1936-02-12

DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Dominion Franchise Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. RINFRET:: The purpose of the bill is simply to postpone for one year the annual revision of the lists.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Howe) if he can give the house any information as to when the Canada Shipping Act, passed in 1934, will be proclaimed.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, there is a question on the order paper.



IMPERIAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: On February 10 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked the following question:
May I ask the Prime Minister what commitments, if any, have been made by Canada with regard to imperial defence?
I answered at the time:
I would have to have a conference with my colleague the Minister of Defence before I could answer my hon. friend. I am not aware of any commitments, myself, at the moment.
I now give my hon. friend the answer, having taken up the matter with the Minister of National Defence:
While declarations on behalf of Canada on the subject of the defence of Canada have been made at various imperial conferences, as may be seen from the results thereof published from time to time, I am not aware of any commitments made on behalf of Canada with regard to imperial defence. At such conferences it has been expressly recognized that it is for the parliaments of the several parts of the British commonwealth of nations, upon the recommendation of their respective governments, to decide upon their course.

Canada-United States Trade Agreement



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I reply, Mr. Speaker, to a question asked last evening by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as to the distribution of the Canada-United States trade agreement. On the day of tabling the reports, I tabled the agreement in printed form. I thought it had been distributed to all hon. members of the house, but if any hon. members have not received a copy I will see that another distribution is made.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, that is not the point I had in mind. I had in mind the supplying of information that would enable a proper discussion of the agreement to be had in this chamber. It will be recalled that when the British agreements were under consideration, and the agreements made with other parts of the British empire, we printed for the use of members a complete record of the tariffs and changes, showing what the tariff rates were and what the changes were. Inasmuch as the right hon. gentleman has indicated that the agreement contemplates a great alteration in the whole tariff structure of the country, it might foe desirable, in fact it is desirable, that there should be in the hands of hon. members a statement showing what the existing tariff rates are that will be applicable to the United States, and what the United States tariff rates are that will be made applicable to Canada on the various items that are affected by the agreement in both countries. That is the information that was received by the house when the imperial trade agreements were under consideration; and it does seem to me that, in order that the agreement may be properly studied, such things should be available to the members of the house in convenient form. I think on that occasion we did circulate a copy of the whole tariff act, and supplied also several sheets that contained comparisons between the existing rates and the rates that were to come into force under the agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend that that is not the request which he made last night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the request I tried to make.	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I read what my right hon. friend did ask for? He said:
Before the motion is put, I would point out that the government notice of motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister with respect to the trade agreement does not set out the agreement itself. It will be recalled that last year when we were dealing with matters of that kind we thought it desirable to put the agreement or convention or whatever it might be on the orders of the day. so that members of the house would have it before them when they came to approve the agreement. We printed for the convenience of the members the various conventions that had been signed' at Geneva in order that they might have it before them when ratification or approval was moved. I suggest therefore that the trade agreement should be set out on the orders of the day so that it will be available to the members for we must insist on having before us the agreement before we approve it in some form or another.
There is no mention there of anything other than the agreement itself, and, as I have said, the agreement was tabled on Monday and I have been informed that it was distributed to all members on the same day in both English and French. The request my right hon. friend now makes is one I shall be very glad to take into consideration and with respect to which I shall give him a reply later.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 11, 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. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last evening I was pointing out that the speech from the throne had entirely overlooked certain elements in our population, not the least of which were those now facing dire poverty and distress on the western prairies. I was on the point of observing that in the district immediately surrounding the city of Weybum alone we distributed last winter over two hundred babies' layettes where children h^d been born into the world to families without fitting garments in which to clothe them. It was not an unusual thing to find new bom children clad in garments made from washed-out flour sacks. I draw these facts to the attention of the house because I believe those people have been totally overlooked in the deliberations of the present administration.
I should like also to draw to the attention of the house some other elements in our population that I think have been

The Address-Mr. Douglas

neglected as far as the speech from the throne would indicate. First I would direct attention to the large farming population. The income of the farmers, particularly those of the west but also those of all Canada, has declined steadily during the last five years, with the result that to-day the best authorities tell us that the average farm income is about $350 per year, and I know many who are living on less. The cost of living and the cost of farm operation have not declined accordingly. The fixing of the price of wheat last summer by the late administration helped a great deal, more I think than they were given credit for, but I want to suggest to the present administration that we need to go further. I would particularly direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to two things that need to be done if we are to help western agriculture. The first is to have that fixed price apply to all grains as well as to wheat; the second is to have that fixed price made retroactive. I know of an instance, and it is not uncommon, of a man who sold his entire wheat crop under economic pressure just six days before the price of wheat was pegged, with the result that he lost eleven cents per bushel on a fairly large crop. But there are farmers who had no crop at all, and who did not get the benefit of this fixed price. At the present time they are faced with appalling conditions. I can remember sitting in an audience in the city of Estevan and listening to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggest that he was in favour of some type of crop insurance. I have read the speech from the throne again and again but I fail to find any indication that we are to have crop insurance or anything else that will take care of the economic insecurity of those who, through drought, grasshoppers and other whims of nature, find themselves deprived of their livelihood.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is another circumstance that is oppressing the agricultural community; that is the tremendous burden of debt that hangs about the necks of the farmers. The figures for last year show that the farm mortgage indebtedness of the Dominion of Canada is more than $671,000,000, while for the three prairie provinces it is $324,000,000. On July 1, 1932, the farm management department of the university of Saskatchewan published a statement edited by professors Allen and Hope concerning Scott municipality, which happens to be in my constituency. These gentlemen showed that there were eighty-four farm-owners in that municipality; that the average1 acreage

of these farms was 628 acres and that the average debt against each farm was $14,700. In many cases that is a great deal more than the farms could have been sold for at that time, or even at this. .
Of these debts eighty per cent were incurred when wheat was $2 or more per bushel. Today these people are trying to meet their obligations with wheat at 87^ cents or less, because many of them had only a feed wheat crop last year. Therefore I direct the attention of the government to the fact that the speech from the throne contains no adequate solution of the problem confronting this great agricultural community, that is looking to this house for some type of assistance at this time.
Then I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that across Canada there is a great army of unemployed, with over a million people living on some type of government assistance or relief. What does the speech from the throne suggest that the government is prepared to do for this army of peoplfe? It suggests that we are to have a national unemployment commission. I have read the words, " They asked for bread and they were given a stone." The unemployed of this country have asked for bread and they have been given a commission. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not commissions and supervision we need; what we need is to deal with the fundamental economic issue of the reorganization of our economic system in order to put purchasing power back into the pockets of the common people to enable them to buy back the things they produce. I suggest that these fundamental issues are not being met. What about unemployment insurance; what about the work and wages program about which the Liberal party have spoken so frequently in the past? The people of this country are asking about this; they want to know.
Then I would direct your attention, sir, to another class of people, men and women between sixty and seventy years of age, the people who produced the wealth of this country, who helped build the Dominion of Canada to all that it is to-day. Thousands of them have come to the place where they can no longer face the future with any degree of optimism. Large industries are no longer hiring them; many of them, salesman, commercial travellers, technicians, have been cast aside like a squeezed out orange rind.- What do we propose to do for them? They produced the wealth of the country. I maintain that they have the right to a share in it. I maintain that legislation should be placed on our statute books to take care of men and

The Address-Mr. Douglas
women who, having served their day and generation faithfully and well, now look to society to do its part in giving to them a measure of economic security.
I should like to draw the attention of the house to the plight of the great class of merchants throughout Canada. I hold in my hand an excerpt from a Saskatchewan newspaper reporting a telegram sent by the present Prime Minister to some of his constituents in Prince Albert, in which he said:
I approve wholeheartedly of their recommendations in reference to report of price spreads commission.
From that I took it that the Prime Minister was opposed to rebates and discounts, to these unfair trade practices by which large mail order houses and chain stores have gradually and ruthlessly been driving down the business of the small merchants, yet in the speech from the throne I find nothing to indicate that concrete measures are to be placed upon our statute books to meet that situation. Are we to infer that the rule of laissez faire is to continue? Darwin said that the law,of the jungle is the survival of the fittest; I wonder if my hon. friends think the law of economics is the survival of the slickest. One would gather that, as one sees the very noticeable absence of any legislation in this respect.
I draw attention to the fact that across this dominion there are thousands of exsoldiers, burnt-outs, men who gave the best years of their lives in the great war, men who to-day are partly or wholly incapacitated in the race of life. They want to know what a grateful country-at -least vocally grateful-is prepared to do for them now that they are no longer able to do anything for themselves. Some fine recommendations were made by a commission called the Iiyndman commission; what does the government propose to do about those recommendations? I think the house has a right to know.
One of the most crying problems facing the Canadian people in all parts of this dominion is the tremendous one of public health. People need dental and medical and hospital care. We have all the facilities for rendering those services, yet there is not an hon. member who does not know that people who have money can secure those services and people who have not money cannot, and are not getting them.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not so.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My hon. friend says it is not so. But we know that to be true on the prairies, and there is no doubt it is true in 12739-94
other parts of Canada. While doctors and dentists have given of themselves until some of them are almost bankrupt, many people have had to go without the necessary dental care, the necessary medical care, have had to stay at home and have treatment in their homes, simply because they have not the money. I am not saying this condition can be rectified overnight, but I suggest that the dominion government take immediate steps to formulate a co-ordinated health policy for the Dominion of Canada. The greatest asset of the country is the health and welfare of her people, and that should be the first consideration of any government.
I am most interested in the problem of youth. It was a move in the right direction when the relief camps were transferred from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Labour. I read with something of amusement that these camps are to be abolished at an early date "as expanding employment opportunities permit." In other words, as business absorbs these young men the camps will be abolished. Of course when business absorbs these young men the camps will not be needed. But that is not meeting the problem at all. What we need is the abolition of these camps; what we need is to place these young men in gainful employment and wholesome environment. In the report of the commission of inquiry, excerpts from which appeared in the press last week, we find them lamenting the subversive influences found in these camps. Let me say that there are other influences more subversive, for instance, the demoralizing influence upon young men of seeing the years go by and finding themselves without technical training or mental preparation for useful work, with the result that even if conditions do right themselves these young men will find that their places have been taken by those better skilled and younger than they are. There is the problem.
Last night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) very proudly displayed some campaign literature. I do not know that it is . worth while in an assembly like this to spend our time metaphorically thumbing our noses back and forth across the floor. But I would like to draw attention to some campaign literature that the people of Canada have not forgotten: "Jobs or doles, which? Vote Liberal." "Vote Liberal and get back from the poorhouse." "Tory policies cannot end unemployment; vote Liberal."


Mr. BRADETTE:: Mention the big shots now.
The Address-Mr. Euler


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I draw the attention of hon. gentlemen, and particularly the very courteous gentleman across the floor who keeps making noises that are not quite audible or quite intelligible, to thei fact that the people of Canada are looking to this house to do something to implement the promises made during the campaign. I suggest that the time has come for action. We have a tremendous opportunity and a preponderant responsibility. The people of Canada look to us; the people of Canada trust in us; the people of Canada are counting on us; in heaven's name let us not fail them.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I first
of all congratulate you, sir, upon your election t,o the high office of Speaker of the House of Commons. May I also join with those who extended congratulations to the hon. members who so ably moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
It is not my intention to discuss the various matters to which reference is made in the speech from the throne. But it seems to me advisable and necessary that some reply should be made to the speech made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in relation to the question of wheat. I desire to deal as briefly as I can with some of the inaccuracies in that speech, some of the inferences with which I cannot agree, some even of the insinuations which I regard as unjust and unfair, made against a man and against men who have no opportunity here to defend themselves; and to say something with regard to the amazing attack-I would almost say the malicious attack- which was made upon the present chairman of the wheat board. I would conclude with a discussion of the method by which the members of the farmer wheat 'board -were relieved of office, and finally, and most important of all, I wish to place on record the policy of the present government with regard to the wheat question so that the House of Commons and the country itself may not be misled.
This problem of the disposal of the wheat surplus of western Canada is no longer only a western problem. I am not saying anything to the detriment .of the western farmer; indeed I have every sympathy with him when I say that eastern Canada has now perhaps not quite so great but a very substantial interest in the disposal of the western wheat surplus. Millions of dollars-yes, scores of millions of dollars are at stake in the operations carried on by the former government in connection with the accumulation and sale of wheat through Mr. McFarland and the

wheat board, and the possible and probable losses must be borne by the whole country.
On Monday the right hon. gentleman made some references to certain rumours going about to the detriment of Mr. McFarland. I have not heard those rumours; I say now, and I think the right hon. gentleman will believe me, that they did not emanate from myself, as chairman of the wheat committee, or from any members of the government. I do not propose to pay any attention to them. He spoke about the blasted reputations of the men who were relieved of their duties as members of the old wheat board. With all good will may I say to the right hon. gentleman that I thought he might have reason for eliminating the word "blast" from his vocabulary, when he thinks of the unfortunate results of a statement he .made in 1930 with regard to blasting his way into the markets of the world.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As we did.


William Daum Euler: The facts speak for themselves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: To come directly to some
of the statements, inferences and insinuations of the right hon. gentleman, may I observe that at least by inference he charged that the present board, and I suppose for the present board the present government must be responsible, were trying to oast the pools of western Canada into disrepute-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: -that they were going to
finish cooperative selling-[DOT]	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: -and I believe I am not
putting it too strongly when I say the right hon. gentleman implied that the new wheat board is nothing less than a tool of the Winnipeg grain exchange.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a little bit
strong.


William Daum Euler: I think I am not putting it
too strongly. I cannot follow the involved processes of my right hon. friend's mind when he draws such unwarranted inferences from the mere fact that this government has made a change in the personnel of the wheat board.
Possibly I should make reference to the members of the present board, and I shall first mention Mr. Murray, designated by my right hon. friend as "grain exchange Murray." I am quite certain he had no intention of paying Mr. Murray a compliment when he used that expression. It would be just as fair and

The Address-Mr. Euler
I would mean no greater offence if I were to refer to the right hon. gentleman leading the opposition as "C.P.R. Bennett".


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been done for
twenty years.


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, for twenty odd years.


William Daum Euler: Quite so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is now "C.P.R. Dunning" also.


William Daum Euler: I am quite certain however
that while the appellation I have given with respect to the right hon. gentleman carries with it no prejudice and no thought of ulterior motives, the same feeling might not have governed him when he made references to Mr. Murray.


Mr. DUNNING:: You might as well say
"grain exchange McFarland."


William Daum Euler: Yes, we might as well say
"grain exchange McFarland." I have not had the pleasure of an acquaintance with Mr. Murray for any great length of time, but I will leave it to the judgment of those who know him to determine whether or not he is one of the most capable, most honourable and public spirited men in Canada.
My right hon. friend made reference to Mr. McFarland, indicating that Mr. _ McFarland had been giving his services free for a period of nearly five years. I give him all credit for it; I think Mr. McFarland is a thoroughly reputable gentleman, and a public spirited citizen of Canada. We need not always agree with what he does, but it does not follow that we cannot have the greatest respect for him. It may be news to hon. members when they learn that Mr. Murray has taken a reduction in income amounting to $7,000 in order to serve the people of Canada.
Let us now consider Mr. Mclvor, vice-chairman of the board. For years Mr. Mclvor was with the pools, while Mr. Murray was engaged with a farmers' organization of grain growers. During the last five years Mr. Mclvor was Mr. McFarland's right hand man, and I would scarcely expect the leader of the opposition to criticize him.
So far as Dean Shaw is concerned, I am very sure even the right hon. gentleman opposite would not make a reflection upon him. Let me say this: For five years the present leader of the opposition, together with Mr. McFarland, carried on secret operations by way of buying and selling wheat in western Canada, thereby accumulating a mighty surplus which has now become a problem in the hands of this government.
No person knew what was going on. Questions were frequently asked in this chamber, but no answers were given. I question very much whether any hon. member, including the former Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture in the late administration, had any knowledge of what was taking place in connection with the operations carried on by Mr. McFarland. My point is this: In spite of that attitude, one which might have and was sometimes subject to criticism, not one member of this chamber ever impugned the motives, the public spirit or the desire for public service that animated these two gentlemen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Charged with being
gamblers, that is all.	.


William Daum Euler: I have never heard the charge made in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.
M,r. EULER: Perhaps speculators.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, charged with being gamblers.


William Daum Euler: The gentlemen constituting the new wheat board have been in office only a few weeks. Would it not foe generous and fair of the right hon. gentleman to credit them and this government with just as keen a desire to do right by the people of Canada as was credited to the right hon. gentleman and his board at that time?
Two chief charges were made by the right hon. leader of the opposition, the first being that someone was playing politics, and the second that we had practically handed over the wheat situation to the Winnipeg gram exchange. As to playing politics, may I reply to my right hon. friend and hon. members that I am not particularly adept at the game of party politics. I do not believe it is in the mind of even my right hon. friend that in the appointment of the new commission or the discharge of the old wheaJt board I have lent myself to the playing of party politics. The new commissioners were selected because we regarded their selection as a public duty. So far as I am concerned I did not know them, and for a certainty I do not know now the colour of the party politics of the members either of the old board or of the new.
Turning to Hansard I find that in speaking about the members of the Winnipeg grain exchange and the boast made prior to the last election the right hon'. gentleman said:
They were going to see to it that Liberals were returned in those constituencies, and they saw to it wherever they could.
The Address-Mr. Euler

Surely there is not anything necessarily sinister in the fact, if it is a fact, that the members of the Winnipeg grain exchange supported the Liberal party, because hundreds of thousands of other Canadians did the same, honestly believing that a change of government was desirable.
I spoke of some of the inaccuracies that appeared in the address made the other day by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Some of them are of very little importance, but they may assume greater importance than they inherently possess if upon them are based certain assumption and inferences, which are therefore manifestly unreliable.
For instance the right hon. leader of the opposition began his speech by speaking of the importance of wheat, and he said that the average value of the wheat crop produced in Alberta was greater than the average value of gold produced in this country. Well, I had that checked up and I find that the right hon. gentleman is out only about thirty million dollars; that after all the production of gold is thirty .million dollars greater than the average production of wheat in Alberta in the last five years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said in the last ten
years in the province of Alberta, and I repeat it.
M.r. EULER:	I will verify my right hon.
hon. friend's remarks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Get the figures while you are at it.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend said:
The average wheat crop in Alberta during the last ten years has been worth more than the entire gold production of Canada last year at $35 an ounce.
The value of the gold production in Canada in 1935 at $35 an ounce was $115,000,000, in round figures. The average value of the Alberta wheat crop from 1926 to 1935, ten years, was $85,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not correct.


William Daum Euler: I had it checked by one of the experts of the department-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had it checked also.


William Daum Euler: -and I am inclined to accept what the officer of my department tells me. Of course, after all, thirty million dollars is not a very great deal in view of the fact that we have increased our debt in the last five years by some $900,000,000.
My right hon. friend also made the statement that in the last five year period, from 1930 to 1935, this country produced two billion
{Mr. Euler.]
bushels of wheat. I find again that he was wrong there by a mere half a billion bushels; that the actual figure is nearer 1,500,000,000 than 2,000,000,000 bushels. I do not believe that my right hon. friend made the incorrect statement intentionally, but rather he made the mistake of figuring .that from 1930 to 1935 was only five years whereas it is six years. For the whole six years were included, both 1930 and 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was because the
crop year ends on July 31. I included the crops coming in in 1930 and 1935, which made it six years. I made that clear when I spoke.


William Daum Euler: He spoke of a five year
period.


Mr. ROWE:: He said the end of July.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hansard will show.


William Daum Euler: ,My right hon. friend admits it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I explained what was
meant by that in answer to a question by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning).


William Daum Euler: I am merely clearing up that misconception, and I assure my hon. friend that I am not attaching any great importance to the matter.
My right hon. friend spoke, and I think this is of some importance, of a world reservoir of
1.325.000.	000 bushels of wheat in 1930, and went on to say that that had been reduced last year to 625,000,000 bushels. If that is true I do not think it is entirely accurate, but accepting for the moment those figures if the world surplus of wheat was reduced from
1.325.000.	000 bushels in 1930 to 625,000,000 bushels last year at the end of July, what in the world were Mr. McFarland and the then prime minister doing that they did not get the surplus of wheat in Canada down in similar proportion to that of our competitors?
On July 31, 1930, we had a carryover in Canada of 127,000,000 bushels. The figure increased until on July 31, 1935, it stood at
215.000.	000 bushels, and later in the year it increased, as members of the house know, to almost 300,000,000 bushels. What does that mean? Simply this, that our competitors in other countries were selling their wheat while Canada, to use street language, was left holding the bag.
My right hon. friend said the other day that he did not desire to deal in percentages; but they are sometimes very illuminating-and this bears directly on the reasons for setting up the new wheat board.
In 1930 Canada held 23 per cent of the wheat surplus of the four chief wheat exporting

The Address-Mr. Eulei
nations of the world. In 1935 Canada's percentage of the wheat surplus of these four countries had increased to 43 per cent, which again bears out and emphasizes what I said a moment ago. Again I ask, what was being done by those who controlled the Canadian wheat surplus, that they did not try to bring it down in proportion to the reductions by these other countries? Of the world carryover in 1930 Canada held about 14 per cent, and that was increased in 1935 to 24 per cent. I think that comment is unnecessary because the facts speak for themselves. There certainly was no active wheat selling policy in Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: And we had four bad crop years.


William Daum Euler: Yes. The surplus cannot be blamed upon nature, because as a matter of fact in Canada during those six years we had virtually four crop failures and in only two of the six years was there an average crop. Nature, therefore, really assisted in keeping down our wheat surplus; yet it increased as I have already indicated.
While my right hon. friend did not draw any conclusions from the fact which he gave, that the world's wheat surplus had been reduced from 1,325,000,000 in 1930 to 625,000,000 bushels in 1935, what I think he intended to convey was that now, since we still control within measurable distance of half the world wheat surplus, we are, to use another street term, sitting pretty; that we can make the world come to us for our wheat and that we can dictate the price at which we wish to sell.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will read it he will see that that is not what I said.


William Daum Euler: I have read it, and I cannot see any other implication or reason for making the statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave the reason. It is on Hansard.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I am rather dull of comprehension, because I read it very carefully and I could not see that any particular inference was drawn by my right hon. friend. But perhaps this is what he refers to. He says:
And from that reservoir-
That is the reservoir of 625,000,000 bushels.
-all the purchasing countries of the world must (buy their supplies for the next eight months.
Meaning, of course, that we were in control and that we could, I suppose, exact any price we chose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But we controlled only a portion of that reservoir.


William Daum Euler: We had nearly half of it, nearly 200 million bushels. My right hon. friend did not remember that while on July 31 last year the reservoir had been reduced to some 625 million bushels, the new crops of the Argentine, which I admit is not very large this year, and of Australia have since then become available. Russia and other European countries, France, Germany and Portugal, are shipping surpluses even now. It may surprise some of the members to know that one can never be too sure just how much the supply of wheat is. I do not know a great deal about the wheat business, but I find that there are many uncertainties in it and some things which are difficult to understand. I learned only a week or two ago that a new surplus of wheat had been discovered where it had never before been suspected, and that Portugal and Spain were now offering for sale 30,000,000 bushels of wheat. Then the 1936 winter wheat harvests in Europe and the United States will also be available before expiry of the eight months to which my right hon. friend referred. If his assumption is that because Canada controls a very large proportion of the comparatively small world wheat surplus and we can wait and receive a higher price for our wheat, which, of course, we would all like to see go to the farmers of western Canada, I have this to say: We have had the same rosy story told to us for some three or four years by the gentleman who was the chairman of the wheat board until a few jveeks ago. We were constantly being assured that we were just about to turn the corner of wheat prosperity, but we never reached that point. As a matter of fact, the surplus of 127 million bushels in 1930, when he took charge, has been increased, as I said before, to nearly 300 million bushels in the last year. Suppose we have this year, as it is almost time we should have, a large crop in this country, and there are also large crops in the other wheat producing countries, how in the world can we hope to reduce this surplus of between 200 and 300 million bushels and to sell the wheat that we may produce, unles we deliberately offer our wheat in the world markets at competitive prices and give the people a real opportunity to buy it? This government believes in the policy of offering wheat at competitive prices and in clearing the bins as far as possible at fair prices -not at fire sale prices, as they have sometimes been described-before a new crop comes in-. It seems to me that that is just ordinary business common sense; it is the practice any
The Address-Mr. Euler

man in business would follow. It applies particularly in the case of wheat, because the longer you keep wheat the more it costs you to store it. Your storage charges are mounting at the rate of two-thirds of a cent per bushel per month.
I should like to say just a word with regard to the criticism voiced by my right hon. friend in connection with the protection of the shorts. It was here that I think the most serious criticism of Mr. Murray came from the lips of my right hon. friend. If it is any satisfaction to him to know, I may say that the present wheat board did make a temporary arrangement in order to encourage the sale of wheat and to protect overnight sales. Those who are familiar with the technicalities of the business will know what is meant by that, and I shall not go into it.


Charles Avery Dunning: The previous board did too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not do it in that way.


Charles Avery Dunning: On occasion, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not do it in
that way.


William Daum Euler: If my right hon. friend sees anything sinister or wrong in the action taken by the present wheat board, I invite him to ask for an investigation by a parliamentary committee and I promise that he will receive it promptly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intended to ask for that.


William Daum Euler: It is quite all right; you will get it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend referred also to the Argentine, and to the fact that some weeks ago, quite unexpectedly-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not unexpectedly to those who were observing it.


William Daum Euler: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Sales were not being made by the board.


William Daum Euler: All right; we will say Mr. McFarland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or by Mr. McFarland. The act provides that sales shall be made through certain channels.


William Daum Euler: Mr. McFarland and my
right hon. friend have been carrying on the business of buying and selling wheat for five years. They have been selling in Great Britain, and the board merely takes the place of the old-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the statute provides that-[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: They control the price.


William Daum Euler: We had become convinced that there was a certain antagonism and sales resistance in Great Britain against the sale of Canadian wheat, and we believed that was caused by the action of that board. In that

The Address-Mr. Euler
there was nothing personal against the members of the board; I want to make that perfectly clear. I made some inquiries. I had conversations with more than one person with regard to the feeling in Great Britain, and I was assured that that feeling did exist. I should like to quote to the house something which may be perhaps more conclusive to hon. members. I quote from Broomhall's Corn Trade News, which is, I think, a fairly reputable publication.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a fine millers' publication.


William Daum Euler: The millers are the buyers of our wheat; they are our customers.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is the most reputable international wheat authority there is in the world.


William Daum Euler: I quote from the issue of
February 13, 1935, as follows:
We have never criticized the Winnipeg price minima as being unreasonably high. Our criticisms have been levelled at the policy in general, which has prevented free_ competition on the international market. Similar criticism is now heard in the dominion, where speculation is rife as to how the government will disentangle itself from its wheat commitments.
Then again from the issue of March 27, 1935:
It is, however, a very debatable point as to whether Canada's best interests are served by a policy of splendid isolation. If Mr, McFarland were to approach the trade in a spirit of friendly cooperation, and adjust his prices to a reasonably competitive level, it is quite probable he would be agreeably surprised at the amount of business waiting to be done.


Mr. HEAPS:: What was the competitive
price at that time?


William Daum Euler: That was in March of last year, and I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is March, 1935?


William Daum Euler: Yes. Again on September 11, 1935:
The Canadian wheat board, on whose advice the present price has no doubt been established, would appear to be taking a bullish view of the international situation. We would not care to say that, by holding back supplies, Canada has worked a corner, but we can readily believe that Mr. McFarland, who is the chairman of the wheat board, has advised his government that an increased price for Canadian wheat is justified on statistical grounds. The danger, of course, is that by anticipating a rise in international prices, the Canadian wheat board will further estrange overseas buyers. If there is sufficient strength in the statistical position to justify a price of 87J cents for No. 1 northern wheat, would not that price be reached without naming it as a
minimum? Possibly the wheat board would have better served Canadian interests by fixing a price more in line with current values of competing descriptions. It seems unnecessarily tactless to lose an opportunity of renewing friendly connections with buyers in the United Kingdom and other importing countries.
Then from Milling I might read an extract which appeared in the issue of December 14, 1935:
Canada is undoubtedly enjoying a larger share of the world's trade now that the McFarland policy of rigid selling has been abandoned. Prices of Canadian wheat are more competitive than they have been for a long time and consequently I expect that good quantities will continue to be bought by importers. It cannot be said that Canada is forcing sales-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, at the present time.


William Daum Euler: -and thereby damaging the "bull structure" of the market. She is simply putting out offers in reasonable relation to the offers of other shippers.
I have been trying to establish in a reasonable way the fact that there was antagonism and sales resistance, in Great Britain particularly, against Canadian wheat. But the proof of the pudding, after all, is in the eating, and since the change in the board has been made we have the following results: in the nine and a half weeks the old board was in office they sold twelve and a half million bushels of wheat net. In the six weeks that the new board has been in office they sold sixty-five and a half million bushels of wheat. It is worth while to establish good will if you are going to do business with your customers. My right hon. friend made some reference to the fact that a man was sent over to Britain to try to reestablish contact with our customers in that country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what Mr. Lamont went for.


William Daum Euler: That is exactly what he went for; and I am informed that he has been very successful. He has been in contact with the buyers of Canadian wheat in that country; and whereas in past years, for reasons which are apparent to everybody, the proportion of Canadian wheat going into British flour has been tremendously reduced, he now has some assurances at least that these proportions will be increased.
I would like to say in conclusion that the change has been made for one reason and one reason only. It was not a pleasant thing to do. It was made in the public interest, in order that the interests not only of the western farmers but of all the Canadian people
The Address

Mr. Euler

should be served. I maintain that the change has -been received1 reasonably well, even in parts of the press of western Canada, in the press of eastern Canada, and, I think, among people who like to see business done on business principles. If it were necessary to point to evidence that the change was not entirely unwelcome, even in western Canada, I need only refer to the by-election in which -my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was returned by a tremendous majority, and in which the change in the wheat board, to some extent at least, was made an issue by my hon. friends opposite.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Never had anything to do with it.


William Daum Euler: And the issue was the
matter of the wheat board.
Just one word with regard to the treatment accorded to the old wheat board. I should like to make one thing plain. The leader of the opposition has stated, I think in so many words, that our treatment of the old wheat board, and the method of dismissing its members-if you like to put it that way

was hardly decent. The situation was this. The government having decided that in the public interest that change should be made, I was unfortunately chosen, as chairman of the wheat committee, to convey the news to the chairman of that board, Mr. McFarland. We had a personal conversation. I told him what was the feeling of the government. He said to me, " I won't retire unless you ask me in writing to do so." Naturally I wrote to him and gave the reasons, as I was bound to do, the reasons which I have given here; and the same letter, or a wire, was sent to his colleagues. They consulted and then decided that they would not retire. What was the government to do under the circumstances?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Add the rest of it-because of the condition imposed in the letter.


William Daum Euler: Very good; that is quite
satisfactory. We then, believing that the change should be made, made it by order in council, and there again, very naturally and quite properly, gave the reasons for making the change. My right hon. friend says, and Mr. McFarland says, I think, that the integrity of the board was impugned. I leave to the judgment of hon. members whether the mere statement to certain gentlemen that sales resistance, and an antagonism to themselves have developed, constitutes a reflection upon the integrity and the honour and the honesty of such people. Surely the mere fact-if I might cite a parallel-that the .people

of Canada last fall developed a feeling of antagonism towards my friends opposite did not cast upon them any reflection of dishonesty or dishonour. There was no thought of casting any reflection whatsoever upon the integrity and the honesty of these gentlemen.
The leader of the opposition made some reference to the fact that we paid an honorarium amounting to six months' salary to the three members of the retiring board and Mr. McFarland had returned it. He said that Mr. McFarland had returned it, that he sent the cheque back with a communication that he could not accept it with that reflection against his honesty and honour and integrity. I may say to my right hon. friend that that was not the letter that was sent at all. The letter that was sent acknowledged the receipt of the cheque, and Mr. McFarland concluded like this-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read the whole letter,
please.


William Daum Euler: I will read the whole letter,
if I have time. It is addressed to myself.
I am in receipt of your letter of January 23rd, which was forwarded to me here from Winnipeg.
I note an order in council was passed on January 22nd, providing for me a gratuity of $9,000. In the meantime, a cheque for the amount has just reached me, which I am returning you herewith.
The fact is, under the circumstances, I cannot accept a gratuity on an order in council, because of the fact that a previous order in council provided for my retirement, and gave as a reason for my dismissal a cause which was clearly established as unwarranted.
But not a word, as the hon. gentleman says, as to his not accepting it with that reflection against his honesty and honour and integrity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what is meant.


William Daum Euler: Mr. McFarland did not make that statement in declining to receive the cheque.
I have nothing further to say. That is the justification for the change in the personnel of the board, and the reasons that were given, and the manner in which it was done. We are not yet out of the woods. This particular problem is left on the doorstep of this government by the former government, and it is a difficult one to handle. This government does not pretend to say that because a new board has been appointed we are going to be out of this difficulty in a month-I am not going to set a term at all; that would be entirely unauthorized on the part of anybody. There are many factors that enter into the wheat situation: matters of drought, crop failures, and the restricted markets of

The Address-Mr. Stevens
the world. But we do believe that the right policy has been established, that Canadian wheat ought to be offered regularly at competitive prices and sold if those prices can be obtained. I have, stated the policy. We have to await the course of events, but I am confident that our action will prove to be in the best interests of the farmers themselves and of the Canadian people in general.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to cover a very great deal of ground on this occasion, first, for the very clear and definite reason that, instead of three and a half or four hours in which to speak I have only forty minutes. The other reason is this:	I have but one
thought to which I wish to give expression to-day, and I will reserve for other occasions the discussion on various subjects that naturally come to one's mind. During this session I think there will be ample opportunity to discuss many matters of vital interest to this country, so if I do not mention them to-day it is not because I am lacking in any appreciation of their significance or their importance at the present time.
The government has come into office with an unusually strong support in this house. It is no false flattery for me to say that the government should be congratulated upon the expression of confidence that has been accorded it by the people of Canada. Any government or any party might well be proud of that expression of confidence, but at the same time I would suggest to the government and particularly, shall I say, to the new members of the Liberal party who are supporting the government in the house, that Canada is expecting great things from this government and this parliament, dominated and controlled as it is by the Liberal party. As far as I am concerned, in reference to any measures calculated to advance the interests of the people of Canada, I shall very gladly and freely cooperate with the government in passing such measures. I repeat, however, that the country expects much of the government. I would rather say, if I might do so without offence, that I think the country expects much of this parliament and I wish to start this session, as far as I am concerned, with the suggestion that it is parliament, the House of Commons, that should assert itself rather than that we should focus too much attention upon the administration, and I do not say that with the slightest sense of disrespect to the administration.
Before addressing myself to the matters with which I wish to deal, I should like to
indulge for just a moment in what was indulged in by the leaders of the two major parties, that is, a little playing around with percentages. It is about the only comfort I can take out of the situation and I propose at once to arrogate to myself that modicum of comfort. I have made an analysis of the vote and I find that the Liberal party polled 2,061,000 votes, which means that each Liberal member in the House of Commons represents, on an average, 11,500 voters. Each Conservative member represents, on an average, 32,000 voters *-not so bad, as someone says, and I quite agree. My Social Credit friends represent, on an average, 10,750 votes-not so bad again. Each Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member represents an average of 55,000 votes. The members of the Reconstruction party, however, each represent an average of 384,000 voters. So, Mr. Speaker when it comes to playing around with aver ages and percentages in connection with the voting, at least I can claim to be in rather a unique position. I think I am entitled to say-and I say it this once-that I am conscious of a very great responsibility in speaking for that large number of voters, though certainly in a numerical way I do not count for very much in this house of 245 members, a house in which I have been sitting for twenty-five years, so that I know something of its constitution, its habits and its practices; but, sir, I have a large measure of pride in the fact that I can speak for a large body of the free citizens of this country.
We met this year under a shadow, that of the death of a beloved sovereign. I think King George will be remembered through the ages and will be portrayed on the pages of history not only as a sovereign beloved by his people but also, I think, as one having the further unique record that in practically every Country not belonging to the empire he was respected and admired. I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, that, meeting under the spell of this sad but inspiring circumstance, we in this parliament might forget partisan feelings and differences, unite in an effort to study the welfare and promote measures for the general well-being of this country, and contribute to the solution of our common problems. This, sir, is the House of Commons.
May I digress for a moment to say a word to that very large body of menibers who sit in parliament for the first time. I have not checked the figures with care, but I am told, sir, Ithat there are more new members in this parliament than ever sat in any new parliament since confederation. That may
The Address-Mr. Stevens

not be correct, but it is certainly true that there is a very large number of members here who never sat in parliament before and, of course, the great majority of them sit with the Liberal party. It has occurred to me since the election, and since the house met, that a great many Liberal members who sit for the first time in this parliament have come here earnestly imbued with the doctrines, the old, ancient doctrines, of their party. I am going to offer a word of warning; it is this-and I speak from a recollection of my own entry into the House of Commons twenty-five years ago-you come to the house convinced that your great party-the Liberal party I shall .address for the moment

stands for what you believe to be best in the political life of the community. You come here with a conviction that you as an individual will be able to contribute something to the solution of your nation's problems. And you wall be, unless you fall under the spell of extreme partisanship and allow your better judgment, your convictions and your conscience to be dominated by the exigencies of the party whip. I am not saying that with any disrespect to the new chief whip of the Liberal party, a gentleman whom I respect and admire and whom I count as a friend. But it is part of the game. I venture to say thaJt there is not an older member in the house on either side but looks back over the years and recalls that time after time he has subjugated his own best judgment to what was conceived to be for the moment the good of the political fortunes of his party. Now it does not necessarily follow-and I say this with some knowledge and experience-that a man must always separate himself from his party, but he can make himself heard and felt in the house, in debate, and in the party caucus if you wish, make his views known, his influence felt when he knows and is convinced that something proposed is not in the best interests of the community as a whole. I would plead with the house, not necessarily to break away from party, but, at least in these years of adversity and struggle, to endeavour to bring to the service of the country what is in the interests of the country and not simply in the party interest.
I said a moment ago that this is the House of Commons. It is not the house of privileged interests; it is not the house of power. We often hear about accession to power, as if mere accession to power gave some divine right to do anything you wish. That is not so. This is the house of the common people of Canada. It is often referred to as the high court of parliament; personally I do not like the term. Not but what it is in a sense true,

but when it is used over and over again it seems to carry with it the inference that only a student of the law has any right to a voice in this house. This is not the high court in that sense; this is a forum for the common people, where their representatives may express their views; where, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has so often said, their rights and their privileges may be safeguarded. And the first duty of every member who comes into the house is to preserve to himself and herself the rights of those whom they represent, irrespective of what may be said by those who consider it to be other than a forum of the common people. Thank heaven, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is still a democracy, at least in name if not in fact. I think we might well pause to consider that. Let us ask: What is a democracy? I ran across a quotation from Kant, the philosopher; he used these words, indicating how a democracy should function, and I commend them to the attention of hon. members:
So to act as to treat humanity as an end and' never as a means.
That is, a democratic institution like this parliament should at. all times so act that whatever it does has in view the welfare of humanity before the welfare of special interests, and never think of or treat the individual as a means to an end. That philosopher was not a Christian, but in those words he epitomizes the very essence of Christian teaching as it relates to human beings.
Slavery is a denial of democracy. Slavery is a denial of freedom. It is an absence of freedom. I ask the house: Is there freedom in Canada to-day? Let us pause and ponder. The Prime Minister said the other day that the Liberal party had made great contributions to political liberty. So they have. One has but to read the history of politics in Great Britain, in the mother of parliaments, and in Canada and elsewhere, and one must recognize in fairness and justice that the Liberal party have made great contributions to political liberty. But that is not the issue to-day. The issue to-day is economic liberty, and I say very frankly that in my opinion there is no economic liberty to-day. Let me ask hon. gentlemen this-I will take only two general illustrations-has the farmer of Canada, whether in Quebec, the maritimes or the west, anything whatever to say about the price he shall receive for his butter fat when he "takes it to the factory?


Mr. HOWARD:: Yes, he has.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nothing at all. He is told what the price of butter fat is that day; that

The Address-Mr. Stevens
price is named in Montreal by some unknown and invisible authority, subject to no public control and with no responsibility to the public. The farmer ships his hogs or cattle to the Toronto livestock exchange, or to Edmonton or to Winnipeg or Montreal, and he has nothing at all to say as to what he shall get for them.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Certainly he has.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nothing, Mr. Speaker.
The farmer will ship his cattle to these markets and what will he get? He will get a statement: loading charges, freight, unloading charges, water, feed, commission, stockyard charges; these will be taken off a price about which he has nothing to say, and he will get a ticket back saying: This is what you will receive. As an individual he has no more to say about it than has the man in the moon. But each morning there goes out a wire from Toronto indicating what shall be the price of cattle or hogs that day. I ask: Is there any economic freedom in that? I am not suggesting-I shall discuss this feature at more length later; I am using it merely as an illustration-that we should return to the old days when a farmer toted his stuff in and bargained with an individual over it; not at all. But I do say that if in the process of time and evolution of business certain conditions have arisen where the farmer has nothing to say about the prices of his produce, then some authority, some power, some influence ought to stand between him and those who do determine those prices. That is all I have to say about that.
Is there any economic liberty or freedom for the great mass of workers in Canada to-day? There is only one liberty I know about that is left to the ordinary salaried or wage earning class, or to the ordinary workman, and that is the liberty to go hungry. I do not know of any other. There is no security. Only a few days ago I read an analysis which indicated that one of the reasons men are not attempting to build homes to-day is that they cannot experience that security in employment which would justify them in even thinking of a home. That is true. We talk about the homes of Canada of which we are so justly proud and which most of us are privileged to enjoy. But how many are there among the toiling millions across Canada who have security of employment sufficient to justify them in taking a home?
A few days ago I heard about an eminent gentleman to whom were brought, as had
been the daily custom, the cost sheets of his great plant. He was worth millions. Scanning the cost sheets, which indicated that he was making profits, he said, "You have got to cut down." His superintendent said to him, "That would mean throwing some of these men on the street, and we are not overmanned." The gentleman replied, "Cut five out of this lot and ten out of that, and make the others do the work." Out they went. Where did they go? They went out on the street, with no security. Have they savings? With the exception of an odd few here and there who have had the good fortune to have employment for a number of years, show me anywhere where those men have savings. I remember hearing an eminent authority saying not long ago that there were 5,000,000 deposit accounts in Canada, and the statement was made as evidence to prove that the great masses of the people had savings accounts. Well, I know this:	I
checked up at one factory, and although it is very difficult to get them to talk I found that out of 250 workers only twelve had bank accounts. Upon making a further check I found dozens of concerns having ten and twelve bank accounts which did not represent individuals. Practically every church in Canada has bank accounts for the board of trustees, the board of management, the missionary society, the Sunday school, the young people's society, and so on. There may be ten or twelve accounts in all. Yet we hear the statement made that there are 5,000,000 deposit accounts in Canada; I question if there are 2,000,000. Nobody knows. The point is that we do know there is no sense of security in employment, and as a result there is no economic freedom or liberty.


Mr. VIEN:: Is this condition peculiar to Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not at all. In fact, I believe Canada is perhaps more blessed in that regard than is any other country, and to a greater extent than is the United States.
I am glad the question has been asked, because it forms the basis of an observation to which I should like to give expression, if I have time, that it is in the 'hands of this parliament in the series of sessions held this year, next year, the next, and so on, to pass those measures which will lay the foundation in Canada for economic freedom, for democracy and for the establishment of this great realm. Where? On the basis of the welfare of the agriculturist and the worker. If it does not rest there, then there can be no security for the so-called upper strata.
The Address-Mr. Stevens

I wish to impress this fact upon parliament, although it may not be heeded: We hear a great deal of discussion about the constitutionality of this or that law. At the present time eight acts of parliament are before the supreme court awaiting decision as to their constitutionality. I am strongly convinced that if the parliament of Canada will speak firmly for the Canadian people, and the rights and interests of those people, we shall not need very much law. May I illustrate that point. Two years ago the price spreads committee sat in this building, and before it appeared one of the greatest corporations in Canada, the Imperial Tobacco Company. The facts disclosed that that company had cut the price of tobacco from around 30 cents per pound to from 14 to 16 cents per pound. They had reduced wages by a substantial percentage. They had imposed certain conditions upon retailers and had paid exorbitant bonuses to their executive officers. Those facts, and some information as to capital structure, were disclosed by the committee. What happened? Company officials appeared reluctantly, and at first I believe were very much annoyed in having the facts spread out. They were spread out, however, before the public of Canada. What happened? Almost immediately after the close of that session of parliament the Imperial Tobacco Company amended its buying policy. Hon. members from Essex, Elgin and other counties in western Ontario will know that I am stating the truth. Last year and the year before they restored the price of tobacco to from 27 to 30 cents per pound, thereby changing the state of the growers from that of abject poverty in 1932 and 1933 to comparative prosperity in 1934 and 1935. Next they restored the wages of their employees and, moreover, inaugurated a system of pensions and health benefits for them. They went further; they made new agreements with the retailers on an equitable and fair basis. All of that was done voluntarily-no law, no compulsion-only with knowledge of the fact that a committee of parliament had looked at and had permitted the public to look at the picture. That is what may result from a position parliament may take in connection with some of these matters. '
When a week or so ago the government of the day took up the challenge of a great corporation which had closed its doors and turned its employees out on the street, what happened? They opened their doors. Why? Because public opinion would not tolerate such a situation. Do not let the house disregard the influence and power which parliament has, not by interfering in business, not 
by trying to run business, but by standing as the impartial umpire between selfish and unscrupulous interests and corporations on the one hand and those who suffer from their operations on the other. Let parliament stand as the champion of the rights of the common people, as the House of Commons by its very name indicates it is, and we shall see a great change. But there must be a clear-cut, forceful and definite expression of determination on -the part of hon. members that these conditions shall not exist. Let them declare for a fair price to the farmer. I do not believe there is an hon. member in this chamber who knows better than I do the perplexities, difficulties and dangers involved in fixing prices. I am not asking for the moment that we fix prices, but I am asking parliament to declare, as one of the fundamental principles upon which the economic structure of this country was based, that fair prices shall be paid to the farmers, that body which forms one-half of our population. I ask that parliament shall declare, as an underlying principle of the economic life of this country, that fair wages shall be paid to the wage earner. I may be told that that is just a pious expression of opinion, but if parliament will bring before it those matters that do violence to the two principles I have mentioned, it will be found that employing authorities will try .to conform to the view that parliament thus expresses.
Another point which I wish to emphasize is this: If we are to revive business in this country and relieve unemployment and all the other distresses that are prevalent in Canada to-day, we must take some action that will raise the purchasing power of the masses of the people. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), speaking a few moments ago, outlined some of the conditions that he had seen in the west. I recall, Mr. Speaker, a trip that I made when I was electioneering in the constituency of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan) in 1933; he will recall meeting me there. I addressed some forty-seven meetings; I met literally thousands of farmers; I went on some of their farms and into some of their homes and I saw the conditions obtaining in that district. Then I went into northern Alberta and there I saw conditions such as my hon. friend described a moment ago in somewhat different form- many and many a home, I venture to say thousands of homes, where there was lack of clothing, and I was told by dozens and dozens that their children because of lack of clothing could not leave their door until the warm spring weather came. And that, Mr. Speaker,

The Address-Mr. Stevens
is in Canada where we know the great, the dominating proportion of the farming community is not getting a return to-day sufficient to provide those people with warm clothing, and decent blankets for their beds, let alone furniture. Raise their purchasing power. Increase the returns to the farmer, and when you have raised their purchasing power you will stimulate the production of goods for consumption in this country and thus contribute more to the rapid relief of unemployment than could be done in any other way, whether it be in the manufacture of clothing, boots and shoes, furniture, farm machinery, houses and so forth. These are the things that are necessary, but before that comes you must give to the farming community of Canada a reasonable purchasing power.


Thomas Vien: Will my hon. friend allow me another question? For accomplishing that which is also our aim and purpose has he any specific method other than the expansion of our foreign trade?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. I do not think the expansion of our foreign trade is the solution. I do not intend to discuss that to-day, but I will discuss it later when the estimates of the Trade and Commerce department are up or on some other occasion. I am not saying this in any critical way. I have given a great deal of study to external trade, and I will take second place to no one in desiring to see our trade expanded, but that is not a solution of this problem. .


Thomas Vien: What is the specific remedy my hon. friend would propose?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish I were over there and I would soon show you.


Thomas Vien: You were here for a time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and I got out. The economic problem is not a simple one. I would like, if I may, to say to hon. members, and particularly to the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Vien), who was in the house so many years ago, that I am not offering captious criticism. I am not desiring to criticize this government at all. I am not talking about the government at all. I am simply trying to discuss the problem for the purpose of laying at least a foundation from which to attack it. I am not saying that the solutions are here or there, but I do say that we in this parliament, if we will recognize the underlying and fundamental principles, upon that foundation can build and make a great contribution. The trouble is that we will not recognize these principles. I am not
prepared to accept the doctrines of my social credit friends, but the hon. gentleman who leads that party in the house (Mr. Black-more) last night made a speech that is challenging to hon. members. Not his solutions;
I am not talking about them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Wait a minute. That light laugh is one of the things that makes me despair of parliament. I say to my friends on *the government benches: Let them take the quotations which the hon. member for Lethbridge gave from their Prime Minister's speech, and not his views but the authorities he quoted, and they cannot but be impressed by the seriousness of this whole business. Let us at least try to get down to the fundamental principles underlying it all, and then whether the hon. member for Lethbridge has the solution or whether hon. gentlemen opposite have it, let us all work together to find a common solution. I am not willing to accept my hon. friend's doctrines yet. I want to be shown some things first, but I do say this, that credit and the control of credit lie very near the root of the tremble.
People in this country have been calling for the opportunity to work, but, Mr. Speaker, there is a strange condition developing right in this country and in the United States. I was in Toronto the other day and a manufacturer told me that he was having difficulty in getting skilled workers in his plant. I read an editorial in the Toronto Globe a day or two ago, on February 10, which is rather startling. It says:
At a conference recently of business leaders in Chicago it was stated that, though hundreds of jobs calling for technical knowledge were opening, trained men could not be found to fill them.
It goes on:
This scarcity was described as most acute in the automobile and general machine trades, though it was experienced by industry in general.
Yet why should the condition be startling? Its roots may be found further back than the beginning of the depression. In the heyday of prosperity youth rather scorned the overalls occupations, and took to the white-collar jobs. There was plenty of money to be made; so why toil all day in machine shops? Trade apprenticeships did not appeal. When the depression came industry slowed down; so did everything else, and there wern't so many either white-collar or overalls jobs. There were fewer opportunities for learning trades; boys were not needed, and staffs were being reduced. Many aging mechanics, idle for five years, have grown too old to resume their former hard work. The consequence is that, with a revival of industry, there is no adequate supply of trained workers.
The Address-Mr. Stevens

Is it not startling and challenging to this parliament that., with the stimulation of industrial activity, there is now developing in Canada as well as in the United States a situation where there is actually a scarcity of trained men, when we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed? It is all very well for industrialists and great commercial leaders to tell politicians to keep their hands off business, but here is something which challenges the business leaders as well as parliament, and in my opinion we dare not as a parliament ignore this situation.' I should like to ask: Why should not a university graduate in mechanical engineering put on overalls and work at a machine? Is the legal profession more honourable than the calling of the machinist? Is the financier more noble as a man than is a carpenter? Cannot we in Canada get .away from the idea that there is something inferior about a man working with his hands? I might ask this question: Is it coming to this in Canada that we are going to develop, if we have not done so already, a system of castes similar in effect to the castes of India, although they may be in another form? Is it to be that the workmen of Canada are to become the untouchables of Canada? I hope not. But unless parliament builds its policies-I am not talking about party policies; I am speaking of parliament -upon the foundations I have indicated, namely, the well-being of the great farming class and the working class, then the superstructure that we have erected will be insecure and in my opinion will topple and collapse sooner o.r later.
I should like to turn to some statistics which are published by the government, but I shall not go into them in great detail. These are analyses of income taxes made by the bureau of statistics, and any hon. member can obtain them. I shall not give all the figures but simply indicate certain percentages. During the five year period, 1930 to 1934 inclusive, the income of agrarians dropped 52 per cent. Earnings of retail merchants dropped 53 per cent in the same period, while those of wholesale merchants dropped 50 per cent. Earnings of manufacturers dropped 40 per cent, while earnings from natural resources, which include mining, dropped 17 per cent. Earnings of transportation and public utilities, which are closely allied to the producing and distributing elements, dropped 46 per cent. Earnings of all the producing elements decreased; farmers, industrialists, transportation, merchants, all experienced a diminution in income. But there is one class left, the financial. I find that the great financial group 
experienced in the same period an increase of 20 per cent. This is not a matter of someone saying: Oh, well, there is Stevens again attacking the bankers and the financial institutions. That is not the point at all. Wealth is produced by those who work in the soil, whether they be farmers or lumbermen, or those who work in the mines. It has to be produced out of the soil. What is capital? It is nothing more or less than what is left over after you have paid for the cost of producing real wealth and is available for reinvestment. That has been accumulating and has come under the control of a smaller and smaller number of corporations and persons. The point at issue in Canada is this:	Whereas there has been
an increase in the earnings of the great financial group, those who produce wealth, or create wealth, if you like to use that term, have all experienced a diminution in earnings. How long can this go on? Let any logical or impartial man give the answer to that question. Of one thing I am convinced, it cannot go on indefinitely.
In case it may be suggested that I have rather stretched this theme, let me quote from a speech made the other day by Sir Edward Beatty. Sir Edward made the very definite statement that more production is the remedy for unemployment. That is a rather striking statement from Sir Edward Beatty and I agree with it. I do not believe in the so-called doctrine of scarcity; I never had faith in it and never did believe in it. Let me quote Sir Edward as follows:
Men who came from farms, attracted by high wages paid by business institutions in the cities, and then abandoned to unemployment, had a legitimate cause for complaint against the skill with which private business is conducted.
Those are not my words; they are those of Sir Edward Beatty. That is no utterance of mine. In making that statement Sir Edward Beatty reflected what I believe is the conviction of every thoughtful student of modern business and economic problems. It is not sufficient for business men to warn governments and politicians to keep out of business. The long and short of the matter is the fact that the collapse of 1929 followed a period when private business was uninterrupted and unmeddled with, if I may use that term, by governments. My hon. friends will be the first to endorse that. Is Mr. Speaker going to call me to time?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I was about to do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am sorry, but I should like to make one brief reference in conclusion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.

The Address-Mr. Gray don


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I have to say I want to say with absolute courtesy. I should like to put a challenge to this government. I should like to challenge the Liberal party to be true to its ancient principles. I appeal to the new members who have come here imbued with the doctrines of Gladstone, of Bright and so on, of which we hear so often. In saying this I speak as one who has sat opposed to hon. members opposite. I recognize that there is a certain type of mentality which is peculiarly adapted to the exigencies that presently obtain. I believe the Liberal party, because of its history and its ancient principles, has an opportunity which is unsurpassed in scope.
This is the house of the common people. Let us respect not only the sanctity of contracts, but the sanctity of human lives. In saying that- I am not disregarding the desirability of observing contractual agreements, but I place before that the sanctity of human lives. It is a case not just of safeguarding capital, but of preserving the rights and ensuring the well-being of the producers of wealth and those who make capital possible.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I rise for the first time to address, through you, Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons, and I do so with a great deal of trepidation, which I know will be understood iby hon. members who recall their initial attempt at assisting, in debate, the legislative activities of a great body such as this.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that my riding of Peel joins with the rest of the Dominion of Canada in expressing appreciation of the good fortune which has come to this dominion by virtue of the fact that we have now governing us one of the most talented and most literary men from the old Land, Lord Tweedsmuir. I should like to couple with that remark a reference to the fact that we are also extremely fortunate in having as the first lady of our land none other than the very charming Lady Tweedsmuir.
I would also at this time, following a custom which I have observed during my stay in this chamber, congratulate the mover (Mr. Slaght) and the seconder (Mr. Fournier, Maisonneuve) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I would congratulate particularly the seconder, upon his youthful appearance and also upon his great fluency in both official languages of the house.
May I direct a remark or two to the hon. *member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) who moved the address in reply. Perhaps I may be pardoned if I take the same liberty which 12739-10
that hon. gentleman did on that occasion, in case the Dominion of Canada at large, through the reports and proceedings of this house, should gain the impression that the district of Parry Sound is the greatest district in the province of Ontario, to place just a little ahead of that district the greatest constituency in the Dominion of Canada, the county of Peel. I appreciate the tone of my hon. friend's address; it was kindliness personified. I hope, through the deliberations of this chamber, in which I may have a part, that that attitude will be not only continued but developed in the way we should all like to see it developed.
The hon. member made mention, Mr. Speaker, of what a great asset his riding had in the Dionne quintuplets, those very beautiful and charming young ladies whom he believed might be his supporters some day. The county of Peel, as I am sure the rest of the dominion does, also takes pride in these quintuplets; because was it not a plant, and a good plant too, in the village of Port Credit, Ontario, that supplied the food which made it possible for these quintuplets later on to be supporters of the hon. member for Parry Sound? I think that is worth recording on Hansard.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: It was accessory after the fact.


Gordon Graydon: May I say, too, that
we have in my county the largest flower producing centre in the whole world. One plant alone covers forty acres, all under glass. For the information of hon. members who are not familiar with the town of Brampton, may I say that the greenhouses, if placed end to end, would extend a distance of over nine and three-quarter miles. That florist industry gives employment to over six hundred people. For that reason the terms of the Canada-United States trade agreement, which is mentioned in the speech from the throne, and which is to come before the house, are most important in so far as that agreement affects the florist industry of the Dominion of Canada, and the cut flower business, in which so many working people are interested in our particular constituency. It is my great hope that the government will see fit to remedy any defect which may have caused concern to the working men of my riding, and that they will see to it when the time comes the remedy will be both swift and sure.
I would also like to point out that the agreement between the United States and Canada which will shortly come before this house for attention contains something which

The Address-Mr. Graydon

must be dealt with in detail later on, as it affects the fruit and vegetable men in the southern part of the riding which I represent. I am hopeful that' the expressions in the speech from the throne do not mean that seasonal regulations and dumping duties will not be available for the protection of the farmers whom I have the honour to represent.
I am not going to take up the time of the house by a lengthy address; in the county from which I come we believe in short sermons, short editorials, and short speeches. But I should just like to point out that I wanted in this preliminary way to raise my voice on behalf of three particular sections of our community, the farmer, the workingman and his family, and the new generation, the youth of our country, which perhaps need as much attention as any other section of the community. The man on the back concession, the workingman in the poor home, and the young man who is not able to find a job in this peculiar world, are watching eagerly the deliberations of this first session of the eighteenth parliament of Canada. I hope they will not be disappointed. They ask for leadership. They have been seeking it through many different channels. Let us hope that the leadership which will be provided by the government of our country will be of a quality which will be worth something to these three sections of the people; that it will actually amount to something beyond mere words; that words will be translated into concrete action looking to instant and permanent relief.
Therefore I say to the government of our country to-day, in all honesty and sincerity, that I do hope something along this line will be accomplished. I hope that their efforts will meet with the success that they themselves hope for; and I trust that our Conservative party, small in numbers though it may be, may play some definite and valuable part in assisting to bring to the Dominion of Canada the better times which you and I, Mr. Speaker, are so anxious to see prevail. I should like to offer the cooperation of one of the humblest private members in the house to the end that something practical may be done, and that mere partisanship shall not occupy the attention of the house to the extent that some who have voiced opinions suspect has been the case in the past. I hope we shall be able to throw aside in some degree party prejudices and do something for the man on the back concession, the workingman and his family, and the young men and women who have just come out

of school and are looking to the government of Canada to accomplish something worth while.
Mr. ELIE 0. BERTRAND (Prescott) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this session, I cannot, as a representative of the French Canadian minority in Ontario, refrain from expressing the grief felt by the people of this province at the death of our beloved sovereign George V. I wish to offer to His Gracious Majesty Edward VIII our deepest sympathy and also extend to Queen Mary and her family our sincerest condolences in their misfortune, to the new king a long reign, marked by peace and justice for all the citizens of the empire.
We are pleased to find in the speech from the throne the following paragraph with reference to the international situation.
The seriousness of the international situation has contributed to the world's anxieties. My ministers are confident that they express the convictions of the people of Canada in adhering to the aims and ideals of the League of Nations, and in seeking in unison with members of the league as well as with other nations to support by all appropriate and practical means the maintenance of peace and the establishment of a world order based on justice and equity.
The effect, sir, of the last war, our losses in men, the obligations we then assumed, the problem of pensions to veterans, our enormous war debt which is heavily burdening the Canadian people, all this obliges us to ponder seriously when a question of war crops up. On this score, I think we should, on behalf of our fellow citizens of Ontario, congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for his admirable explanation of the Riddell motion at Geneva, in connection with sanctions against Italy on certain products, notably oil. The government is entitled to our congratulations on the attitude they took in this matter. Let our watchword be to avoid taking any responsibility regarding wars in foreign countries, and believe this will be a great step towards preserving peace all over the world.
Mr. Speaker, before going further, I wish to state that we of the Liberal party are highly pleased to congratulate you upon your appointment to the speakership. Your are eminently qualified for the high office you now occupy and the House will certainly benefit from your wide knowledge of parliamentary procedure and the fairplay which you have always shown during the many years when you were, so to speak, the guide of our party.
I wish to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght),* who so ably moved the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. In a sound and

The Address-Mr. Bertrand
eloquent speech, he proclaimed the policy followed by our party and, he certainly did credit to the constituency which has just elected him. The entire representation of Ontario is proud to include within its ranks such a distinguished barrister.
I must also congradulate the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemon.t (Mr. Fournier) on his splendid debut in the House, as an orator. He reflected honour on his compatriots and will certainly he thie pride of his constituents.
I also deem it appropriate, sir, to congratulate the right hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King and his cabinet on the stupendous amount of work they have accomplished since the elections of October 14. We have already felt, in various parts of Canada, the benefit of the trade treaties concluded with certain foreign countries, notably with the United States. Carloads, even entire train-loads of cattle have already crossed the 45th parallel. The increased prices that have resulted to the producers have been a great boon to that portion of the farming community. Although we will not know before January, 1937, the tangible results of this trade treaty between Canada and the United States, which has been effective from the beginning of January, partial statistics are already available. In Alberta, the new trade regime was inaugurated by the shipping of a train-load of cattle at the beginning of January. Two other trains of 15 carloads have since been shipped. These are merely the most outstanding transactions; the treaty has also produced results in other domains for instance, in the prices of certain articles, even before it became effective.
This treaty was followed by a trade agreement with Japan which, imparting renewed activity to our lumber industry, provided employment to a large number of our workers.
Mr. W. R. Beatty, of Pembroke, Ont., who recently retired from the presidency of the Canadian Lumbermen's Association expressed himself as follows when presiding over the 28th annual convention of the Association, held recently at the Mount Royal hotel, in Montreal:
The newly-signed trade agreement between Canada and the United States will mean increased shipments to our friends to the south of us, according as recovery advances.
In normal times the United States need our lumber, and our lumber manufacturers need the American market; the treaty may gradually restore to us all of our lost markets. The renewed trade relations with Japan are also a reassuring promise, especially as regards the Pacific coast lumber industry which relies mostly on exports.
12739-10*
These are results which should rejoice us, they also prove that the Government's policy will find markets for the products which we cannot consume in Canada, and which must necessarily be sold abroad.
The speech from the throne also mentions unemployment, a national problem and one of the most pressing that faces the government. We were already aware that the government intended to allow more scope to the provinces and municipalities in this connection. This is confirmed in the speech from the throne it is stated that a federal commission comprising provincial and municipal representation will be created in order to study this problem prescribe remedies and find the best possible means of relieving the situation until the day when normal business recovery will entirely absorb the unemployed, who today number 400,000 but were far more numerous some time ago.
It is further stated that concentration camps will be broken up. All agree that these concentration camps should disappear at the earliest possible date.
The government would do well to take up such matters immediately and, with the cooperation of all interested parties, to find profitable work for the unemployed, as well as for those who are now in concentration camps.
Besides the agricultural problem to which I shall refer in a moment, we must take into consideration the large number of unemployed in this country. The government must not undertake to foster immigration to this country before the work and the development of our natural resources require it.
I wish to briefly broach the subject of amendments to the British North America Act. The question is certainly a very delicate one and we, the French Canadian minority, should give careful consideration to it. On more than an occasion and even on the floor of this house, the hard struggles which the French Canadians had to endure in order to safeguard their rights in Ontario have been discussed.
Some contend that the minorities of all country have had to undergo such struggles, that they are part of history throughout the various periods and that it will always be so. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, as a race, we certainly have our rights in this country and no amendment to the British North America Act must, in the future, prevent their recognition, both from the standpoint of religion and of nationality.
The speech from the throne goes on to say that necessary legislation will be brought
The Address

Mr. Bertrand

down in the course of this session to control credit and the issue of currency through the medium of the Bank of Canada. This is another delicate question; however, the Liberal party has already stated its policy in this regard, and we are proud to note that a bill will be introduced in the course of this session which will put this country in full control of our credit and of the issue of paper currency. This will perhaps prevent certain classes of our population to loudly proclaim, as they have been doing for some time past, that capital and wealth is created through the development of our natural resources and that this wealth could be easily distributed among all classes of society by the simple expedient of issuing paper currency. We must have faith in the future of our country and save it from bankruptcy. We must congratulate the government, which will, at the first opportunity, assume control of this credit, but it must not be to the benefit of certain classes only; it must be distributed equitably among all classes of the community.
It will certainly prove difficult to attain such an object, because every member of this house is aware of the large number of pamphlets, newspaper articles, editorials, resolutions from boards of trade, groups of business men and financial institutions of all kinds throughout the country which insist that parliament and the government find the necessary means to reduce expenses in a manner such as it has never been done before in the administration of our dominion or of any province. If such a policy was carried out, the people would be the first to suffer. Such are the means proposed to save the country. In all these resolutions we are urged to practise economy; but whom are we to ask to do so? Certainly not the unemployed, nor the workers whose wages are insufficient to give them a decent livelihood, nor the agricultural classes which are on the threshold of bankruptcy. Who shall be requested to practise such economy? The government simply provides the bare necessities of these people.
We know that the Liberal party has always been recognized as the party that has most practised economy, while safeguarding the interests of all classes of the country's population. We hear among the people such remarks as; You Liberals are always elected when the Conservative party has expended all the revenues of the country and there only remains for you to foot the bills. We are perhaps entitled to such an heritage which is certainly a compliment to the Liberal administration.

I cannot entirely agree with what the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has just stated in connection with currency; however, it might perhaps be appropriate to point out, notwithstanding all the propaganda that is now carried on, that Canada is actually indebted to the extent of $3,000,000,000; moreover, she has guaranteed the liabilities of railway and other organizations to the amount of $1,600,000,000, while municipalities are indebted to the extent of $1,500,000,000, forming a total of $7,100,000,000 on which interest has to be met. Actually there are other liabilities for which the people are responsible for instance those of school boards and other public utilities. And we are urged in all the articles I have mentioned, to maintain the present rate of interest, to meet our obligations, to keep the country's credit intact, to avoid repudiating our debts and the guarantees we have given. Thrift is preached to those who are in want, in order to safeguard accumulated wealth by continuing to pay the same rates of interest. The average rate of interest on the total debt to which I have just referred amounts actually to 4i per cent. I base such figures on an article which appeared in "Saturday Night," entitled; Retrenchment, not conversion, the remedy. Note well that in this article it is absolutely urged that the 4J per cent rate of interest be maintained; it was even higher before certain conversions were carried out last year. By reducing the rate of interest to 3 per cent an amount of more than $100,000,000 would be economized yearly. This would mean a mere trifle which, according to these people, should be disregarded, because the word conversion would mean repudiation.
I must frankly confess, sir, in the face of conditions such as have been prevailing since two years, the working classes cannot live as comfortably as they did a few years ago owing to the lack of work; the farming class is passing through a period of crisis such as it has never experienced in the past.
These people are urged to economize or to content themselves with the little they have, but when the government wishes to take over the control of the country's credit it is urged not to interfere; when it is a question of putting the lid down on the possessors of great wealth, the government is asked to prevent their income from falling to the level of those of other classes; it is even requested to protect them because, otherwise, it would be equivalent to repudiation and would, therefore, harm the country's credit.

The Address-Mr. Bertrand
May I be so bold, sir, as to state that something must be done, that I belong to the younger generation that want to see, in the near future, Canada grow, become prosperous and blossom out into one of the finest countries of the world; but may I also point out that there is a growing feeling among the younger generation that its chances of success are slight and that in the struggle for life, it is denied the advantages enjoyed by the preceding generation because we are handicapped by the fact that capital is given more protection than the people. I therefore beseech the government not to neglect this serious problem but, with the help of the Bank of Canada, and its own authority, to find the best solution in the very near future.
A few moments ago, sir, I stated that I would give some details in connection with the problems of the farming class. I wish especially to deal with the subject from the Quebec and Ontario farmers' standpoint. I want first to state that many factors favour the Quebec farmers, notwithstanding the criticisms directed against the Taschereau regime which has been in office in this province for a number of years. May I point out that the taxes levied on the farmers of Ontario are 250 per cent higher than those levied on the farmers of Quebec. I reside in a county where only an imaginary line divides Quebec from Ontario; this permits us to draw comparisons which I could furnish to the house. However, this would not settle the problem which we have to face. I shall, therefore, refer only to the taxes which are levied on the farming class. In doing so I shall even go back thirty years the better to set forth the agricultural problem and the difficulty of remaining on the land. It has been contended that colonization could settle the unemployment problem. It is an easy matter to state that this question may be solved by settling a large number of our unemployed on colonization land. I reside in an exclusively farming county, yet we have never succeeded in the past in settling our farmers' sons on lands located in the northern parts of Quebec or Ontario. They had to abandon their farms because they were unable to meet their obligations and thus they increased the number of unemployed in small towns located close to their abandoned homes. This is a problem which needs the attention of all governments, both provincial and federal.
Continuing the comparisons, may I state that school, municipal and county taxes on 100 acres of land in Ontario in the Ottawa valley, amounted to $38 in 1901; to S60 in 1914; to $175 in 1930, and to $193 in 1935, That is, in 35 years, an increase of 500 per cent for these taxes alone.
The dominion government taxes are levied on the entire population; however, when so levied, the farmers are included. I shall therefore add these taxes to the figures that I have just quoted in order to point out the difficulties the farmers have to contend with.
The taxes levied by the dominion government, per capita, amounted to $8.72 in 1901; to $16.56 in 1914; to $36.01 in 1930, which is an increase of 120 per cent. The provincial taxes, per capita, amounted to $1.85 in 1901; in 1914, to $4.49; in 1930, to $17.50, an increase of 300 per cent in the last 30 years.
So as not to delay unduly this debate, I shall simply quote the prices on farm implements required by the farmer. In 1914. a six-foot mowing machine cost $43.50; in 1935, $97.50. A six-foot binder was worth $102 in 1914 and $205 in 1935. A hay cart cost $60 in 1914 and, in 1935, $122. A fifteen-discs sowing machine sold for $69 in 1914 and for $160 in 1935. These are increases ranging from 125 to 150 per cent in prices of farm implements.
The index figures of agricultural products were, in 1914, as follows:	farm products,
69; field products, 64; animal products, 79; making an average of 65-5. I have compared the figures between 1914, 1930 and 1935. In 1930, the same index figure was 86-6 and in 1935 it was 71. The value of farm products has therefore increased seven points on 64, or about 9 per cent, while the farmer's liabilities have increased 125 to 150 per cent on farm implements which he must necessarily purchase; 500, per cent in connection with school, municipal and [DOT] provincial taxes; 120 per cent as regards dominion taxes and 300 per cent for other taxes. It is therefore obvious that the situation in which the farmer is placed, at present is so difficult that we fear he will be unable to survive in our section of the country.
The economic situation with which the farmer is faced is somewhat as follows: one-third of our population barely receives 58 cents from the sale of their products instead of the dollar which they received, for instance, in 1929, the year when the index figure was 100. In other words, their purchasing power has dwindled to 58 per cent and, when these people purchase in their turn, they realize that prices of articles they require, far from having dropped proportionately to their purchasing power, are still 90 cents instead of a dollar. The result is that the farmer refuses to make purchases or that he buys less than two-thirds of what he requires. The depressing effect of this depre-
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

ciated purchasing power on trade as a whole is so obvious that it is unnecessary further to stress the point. It is unquestionably obvious.
I shall close my remarks, Sir, by requesting the government to realize the necessity of helping the farming class as well as the other classes I have mentioned. Since 44 per cent of our population are farmers, it behooves us to find the means to relieve the farmers as soon as possible. The new markets abroad will certainly help us to dispose of our products; as the demand increases, better prices will prevail; we all agree on this point. That is why we wish to congratulate the government for what it has already achieved and further encourage it to take all necessary steps to reestablish equilibrium between every class of our community, in order that all classes of citizens inhabiting Canada may earn a livelihood and prosper in our country which we desire to see great, for the happiness of all.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, those of us who have sat in this corner of .the house during the past parliament and who are fortunate enough, if I may use the term, to be here again for this parliament, are in a fair position, I think, to watch the play and counteqplay that takes place in this chamber between the two great parties. My mind goes back to the special session of 1930, when a similar debate took place. The proceedings of the last few days remind me forcibly of the early days of the last parliament. Anyone not acquainted with the prominent actons concerned would be at a loss to know what the debate was about. The present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is using language almost identical with that used by the leader of the opposition in 1930, and the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) is using, possibly in a little different way, language similar to that used by the leader of the government in those days. The results of the election were analyzed; it was assumed that because the Conservative party had a majority in the house in 1930 the people of Canada had endorsed the Conservative party. Now it is assumed that because the Liberal party have an overwhelming majority in parliament the people of Canada have endorsed Liberal principles. I think the assumption is not true in either case. The people of Canada have no idea what Conservative principles are or what Liberal principles are, because neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have taken the trouble to lay before the people what their principles are and what the consequences of their principles would be if they Were put into effect.

May I in a friendly way say to the members of the government party that they should not delude themselves with the idea that they are here because the people have endorsed Liberal principles. They are not here on that account; they are here because the last government failed to do what the people of Canada thought it should do, and what the government had said it would do. The votes cast in the last election for candidates of the Liberal party were not necessarily votes for Liberalism; they were votes against the Conservative party. They were negative votes. The people did not know and do not know now what the Liberal party had to offer them. But they did know what they had suffered during that period of five years, and as a protest against that, even a negative protest, they voted, almost -as a matter of habit, for the other party, as alternatively they had voted election in and election out ever since 1867. So may I say to the leader of the government that the same fate awaits the Liberal government that overtook the Conservative government, if within the next feiw years they do not put into effect policies that will enable the people to avail themselves of the great actual and potential wealth of the country.
We heard during the last parliament a great deal about promises. The leader of the last government carried out at least one of his promises; he said he was (going to end unemployment or perish in the attempt, and he has .perished. It was not necessary for my Liberal friends to make promises; the .people knew what had happened to them, and all they were waiting for was a chance to state their protest in the only way available to them. In order to impress that more clearly upon the minds of my Liberal friends may I draw their attention to the present plight of the Liberal government in the province of British Columbia.
That government was elected with possibly not quite but relatively as large a majority of members in the legislature as was the Liberal government here in Ottawa. After two years in office that same government is afraid to hold by-elections which by the laws of the province are due, because they are convinced that defeat is awaiting them.


Mr. HANSON:: Who is going to defeat them?


Angus MacInnis: They, themselves, will be the cause of their defeat, coupled with the activities of the party in British Columbia that had the largest vote at the last election. My hon. friend knows which party that was. If he will read the Liberal organ of the city of

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Vancouver he will learn who is going to defeat the government. Let me read from the Vancouver Sun an editorial of recent date:
With five Liberal members British Columbia will have an audible voice in the new Liberal government

That is, the Liberal government in Ottawa-
-but that voice will not shut out the fact that more than 89,000 people voted in anger and protest against their own interests for the socialists. Protest against what? Protest against Premier T. D. Pattullo who was returned to, office on a disregarded "work and wages" program, and has since held his office under flagrant false pretences.
That is not a Cooperative Commonwealth publication. It is a Liberal paper supporting a Liberal government in the province of British Columbia.
As I listened last night to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) complaining about the tactics used against him in the province of Quebec my sympathy went out to him, because the same tactics were used ini the province of British Columbia. In that province however it was not the Conservative party but the party to which the minister belongs which stooped to those unworthy actions. It was the Liberal party that stooped to anything. Nothing was too dirty; nothing was too mean; nothing was too sordid if it would bring them votes. When the minister is complaining about the tactics of the Conservative party in Quebec let him try to improve the tactics of the Liberal party in British Columbia, and we may get somewhere.


Olof Hanson: Where did the Liberal party in British Columbia resort to the tactics to which the hon. member has referred? I should like to know that.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member lives in the far north; I believe he lives in the city of Prince Rupert, or somewhere in that vicinity, and at a point very difficult to reach and very difficult to get away from. Possibly the news has not yet reached Prince Rupert, but I have no doubt it will reach that point in due time. We are told the Minister of Justice was accused of being a communist and tearing down the steeples and walking on the crucifixes; I say to him that the very same accusations were made in the city of Vancouver. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeqr) who is not now in his seat was the saviour-that is, outside of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) -the man who saved the country singlehanded from the communists. He arrived here on a margin of six votes. His efforts reminded me of those of Horatius at the bridge.
But this time while there was one other man who would hold the bridge with the hon. member, they could not find three. However that did not prevent the Liberal party from helping the communists in Vancouver East.
I am told that the communist candidate in Vancouver East did not put in an account of his election expenses, and I understand his reason for refraining was, that the Liberal party had provided the funds and that it was up to them to put in the expense account.
Quebec is not the only province in Canada where racial questions are raised. A few days ago our representative at Geneva said he was glad to say that we did not have any minority problems in Canada. That is not true. We do have racial and minority questions. An article appearing in the Canadian Forum of December, 1935, and written by Professor H. F. Angus of the university of British Columbia is in point. So far as I know Professor Angus is not a .member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I believe, that he is a member of or adheres to the Liberal party. In any case I know he went into the province of Alberta either for or with the Liberal party in an attempt to stem the tide of Social Credit during the provincial election campaign. The article is headed Liberalism Stoops to Conquer. Although I am not going to weary the house with quotations, because I shall have something further to say on this point at another time, I shall quote what were indicated in British Columbia as being Liberal policies, and will ask the Liberal government here in Ottawa if they approve of what I shall indicate, and if they believe that that kind of thing is going to improve Canada's relations with the rest of the world. The article headed Liberalism Stoops to Conquer is in part as follows:
The sophisticated view that political parties are cynical conspiracies to capture or retain political power received some confirmation from the action of the Liberal candidates in British Columbia, who published large advertisements informing the electors that there were 50,000 Asiatics in the province and that the C.C.F. was pledged to extend the franchise to them. "A vote for any C.C.F. candidate is a vote to give the Chinaman and' the Japanese the same voting right that you have."
If a Chinaman or Japanese is a Canadian citizen, born in Canada, is it British justice or is it Liberalism that he be denied the same rights as we have, simply because the colour of his skin or the slant of his eyes may be different?


Olof Hanson: Do you mean that Chinese
from the orient should have the same rights as whites in Canada?
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis


Angus MacInnis: Absolutely-and not only Chinese and Japanese, but every man and woman to whom we extend the rights of citizenship. What do rights of citizenship mean if they do not imply the right to take part in the government of the country? These people are paying federal taxes, provincial taxes and municipal taxes. They were bom and are living in Canada. They have fought for this country, and I believe it is the British viewpoint that regardless of the colour of their skin or who their forebears or ancestors were they should be treated in Canada the same as every other Canadian citizen. But more of that later on.


Olof Hanson: Would my hon. friend be in favour of oriental immigration to Canada?


Angus MacInnis: That is not the question now. I have a resolution on the order paper dealing with that, and I shall discuss it then. But I am speaking now of the tactics of the Liberal party in raising racial prejudices in the province of British Columbia. When my friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who I believe is a good democrat in the best sense of the term, and believes I think in British justice and fair play, complains of the tactics of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, he should see to it that his own friends are not following the same kind of tactics in British Columbia or any other province. I quote again from the Liberal campaign advertisements:
A vote for any C.C.F. candidate is a vote to give the Chinaman and the Japanese the same voting right that you have.
The article goes on:
Against this enormity the Liberals undertook to protect the state.
Here is another quotation from the Liberal campaign literature:
. A vote for the Liberal candidate in your riding is a vote against oriental enfranchisement. The Liberal party is opposed to giving the orientals the vote.
Note that, sir-the Liberal party is opposed to giving the orientals the vote. That is the Liberal party sitting to-day on the other side of this house and up in the corner to your left, Mr. Speaker; the Liberal party which is the government of Canada at the moment. What a wonderful help such a statement will be in their negotiations with Japan to improve trade relations between the two countries.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 13, 1936