation, the Speaker may, if such clerk, officer, messenger or other person has been appointed by the crown,

suspend him and report such suspension to the govenor general, and, if he has not been appointed by the crown, suspend or remove him.
That is the relevant section of the act which governs this House of Commons, and any open and, shall I say, deliberate violation of it constitutes a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.
Now I ask, What is to be done about it? In the case to which I have referred the Speaker said that the papers would be laid upon the table to-morrow. It seems to me that under the circumstances is all we can reasonably hope to have done. The matter then ended. But when Sir Wilfrid had brought the question to the attention of the house and said he proposed to have it discussed, the Speaker said that the papers would be laid upon the table, and I later observe that his language was this: "The papers will be brought down tomorrow." And on March 1:
Mr. Speaker laid before the house certain letters, affidavits and other papers relating to the dismissal of Messrs. A. E. Poirier, E. Tremblay and R. Tremblay, who were up to a recent period employed as French translators of the official debates of the house.
It may be a matter of importance to the house in considering its privileges to realize that these gentlemen were not dismissed in that session of 1887, but in the early part of the session of 1888.
I merely suggest that, having regard to the terms of the statute, it is the duty of the Speaker to lay before this house at the next convenient session, it may be tomorrow or Monday, all the papers with respect to the dismisssal of any employees of this house in accordance with the practice adopted in the construction placed by the house upon the statute that governs our deliberations.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as my right
hon. friend has just said he was kind enough to send me a communication at noon to-day mentioning that he intended to bring up in the house this afternoon the question of the dismissal of some employees of the house, which in his opinion constituted a breach of the privileges of the house. In support of his contention that there has been such a breach of the privileges of the house, my right hon. friend has read section 21 of chapter 145 of the House of Commons Act:
If any complaint or representation is at any time made to the Speaker for the time being of the misconduct or unfitness of any clerk, officer, messenger or other person attendant

Dismissals-Mr. Mackenzie King
on the House of Commons, the Speaker may cause an inquiry to be made into the conduct or fitness of such person.
2. If thereupon it appears to the Speaker that such person has been guilty of misconduct, or is unfit to hold his situation, the Speaker may, if such clerk, officer, messenger or other person has been appointed by the crown, suspend him and report such suspension to the governor general, and, if he has not been appointed by the crown, suspend or remove him.
May I draw the attention of my right hon. friend and of the house generally to a distinction which I believe that section was intended to make? It distinguishes between employees who constitute the permanent organization of the House of Commons and its temporary employees. In the organization of this house for the purpose of enabling it to carry on its business there is a distinction to be drawn between the permanent organization that continues year in and year out, and the additional organization that is necessary for carrying on the business of individual sessions. Hon. members will realize that, regardless of periods of vacation and the like, it is essential that there be a permanent staff here, and that, in connection with many matters that affect the House of Commons, there are officers who must be regarded as permanent officials of the House of Commons. With respect to dismissals that have taken place to-day or yesterday, I am informed that there has been no dismissal whatever of any member of the permanent organization of the House of Commons. As I say, there is a second group of clerks, messengers and others, who are appointed for the duration of the session. That group of temporary, as distinguished from permanent employees, includes stenographers, messengers, pages, some charmen that are known as all-year charmen. A clear distinction has always been drawn between the two, one which in the past has governed the actions of the Speaker in dealing with members of the staff of the House of Commons.
My right hon. friend did not read the next section. I do not think he avoided doing so intentionally, but I submit it helps to bring out the meaning of the act. It is as follows:
The Clerk of the House of Commons shall subscribe and take before the Speaker the oath of allegiance, and' all other officers, clerks and messengers of the House of Commons shall subscribe and take before the Clerk of the House of Commons the oath of allegiance.
2. The Clerk of the House of Commons shall keep a register of all such oaths.
I asked the clerk to have in the house this afternoon a record of the registration of oaths of persons included under section 22. The record is at present on the table of the
house. I am advised that not a single one of these persons whose names are there recorded has been dismissed.
I am further advised, and I believe correctly, that in other sessions and other parliaments it has not been customary to have oaths of allegiance of temporary employees, of the class I have mentioned, taken before the clerk. The practice at the present time in that particular is exactly the same as it has been for some years past.
My right hon. friend referred to some action taken in 1888; at that time I believe the reference was to clerks whose position was that of permanent translators. They were permanent employees, as are the translators serving at the present time. If, on the part of His Honour the Speaker, there had been a dismissal of any persons belonging to the permanent organization, I think it would have been His Honour's duty to meet the obligation placed upon him by the statute. But clearly it could never have been the intention of the statute that the Speaker should report to the governor in council the suspension of every charman or charwoman, or the circumstances with respect to every page boy against whom complaint might be laid, or with respect to other employees performing temporary duties during the period of a session. I make that clear because I believe His Honour the Speaker has been most desirous of meeting every obligation placed upon him by statute, and has been anxious in no way to impinge upon the privileges of the house.
I now come to the question as to what is best to do. I thought my right hon. friend, when speaking a few days ago, was quite frank in stating that he would not for a moment be hypocritical enough to say that when there was a change of government all temporary employees should be retained by the incoming administration. He knew very well that almost immediately after he took office in 1930 there began to be a change in the personnel of the temporary employees of the House of Commons. I must say that I think it was perfectly reasonable that up to a certain point such a change should have been made. A Liberal government had been in office for several years. As a result a large number of pages, messengers, stenographers and all-year-round char people had been employed under the previous administration. In 1930 my right hon. friend had a large following in the House of Commons, and I must say that, having regard to the personal relationships of this class of employee with hon. members, he was quite right in feeling that there must be some recognition taken of the change of the per-
Dismissals-Mr. Mackenzie King

sonnel in the House of Commons, and that stenographers, messengers, pages and the like should be selected with some regard to political representation in the house itself. However, what was in his mind in that particular, I cannot say. It is true, certainly, that so far as the present administration is concerned, we would take the view, speaking generally, that an effort should be made to have the political complexion of temporary employees correspond in a general way with the political complexion of the House of Commons itself. I think my right hon. friend and members of his party should have a right to feel an absolute confidence in the persons they may have working with them as stenographers, for example, and that hon. members in other parts of the house and belonging to other groups should have equal confidence in those who are performing sessional services for them. Certainly members of the administration and their following should have that confidence. I do not think any hon. member would feel that the privileges of the house were in any way being infringed if observance along those lines were taken in the employment of temporary clerks and others for sessional purposes. Indeed, if that were not done, I can see where there might be considerable embarrassment to members generally.
My right hon. friend has inquired as to the best course	to pursue. This is a
difficult stage of the session at which finally to determine some of these matters. If the committees of the house were constituted, I would suggest that, immediately, there be a reference to the committee on privileges with respect to what is or should be the proper procedure to follow regarding the retention and dismissal of employees of the House of Commons when a change of government has taken place. The reference could be extended, if desired, to include the practice followed in past years. The inquiry could serve to furnish guidance not only to the administration holding office but also to administrations which may follow in subsequent years. The committees of the house, however, have not yet been constituted.
There is this further embarrassing feature, that as yet the house has not appointed a deputy speaker. As a result, His Honour the Speaker is in the embarrassing position of having to preside over a discussion which may take place between my right hon. friend and myself or between hon. members on this side of the house and hon. members opposite relating to his own action in this matter. I should think it most unfortunate if His Honour were obliged to preside over a debate or discussion of the kind. If a deputy speaker

had been appointed, I would suggest that the deputy speaker take the chair and permit debate of any length necessary.
Having given the matter some thought, I would suggest to my right hon. friend and hon. members-and I hope they will concur, that, when the house is properly organized, the different committees constituted, and the deputy speaker appointed, a motion might be made to refer to the committee on privileges the question as to the right and proper procedure to be adopted with respect to the retention or dismissal of employees of the House of Commons. I would expect that on that committee hon. members from all parts of the house would have representation. A report from the committee might then be made to the house, at which time we might have such discussion as may be necessary thereon. In considering the matter I think it would be proper for the committee to consider fully what was done after the change of government in 1930 and also all that has been done since the change of government last year. I believe that would be the most effective way of dealing with the matter, and one which would best serve to preserve the privileges of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must entirely disagree
with the construction placed :by the right hon. gentleman on sections 21 and 22 of chapter 145 of our statutes. If he had been trained perhaps in the practice of the law as he has been in the theory, he would have observed that section 22 does not apply to other than officers, clerks and messengers of the house. They must take the oath of allegiance. Section 21, to which I have referred, refers to the following persons: Clerk, officer, messenger or other person attendant on the House of Commons. The distinction is so clear that it is not necessary to do more than direct attention to it to see what the obvious inference is.
But further, the right hon. gentleman has failed to observe that it is with respect to those officials appointed by the crown that the report is made to the governor general. Page boys, the char service, persons appointed for the session, stenographers-all these some within the powers specially granted by the statute to the Speaker himself, it being provided that if they are appointed by the crown the Speaker may himself suspend or remove them if they ar.e guilty of misconduct, and if appointed by him he may suspend or dismiss them after inquiry. No one in this house has suggested at any time, so far as I know, that what is called the sessional staff, stenographers, messengers or page boys, and

15i
Dismissals-Mr. Bennett
so forth, should not be employed by the government under such conditions as the government of the day may think desirable, exercising either a broad and generous attitude ot a narrow partisan attitude towards the matter, as may be thought desirable. I said the other day that I am not questioning that that has been done and will continue to be done, I suppose, long after we have vanished from the scene. But the point at the moment is that the statute makes provision as to how those who are permanent shall be dealt with. The word "permanent" has two meanings. In the civil service the word "permanent" means one who comes under the civil service establishment, and cannot be removed from office except for cause. The temporary staff is a staff that does not fall within that category. But those who were dismissed this morning and yesterday were, many of them, men who had been here for years and who, if they were not removed, would continue to be here during the Test of their lives. One of them came here I believe in November, 1930, and has been here ever since. Another has been here since 1931, and there are some in exactly the same position in the char service who were appointed by my right hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes, in exactly the
same position. That is, they were appointed by the government of the day, and they went on and are going on to-day, to-morrow and the next day. Those I refer to in the char service and messenger service, and doorkeepers, have been drawing I believe, some of them, S60 for two weeks' work, others lesser amounts, and some have been paid by the day a certain sum for six days' work in the week.
There is a clear distinction between the permanent staff of this house and those who come here for sessional duties. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that stenographers are in the latter class; they are sessional employees only. That is also true of the page boys and of many other employees of the house. But there is a year to year service to which the right hon. gentleman has referred in which the employees will go on from now until they cease by death or otherwise to carry on their duties, unless they are removed by the Speaker. The only point I am making is that they have a right to know why they are removed. The statute says so. The distinction is made clear between the two classes.
I do agree with the right hon. gentleman that it is not perhaps in the interests of the position that parliament should occupy that
we should discuss the action of the Speaker at this moment, because we have not the papers before us. In 1888, however, the Speaker did table the papers, and I suggest that the papers should be tabled to-morrow. The right hon. gentleman is in error in assuming that the matter could not be dealt with before the committees are appointed because as a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened in 1888. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier brought the matter to the attention of the house the standing committees had not been appointed; in fact, the day before, Sir John Macdonald had made his motion that a select committee be named for the purpose of striking the standing committees. So the house was in exactly the position then as it is now; the committees had not been set up.
But I think what the right hon. gentleman has said about the method of dealing with the matter is not unsound, and if the Speaker will table the papers, which means that he will table, (a) the notices of dismissal that he had sent out by the sergeant-at-arms before the Speaker assumed office, and, (b) the notices that were sent out yesterday as to the dismissal of those who have been dismissed, with their names and the positions they occupied, I think that every end will be served. There are two things to keep in mind: first, that no injustice be done to people who have been serving this country in the various capacities I have named, and, secondly, that the privileges of parliament as provided by statute must not be, shall I say violated.
If the Speaker will file the papers as the Speaker did in 1888, I think the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman that in due season we can name a committee to deal with the matter will be entirely satisfactory; for then we shall have before us, not information which may or may not be entirely accurate- and as I said at the outset I am not undertaking to guarantee that the information I have received is accurate, although I believe it to be accurate, that men have been dismissed; but we shall have the facts before us.
The right hon. gentleman says that certain people have not taken the oath of allegiance. I think it would be very strange if they had, because the statute names only three classes, the clerk, the messengers and the other class I named.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Officers.


Charles Avery Dunning: And messengers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, messengers, as I mentioned. But section 21 dealing with dis-

Dismissals-Mr. Mackenzie King
missals covers all those who are attendant on the House of Commons, meaning, I take it, all those who go on from year to year. The test would be this: How many of those men dismissed to-day or yesterday would have remained on had it not been for a change of administration? Were any of them guilty of misconduct? Were they proper persons to discharge the duties which they were fulfilling? -one a doorkeeper, another a charman, and so on. If the answers to these questions are satisfactorily given I think the matter can be readily disposed of. I do not think the position taken by the right hon. gentleman is an unfair one, and if as I say the Speaker will follow the practice that was followed by the Speaker in 1888-he was a Conservative Speaker-Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not at that time a Conservative, however much he may have been in his later days-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was never a Tory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then later we can deal with the matter in the light of the documents we shall have before us, and know what charges, if any, have been made against the persons who have been dismissed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to add anything further to the discussion, nor for that matter to shut it off in any way. I hope hon. members will feel free to express their minds on this question, but I would like to point out to the house that, if the house will follow the course that I suggest, we may avoid the kind of difficulty that I see we are getting into. My right hon. friend was out of order when he spoke the second time, and I am out of order now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no, not on a question of privilege.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am out of order now. It is impossible to have the question settled except by reference to His Honour the Speaker. If His Honour were appealed to in regard to my right hon. friend being out of order, my right hon. friend1 might not view the ruling in the same light as other hon. members of the house. I do think that what I have suggested is the best way of dealing with this matter. It is the fair, the open and aboveboard method to pursue, not only as a guide to the house during this parliament but the best way to be of service as well to subsequent parliaments.
As to the laying of any papers on the table,
I feel that a motion is required for that purpose which would give hon. members the 
opportunity of amending what is proposed by adding to, or subtracting from the motion or accepting it as presented. All papers that are necessary and all information that is desired can be placed before the committee on privileges under the reference that will be made. If the reference is not broad enough when it is submitted by the administration, and if it appeals to the house as being desirable to make it any broader, I give every assurance that the desires of the house will be acceded to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be necessary for me to move for papers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend may move for papers, but-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite the opposite course was taken under Sir Wilfrid.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will have to add to his motion the request that all papers, including papers covering dismissals made at the time my right hon. friend was in office, shall be brought down and tabled at the same time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Wilfrid said that that was entirely beside the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend need not think that anything that affects his administration is going to be beside this question, because what has been done up to the present does not begin to touch what my right hon. friend did in this regard when he was in office. If I can, I want to avoid recriminations of any kind over these matters. I am taking a step which I think will appeal to all reasonable members of the House of Commons.


Mr. LENNARD:: I should like that information to include the number of ex-service men who have been dismissed since the beginning of this session.



OLYMPIC GAMES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the head of the government, an old cricketer and sportsman. This relates to a series of articles which have appeared in the papers. There has been some very bad advertising of Canada at the Olympic games by a Mr. Gilroy who says he is a representative of the government of Canada and will withdraw his team if he does not get his way there. I should like to quote shortly from the head-

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
lines in this morning's Ottawa Journal, as follows:
Canada Ready Quit Olympic Hockey Games
Claim Playoff System Will Put Team at Disadvantage
New Bombshell Hits Tournament
Maple Leaf Squad Will Withdraw Unless Rule is Rescinded
Some weeks ago this gentleman referred to the sportsmen of England in a manner far from complimentary saying that this sport in England was a "racket." His late majesty was the greatest sportsman in the world and this row comes at a bad time and shows poor judgment in a time of mourning. This government has appropriated $10,000 for these games and if they are to cause bad relations internationally, if they are to be bad advertising for Canada, I think something should be done. I ask the head of the government to have an investigation made of this matter. There are rows before they leave, rows when they get over there and there -will [be probably rows when they come back, after these games are over.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I ask the hon. member to come to the point and put his question.


Thomas Langton Church: There was no need of your interruption, Mr. Speaker. I had to lay a foundation for the question. I think something should be done to stop this bad advertising. With the unsettled state of Europe these Olympic games as conducted create bad international feeling. The reference of Mr. Gilroy about British sport w'as in bad taste at a. time of mourning for his late majesty, and bad advertising for Canada. These votes should be confined to British empire games.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to look up Hansard before I can give my hon. friend an accurate answer. As I understand him, he is taking exception to someone at the Olympic games claiming to be: a representative of Canada. People all over the world are only too ready to be that, and many are fond of expressing themselves in those terms. May I say to my hon. friend that if the one he has referred to is a representative of the government, he must have been so appointed by the previous administration. I think it is very doubtful that anyone participating in the Olympic games is a representative of the government of this country. Whether it is wise to vote money for the purpose of these games, or how such money should be voted, are matters that will come up for consideration should a like estimate be again before us. Such money as has been appropriated for the purpose mentioned by my
hon. friend was appropriated before the present administration came into office and was recommended by the government of which he was a supporter.


Thomas Langton Church: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has pacified Europe; he ought to be able to pacify the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association.



PENITENTIARIES COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss AGNES' C. MACPHAIL (Grey-fBruce): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when he expects to be able to announce the personnel of the royal commission which he purposes setting up to make an investigation and study of penal affairs.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I believe I shall be able to announce the personnel of that commission in a very few days.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. A. G. Slaght for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Woods-worth.
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned yesterday evening at six o'clock I was referring to some of the tactics employed by the Liberal party in British Columbia during the election campaign. I had not intended to bring this matter to the attention of the house until I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) complain about what had been done in. Quebec. I then came to the conclusion that if it was a bad thing for Conservatives to appeal to racial and religious prejudices in the province of Quebec, it was an equally bad thing for Liberals to do the same thing in the province of British Columbia, and consequently it ought to be brought to the attention of the house. In that connection I was quoting from an article by Professor H. F. Angus of the university of British Columbia which appeared in the Canadian Forum. I shall not dwell on that subject much longer, but I should like to make one short quotation from this article. Professor Angus in this article stated two suppositions upon which it was possible to ex-
The Address

Mr. Maclnrds

plain this appeal to race prejudice, and he then stated:
If this is the explanation of the novel trend of liberalism, it is possible to argue that it was justified by results from the standpoint of the party. For Mr. King's right bower-
He was referring to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie)-
-was elected by a majority narrow enough to be interpreted as consisting of people who have morbid sensibilities where orientals are concerned. And yet, with all respect for the winning card, one may grudge the price that was paid.
I agree with that statement. If we cannot win elections, if we cannot make our voices heard in this country without appealing to racial and religious prejudices, then the price is too great as far as I am concerned.
I wish to make a few references to the speech from the throne. It does not contain a great deal that one can deal with definitely at this time, and I would say that if that large section of the electorate that voted for the Liberal candidates at the last election can find in the speech from the throne any justification for their vote, then they are not asking for very much.
The speech tells us something which of course we knew already-that unemployment continues to be Canada's most urgent problem. We all agree with that; but it gives no indication whatever of any immediate, or for that matter prospective, solution of that problem. Referring to the unemployment relief camps, I am glad that the government is taking steps to transfer them from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Labour. I do not know that it will make any great difference, though it may do away with any suggestion of the militarization of the camps. What the men in the camps are complaining about is not so much that the camps are under this or that department, as that they are compelled to stay in these camps without any hope far the future; and merely transferring the camps to the Department of Labour will not obviate that objection.
I was wondering why the government did not put the unemployment relief camps under the Minister of Finance rather than under the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour is a university man, and as far as I know he has had no experience in dealing with the unemployed. I understand, however, that the Minister of Finance has been in charge of a camp for unemployed at Lucerne, Quebec, for the last five years, and because of that he would possibly be the person best fitted to take care of unemployment. There might be

this difficulty, however, that if those with whom he would be dealing under the new conditions received the same consideration from society as those with whom he has come in contact during the last five years, they would not be satisfied to go back to the old conditions under which they have lived during these years.
The other morning in my mail I received two communications, and it was these that suggested to me the fitness of the Minister of Finance to look after the unemployed. The first communication was a letter from an old gentleman in the interior of Brtitish Columbia. His shaky handwriting was an indication of his age. He was complaining of having to live on $9 a month, which he was receiving in relief, and he referred to the items of diet on which he had to subsist-flour, rice, bacon and beans, a few prunes and tea and coffee. In the same mail I received the magazine of the Seigniory Club, a beautifully got up little publication, the best quality paper, a fine design on the cover, photographic illustrations of the very best; and I read in that magazine the qualifications for membership in the club. "Subject to social and racial restrictions"-this will appeal to my friends from British Columbia-membership in the club can be had, and it carries with it the privilege of hunting and fishing; whereas membership in other clubs that I have been referring to, the unemployment camps, carries with it the privilege of working for twenty cents a day. There is some difference. Life membership in the Seigniory Club costs only $2,000, the ordinary membership being $250 for initiation and $125 annually.
I looked up the relief allowance in Vancouver and this is what I found. If you take the total in relief allowed for a man and wife for one year, for food, clothing and shelter, at the end of the year they will have received $1 short of the amount necessary to buy a year's membership in the Seigniory club. A little further on in the same magazine I have mentioned I read the following:
Nature in the raw this winter in the Seigniory Club forest will be a little less raw than usual, thanks to the distribution of several hundred pounds of bean and molasses cakes. The younv deer get their proper number of vitamins from these, and then when normal feed has grown scarce and the snow is so deep they cannot labour through it, the guides and rangers cut brush and lay it on the trail so they can get it without difficulty.
The man who wrote to me about the difficulty of carrying on on $9 a month pointed out that he was not allowed any sugar. There was no thought taken of vitamins as far as he

was concerned, and there is very little thought taken for the 1,200,000 people who are on relief in Canada at the present time-no thought as to whether or not they have the proper amount of vitamins. It is much better to be a deer in the forest of the Seigniory Club than a Canadian on relief in this country, because the one receives some consideration while the other gets very little.
I do not think I can be accused of wrongly interpreting the policy of the government when I say that its hope of bringing about an improvement in Canadian conditions is based largely on the extension of our foreign trade. The following reference in the speech from the throne leads me to that conclusion:
Every effort will be made to close the camps altogether at as early a date as expanding employment opportunities permit.
It seems to me that if the men in the relief camps are to remain there until expanding production is brought about by an extension of foreign trade, their hope of getting away from the camps in the near future, or indeed in the distant future, is very remote.
Having touched on the question of trade, I will now take such little time as is left to me to deal further with that question, a question about which I believe there is a great deal of confusion at the present time. I am going to make a statement that to many members of this house may seem strange. I am not only going to make that statement; I also think I can prove it. The statement is this: Under our present capitalist system an extension of trade, or increased trade, will ultimately lead to a reduction in trade. That may seem a contradiction, but capitalism is full of contradictions, and, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the other day, these contradictions are becoming very apparent at the present time.
If we look over the history of the past hundred years, the development of trade and commerce, we find that there is hardly a nation on earth that has not increased its trade during that time. Indeed the last hundred years has been an era of universal trade expansion, and it goes without saying that this trade expansion has been universally beneficial. The question may be asked as to why this trade expansion cannot continue indefinitely. We might as well ask why a man cannot continue to grow in stature after he has reached maturity. Trade cannot continue to increase because through the extension of trade every country has become provided with the means that will make it more and more self sufficient. Whether or not there is a definite purpose there is a definite 12739-11
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
result which follows the trade expansion of the last hundred years; as I said a moment ago the effect of that has been to make the nations of the world more and more self sufficient in the matter of production. Following that I may say that what we are pleased to term "economic nationalism" is just as natural in the development of the nations of the world to-day as stiff joints are in old men. It is merely an effort on the part of the nations of the world, in an era of declining trade, to protect themselves, and whether we like it or not it will go on until we change our system of production and distribution.
Now let me give you an example of the development of trade, trade as we know it to-day, trade under the capitalist system, and when we refer to the capitalist system we have in mind that period beginning with the use of motive power to drive machinery. That form of production was first used in Great Britain towards the end of the eighteenth century, and I think it is correct to say that the textile industry was the first industry to be highly developed under the new method. That industry in Great Britain increased immensely from 1776 to 1913. We find that in the latter year the exports of British cotton reached the very large total of 7,075,000,000 yards. Sixteen years later, however, in 1929, British exports of cotton goods shrank to 3,765,000,000 yards, a decrease of 47 per cent. Coming down a little later, to 1933, we find the decrease still going on, with the exports of that year not up to the three billion yard mark.
What is the reason for this shrinkage in British exports of cotton goods? There is only one answer; it is that Great Britain not only exported cotton goods during that period; she also exported the machinery used to manufacture cotton goods, and that machinery was sent to those countries which formerly bought British cotton goods. As a result these countries are now able to manufacture their own cotton goods to supply their own markets. More than that, they are now competitors with Great Britain for a share of the foreign market still available, and this foreign market will continue to diminish-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I am sorry to
have to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I think his time is up.


Angus MacInnis: I will finish this sentence, with the consent of the chair. This foreign market will continue to diminish as each country in turn becomes equipped to supply its own needs. No more need be said except



The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
that what has happened in regard to cotton has happened in regard to a great many other things as well.


Mr. P. J. ROWE (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested by the social credit party, meeting in caucus, that I make the following statement, which correctly expresses the position we take with regard to the speech from the throne:
We believe the time for cooperation has come, and we are supporting the motion because the speech from the throne indicates many great reforms, although it does not contain, in our estimation, an adequate and permanent solution to our economic ills.
I have a few things in mind which I feel should be said at this time. I conceive parliament to be a committee of citizens appointed and paid by the people to transact public business and promote and safeguard the welfare of the people of this country. If parliament continues to do that it merits the support of the electorate. When it ceases to do that it should be removed from office with the same unconcern as that with which a farmer would scrap a rusty plough that had ceased to serve.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the supreme task confronting this parliament and this country at the present time is the winning of industrial democracy. As a member of the Anglo-Saxon race I am glad that after a thousand years of struggle for political democracy we are in a far happier position than some of the other nations of the world. Rut political democracy, unless it is accompanied by industrial democracy-which means the right of all the people to share in the abundance of the earth-is a mere shell, formless and meaningless.
I want to refer to the passing of His Majesty King George V; I want to refer to the man and his identification of himself with human problems. My leader, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) quoted the other day these words from his late majesty's address on the occasion of the imperial economic conference in London in 1932:
It cannot be beyond the power of man so to use the vast resources of the *world as to ensure the material progress of civilization.
You will notice that he did not say, to ensure the progress of the Bank of England, or the Bank of Montreal; he said "civilization."
No diminution in these resources has taken place. On the contrary, discovery, invention and organization have multiplied their possibilities to such an extent that abundance of production has itself created new problems.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what manner of man is this who, while a king, can yet espouse the cause of the common people throughout the world? I thought during the days of official mourning here the king would expect something more than black draperies and expressions of sorrow; he would expect the people of his empire to remember his words and to act upon them. And it may be-who can tell-that somewhere within the shoreless vast of this universe he may be looking down upon us now from the luminous slopes of the stars, saying to us, in the words that the psalmist might have used, How long, 0 Lord, will men continue to pay lip homage and forget humanity; humanity and its struggle forward to a higher plane, a state of peace?
I wish to say a word or two about the situation confronting this parliament, indeed confronting all the peoples of the world. George Bernard Shaw in one of his recent plays says that the other planets use this world for a lunatic asylum. Thousands of years ago our ancestors, who lived precariously on the thin edge of starvation, often died because there was not enought to eat. If we could by some process of reincarnation bring back to this vale of tears some of those luckless progenitors of ours and let them see the spectacle of millions of men and women cold, hungry and miserable in the presence of huge piles of food and clothing, what conclusion could they reach other than that we are all crazy? The difference, I suppose he would say, is this, that in the ordinary lunatic asylum the inmates only are supposed to be crazy, but in this one the keepers as well are crazy.
I think there is a general recognition of the fact that the remedies proposed at the present time are not only unworkable, but, to use the words of the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, leader of the Conservative party in the Senate, are archaic palliatives. I will quote Mr. Meighen's own words:
But the naked and unassailable truth, which only stupidity can prevent anyone from seeing, is that if the United States were to be brought back to-morrow to the peak production of 1929, a production which the world utterly failed to consume or to purchase, there would remain in that country no fewer than six and probably eight millions of unemployed, representing virtually one-third of its whole earning population. What is true there is true in other lands, hut the enigma is greater and perhaps the lesson ought to be clearer when one looks upon the situation as a phenomenon of the United States. That is essentially an immensely wealthy country, the greatest self contained country in the world. If it were a planet it would not need to trade with any other planet in order to multiply the wealth of man. It produces either all that mankind

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
needs or effective substitutes therefor, and if it could devise a plan for putting to work those millions who are now unemployed it would be a happy land. When we see that country struggling in the throes of one of the most terrible depressions that any nation has ever had to face, when we see its people in such desperate straits that even the people of old England are prosperous in comparison, we are forced to think that something further is needed than mere amendments to tariffs and the holding of international conferences, or the trying of other and somewhat archaic medicines that have been applied to the body politic in the past.
I believe, sir, it is an easily demonstrable fact that the Dominion of Canada, perhaps the most richly endowed with vital natural resources of any Land on, earth, is not only capable of supporting its present population of eleven millions, and giving to them everything in the shape of food, clothing, shelter and cultural opportunities, but could support a population of probably five times that number. That statement I think cannot be challenged. Yet what do we find? We have unemployment, we have the dole, that humiliating and degrading thing, a blot on civilization. Here I should like to quote the words of our present king. When Prince of Wales, visiting the coal mines in Wales, he used these words; they were quoted by my leader the other day, but they will bear repetition:
What a ghastly mess it all is! It makes me positively sick. What is the cause of all this? It cannot go on, it is a blot on England.
Those are the words of His Majesty the King of England. I can only say again that there is a general recognition of the fact that these contradictions are inherent in the system, as the speaker iwho preceded me said, and it is the work of this parliament to give constructive leadership in the solution of these and related problems.
I should like to refer to something that lion, members in this chamber, surrounded by comfort, everything that exalts and embellishes our civilized life, sitting in this comfortable room with messengers and servants, warmth and brightness, might be tempted to forget. There is a statement which I feel it my duty to make. I say more in sorrow than in anger that while the debate was proceeding yesterday, while the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) was describing some of the awful and pathetic conditions which prevailed among the poor people of the west, victims of this failure by the leaders of men to solve 'our problems, some hon. members in the chamber seemed to think that those conditions were a joke. I wonder if they have not forgotten the people 12739-lli
who pay, or try to pay the taxes, who pay for the building and protection we enjoy, who have made every sacrifice, who have contributed to this country and its development and are now being left destitute.
I have thought it wise to place on Hansard some observations of the Hon. Senator Pascal Poirier, now deceased, but whom some hon. members in this chamber may have known. He said:
As a result of these conferences our economic situation will very likely be improved. Improved, but not healed. The dreaded cancer will remain. Something must be found which will extirpate it, and this with no long delay, for the cancer grows alarmingly.
The murmur that reaches parliament from the streets is now subdued, for things have not come to a crisis, and the dole appeases the hunger of the multitude. But when the public treasury is exhausted and the dole is no longer forthcoming that murmur will change into a malediction. Hearken to the suppressed rumble! It comes from gatherings of unemployed from Victoria to Sydney, from prisons like Portsmouth, St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester, from everywhere. And what will happen, what can happen, if the rabble, so-called, run amuck and break all restraints?
Remember what happened in France during the revolution of 1793. Look at what happened in Portugal not so long ago. Look at what is happening to-day in Russia, in Spain, in Mexico. The Czar of all the Russias, the grandees of Spain and Portugal, the clergy of Mexico, once all-powerful, were scattered like dry leaves in a hurricane when the people rose in anger.
All that may be true, but are we, the governing class in democratic Canada, not in a position to quell insurrections? No, my friends, we are not, if lines are drawn and sides taken. Since the granting of manhood and womanhood suffrage, the majority governs, as it did before, but the axis of majority has shifted. There is even no necessity of a revolution in Canada to put the administration down and out. It can be done constitutionally, at the polls. Let all the malcontents unite, it is possible that later on they may secure a majority at the polls. What will happen then? They will climb up and we shall climb down, we senators as well as others. If, to use a vulgar expression, we kick, they will look upon us as disturbers of public peace, as insurgents, as undesirables; and, if they deem it necessary for the preservation of order and good government, they may confiscate our properties and show us the road to exile. Such things have happened elsewhere and are actually happening.
Nothing like this is likely to occur in Canada, because our labouring classes have so far had no grievous charge to lay against their employers; they were never oppressed or wronged by them, and they, as much as we, favour the continuation of the present political regime. But let discontent grow, let the number of unemployed increase to dangerous proportions, let a crisis come, and no one can tell what may happen.
Those are not the words of an agitator, but those of a former member of the Senate of Canada.
164	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
I have one or two observations to make concerning the international situation of the League of Nations. As was stated a few days ago by the hon. member for Weybum, the League of Nations is an organization of about fifty nations banded together to create among nations a state of law and order where formerly international anarchy had prevailed. As I see it, the league was designed to do for nations what criminal and civil courts were designed to do for individuals. For instance, several hundred years ago the institution of duelling was outlawed, and through the establishment of courts disputes arising betwen individuals were taken before an impartial tribunal and there, in the calm light of judicial detachment, were adjudicated upon. Passions were quelled; a judge would rule one man right and the other wrong, or partly so. But the institution of duelling which because it resulted in brutal killings and great injustice had been outlawed by the conscience of mankind was not a success for many years. We have record of many duels being fought after the practice was legally outlawed. Many thousands of years ago, before the dawn of civilization, tribes resorted to mass murder in order to settle disputes arising among them. The conscience of mankind crystallized in the League of Nations, a tribunal set up to restore order out of anarchy and to afford an opportunity to hear the voices of the smaller nations.
We cannot expect the League of Nations to be anything but a reflection of the institutions of nations composing it; it would not be reasonable to expect more. Therefore, while predatory individuals abused the courts we now find nations abusing the League of Nations to further selfish interests which certain small groups within those nations are trying to serve. The hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Douglas) made some observations about the Anglo-Persian Oil Company furnishing oil to Italian troops. While we endorse the idea of the League of Nations and believe it is the only hope of mankind for preventing war in the future, we deprer cate the tendency on the part of certain nations to allow predatory or unscrupulous groups of interests within those nations to use the league for any such purposes, and our policy would be to strengthen the league by every possible means and to insist upon an impartial imposition of economic sanctions. I w'ould like to commend the government for the stand it took in what conceivably was a very dangerous situation, which might have resulted, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said the other day, in a European conflagration which 
would have involved us all. We want to remember that the situation in Europe is largely the result of our own failures in the past, of our failures and the failures of diplomacy in general.
I think it could not be challenged with regard to war that the spectre of all the great wars in history will rise up in the day of judgment and point an accusing finger at the leaders of men, because it has been through their stupidity and ineptitude that the common people have been led to the shambles. The failure to recognize the equal worth of other peoples and nations, the failure to recognize the inalienable right of every nation to access to raw materials with which to build a civilization commensurate with our own, is one of the efficient causes of war. The balance of power is a political cause of war, because once any nation, actuated by whatever motives of self defence, assumes a position of superiority or desires to dominate, it is immediately challenged by every other nation and then we have an armament race. What is at the back of it? Simply this:	We have here a country that is
able to support fifty million people. It is not supporting eleven million people, and yet we are shipping out of this country our vital natural resources in the form of finished goods in a mad scramble for markets that do not exist. Then collisions occur between the nations, and then sometimes we are asked to go out and shed our blood. The system itself is the cause of this.
President Wilson said in St. Louis just before he died, and I do not think anyone here who has studied economics and the economic causes of war would disagree:
Is there a man or woman, is there a child in this audience, who does not know that the seeds of war are sown in hot, successful commercial rivalry?
Then it has been found necesary to plunge the world into war as a result of the failure of the system, and the common people are led to the shambles because the leaders of men have not been able to formulate an intelligent policy for producing and distributing the wealth of the world.
What will our policy be? I would like to suggest one or two things, and may I say that I am here with an open mind, anxious to cooperate and to offer some suggestions to the government. As I came through Calgary on my way down here I picked up a copy of the Calgary Herald and read a report of an address to the Canadian Club given by Doctor Kerby, principal of the Mount Royal College, Calgary and I think this will be of interest to the right hon.

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
leader of the opposition because I noticed that he introduced the speaker. This is what Doctor Kerby says about our foreign policy:
Canada will come into a foremost place among the nations of the world not because of her unparalleled scenic beauty, her vast extent of territory, or her inexhaustible natural resources, but by virtue of the thought-power of her people and their leaders.
The hope of Canada lies in the quality of its life, the ability of the people to assimilate new ideals and standards, and to incorporate them into our national life.
It lies also in a national ideal-not founded upon wealth, or military power, but upon a broad concept of human helpfulness and human service, based on humanity and Christianity. There is no security for the nation, outside of goodwill; there is no impregnable fortress except brotherhood, no invincible armament except service and no prevailing diplomacy except the truth.
I submit that that is a sound basis for our foreign policy. I want to quote also from Victor Hugo's presidential address at the peace conference in 1849. He said:
A day will come when you, France-you, Russia-you, Italy-you, England-you, Germany-all of you nations of the continent- shall, without losing your distinctive qualities and your glorious individuality, blend in a higher unity and form a European fraternity, even as Normandy. Brittany, Burgundy, Lorraine, Alsace, all the French provinces, have become blended.
A day will come when war shall seem as absurd and impossible between Paris and London, betwen St. Petersburg and Berlin, as between Rouen and Amiens, between Boston and Philadelphia. A day will come when bullets and bombs shall be replaced by ballots by the universal suffrage of the people, by the sacred arbitrament of a great sovereign senate, which shall be to Europe what the parliament is to England, what the diet is to Germany, what the legislative assembly is to France.
A day will come when a cannon ball shall be exhibited in our museums as an instrument of torture is now, and men shall marvel that such things could be. A day will come when shall be seen those two immense groups, the United States of America and the United States of Europe, in face of each other, extending hand to hand over the ocean, exchanging their products, their commerce, their industry, their arts, their genius-clearing the earth, colonizing deserts, and ameliorating creation, under the eye of the Creator.
Well, the twentieth century is here, and I wonder if we in this parliament by the policies we initiate shall see the fulfilment of that prophecy uttered one hundred years ago. If it is true, and I believe it is true and is accepted by the leaders of this government and by everyone who thinks seriously about a solution of this problem, that the methods that are now proposed cannot solve it, why do we not change those methods? Why do we not dispassionately and detachedly study
this problem? Why adopt the procrustean method of reasoning, chopping off the feet of theories that do not fit the facts and stretching out theories that do not fit the facts? Why not adopt the method of inductive reasoning, analysing the facts before us as a scientist would and reaching a conclusion after an examination of the facts? We try to find an open mind on this question, a mind that has striven conscientiously to rid itself of prepossessions and prejudices and to understand the elements of good in every one of these conflicting economic and political philosophies before commencing destructive criticism. At least a man should learn from experience. We have not got that mind. Perhaps I should put on Hansard a little poem which may throw some light on the reason why we change so slowly. It reads:
Said Life Force to Amoeba,
As she wiggled in the tide:
"It's time you're evoluting,
So get busy and divide."
But Amoeba, from Tradition,
Argued it is plain to view Where there's been one organism There can't suddenly be two!
But there were.
Said Changed Environment to Amphibian,
As he floated o'er the sand:	_
"You'll have to change your habits,
Go bone-dry and live on land."
Wet Amphibian, by Zoology,
Law of Fittest-To-Survive,
Demonstrated out of water He just couldn't keep alive!
But he did.
Said Instinct to the Anthropoid,
"If you're to slug and roar,
It's time you learned to balance On two feet instead of four."
Mr. Anthro proved by Physics That if he should leave his rut,
He'd lose his equilibrium And bump his cocoanut!
But he didn't.
Said Experience to the Cave Man,
"This rough stuff's going flat;
You'll have to rule your roost and clan By subtler means than that."
The Cave Man cited Nature's Law To prove he'd be a dub For flabby Law-and Order To scrap his solid club!
But he did.
Said Intellect to Modern Man,
"You settle this affair Of stab and starve and slaughter,
Or you'll soon be rather rare."
Said wise, sophisticated Modern Man,
"It's up to me to die; '
Old ways are suicidal,
And new ways I will not try!"
But he will.
We often hear the slogan: In time of peace prepare for war. I suggest that we change that slogan to read: In time of peace establish peace so firmly that it can never be success-

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
fully attacked again. I think of the founder of Christianity standing on the hill overlooking Jerusalem and uttering these words:	"O
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee. If thou hadst known, even thou, in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!" That is the question, the things that belong unto peace.
I have only a minute or two left and I should like to place on Hansard an item which appeared in the Review of Reviews entitled Can Britannia Rule the Waves? I make reference to this article because of the Japanese. Yesterday in Ottawa we met a gentleman from China and he suggested that we should do something to revert the status of Manchukuo so that it would not longer be recognized as a nation among nations. We must remember that when Admiral Perry blasted open the harbour of Tokyo in 1852 he put into the hands of the Japanese the instruments of modem warfare. The Japanese people have been watching the history and the movements of some of the other great nations in the west and they proceeded to build up a civilization founded upon force. Within the last few' months the Japanese have overrun China and have subjugated about three-quarters of it politically. There is nothing to prevent Japan from training an army of fifty million in China and knocking at the gates of Europe within the next twenty years, fighting under the slogan of "The white man out of Asia."
I suggest, with Dr. Kerby, the writer of the article which I quoted, that there is no safe diplomacy but the truth. There is no impregnable fortress but good will. I quote from the article in the Review of Reviews as follows:
At four o'clock on the morning of October 17, 1935, Premier Laval, in Paris, got Mussolini on the 'phone and asked for the best Italian terms. Mussolini renlied that if the British did not change the dispositions of their fleet within twenty-four hours, Italy would attack the seventeen British war vessels lying in Alexandria bay.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has elapsed.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on the address, but considerable has been said about wheat, and after listening to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) I think it is right and proper that I should make a few observations.
First, I should like to congratulate the mover, (Mr. Slaght) and the seconder (Mr. 
Fournier, Maisonneuve) of the address upon the spendid manner in which they acquitted themselves in making their first speeches in this chamber. Many important questions mentioned in the speech from the throne have been discussed already and I shall not give any time to these matters, paying more attention to the question of wheat. An opportunity will be presented later to deal with these other matters when they come before the house in due course.
I should like to clear up one misunderstanding. The charge has been made on two occasions, first by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and then yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, that the Conservative party was responsible for interjecting the wheat question into the Assiniboia by-election. I think it is well known that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was either in California or on the sea at that time. 'He was not in Canada. As the only Conservative member from Saskatchewan, I can assure the house that I never discussed that by-election with him at all. I admit that Mr. Turnbull of Regina and myself took some little part in it, but the first appearance I made was on January 2. The records and reports of the speeches made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will show that during the last week in December, and even at his nomination, he referred to the wheat question in addresses he made. At every address he made he referred to the wheat board and criticized Mr. McFarland and his operations. The wheat question was interjected into that campaign by the hon. gentleman himself.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-I should like to make this correction. I did not discuss the wheat question or, Mr. McFarland at my nomination convention.


Ernest Edward Perley: The reports
show that the hon. member discussed it on many other occasions, and I shall probably refer to them later. The point I wish to make is that the wheat question was being discussed in that campaign long before I got there. I did not get there until January 2. I was in Winnipeg during Christmas week and arrived home on December 29. I found awaiting me there letters from all parts of Saskatchewan protesting against the action of the wheat committee of the cabinet in dismissing the advisory committee of the wheat board. I had telephone messages from different parts of Assiniboia; I heard from Manor, Ar.cola, Kipling and other places. I was told that as I was the only Conservative member from

The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
Saskatchewan it was felt that it was my duty to go down and defend Mr. McFarland, and I went down. I say that neither the Conservative party nor my leader had anything to do with that action. While I was in Winnipeg I gathered some information with respect to what had taken place during the first week or ten days that the new board was in action, and I may have something to say about that later.
There were, of course, many other issues in that campaign, but I will not take time to discuss them. We heard yesterday from the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) the reasons for the dismissal of the McFarland board. Let me observe that anything I do say with respect to any member of the government is not spoken in a personal sense at all but purely from the point of view of criticism of their policy. I have the greatest respect for the Minister of Trade and Commerce and for other ministers to whom I may refer; I have the greatest respect for them as men, and I am merely criticizing their policy. I think that the country wishes us to criticize in a constructive way anything that calls for criticism, and certainly wheat is the most important problem in the west.
The minister stated that the committee believed that in Great Britain there was growing up a sales resistance. Possibly so; he quoted yesterday from editorials and newspaper clippings to that effect. But let us see what this new commission is; let us see who the persons are that constitute it and what has been their attitude. The new commission is composed of Mr. Murray, Mr. Mclvor and Mr. Shaw. As regards the first two mentioned gentlemen, there is no doubt in the world that they have had wide experience in the marketing of grain. I believe they are capable in every way, and if they would direct their attention to marketing in the interests of the farmers they could possibly do a very creditable job. The point I wish to make however is that these three men are on leave of absence from the respective organizations or institutions with which they were formerly employed. They are on leave of absence for ten months or a year. Dean Shaw of the university of Saskatchewan is on leave for ten months. Now this fact I say indicates the policy of the present government towards the wheat board. I wish to direct the attention of hon. members to something which possibly they' do not know and which I do not think the. public generally is aware of. Bearing in mind the fact I have just mentioned, let us think of the amendment that was proposed by Mr. Ralston on the night of the first of July
last, when we met in the railway committee room to put the finishing touches on the bill. The chairman having said, "This is the bill," Mr. Ralston proposed the following amendment which will be found in the records of the committee :
Mr. Ralston, seconded by Mir. Stewart, moved an amendment to the bill as section 10, namely:	^
The operations of the board shall not extend beyond the 15th day of August, 1936, except for the purpose of sale and realization of assets, collections, payments and generally for the winding up of the affairs and business of the board.
Compare that with the fact that these men are on leave of absence for ten months and, I submit, it is a fair indication of what the policy of the present government is towards the wheat board and that system of marketing.
Now what about the advisory committee? The farmers of western Canada are protesting very strongly against the dismissal of the advisory committee. The bill provided for a committee of seven, on which there were four representatives of the farmers.


Mr. EULER:: Is it not a fact that a former member of the board, Mr. Grant, was also merely given leave of absence to act on the board?


Ernest Edward Perley: On the first board?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Ernest Edward Perley: That may be; I am not sure.


William Daum Euler: What does that indicate?


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, so far as the policy of the late government is concerned, there is no doubt about that policy with respect to the board and its sale of wheat in western Canada. The farmers now have no representatives; they have been replaced by a committee of the cabinet: the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar). These are excellent gentlemen, and two of them have had wide experience in the grain business, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior; and the Minister of Agriculture has no doubt had considerable experience himself, having held a very important position in Saskatchewan.
I am not at all criticizing the intention of these gentlemen, but I will remind the house of a certain election that was held in Saskatchewan in 1934. It is well within the
168	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
memory of many hon. members what took place on June 19, 1934, in Saskatchewan, where there was an election that returned the Minister of Agriculture with a splendid majority. We have heard in this house something about pamphlets used in the last federal election. Well, I have here one that was used in that particular election and it speaks about dollar wheat:
Dollar wheat will give you a job and enable you to own your own home. Dollar wheat will pay for your light and water and give you a telephone. Dollar wheat will pay your grocery bill and buy boots, shoes and clothing for the whole family. Vote Liberal.
On the other side I find this:
Dollar wheat will provide a surplus for a "rainy day." Vote Liberal.
That pamphlet did its work. It was found in every cream can in Saskatchewan for weeks before the election, and in every motor car on Saturday nights in the towns. But there is not a single thing there to indicate how the promised result would be brought about.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read all of it.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is what it says:
Trade will bring dollar wheat.
Great Britain is willing and anxious to trade.
Of course; the Ottawa agreements make it possible for us to trade.
European countries are anxious to trade. The Liberal party is anxious to trade.
I have here a statement by the Minister of Finance that our trade was lost, our markets in Europe were lost, as far as wheat was concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read it now, the exact statement. .


Ernest Edward Perley: This is what appears on the front page of the Saskatchewan Issue:
All major European markets are now closed to us as a result of prohibitive tariffs following the war.
Only one market remains-the British market.
The Minister of Agriculture asked me to read the pamphlet to which I have referred. Will he mention any action of his, or any word or deed since that was issued, anything that he has done that would help in any way to get dollar wheat? That was on June 19, 1934, and a little over a year later we find this hon. gentleman going up and down this dominion, in eastern Canada particularly, making attacks on the McFarland board, attacking the operations of the government in the

five years during which Mr. McFarland was in charge, saying that we ought to sell our wheat at a loss in order to advertise Saskatchewan; and all the time wheat was pegged at 80 cents. That was his idea of dollar wheat.
As regards the other members of the committee that has replaced the advisory committee, I have nothing to say. I know that the Minister of Finance could be of great assistance, with the knowledge he has, and I hope he will direct that knowledge along proper lines.
Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce asked why Mr. McFarland did not get the surplus down. I think my right hon. leader has already put on record the fact that during the five years of his operations Canada contributed thirty-seven per cent of the world's import requirements, which was two per cent more than she had supplied, on the average, during the previous ten years. That increased to thirty-eight per cent during the last six months the board was in operation. I think that is a very creditable record, especially when we know that this was the most difficult period in which to sell wheat, having regard to the condition of the world market, according to the very statement of the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when he made his famous May day budget speech. According to a statement I have before me the old board sold more, during the period from August 1, 1934, to January 31, 1935, than was sold during the similar period from August 1, 1935, to January 31, 1936. I think that is very good, too. Just here I should like to say that they did not sell wheat at a loss to advertise Saskatchewan; they sold it when it was pegged at 80 cents at Fort William.
Yesterday the minister stated that on September 11, 1935, the statistical position indicated a rise in price. It certainly did, and Mr. McFarland knew that very well. The producing countries of the world were lower in their production; there was a very considerable decrease in the visible supply according to the figures given the other day by my right hon. leader, and everything indicated a rise in price.
I want to take just a moment or two to correct a wrong impression that appears to be prevalent in this house, that the new wheat board took over a surplus of 298,000,000 bushels. That statement has been made on two occasions already. I should like to recite the exact position, taking the figures that were presented to the committee last year. In 1930 the surplus taken over by Mr. McFarland was 127,000,000 bushels, of which 47 per cent was trade

The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
wheat and 53 per cent pool wheat. I directed a question to Mr. Milner, president of the grain exchange; I asked him to dissect this 127,000,000 bushels carryover, and he admitted that more than 40 per cent was trade wheat. So the pools should not be blamed, as they have been on many occasions, for the total surplus at that time. Taking June 22, 1935, the date that was taken by the committee as a cut-off, so to speak, the position was this:	Mr. McFarland had
50.000.	000 bushels of cash wheat, which he had bought and paid for. There was 143,000,000 bushels in all other positions in Canada, which he did not control. He held 178,000,000 bushels of options which, with the 50,000.000 bushels of cash wheat, makes a total of
228.000.	000 bushels, which was the figure commonly used by Mr. Ralston and other Liberal members. To satisfy that 178,000,000 bushels of options there was only 143,000,000 bushels of wheat in all positions in Canada that could be delivered, which, together with the 50,000,000 bushels controlled by Mr. McFarland, made a total of 193,000,000 bushels. It has been said that the board took over 298,000,000 bushels. It may be quite true that they took over that quantity, but of that 100,000,000 bushels was new wheat that had come in on the new crop, which should not be considered as a surplus. That is visible wheat. At the end of the crop year you speak of the new wheat as visible wheat, and the surplus is only referred to at the end of the year as the carryover at that period. There may have been 298,000,000 bushels, but let it be understood that the board had power to take wheat at a fixed price, and possibly they had taken over 100,000,000 bushels, which would give that total.
The important thing to consider, however, was what that all meant to the farmers of western Canada. If you look at page 408 of the proceedings of the committee of last year you will find that I asked Mr. Mclvor to state to the committee just what the operations of Mr. McFarland over the five year period had meant to the farmers of western Canada. He stated that they had made it possible for the farmers of the west to sell all the wheat they had produced during the five years, which amounted to
1.700.000.	000 bushels, and that during that time the surplus had only increased by some
67.000.	000 bushels. I think that is a pretty good record. Then I asked Mr. Mclvor what he thought it meant in dollars and cents and he said his lowest estimate was 15 cents a bushel 'on 1,700,000,000 bushels. You can figure that out for yourselves; it represents a very considerable gain to the farmers of western Canada.
Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce stated that the policy of the government was steadily to offer wheat at competitive prices and clear the bins before the new crop comes in. I wonder if he thinks or claims that the change of ownership clears the bins. Mr. McFarland sold to exporters of wheat; the grain was actually exported at a price which protected the farmers. A great deal of the grain sold in the first three weeks of the operation of the new board was to protect the shorts. I think that could be easily proved.


Charles Avery Dunning: You will have a chance
to prove it.


Ernest Edward Perley: That is
what we want.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We heard that in the
committee last year.


Ernest Edward Perley: According
to the bureau of statistics not fifty per cent of the wheat that changed hands in those three or four weeks has been exported. Where is the other fifty per cent? It is in the show window, so to speak; it is in the visible supply; it is in the hands of those who were short; it is in the bins. I venture to say that it is nestling in the bins in the terminal elevators. The Minister of Finance is laughing; maybe he knows something about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will answer my hon.
friend if he will permit me to do so.


Ernest Edward Perley: Some of it
even may be nestling in the false bottomed bins of Fort William, about which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Crerar) may tell us. The point is that to-day it is in the hands of those who have it to sell in competition with the wheat still in the hands of the board.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is in the same place
it has been for years.


Ernest Edward Perley: If we have
an investigation we will find out where it is, who owns it, how much they paid for it and when it was delivered. The whole question is, how much has been exported?


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: May I ask the
hon. member to explain how, when a man buys in wheat to cover a short, he has got the wheat?


Ernest Edward Perley: He is responsible for it; he has bought something.


John Gordon Ross: Apparently my hon. friend does not understand the buying
170	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
and selling of wheat, because a short is a sale of wheat, and when you buy it, it covers that sale.


Ernest Edward Perley: Well, he was short and did not have the wheat, and having made the sale to an exporter he had to get the wheat to deliver.


John Gordon Ross: But he did not have the wheat?


Ernest Edward Perley: He sold short. It is well within the memory of many hon. members who listened to the proceedings in the committee last year that the grain trade were short some 35 million bushels, and they were not very comfortable. Mr. McFarland could easily have made them dance to a nice tune.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why didn't he?


Ernest Edward Perley: We shall find out what he did. There was a settlement made, certainly, and it will be interesting to the public to know what that settlement was.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, we will find that out.


Ernest Edward Perley: Now the Minister of Agriculture stated that during the first two weeks the new board had sold 43 million bushels, and 23 million on one day, a great sale. It was the day following the Argentine action. The report of the clearings for export for the first three weeks of the new board's term of office show that there were 6,312,000 bushels sold or cleared for export. Where is the balance? That is what
1	want to know. Now how about this 23 million sold in one day? To1 whom was it sold? The position is this: cash wheat had closed on December 13 at 83 cents. The Argentine market opens many hours earlier, and the Liverpool market four or five hours earlier than Winnipeg, and the report was on the board in Winnipeg that Argentina overnight had increased their price 20 cents, equal to 90 cents in Canadian money. That would make our No. 1 northern in the neighbourhood of 99 cents; for No. 1 northern carries a premium of three cents over No. 2, and No.
2	compares with Argentine wheat, therefore with the premium it would make our No.
1 northern 93 cents, nad with the six cent preference under the Ottawa agreement it would be 99 cents. Liverpool cables were up six cents. What do you think the board did? The stupidest farmer in Saskatchewan would not have done what they did. With all that information on the board that would

indicate a sharp advance in price, can you imagine any farmer who had a lot of wheat in an elevator saying: Sell it before the market opens up? But that is just what they did, although they had to make some little arrangement with the shorts. Now what did they do. It is claimed that they delivered a certain amount of wheat, eight and a half million bushels I think it was, to the grain trade at one-quarter cent above the previous day's close, and the balance was sold during the day, some of it at an increase in price but nothing to exceed the permissible three cents increase.
At this point I quote from the Wall Street Journal as to what they thought about the transaction:
The allegation is that the present wheat board, under Mr. Murray, permitted the exporters to fill their contracts at a price one-quarter cent per bushel in excess of the previous night's quotation.
The effect of this extraordinary concession on the part of the board is that the exporting firms who had contracted to deliver wheat at the closing quotation prior to the Argentine's "peg" were saved from substantial losses.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Would the hon. member tell us who is making the allegation?


Ernest Edward Perley: This is a report in the Winnipeg Tribune and the Regina Daily Star.


Mr. McLEAN (Mefort):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said "it is alleged," I want to know who is making the allegation.


Ernest Edward Perley: Here is what the Wall Street Journal said:
The Canadian grain board showed its cooperation with exporters, particularly the small ones that had made definite price contracts overnight, by allowing them to take in their hedges at one-quarter cent over the market's close. Had this not been done, the small shippers would have been in a plight, for Winnipeg wheat futures opened up the permissible three cents limit on the following day. Thus exporters who had sold wheat overnight would have been hard pressed to cover their hedges.
As yet no Canadian government, irrespective of its political complexion, has recognized any obligation to succor the grain trading interests. The action of the Murray board, accordingly, constitutes an interesting precedent which is scheduled to be the subject of an important airing at the session to come.


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, I still ask the hon. member to tell us who is making the allegation, or else withdraw it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is reading a quotation from the Wall Street Journal.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, I ask your ruling. The hon. member said, "it is alleged," and he read the allegation. I want to know who the "allegator" is.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member said he was reading an allegation contained in a newspaper, which is a financial paper, giving a certain opinion. That is all.


Ernest Edward Perley: That excuse is made to justify the action of this board in selling 23 million bushels in one day, and when we take the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture that they sold 43 million bushels in two weeks, it follows that the sales for the remainder of the two weeks were only 20 million bushels. I think hon. members must admit that that is not a very consistent selling policy. However, they excuse the action of the board by stating that there was an order passed by the board whereby they could release wheat to fill bona fide acceptances of offers overnight. Now, I do not think that the old board passed that order. I am inclined to believe that it was passed by the new board; however, I may be corrected on that. But I was informed when I was in Winnipeg that the telephone wires were hot between Winnipeg and Liverpool, that when the boys went to their offices in the morning and found what had happened, that Argentine wheat was up and cables were up, they were in a precarious position and had to do something. I am informed-and I here use the language of the Hon. Mr. Ralston last year when he was making his charges from this side of the house: "If I am correctly informed, or if the figures that have been provided me are correct"-and I talked with members of the grain exchange who have been there for forty years, that the telephones were hot between Winnipeg and Liverpool to get an offer. And the offer came forward, and then of course they had to cable to accept it, and on that they presented the situation to the board and got delivery, or got wheat released to them to cover.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does the hon. member believe that?


Ernest Edward Perley: I believe it. I think it would be quite possible. The boys were in a jam and had five hours to do it, and it is quite possible. However when the investigation comes on we will ask for those cables and for that information.


Charles Avery Dunning: And a lot more too.


Ernest Edward Perley: We will find
out how they got the offer, the date of the offer and all about it. The "allegator" will
know all about it. The operations of Mr. McFarland and the former board have not cost this country anything. If they had been allowed to carry on, in view of the possibilities of selling wheat their efforts should have been, to a considerable extent, in the interests of the farmers. If a wheat board can make ten cents, five cents or even one cent for a farmer, it should do so. What would this mean to those holding participation certificates? I think we are entitled to that information, and I believe we will get it.
We remember the evidence given last year before the committee, and the statement made to the effect that Mr. McFarland was battling big interests. He had to go into the pit and buy 15,700,000 bushels in one day to keep wheat from breaking below the pegged price, and we know from whom he was forced to buy this quantity. When we know that, and when we learn now that possibly these same interests are playing with the present wheat board, I think we should know and the country should know all about the whole procedure.


Charles Avery Dunning: They will.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For the first time.


Ernest Edward Perley: If it turns
out that these big interests are playing in that way, we should devise in parliament some way of excluding them-the Bunge, the Dreyfus, the Continental Grain Company, and the Canada Atlantic, two of which companies are on Wall street-from our markets altogether. Wheat is the life blood of the western farmer; he deserves a square deal, and I say it is up to this parliament to see that he gets it.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add briefly my felicitations upon your election as Speaker, and to express the hope that under your guidance and chairmanship the deliberations of this assembly may be conducted with impartiality and decorum. May I, too, congratulate those who initiated the debate.
Upon this, the first occasion upon which I have had an opportunity of addressing the House of Commons, I should like to discuss somewhat thoroughly the speech from the throne, but as I come from one of the banner agricultural communities of Saskatchewan, indeed of Canada, I feel that perhaps to-day I should devote my observations, as did the preceding speaker, to that problem uppermost in the minds of the people in the prairie provinces. As the days
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

go by I shall endeavour to support anything emanating from the government side of the house which seems to be headed in the right direction. Conversely I shall oppose anything headed along the opposite road.
Conditions in western Canada to-day present a challenge to our intelligence and our statesmanship. I am familiar with those conditions. In the last few years I have travelled across that section of Canada, thousands and thousands of miles, and have looked down upon it. I have been into almost every nook and cranny of the province of Saskatchewan and into the homes of many of its people. There is an idea abroad that conditions facing western Canada, and indeed Canada generally, are the results of the war and the post-war depression. I would say that the situation in western Canada is not a war or post-war condition. The factors which lie beneath the surface of the present situation could be found prior to the war. It is true that the taking up of new land, the value of which was zero, and increasing its value by settlement and by speculation gave to the country a passing measure of prosperity, a prosperity which to a great extent was unreal. On the new equities thus created men and women on the plains were able to go out and borrow money. Credit was-and I place the term in quotation marks- " easy ", But eight or more per cent soon had the producers within the toils of the banks, the mortgage corporations, the implement companies, and the financial system generally. Many people in western Canada even at that time realized the situation, and if one were to consult the records of the old Grain Growers' Association, and the various farmers' organizations meeting in convention from time to time in those years, he would find resolution after resolution directed against those conditions and against the difficulties under which the producers of western Canada were then marketing their grain.
When the war came, eliminating Russia the Balkan peninsula, and the Danubian provinces, from the production of wheat, the tremendous demand thus created caused new land to be brought under cultivation in Canada, in the Argentine Republic and in Australia. The result was that when the great war ended we found ourselves confronted with a serious situation. Let us remember that throughout the war years producers of primary commodities had been urged to increase their production in order to meet the needs of the armies in the field and the thousands of people who had been taken into the factories to produce the necessary munitions of war. Wheat was king. Wheat boards were instituted to prevent the 
price from sky-rocketting, and the agrarian population of Canada did not raise any serious objection to the price of wheat being limited at the top as. a war measure. When the war ended they themselves asked for a wheat board again to stabilize conditions. On June 22, 1922, a bill was piloted through this chamber by the then government, under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but that bill never became effective. The result was that the producers on the plains began to agitate for producers' pools, and as a consequence we have the foundations laid for the great pooling organizations now existing in western Canada. These pooling organizations in the beginning believed that mass pressure on the part of the producers would enable them to secure all that they required from any government holding office.
Once again the lesson has been learned that cooperation and competition are two opposing forces and that within a competitive society, cooperative institutions cannot function in the economic field without taking an active interest in the political field. That has been the experience of Great Britain, and to-day the great cooperative societies of the old land, the Consumers' Cooperative and others, are and have been for the last three years, ever since the Blackpool conference, part of the labour and socialist movement of Great Britain. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, in season and out of season, groups of newspapers throughout the length and breadth of this land, and particularly in western Canada, have tried to discredit these cooperative institutions, and in addition we find that the same thoughts have been echoed from the political platform. We are told that the policies of these organizations have failed. I am not going to defend the policies of the late government in regard to- those organizations. They have already been defended by hon. gentlemen who sit to my right. But let us examine very briefly some of the charges of alleged failure that have been made against our western producers' organizations.
First, we are told that we must put Canada's -wheat back on the breakfast tables of the world, and that in order to do this it would be good advertising to sell our wheat at a loss. The preceding speaker (Mr. Perley, Qu'Appelle) said that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) had made that statement in eastern Canada.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would just like to say now that I did not make that statement in eastern Canada.	.	.

The Address-Mr. Coldwell


Major James William Coldwell: I should like to put on Hansard what the Regina Leader-Post, a Liberal paper, reported the Minister of Agriculture as having said at Ridgetown, Ontario, on September 7, 1935. Did I see the Speaker shake his head? I do not want to transgress the rules of the house.


Walter Edward Foster: I do not think the hon. member has a right to quote from that paper. He must accept the word of the minister who has stated that he did not use those words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report had not been read at that time, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Avery Dunning: But he had quoted from it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Major James William Coldwell: I have not read the quotation, but after I have read it, if the minister denies it I will accept his denial.


Walter Edward Foster: Very well.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. gentleman made a statement and I heard him make it over the radio on a previous occasion. I will send over to him the complete statement if he wants to read it.


Major James William Coldwell: It does not matter what the Minister of Agriculture has heard me say over the radio; it is what I am saying in this house that matters.


James Garfield Gardiner: But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just now repeated the statement in the house, and I say that it is untrue.


Mr. HEAPS:: How can the minister say that it is untrue if the statement has not yet been read?


James Garfield Gardiner: He made it just now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What he said was that a statement had been made by the minister in eastern Canada, and the minister said, "I made no such statement." The hon. member is now going to read the statement which may or may not be the statement which the minister denies; then the minister can contradict the hon. member if he desires to do so.


James Garfield Gardiner: What he said was that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) quoted a statement of mine, and then he repeated it. I have the statement here as it was
made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelie. It reads:
It would be good advertising for the people of western Canada to market their wheat at a loss.
I say that that purported statement of mine quoted by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and repeated by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar is not true.


Major James William Coldwell: That is not precisely the statement that I have here. The statement is this:
Speaking in the interests of Doctor James W. Rutherford-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has the right to read it.


Major James William Coldwell: It reads:
Speaking in the interests of Doctor James W. Rutherford, Chatham, seriously injured in an automobile accident Wednesday, but who was resting comfortably Friday night, Premier Gardiner urged the utmost be done to retain markets.
"It would be good advertising for the people of Canada to market their wheat at a loss and win back the market" he said. "Western Canada will produce as much wealth in wheat in the next twenty years as it has in the past."
That is the report of the minister's statement at Ridgetown, Ontario, and what I say, Mr. Speaker, is that that statement appeared in the organ supporting the Liberal party, the principal paper of the Sifton press published in Saskatchewan, and if it did the minister an injustice I would be glad to see the Regina Leader-Post get any correction the minister might care to make.
We were told that we had to put our wheat back on the breakfast tables of the world. Let us look at a few figures. If we take the very worst period of the depression, from August, 1930, to August, 1934, the statistics show that of every 100 bushels of wheat placed on the world market, 35 bushels were Canadian; 20, Australian; 20, Argentine; 10, American; 8, Russian, and 7, miscellaneous. To Britain we supplied 22-7 per cent of her imports in 1929 and 1930 when hon. gentlemen opposite were last in power, as compared with 34-4 per cent in 1933 and 1934, and a higher percentage last year. It is true, of course, that Canada was accumulating a tremendous carry-over all through those years, but again let us look at some figures.
On August 1, 1921, just before the party of hon. gentlemen opposite first took office, the carry-over was 10,000,000 bushels; one year later it was 21,000,000 bushels; in 1928, it was 91,000,000 bushels, and when the attention of a former Minister of Trade and Commerce was drawn to the situation what did he say? He said that his department was not exercised over the sale of such commodities as wheat; that such commodities would find their own market. You will find that
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

statement in Hansard. The laissez faire political philosophy of those days was laying the foundations for the difficulties that followed. When hon. gentlemen opposite left office in 1930, the carry-over on August 1, 1930, had been accumulated to 127,000,000 bushels, an increase of 117,000,000 bushels since 1921. Then there was a change of government and a change of policy. It is not my purpose, as I said before, to defend that policy or that government, but I would just point out that during the years that followed the accumulation rose to 204,000,000 bushels as of August 1 of last year. Now it is said that that was due to the holding policies of the wheat board. 1 want to say-and I think this is the fact and it will come out upon investigation-that there was always Canadian wheat for sale.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, certainly.


Major James William Coldwell: It has been charged over and over again that Canada tried to keep wheat at a high price level. Well, in that part of the country which I represent, wheat for a time was selling at twenty-one cents a bushel at the country elevators.


An hon. MEMBER:: What year was that?


Major James William Coldwell: 
An hon. MEMBER:: What do you mean
by "we"?


Major James William Coldwell: I mean the little group with which I am associated.
Tariff policies are not a solution of our difficulties, even our marketing difficulties. I have under my hand a clipping from the Manitoba Free Press. I like to choose Liberal papers although from what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said a little while ago, I must not place too much reliance upon what appears in these Liberal papers. On January 11, the Winnipeg Free Press had the

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
following editorial in connection with an article appearing elsewhere by Miss Cora Hind. They say:
"Miss Hind's judgment on this point, based as it is upon personal investigation, will be accepted as authoritative."
Here is what Miss Hind had to say in her
article:
"Having now visited Norway, Sweden, Germany, Poland, Rumania, Jugoslavia, Hungary, Austria and Czechoslovakia and looked into the possibility of these countries for the export of Canadian wheat, I must frankly confess that I am disappointed at the outlook.
Before leaving Canada I, in common with many others, felt that a change of government and more liberal customs and trade arrangements would be practically all that was needed to reestablish much of the former export trade to Europe. I feel now that the task, while not an impossible one, will be a more difficult one and will take more time than wras anticipated."
Those are the words of Miss Cora Hind.


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite reasonable.


Major James William Coldwell: The policies of the
Liberal administration of 1921 to 1930 failed to solve the problems of wheat marketing and unemployment. The policies of the late government failed to solve these problems. When I look at the speech from the throne I am quite convinced that the policies enunciated therein will not solve these problems. I venture to make the prediction that three years from now the people of Canada will be as dissatisfied with the condition under hon. gentlemen opposite as they were a short time ago with the condition under the hon. gentlemen who are sitting immediately to my right.


Malcolm McLean: Your previous
prediction did not come true.


Charles Avery Dunning: You have not been a
very good predictor in the past.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Finance says that I have not been a very good predictor in the past, but I think I have probably been just as good a predictor as he has.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not do any predicting.


Percy John Rowe: You did before
1930.'


Major James William Coldwell: I remember he made
some predictions that did not just work out. I am still making the same predictions that I made ten years ago, that within the present system lies no cure for the present economic condition. That is the prediction I am making now.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not a prediction.


Major James William Coldwell: I think time will ultimately bear me out.
Under the last administration a wheat board was established, and that board was satisfactory to the producers of western Canada; the resolutions of the organized producers show that, I think, completely. But since hon. gentlemen opposite have taken office very disquieting events have occurred.
I want the house to be quite clear about what I am going to say. I am not going to impute, and I never have imputed, wrong motives to any of the gentlemen who comprise the wheat board or the advisory committee; but I have said and I do say this, that we are the creatures of our environment to a greater degree than we care to admit, and that associations do mould ideas. Therefore, while there are to-day on the wheat board and on the advisory committee gentlemen who are perfectly honourable and good men, their associations do not command the confidence of the producers of western Canada. We are, I repeat, to a large degree the creatures of our environment.
Who are these gentlemen? There is Mr. J. R. Murray, who has been discussed, a former secretary of the grain exchange, on a year's leave of absence from one of our great line elevator organizations. The gentleman in charge of the selling agency of the pool is the son of a prominent grain merchant of the city of Winnipeg, Mr. Smith; and on January 14, an assistant sales manager was appointed in the person of Mr. Pethick, another grain exchange broker, replacing as he did Mr. Folliott, who was the eastern representative of the Alberta pools and who himself was engaged in the grain business. The men thus replaced had the confidence of our producers. Our people in western Canada feel, owing to the personnel of this board, unwisely appointed, I think, by the government, that they have been delivered into the hands of their enemies.


Charles Avery Dunning: You have mentioned only one member of the board.


Major James William Coldwell: I have mentioned three gentlemen, one member and two officials, all of whom were connected with the grain exchange.


Charles Avery Dunning: But you have not mentioned the majority of the board.


Major James William Coldwell: The other two members of the board were mentioned by a preceding speaker and I did not think it necessary to repeat their names. There is Mr. Mclvor-
The Address-Mr. Coldwell


Charles Avery Dunning: What have you to say
against him?


Major James William Coldwell: Nothing; and as regards Dean Shaw, I have nothing to say against him personally.


William Daum Euler: That is the majority of the board.


Major James William Coldwell: I would point out, however, that Dean Shaw is not a grain man; he is a cattle man. Moreover, if I am correctly informed, Dean Shaw believes in selling wheat at whatever the competitive price may be, and that in 1932 would have spelt even greater disaster to. Canada than the price at that time did.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was sold then at whatever it would bring.


Major James William Coldwell: Well, wheat was always offered for sale. Our people are alarmed because they feel that they have been delivered into the hands of their enemies. Now the old advisory board consisted of seven members, four of whom, or a majority of the board, directly represented the producers' organizations. To-day the government has replaced that board by a committee of the cabinet.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no.


Major James William Coldwell: A cabinet advisory committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is quite wrong. The advisory board is simply not in existence; there is simply no advisory board.


Major James William Coldwell: We will put it in this way-a committee of the cabinet in an advisory capacity.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, not in an advisory capacity.


Major James William Coldwell: What is it then?


Charles Avery Dunning: The subcommittee of the cabinet is for the purpose of advising the government with respect to all matters connected with wheat, for the purpose of advising not the wheat board but the government.


Major James William Coldwell: Quite right; but in so far as that advisory committee advises the government regarding the wheat situation, it is certainly an advisory committee on wheat. And if the board, as we are led to believe, is taking its instructions from the policies laid down by the government, then to all intents and purposes that particular committee is an advisory committee on wheat.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, when the house took its recess I was saying that our people are questioning the activities of the present wheat board. That questioning is becoming all the more insistent in the light of what transpired last December. Let me remind you that during the recent election campaign the policies of the wheat producers and of the old board were constantly under fire. It became customary to describe the policies of that board in terms that were not very complimentary to either the board or the government. The policy of the new administration and the new board, however, is being spoken of quite widely as a "fire sale" policy. The effect of the statements that were made by hon. members opposite during the campaign became apparent even before the campaign was over. For example, on October 5 the price of No. 1 northern wheat at Fort William was 96 cents a bushel. As the effect of the campaign became evident the market reacted so that on October 15 the price was 91f cents. The next day, when the results of the dominion election were definitely known, the price of wheat fell to 88| cents, a decline of 3 cents. On October 28 it was down to 85 cents, and on January 13, one month ago, it was 85-4 cents. It has fluctuated around that figure ever since. This has been the case, may I add, in spite of the fact that on December 12 the Argentine republic placed a set price of 90 cents a bushel on its wheat. What happened between the close of the exchange on the afternoon of the 12th and the re-opening of the exchange on the 13th is a matter of public interest which, I understand, will receive careful inquiry by this house. It has been alleged that some millions of bushels of wheat were sold during that short period at 2} cents below the opening pit price.
Speaking at Estevan, I believe, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) said that 8,600,000 bushels of wheat had been sold for export and that some 45,000,000 bushels of wheat in all had been disposed of. Yesterday the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) told us that 65,000,000 bushels of wheat had been sold during the first six weeks of the activities of the new board. The question that is being asked very widely is this: To whom was that wheat sold and why was it sold? In a public statement Mr. McFarland said that the speculators were caught in a trap. Were these sales made to get them out of that trap and, if so, to what extent?

The Address-Mr. Thompson
In view of all the circumstances can it be wondered at that the producers of western Canada believe they have been delivered into the hands of their old enemy, the grain exchange? That is what they believe, and it will require careful explanation before they can be persuaded to think otherwise. The brief reference in his excellency's speech will do nothing to dissipate that feeling, nor, I am persuaded, will the speech delivered yesterday by the Minister of Trade and Commerce do anything to alter the opinion that has been formed in western Canada.
There is one other point I should like to mention while there is yet time, and it is this: Another cause of great uneasiness is the delay on the part of the government in authorizing the 1930 equalization payments. It is my understanding that an agreement was reached some time ago between the Cooperative Wheat Producers'Limited and the late government in regard to this matter, and the producers believed that in a short time they would receive the payments that were due. We were told that the government were only waiting for the auditors' certificate. It should not take a long time to obtain that, and the farmers need the money that is due them in order to finance their spring operations. Moreover a date was set, later than that originally believed to have been set, and the price of wheat declined in the interval. As a consequence our producers are very restive in regard to this matter.
Then we have the news items in the press regarding the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of the Natural Products Marketing Act and other measures. May I say that I am one of those who have been brought up to believe that parliament is the supreme authority; that there is no higher court than the high court of parliament. That is the British tradition, and I am indeed sorry to think that we have departed from that British precedent. The government might have waited until some outside body questioned the validity of those acts. It might at least have waited until this House of Commons assembled, because it had no authority from the parliament which enacted the legislation thus to test the validity of those measures.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, you are just about to rise to tell me that my time is up, so I will resume my seat.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: Mr. Speaker, before the conclusion of the debate I should like to make a few observations. May I first congratulate the mover (Mr. Slaght) and the seconder (Mr.- Fournier, 12739-12
Maisonneuve) of the address upon the eloquent presentations they made to this house and upon the moderation of their remarks. Both of these new members have reflected great credit not only upon themselves but also upon the constituencies which they have the honour to represent.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). I have been in public life for many years, in the provincial house and in this house, and I have never listened to the maiden speech of a member of parliament with greater interest than I did to the speech of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I predict that this young man will go far in the public life of this country. One significant statement that he made was that associations and environment leave their impression. I am sure that a wider view of public affairs and the environment of this house will cause him to modify some of his views. One statement he made to which I must take exception is that he is not in favour of tariffs; that we want English manufactured goods to come into this country in exchange for our agricultural products. At the present time that would mean disaster to this country. We are living in a world of tariffs, and it would be madness for Canada to throw her market open as a dumping ground for the surplus products of other nations while our neighbours keep up their tariff barriers against our goods. If manufactured goods from Great Britain were allowed free access to the Canadian market this would destroy the manufacturing business of Canada and our farmers would be the greatest losers. I have been a farmer all my life, and I never was able to sell the produce of my farm to my neighbour. My market was found among men and women in the industrial parts of the country. The men and women engaged in the industrial life of Canada, if they have steady employment and good wages, have the purchasing power to buy my products. We cannot build up this country on a solely agricultural basis. The urban and the rural communities are dependent one on another; their interests are so inseparable that you cannot place upon our statute books laws affecting one without affecting the other. We prosper together or go down together.
Canada is just emerging from five years of the greatest depression the world has ever known; in common with every other country she has suffered severely, but I think it is generally conceded that she is coming out of this depression better than almost any other country, and that is due solely to the wise



The Address-Mr. Thompson
policies and statesmanship of the former government. Those years have been years of great depression, but also of great achievement. During the past five years more legislation beneficial to the common people has been placed upon our statute books than in any other five years of the history of this country.
What did the Conservative government find when they took office in 1930? They found the markets of the world closed to Canadian products; they found the markets of Europe closed to our wheat. When were they closed? Between 1921 and 1930 when the Liberal government with the present Prime Minister at its head were in office; that is when our markets were lost. In 1921, when the Liberal government took office Canada was exporting to the United States $175,000,000 worth of agricultural products. In 1930, when they left office Canada's exports had fallen to a little over $3,000,000. That calls to my mind a bill board that faced us all through the country last autumn. I spoke in many Ontario ridings during the last election campaign and where-ever we went we saw the smiling countenance of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on a great billboard 'giving his benediction to the words that were under it; "Vote Liberal and restore the markets lost by Bennett and Stevens." There never was a statement more utterly void of truth. Those markets were not lost by those two hon. gentlemen; they were lost between 1921 and 1930 while the Liberal government were in office. When was the Fordney-McCumber tariff passed? When was the Hawley-Smoot tariff passed? These are the tariffs that shut the Canadian exporter out of the United States market; and they were passed during the time the Liberal government were in office in Canada. I do not blame that government for the tariffs of foreign countries; but why should they say, "Vote Liberal and restore the markets lost by Bennett and Stevens-" What we want in this country is truth and honour. I have been in public life, municipal, provincial and federal, since I was twenty-one years of age; I have tried to run my campaigns honestly and in a gentlemanly manner, and I think I have succeeded. I have never sent out literature that reflected on the personal character of anyone. Until we get away from making reflections of that nature we shall not have clean politics in Canada.
I take exception to a statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) the other day. He staled that in the last election the people did not vote for

the Liberal party; that they voted against the Conservative party. I believe the policies of the Liberal party or of the Conservative party had not much to do with the last election. The people were restive under five years of-


Mr. McPHEE:: Tory government.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: of depression, and they were willing to make any change. Had a Liberal government administered the affairs of this country for the five years between 1930 and 1935, they would have met at the hands of the electors the same reception as was received by the Conservative party, and they would have left the country in much worse shape.
I heartily agree with the statement made yesterday by the hon. member for East Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) that the House of Commons is the house of the common people. This is the place where every member has a right to speak as representing a large body of Canadians.


George Washington McPhee: We did not have it in the last five years, my dear friend.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: Of course we always hear some rooster crow.


Mr. ROGERS:: We can hear you.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: I was somewhat amazed when I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) of a great country such as Canada point to himself and say that the result of the election "was what the people thought of me, and what the people thought of you"- pointing his finger to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Have we ever known such egotism in our lives, the egotism of a man drunk with power? Even if his observation were true, since when has popularity been the measure of true worth? What was the popular cry against the greatest man who ever lived? Away with such a fellow; it is not meet that He should live; crucify Him, crucify Him! Through all the ages, at different times democracy has not ceased crucifying worthy men.
I do not wish to make any observations concerning the leader of the opposition or the Prime Minister of Canada, but I should like to be permitted to read an account which appeared in the Calgary Herald immediately after the election. We find the following:
Mr. King declared: "The result is a victory for democracy. It constitutes a great deliverance, a deliverance of the people from one man

.	The Address-Mr. Mclvor
government, from mistaken policies, and from autocratic leadership. It is a triumph for broad principles and policies, as against promises and pledges recklessly and extravagantly made for the purpose of winning votes."
Is anything further needed to show the spirit of the man? Had it been true it should not have been said. I say here and now that we never had a one man government in Canada and that we never had autocratic leadership. But even if it were true, what do hon. members think of a man who gives his opponent a kick in the head when he is down? Let me read further from the Calgary Herald.
Place alongside this rather churlish pronouncement the proclamation issued by Mr. Bennett: "The electors of Canada have decided they desire a change of government. Although from a large number of constituencies members have returned by a minority vote, the result is decisive. The Liberals have been entrusted wtih the responsibility of governing Canada. I wish them well. Although the electors have expressed their dissatisfaction with the services I have been able to render to Canada, I still regard it as a high privilege to have given my best to the dominion during the past five years. I sincerely hope that Mr. King may derive as much satisfaction from serving the country as I have done."
Comparing those statements we find that one is that of an unsportsmanlike politician, and the other is that of a good sportsman and a statesman. With your permission, sir, I shall read further from the comments in the Calgary Herald:
On the one hand we have an ill-tempered victor gloating over his opponent, and on the other the generous-minded, sportsmanlike statesman, cheerfully recognizing the will of the people, and wishing his victorious opponent success in the task which he is about to take upon himself. There is enough common sense and love of fair play in the Canadian people to register and remember the difference between the two men. Mr. King emerged from the test of victory in a discreditable manner. Mr. Bennett accepted overwhelming defeat at the hands of a forgetful people in a manly fashion that will stand to his credit for all time.
That expresses better than I could the feelings of the Canadian people.
Upon this occasion I shall not enter into any lengthy discussion of the speech from the throne. When the measures forecast in it are presented to the house for consideration we shall have an opportunity to discuss them. I should like again however to call to the attention of the house the statement made by the hon. member for East Kootenay, namely, that we are the House of Commons and that the Liberal party has been entrusted with administering the affairs of the dominion.
I, too, wish them well, and if there is any way in which I can assist them I shall be only too pleased to do so. I care not whether it be a Liberal, a Conservative or some other kind of government; I know that the united effort and all the intelligence and brain power possessed by every member in this chamber will be required to bring us out of our difficulties. We have an unemployment problem to solve and a railway problem hanging heavily over our heads. There is another problem in the western provinces; they find themselves in bankruptcy and come here from time to time asking that their bills be paid. How long can this continue? If the western provinces have been unfortunate; if the grasshoppers have eaten the crops; if the drought has burned them out, or if they have been blasted by rust and frost, I would say that we might come to their assistance. But if they, insist upon electing governments which squander their resources, which will guarantee bonds of railways and introduce social legislation involving expenditures they cannot afford, they cannot expect to come to Ottawa with their hats in their hands, asking for help.
Since this government has taken office two treaties have been arranged, one with the United States and the other with Japan. I do not wish to discuss them at length this evening, but I must say that so far as the United States treaty is concerned I am afraid that, like the small boy, we have paid too much for our whistle. While some advantages may come to the lumberman and the stock men, such advantages will be counteracted by the disadvantages which will be suffered by other industries. If Japan is allowed freedom to ship to this country goods manufactured by cheap labour in a country where the standard of living is very low, our industries will be crippled.
I believe in this parliament we should throw aside to a great extent our partyism and attempt to grapple with the great problems confronting this dominion to-day.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to warn the previous speaker (Mr. Thompson) that it is dangerous to quote from the book of sacred laws. We know that a far better man than the former Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was crucified, and that the people cried out, "Away with Him." But may I say emphatically that the Prime Minister has suffered his crucifixion, and like the great captain, his predecessor, has come back with a larger number of followers than ever before.
The Address-Mr. Esling


Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, to the many expressions of congratulations I should like to add mine to yourself, to the mover of the address (Mr. Slaght), and to the seconder (Mr. Fournier, Maisonneuve). I should also like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on his generous party following. In past campaigns he has repeatedly appealed to the people to give him a good, clear working majority in order that he might not be handicapped or held up by minority groups. Certainly his wish was gratified in no uncertain way on October 14 last, and with Liberals to the right, left, in front of him and behind, the Prime Minister need have no concern about minority groups handicapping him or minority gunmen threatening to shoot unless he brings down or repeals certain legislation.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of using this opportunity to suggest reforming one particular piece of existing legislation under which nothing less than an outrageous racket is being carried on throughout the dominion, and we are experiencing this particularly in British Columbia. I refer to the operations that are being carried on by what is known as the Performing Right Society, operating under the legality of the Copyright Act. We in Canada have no interest in that society. It is composed first of all of American authors, composers and publishing associations, and allied with them is the Performing Right Society of England. Allied with them are similar societies in eighteen countries of the world. They claim to hold and to own the copyright on two million pieces of music.
Now the basic principle of the Copyright Act is to protect the author and the composer, but through this Performing Right Society we are protecting, not the composer, author or publisher in Canada but only the authors and composers of other countries. Canadian authors and composers do not benefit one particle from this society; they are not members of it. The Canadian society represents simply an assignment of all the rights to this alleged two million pieces of music controlled by the society in England and the society in the United States. The society has no financial interest in Canada. The capital structure of this Performing Right Society is ten thousand shares of no par value, and there are just two shares held in this dominion. The one purpose of the society is to levy a toll upon anybody and everybody using what they allege to be portions of their repertoire of two million pieces of ' music. They started out in the first place

with a minimum levy of ten dollars on every theatre, large or small, and on every hall, whether it be a community hall, a fraternal society hall or a privately owned hall; they made a minimum levy of ten dollars on every radio in a hotel and on every radio in a restaurant. But in January of last year they raised this minimum levy from ten to thirty dollars, and there is nothing in the world to prevent their fixing the minimum at a much higher figure.
The point I wish to make is that the tolls are first of all excessive. They have gone up from a minimum of ten dollars to thirty dollars, and there is an additional levy based on the number of seats in a theatre or the number of performances. The levy varies also with the number of dances held or the number of evenings that a hall may be used for giving an entertainment, concert or dance. This levy is applied to radios in hotels according to the number of rooms in which a radio is available. Now the radio owner, whether he foe a hotel proprietor or just the ordinary individual, having bought and paid for his radio and paid for his licence, hardly expects to pay for the privilege of hearing the music which comes out of that radio.
But now the society is threatening to increase its tolls. They did increase them in January of last year, and nobody knows how much further they are going. The thing became so burdensome that last session His Honour Judge Parker, of Toronto, was appointed to make an investigation into the situation. The point about that investigation is that the society, fearful that it would result in new and more restrictive legislation, sent its agents throughout Canada, in an endeavour to collect this minimum levy of thirty dollars as quickly as possible, but advantage was taken of the restriction that so long as the matter was before a royal commission there could be no prosecutions. But innumerable threats were made against individuals that unless they paid these tolls in advance the society would withhold entirely its licence to them to perform any one of these two million pieces of music.
Is it not reasonable to say to this society that if they expect to exact a toll from every owner of theatre or hall they must publish a list of the pieces of music which they claim to control or to have the copyright of? But they absolutely refuse to publish such a list, and they apply their tolls on every kind of hall whether it be for charitable, religious or agricultural purposes; they make no difference

The Address-Mr. Taylor
at all. I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will speedily take steps to correct this unfair and unjust piece of legislation.
Before closing I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly) on his intention, as indicated by the order paper, to introduce a resolution in connection with pensions for the blind. I know of no more worthy legislation which could be brought down. While many millions of dollars have been expended, primarily for relief purposes, for bridges, buildings, highways and public construction, those afflicted with lack of sight have certainly had. no benefit by way of relief or otherwise from any of these expenditures. They do not know the pleasure of driving a car or playing golf or engaging in other outdoor sports, but they are readily reminded of their unhappy lot when unexpectedly their bodies are jarred in stepping down a six inch curb or in coming into contact with a partly opened door, and I cannot believe any hon. member will be adverse to such legislation. Certainly I am sure the provinces will join in it and the public will approve it, and the measure will have the everlasting gratitude of those who are so afflicted.


Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Permit me, Mr. Speaker, on first addressing the house to add my felicitations to you on reaching your high and responsible office, and to express the hope that your duties will come easily and agreeably to their accomplishment. During the many years in which I have walked and run along the road of life I have not come until these days into the privilege of sitting in a house where one is permitted by one's fellow citizens to deflect or to alter the course of the country's historical progress. I have however, always assumed that those who did so sit and discharge their duties felt a sense of real deliberation and responsibility; I have been mortified during the course of the last week's proceedings to listen to childish stone throwing and mud slinging, and I sincerely hope that these will be dissipated in the zeal and concern with which we shall address ourselves to our real duties. I am reminded of a quatrain which I wish to quote:
Every little boy and gal That comes into this world alive Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative.
Sir W. S. Gilbert gave those lines to one of his characters in that charming light opera, Gilbert and Sullivan's Iolanthe, and in doing so permitted that character to express a wholesome truth. The structure of man's mind
ranges along a line of activity and expression which has at one end conservatism and at the other end liberalism. This description is true universally, wherever man is born into this world alive, and it varies not whether the man be white or black or brown or red or yellow. The hoi polloi-and I do not use that term with any disparagement-that mass about the point of demarcation between the definite Conservative attitude of mind and the definite Liberal attitude of mind constitute the real reason for the political trickiness and chicanery which so often mark and mar the progress of our institutions. They find themselves strangely subject to the influence of either party. They are indignant or they are pleased at the loss or gain of their vote because, forsooth, they have made their best guess as to who would be the successful candidate and as a matter of fact have assisted in doing what they could to bring about his success. To the extreme type at either end of this line of activity and expression, from which only the party politicians are selected or select themselves, there is a lake filled with good fish, teeming with innumerable suckers; and the bait which is presented to them, whether that bait be work and wages, or blasted markets, or the milk and honey of other countries overflowing into our own, is justified by the fact that they desire for their party the crown of office, the orb of the high political principles of their party, and the sceptre of party patronage.
It is a fact that will become more apparent the more it is studied that you cannot convert a Conservative structure of mind by a Liberal argument, and you cannot alter a Liberal structure of mind by a Conservative argument. And so there is presented the difficulty of our political situation in this and every other country governed by the ballot. Thus the two ends play always against the middle to the hurt of all. I do not question the high ethical principles which dominate our high political commands, nor the manner in which they marshal themselves to the attack of each other for the good of their country; but I do wish by my words at the outset of my speeches in this chamber to draw attention to one of the most serious political difficulties of our system of political life. For some moments there must have arisen in the minds of members of the house a question as to what position this group of seven holds in its deliberations. If the house is composed of Liberals and Conservatives, where does this puny group of seven orientate itself? The answer is really simpler than the question. For the first time in the history of this august parliament we have
The Address-Mr. Taylor

come to a truly foundational opposition by a coherent group; and we, sir, are that foundational opposition and that small group, the outgrowth of the long continued and persistent efforts of our respected leader. Alive to the oikos nomos, we are the scientific students of economics which in this day and age of the downfall and portending holocaust of capitalism must discover to the world the personal advantages, the national security and the universal brotherhood which underlie as foundation stones the social structures and the social culture and advancement of the system of society called socialism.
So we rise to our task definitely as an entering wedge to cleave apart the thoughts of the people of Canada and to awaken them to the fact that the old system of capitalism is dying and that the institutions of our country must be built up on the cooperative commonwealth. We do not fail to pay tribute to the tremendous advances of things temporal which have been brought about and are directly contributed to by capitalist exploitation and enterprise. But we firmly believe that no exploitation of any one man by another justifies the advance or progress of any system of society. We cannot however view without considerable alarm the hypocritical efforts of political, financial and industrial magnates to hoodwink the people and attempt to dispel their mental images of the onsweeping tide of human progress, of machine development, of constructional experience, of progressive efficiency, and of human savoir faire, which are continually advancing the conditions of our life-all this, I say, while the savings of the people are dwindling, while the Lares and Penates in our homes are being sacrificed, while men, women and children in our land are staggering toward the unknown over a desert route between the high limiting walls of relief, bringing nothing to the community but sorrow and blame, and nothing to themselves but the bitternesses of life, brought about by thwarted efforts and blasted beliefs.
It is pitiful to read, as we do in our daily papers, of the efforts of one of the sagacious minds of our country, a man gifted with amazing commercial acumen, who spends himself in the interests of one of the greatest transportation systems of the world, and who is compelled, by the limitations of his position, to gird himself always whenever an enemy to the advance of his great industrial system raises its head.
But apart from all this we are profoundly moved and disturbed when we learn that the single invention of two young men in another
[Mr. J. S. Taylor.)
country bids fair to destroy the hundred and fifty year old occupation of the human cotton picker, and that in this year of grace 1936 it will almost abolish the customary employment of over two million people in one cotton growing area alone. We are profoundly disturbed in our economic studies by the fact that similar inventions in this Canada of ours are continually being advanced by the selfish and exploiting greed of those who govern our country, and we are always watchful that something should be done by this august parliament to face the issue and bring to our people a sense of satisfaction which it appears to be deliberately refusing them.
It is not my purpose to make a long speech. I find myself on my feet, shaking in every limb. At the same time I want to bring home my points, and I want the house to feel that I am earnest in what I sun saying, and that this group represents an earnest desire to solve the difficulties of our country. We welcome by our side this already robust group of social crediters, not because there is anything in their work that would lead us to think they might be found on our side or might advance with us the standard of socialism, but because they are avowedly determined to study the position of the country and the difficulties of its people by addressing themselves to the economic aspect. In that respect, sir, we welcome them and wish them well. When they know us better they will fear us less and honour our cause more. But, sir, I do ask this honourable house and its members not to confuse the cooperative commonwealth federation group of seven with those who in present day colloquial speech are classed as communists and anar chists. To do that is all too common; but if you must do it, it will not ultimately harm us. Nearly two thousand years ago those who followed the Master heard the term "Christian" spoken in utter opprobrium, and it did not hurt his followers. But these terms are intended by many in the house and all through the country to bring into derision the cause we uphold.
I would respectfully call the attention of hon. members to the high ethical standard of a system of society represented in communism, where in harmony, and understanding of their difficulties, men and women hold all things in common; and I am quite sure that every member is aware of that nirvana of human society termed anarchy, a system of society in complete accord, in which the conditions of law will not be inscribed on statute books but written in the hearts of its men and women. But these glorious states of

2'he Address-Mr. MacNeil
society are altogether too far off to be considered in our present day; we must remember that we exist amid entirely different conditions. Humanity is still wallowing at the bottom of the hill. I call attention to these facts in order that the house may thoroughly understand the position of this group of seven. I want hon. members to feel that we, in our efforts to bring to the deliberations of this chamber the economics of the situation, will always present these as against purely political contradictions. There is in all this a plea for some understanding. Understanding will bring tolerance and tolerance will pave the way for the removal of all abuses. Let there be a truce to hypocrisy and cant; a truce to talking for talking's sake; a truce to burying our heads in the sand while the people of the country are dying in misery and we are doing nothing to help them; a truce to ignoring the facts of this true opposition in the house, coherent at last, and dedicated in season and out of season to the cause of socialism.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I share the impatience expressed by some of the previous speakers at certain features of the debate, and the meagre promise given of remedial legislation designed to eope with the situation before us. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and members on both sides of the chamber, have made brief but impressive reference to the seriousness of the situation, and it is gratifying that there is agreement on this score. As some of our national problems overshadow all other considerations, I had hoped that at the opening of this parliament we might dispense with the customary exchange of partisan pleasantries or. recriminations and address ourselves soberly to the pressing problems of the moment.
The situation as I view it not only places a grave responsibility upon the administration but constitutes a most acute crisis for the majority of our Canadian people. In my humble opinion it is not quite so important that we should carefully observe the ritual of a bygone day, as that we should observe the democratic traditions of a British parliament, by which this house may become an instrument for imperative social change and the necessary adaptation of our political approach to rapidly changing social and economic problems.
During this debate uncomfortable revelations have been made indicating that party considerations are frequently placed before national considerations. Quite properly reference has been made by many speakers to the
necessity of preserving in this house the principles of democracy-" government of the people, by the people, for the people." But may I point out that nothing so imperils the security of our democracy as those appeals to the electorate designed to arouse prejudice rather than to establish a sound political consciousness. or a sane comprehensive outlook on our national problems. I feel that it is a sad day for our democracy when any party, simply by commanding extensive financial resources, may control the facilities of propaganda and thus obscure the real issues. It is to be deplored that attempts should have been made to exploit, in a coercive manner, the relationships between employer and employee. In my opinion such methods ultimately create grave distrust in our political institutions and cause many of our people to seek political expression through means usually regarded as unconstitutional.
In this respect I regret that hon. members on the other side of the house have chosen to speak slightingly of groups sitting in this corner. Whatever differences of opinion may exist, I submit that we represent a large body of opinion, an important cross-section of the electorate, composed of decent, law-abiding people, with decent aspirations, who sought with the ballot, in a constitutional manner, to register their protest against conditions which may be rightly regarded as intolerable, and to express their firm resolution to establish in this country for our people a more satisfactory way of living. Any intolerant or con-temptous treatment of these views is not consistent with the best parliamentary tradition in Canada. Of all matters arising during the recent campaign the one which I think might be discussed to the greatest advantage is the fact that an increasing number of people in Canada are restless, not only because of the chilling fear of insecurity but also because of a growing distrust of our political institutions. Far too many people regard this house as merely an instrument to preserve the status quo rather than as a medium through which they may obtain redress for social and economic wrongs. I hope we may have some assurance from the Prime Minister that due recognition will be given to the views advocated by this and other minority groups, for arbitrarily and contemptuously to refuse consideration of these views so strongly desired by so many people would accentuate rather than minimize the gravity of the situation.
I make these remarks in the light of recent experience. Before my departure to attend this session I took the opportunity to cross the constituency which I represent here in
The Address-Mr. MacNeil

order to secure as far as possible some discussion of the problems which, in the opinion of the electors, should be brought to the attention of the house. In my opinion it was a wholesome sign that there participated in these meetings and discussions many who had not found it possible to support the platform on which I was elected. They were'willing to lay aside partisan considerations and bitterness and to enter into these discussions. I found that they were not concerned in any great degree with' party considerations or party aggrandizement but that they were mainly concerned with the solution of those problems that weigh most heavily at the present time on all sections of our community. I can safely say, Mr. Speaker, that in the constituency of Vancouver North but a very small percentage of the population enjoys any reasonable degree of economic security, and we have had to face some of the more ghastly phases of destitution and want.
Should I be suspected of exaggeration you need not accept my unsupported statement. Ask the doctors, the nurses, the social welfare workers in the more thickly populated areas. Ask such men as the Reverend John Antle of the Columbia coast mission and his assistants, who now must minister not only to the spiritual but also to the physical needs of the people facing great hardships along the coasts of British Columbia. If you could step on that mission ship to-night you would find it laden with clothing required for women and children who otherwise would be without. They are making a valiant attempt to cope with a situation for which as yet adequate provision has not been made by the state. All these people will tell you that they are facing conditions that may be described as nothing short of appalling and that constitute an ugly blot on our Canadian life.
In my effort to gain some insight into the desires of the electors of my constituency I found that it was these matters about which they were mainly concerned. They asked me what might be done to relieve the distress and degradation imposed upon their fellows in their communities. They asked me how they might regain some reasonable degree of security and escape the precarious modes of living which they must now undertake. They asked me what might be done more properly to equate consumption needs with their ability to produce the things needed for a satisfactory standard of living. Not once but several times I was reminded, "Mr. MacNeil, I hope when you reach Ottawa you will not forget us poor folk"- a very touching plea. I mention this now not for reasons of sentiment, but because it reveals a very 	,
general belief that too often in the deliberations of the house the interests of the common folk are relegated to the background.
I believe, sir, in the expression of its views the house should more clearly and definitely reflect this anxiety, this concern of the great majority of the electors of this country. It is of very little advantage to promote the temporary prosperity of the few while the many are permanently depressed, and I submit that unless we place these considerations above all others during this and succeeding sessions, not only the present administration but parliament itself will forfeit, and rightly forfeit, the confidence of the people.
I am especially interested in the reference made in the speech from the throne to unemployment. I find there scant comfort for those who must now endure the tragic consequences of a prolonged period of unemployment. Of these problems I may claim, sir, to have intimate knowledge, gained through painful personal experience. On numerous occasions I have been delegated to present the views of the unemployed before the local authorities, so I think I may claim to hold, to some extent, a special brief for the unemployed. I know something of the barriers that, under present conditions, confront men who by industry and thrift are attempting to rehabilitate themselves in our national life. My plea on behalf of the unemployed is not for more compassionate consideration of their needs, though heaven knows they need more compassionate consideration. My plea is that conditions at present existing among our unemployed in Canada should be dealt with more definitely from the standpoint of the public interest, for it is not in the public interest that we should any longer permit the perpetuation of conditions that have shattered so many of our Canadian homes and wrecked the lives of thousands of our young people.
The true nature of the problem is not revealed in the official statistics available; nevertheless these statistics give some inkling of the magnitude of the problem. We know that in Canada to-day there are over a million people so destitute of this world's goods that they must appeal for aid from the public treasury. We know that an equally large number are in almost as serious a plight, sometimes on relief and sometimes off, always on the fringe of destitution and subject to almost unendurable insecurity. We also know that prior to the end of December, 1935, a sum in excess of $500,000,000 has been expended from the federal, provincial and municipal treasuries under relief measures, and this vast sum does not include

The Address-Mr. MacNeil
enormous amounts collected and disbursed by semi-public charitable institutions. We know that there has been serious exploitation of the unemployed by unscrupulous employers of labour, and this situation has tended to lower wage levels and in that respect has dealt serious injury to the working class in this country. The cumulative results of this prolonged period of unemployment, coupled with inadequate relief measures, are not generally understood. It is easy to say glibly that over a million people in Canada are destitute to the degree that they must accept public relief, but to understand the situation properly it must be thought of in terms of the lack in those homes of butter and sugar and meat and proper clothing, of living under leaky roofs and without proper sanitary facilities. We must recognize that due to the long continuance of unemployment people have been unable to replace articles of household equipment necessary for healthy living. In many sections of the constituency which I represent people are herded in slum housing conditions that will soon be as bad as those we read of with horror in the cities of Europe. This not only results in the impairment of physical health and a consequent national loss, but constitutes a grave threat to the national welfare, for if an epidemic should break out among people living under such conditions it would menace not only them but the entire community. In this and other respects unemployment is a threat to the welfare of the entire nation.
Another consideration that is generally overlooked is that prolonged unemployment has resulted in serious deterioration of manual skill. You see this as you observe men struggling to regain a foothold in industry after three or four years of enforced idleness; they find it extremely difficult to regain the skill demanded in modern industry. Many are falling by the wayside. This is particularly noticeable in the relief camps. Recently I spent some time visiting several of the larger relief camps in British Columbia. I was extended every courtesy. I admit that these camps are conducted as well as possible under the circumstances. They are often referred to as slave compounds; 1 am not inclined to use that description tonight, but my impression of them is one of human scrap heaps. There you find young men with no outlet for their talents, no hope of regaining their rightful place in the life of the community. It was suggested by one speaker that the average stay in these camps is only ninety-five days, but I found
men there who have fallen into such a state of hopelessness, who have lost ambition to the extent that they have been in those camps two or three years without making any attempt even to reach the nearest city. I heartily concur in the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) that this atmosphere of hopelessness is something that should cause us grave concern. Men are scrapped, given no opportunity. It is suggested that educational facilities have been provided, but I ask any hon. member to explain to me how under such conditions the inmates of these camps can profitably pursue studies or even read. Let any one examine the supply of literature, the magazines, and he will realize that it is absurd to say that the men are being given educational or even proper recreational facilities. All these conditions tend to produce an attitude of apathy and hopelessness that in my opinion is terrible. I suggest that in considering further public expenditures beyond the staggering sums already disbursed we should insist that such expenditures should represent not so much a grudging dole, not so much a cheap form of insurance against social disorder but a genuine investment in the rehabilitation of human lives.
In this connection I deplore very much official statements sometimes appearing in the public press to the effect that relief has become a racket. This creates the impression that in the official mind the unemployed are regarded merely as a tiresome responsibility, as a group of people who have not jobs and so must be fed. I am in a position to give the lie direct to the statement often made that the unemployed consist largely of those who have no work because they will not work. Anyone who has made a careful study of the situation knows that the army of the unemployed is recruited from all walks of life, represents all trades, all professions, all occupations. Above all, they are human beings, and unemployment does terrible things to human beings. And they are not just an appendage to the nation, they are our own people; they are in and of the nation, and what touches one touches all. I have met many men who have lost members of their family in recent years; one man in particular lost his wife because she was unable to obtain adequate medical attention when required. He shook his fist in my face and said, "MacNeil, they murdered my wife," and when I considered the circumstances related by him I could not quarrel with that statement. We should consider the situation revealed in a recent statement by a mother in
The Address-Mr. MacNeil

Vancouver, who found to her horror that her son, after having spent years moping around the home while the family was on relief, had become involved in the underworld. These conditions have engendered bitterness which I feel has some justification.
In the speech from the throne the government proposes stimulation of industry by various methods. May I point out that even if by trade agreements or other legislation industry could be restored to, let us say, the production level of 1929, yet by reason of the technological advance of industry there would still be no work for fifty per cent of our unemployed. It is proposed that a commission be established. I have a vision of how that message will be received by the unemployed. They will ask, as did the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett): What for? Is it for further inquiry, or is it for the development of a policy to deal with this serious situation? May I direct the attention of the government to the fact that the conditions of the unemployed have already been investigated to the last humiliating item and in the most intimate manner. The magnitude of the problem is already fairly known, in general terms, and no good purpose could be served by any further inquiry into the matter. The facts are now before the government. I submit further that the problem is of such proportions that no commission appointed by the government could possibly evolve a policy which would adequately meet the situation or assume the responsibility which in my opinion should properly be borne by the administration and by members of this House of Commons. Under the system which has prevailed in the past these, our people, have been scrapped; they have been left to rot, and rot spreads. For these reasons the unemployment which is permitted to exist in Canada to-day is undermining the very stability of our national life. I would urge that because of these conditions we should now engage in a unified and national effort to wipe out the social injustices which find expression in the tragedies of unemployment.
One of the greatest problems related to that of unemployment is found in connection with a large number of ex-service men. About 50,000 Canadian and imperial ex-service men will be extremely disappointed because in the speech from the throne no reference has been made to steps which might be taken by the government to implement the recommendations of the Hyndman commission. I submit that procrastination in the solution of this problem is the more costly procedure. 
Able-bodied ex-service men must, of course, cast in their lot with their fellow workers. As I understand the situation, they do not desire any preferential treatment, but I submit that every consideration is due ex-service men who are physically handicapped but who are not eligible for benefits under the Pension Act or the War Veterans Allowance Act. Their problem has not yet been solved, and it would ease the general situation if certain well defined categories of ex-service men who are physically handicapped and have a special claim on the nation should be now taken off the labour market. I would urge upon the government that during this session an opportunity be provided for further discussion of this matter, and an examination of the evidence that has been so painstakingly prepared by large and important organizations of ex-service men.
The chief problem we must consider has to do with the security of our Canadian people, and using to some extent the words of a prominent United States business man I suggest that we will enjoy the wealth that is ours in Canada only as we endeavour to distribute that wealth equitably among all. We will enjoy security, that which so many of our people passionately desire, only as we establish security for all. We will enjoy economic liberty as well as the political liberty of which we boast, only as we liberate the masses of our people from the sordid and age-old struggle for food, shelter and clothing and make it possible for them to release their energies in the ways that are indicated by human aspirations.
Mr. VICTOR QUELCH '(Acadia): Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne we find the statement that unemployment continues to be Canada's most urgeht problem, and that the government intends to endeavour to put every man back to work. But to-day it is evident that unemployment is inherent in any system that does not deliberately make work, and it is therefore useless to hope that by increasing industrial activity it will ever be possible to reabsorb the total army of the unemployed. Under the heading of Sources of Unemployment, in the December issue of the Labour Gazette, page 1126, we find the following statement:
The recent depression might never have reached such alarming proportions if the economic equilibrium of the world had not first of all been upset by the growth of unemployment right in the middle of a period of economic recovery and prosperity.
Stuart Chase, in dealing with this subject, points out that onward, from 1920 to 1929, in spite of the fact that the output of industry

The Address-Mr. Quelch
was steadily increasing and that we had an be a major catastrophe, because we would era of prosperity, unemployment was steadily produce tremendous quantities of goods which increasing at the same time. The time has the people would not have the purchasing evidently come when industrial efficiency power to buy. The final result would be apparently has little use for more man power wholesale bankruptcies, followed eventually in the great primary industries, no matter by wholesale unemployment, and the last how much the output of industry increases, stage of the people would be worse than the However, surely that is not any reason for first.
sorrow. For generations past we have been striving to increase the productive capacity of man by the use of scientific inventions, and to-day we find that we have been so successful that we are actually in possession of surplus productive capacity, both machine and man power. We have emerged from an era of scarcity into an era of abundance, and we have reached that ,-tage where it is both possible and logical that we should engage in an era of greater leisure. As Major Douglas has put the matter, the best brains are endeavouring to put this world out of work, to create what is miscalled an unemployment problem, but which in reality is a condition of greater leisure. A viewpoint similar to that is expressed by the League of Nations World Economic Survey of 1932-33, which report, in dealing with wages and social policy, states as follows:
Considering the mechanization of industry from the standpoint of history, it becomes evident that the age of abundance is the goal towards which mankind has heen striving since earliest days. That we are prone to look upon facilitation of production as a curse resulting in poverty and idleness, and' not a blessed relief from toil, is merely an indication of the defective nature of our present economic system.
I should like to repeat that last sentence:
That we are prone to look upon facilitation of production as a curse resulting in poverty and idleness, and not a blessed relief from toil, is merely an indication of the defective nature of our present economic system.
In this regard we should remember the words of Irving Fisher, as they appear in his book, Booms and Depressions. He points out the fact that "the depression was not caused by unemployment," and it also follows suit that even if it were possible to do away with unemployment we would not necessarily do away with the depression. For example: If we were to borrow a sufficient sum of money to put every man to work on a program of public works, what would be the result? There would be a tremendous increase in fixed debt charges; there would be higher prices, and eventually we would be actually decreasing the purchasing power of the people. Then again, if we were to put every man to work in industry, would we have found a solution of our difficulties? No. The result would
It is also true to state that the depression is not the cause of unemployment, because unemployment has been steadily increasing in times of prosperity. We must realize that to-day unemployment is a sign of progress, and the only reason we are not in a position to take advantage of this progress is because, as the League of Nations has stated, we are operating under a defective economic system. Upon an investigation of the economic system, as our leader has already stated, we find that owing to certain practices industry fails to distribute sufficient purchasing power to buy back its own production. If that statement is correct, what would we expect to find as a result? We would find that there would be a large surplus of goods produced that the people would not be able to buy, and as industry could not continue to produce a surplus of goods that it could not sell it would be obliged to dismiss some of its employees. That in turn would decrease their purchasing power and decrease the effective demand as against the supply of goods, thereby resulting in more goods remaining unsold, and industry dismissing more men, and so the vicious circle would steadily narrow.
Is that not exactly the condition that we find throughout the world to-day? In the days before the machine era the profits of individual workers were small and as such were available as purchasing power; but today, owing to the great mechanization and centralization of industry, we find that the profits of the corporations are sufficiently large that their beneficiaries, even though they explore every form of luxury, do not need to spend their entire income, with the result that a portion of it is saved, and so long as it is saved it is not available as purchasing power. If it is eventually spent on goods it becomes available as purchasing power, but if on the other hand these savings become reinvested in new production and used as working capital, then there will be caused a permanent deficiency of purchasing power equal to the amount of the reinvestment. If this were a matter of only a few hundreds of thousands of dollars I would not take time to deal with it, but as there are many millions of dollars involved I shall deal with it at some length.
The Address-Mr. Quelch

Mr. P. W. Martin, in his book Unemployment and Purchasing Power, has this to say on the question of reinvestment of savings:
So long as the circulating medium of exchange is put to its two uses of (1) inducing production (i.e. paying wages and dividends) and (2) buying the production thus induced, alternately, industry can sell all it makes. But it must be alternately. When part of the community's purchasing power is used not to buy goods but to add to the working capital, this necessary alternation is not being observed; purchasing power is being used twice running for the same purpose. The circulating medium has short circuited as it were. Money which should have been used to purchase goods is being used, for the second time in succession, to induce further production, and, as an inevitable consequence more production will be induced than there is purchasing power available to buy it.
To show the great extent to which this practice takes place I should like to quote from the Pollack Foundation, from a book entitled Profits:
Profits from industry in the U.S.A. in one year were $6,/00,000,000. Of this amount $3,900,000,000 was paid out in dividends, and $2,800,000,000 was reinvested in new production.
Now this $2,800,000,000 had already entered into the cost of one set of goods, and instead of being made available to buy these goods it was immediately thrown into the cost of producing more goods. One purchasing power cannot pay for two costs, and yet we wonder at the absence of purchasing power.
Without taking time to deal with very many of the causes of the deficiency of purchasing power I might refer to the fact that depreciation charges also constitute a large part of the deficiency. Interest charges and profit charges, becoming afterwards reinvested, would also cause a deficiency. Then there is deflation, the results of which we know only too well, so I shall not take time to deal with them.
In view of these facts it becomes evident that the income of the people cannot buy the country's total production. Orthodox economists attack this statement on the ground that it does not need to, as people are not interested in buying capital goods such as plant and equipment. So let us follow the argument along these lines: that the income of the people as represented by payment of salaries, wages and dividends from the production of capital goods, plus salaries, wages and dividends from the production of consumption goods, is inadequate to pay the total price of consumption goods, unless you can have a volume of capital production sufficiently great that the payment of salaries.

wages and dividends from the production of capital goods is equal to the amount of the deficiency that exists as between the total prices of ultimate goods and the amount of purchasing power distributed in their production. Now, if in order to bring about this equation we carry out a program of production of capital goods, what are we going to do with it? If we ship these goods to other countries we would have to demand gold in payment, and immediately we would find that every other country was attempting to do the same thing, and we would very soon be faced with a vanishing market. If we attempt to bring about this equation through a program of public works, how is it going to be financed? In the past it has been financed by borrowing money which has had to be repaid by taxation and there would be interest charges that would also have to be repaid by taxation, so that in the final analysis we would be actually decreasing purchasing power instead of increasing it. In support of this statement I would like to quote from an orthodox authority, Mr. Jackson Dodds, who appeared as a -witness before the standing committee on banking and commerce in 1934, and gave evidence. He was being questioned by Mr. Irvine:
Mr. Irvine: I am trying to get at this as basically as possible. I want to know if we have a depression now. The witness says we have. He has told us how the bankers discovered that there was a depression. I am now getting at what brought it here, and I am trying to arrive at that by a process of elimination. He says there is plenty of wealth, plenty of goods, and with plenty of resources we can make more. Well then, the question is, is it because of the incapacity of the Canadian peoples' stomachs and backs to use these goods within the last few years that we have this depression?
Mr. Jackson Dodds: No, I would say it is because we cannot sell these goods.
Mr. Irvine: Why cannot we sell them?
Mr. Dodds:	Because people outside the
country won't buy them.
Mr. Irvine: What about the people inside the country?
Mr. Dodds:	Well, the people inside the
country are also doing business on the basis of what is sold outside the country, and if there is no business going on outside the country, that is, if we are not doing an international trade, business must fall off within the country.
That statement very ably backs up the contention of Major Douglas that it does not matter how great a wealth of goods you have within a country; you may be able to produce a surplus of every kind of commodity imaginable, but unless you can sell a certain proportion of those goods outside the country so that the salaries, wages and dividends paid

The Address-Mr. Quelch
out in their production are equal to the amount of the deficiency of purchasing power that exists within the country it will be impossible for the people to buy the goods they require and that are available for distribution.
Borrowing money to finance a program of public works can be considered sound business only if the money can 'be borrowed without paying interest charges, and, second, if it never has to be repaid. In support of that I would like to go back to the year 1913 and follow the debt growth from that time on. We find that the total bonded indebtedness of Canada in 1913 stood1 at the figure of $2,132,000,000. By 1933 it had increased to $8,972,000,000, or an increase of 8 per cent compounded annually; in other words, an increase of 323 per cent in two decades. In 1913, it took 13 per cent of the net production of the country to pay the fixed debt charges. By 1933, it took 42-8 per cent of the net production of the country to pay the fixed debt charges. If we are going to continue in the future at the same rate that we have progressed in the past, it can be only a question of time before the fixed debt charges of the country will be greater than its total production. And then what will be the result? I suppose some members will tell us that, in order that the sacredness of the written contract may be maintained, the people of Canada must be prepared to starve, just as in the past some hon. members have told us that, in order that the sacredness of the written contract may be maintained, the people of Canada must be willing to tighten their belts. It would be interesting to know exactly what happens to the vast annual payment of debt. No doubt some of it will find its way into the pockets of the small investor and be used as purchasing power. But unfortunately by far the greater proportion of it will be lost as purchasing power by repayments of loans to the banks, cancellation of book entries, and also by being used for reinvestment purposes by the large investor.
The foregoing summary is sufficient to prove Major Douglas's contention that industry fails to distribute sufficient purchasing power to buy back its own production, with the result that there is a steady increase of unemployment, and also that there is a continual fight for foreign markets.
In view of these "facts, what is the real problem before us to-day? Unemployment? No, because for generations past we have been striving to bring about an era of greater leisure, and the problem becomes merely one of bringing about a more equitable distribution of the work that there is to be done. Foreign markets? No, because we have in Canada a great market crying out for these goods, and the goods we do not require can be exchanged for those we cannot produce in Canada. No; the problem is: first, to stimulate the purchasing power of the people of Canada until it is equal to the capacity of industry to produce and deliver goods; second, as the capacity of industry to produce and deliver goods increases, to guarantee that the ability of the people to procure these goods shall be increased to a like degree. We claim that this can be accomplished only by financing consumption, and in order to do this it will be necessary to regain for the nation the control and issue of currency and credit. We should keep in mind that anything that is physically possible can be made financially possible; that the only real justification for production is consumption; that is, that the only real reason for producing goods is in order that they may be consumed. Therefore, before seeking foreign markets, let us be certain first of all that we have satisfied the requirements of our own people.
In closing I would like to remind the house of the words of Einstein regarding this subject, that:
The purchasing power of the masses must never be allowed to fall below the collective prices of commodities.
In other words we must equate consumption with production.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['May I say\nto my right hon. friend that if the objection he raises would in any way assist the house in the matter of its business there might be some point to it, but it seems to me that when the committee has been established in the usual form and language it is quite proper that the estimates should be immediately referred to that committee. This has been done at every previous session of parliament, as my right hon. friend knows. However, I shall now move the adjournment of the house.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That this house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: The next duty of the house, Mr. Speaker, once the address to His Excellency has been agreed on, is to elect the chairman of the committees of the house, who will also be the Deputy Speaker. Standing order 56, under which this procedure is taken, provides that the member elected to serve as Deputy Speaker shall be required to possess the full and practical knowledge of the language which is other than that of the Speaker for the time being.

Election of Deputy Speaker
I desire to propose to the house, seconded by Mr. Lapointe:
That Frederick George Sanderson, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Perth, be appointed Chairman of the committees of the whole house.
May I observe that the duties of Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker are almost as important and onerous as those of the Speaker himself. The qualifications required of the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees are similar to those which are expected of the Speaker of the house, and which I think we have already discussed very fully. I am quite sure that all hon. members who were in previous parliaments with Mr. Sanderson-he has been here for over ten years- will agree that in that time he won the respect and good will of the members generally. If appointed to this joint position, he will prove, I am sure, persona grata to all parties in the House of Commons, and will discharge the duties thereof with impartiality and dignity. I therefore beg to move the resolution I have just read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this not a motion requiring notice?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. The rules provide that as soon as the address is disposed of the house shall proceed immediately to the appointment of a Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that we had to give notice of it.


Ernest Lapointe: No, never.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There never was a time, Mr. Speaker, when it was more important that those who preside over this house, whether the house is sitting as such or in committee, should be fair and impartial and not create a feeling of resentment on the part of those who comprise the minority. In the selection of Mr. Sanderson I have no fault to find with the government, because the responsibility must rest entirely with them, but those of us, who have suffered from the violence of partisan attacks in the past in the house will hope that there will be such a measure of improvement in the hon. gentleman when he assumes the position of Deputy Speaker as will warrant us in having confidence in his impartiality and faith in his judgment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot allow my right hon. friend to say that any party in the house has suffered from any acts of partisanship on the part of any presiding officer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can never find out what my right hon. friend does say. He says one thing-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot be responsible for my right hon. friend's lack of intelligence, much as I may be responsible for other things. I have not said that. If anyone had taken the trouble to listen he would know exactly what I did say. I said that I hoped we would not suffer from partisanship such as we have had to suffer from the hon. gentleman who is now being asked to preside 'over the committees of the house.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: As one who suffered so much from injustice in every shape, manner and form during the long five years while the right hon. gentleman who is now leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was leader of the government, may I say that at that time he did not know what fairness was. I was called to order at every opportunity, and most of the times when I was called to order I was in the right. I could hardly speak. When it came to a decision of the chair, the chair gave wholesale decisions instead of ruling on each point as it came up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a question of privilege. It is all right, Mr. Speaker, to endeavour to convert the House of Commons into a comedy, but when hon. gentlemen rise in their places and make reflections on the chair, I claim-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -that it is the duty of the chair-


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of
privilege. There was no comedy, but if there was, the right hon. gentleman was the actor and I was his manager.


Walter Edward Foster: I declare the incident
closed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Main Estimates

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That the message of His Excellency the Governor General received by this house on Tuesday, 11th instant, and the estimates for the year 1936-37 transmitted therewith, be referred to the committee of supply.
Richard Bedford Bennett: On a question of procedure, must we not wait until the setting up of the committee of supply before that motion is made? The committee could be set up tomorrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The committee of supply is a committee of the whole house. A motion was adopted to set it up, and my right hon. friend supported that motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman moved a moment ago that on Friday next a motion would be made to set up the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means. That was the motion put to this house.


Walter Edward Foster: The motion was put
and carried to-day to set up these committees to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the committees are
not set up until to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
to my right hon. friend that if the objection he raises would in any way assist the house in the matter of its business there might be some point to it, but it seems to me that when the committee has been established in the usual form and language it is quite proper that the estimates should be immediately referred to that committee. This has been done at every previous session of parliament, as my right hon. friend knows. However, I shall now move the adjournment of the house.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the house.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I was asking the question only for information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion
is that the house do now adjourn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was another
motion before the house, and it was not disposed of.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. I move
that the house do now adjourn.


Walter Edward Foster: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to
to-morrow's business I do not know whether my right hon. friend would oblige the house by consenting to our going into committee of supply to-morrow. I know there is a rule to the effect that on Thursdays and Fridays we cannot take up consideration of the estimates of any departments of which an item has not been called earlier in the week, but I will give an undertaking that no estimates will be discussed that-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The house has adjourned, as I understand the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was simply
seeking to reach an understanding on tomorrow's business. Very well; the house has adjourned.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Friday, February 14, 1936