1937-02-17

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the name of Mr. Beaubien be substituted for that of Mr. Howard on the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, to amend the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The object of the bill is to call the attention of the country to the great loss of life through motor cars. It is not the same bill we had last year. It deals with many phases of the problem which are set out in the bill, copies of which will be available to-morrow.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Was the resignation of Mr. C. E. Blondin, postmaster of Pierreville, county of Yamaska, requested in October, 1934?
2.	If so, by whom, and for what reason?
.3. Upon what date did the Post Office Department decide to accept the resignation of Mr. Blondin as postmaster?
4.	For what reasons?
5.	Upon what date did the department decide to make a new nomination?
G. Was any person officially recommended to the department?
7.	Upon what date?
8.	What is the name of the person?
9.	When will the new appointee commence his duties?
10.	Is Mr. C. E. Blondin still in charge as postmaster ?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Yes.
2.	By inspector follotving the discovery of a shortage in the postmaster's accounts.
Questions

3.	October 22, 1936.
4.	For reasons referred to in No. 2.
5.	October 22, 1936.
6.	Yes.
7.	October 28, 1936.
8.	Edmond Desmarais.
9.	Matter under consideration.
10.	Yes.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PORTERS
Mr. PLAXTON:: 1.	How many porters, if any, are employed directly or indirectly by the Canadian National Railways and its subsidiary lines?
2.	How many porters, working on tile Canadian National Railways and its subsidiary lines, are American citizens?
3.	Does the United States government permit porters, working on the Canadian National Railways and its subsidiary lines and who are Canadian citizens, to work on trains which have entered the United States and are travelling therein ?
4.	Does the Canadian government permit porters, who are working on the United States railways and who are American citizens, to work on trains which have entered Canada and are travelling therein?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Two hundred and thirty-three porters are employed by tihe Canadian National Rail-
3.
Province
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick.. ..
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia....
ways and its subsidiary lines in sleeping and parlour car services operated on its lines in Canada or on international runs. Sleeping and parlour car porters in Pullman service are not included as they are employed and paid by the Pullman Company which furnishes equipment and crews for certain runs on a contract basis.
2.	Twenty-seven.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.


CRADE SEPARATION FUND
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What amount was voted for the grade separation fund in 1936?
2.	How much was spent?
3.	What proportion of it was spent in each province under the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	$2,235,228.58.
2.	Expenditure	 $ 209,359 81
Commitments made and
outstanding	 1,530,497 35

Expenditure	Commitments made and outstanding	Total$ 3.634 90	$ 9,482 50	.$ 13,117 408,476 06	165,153 08	173,629 1422,932 61	60.322 40	83.255 0160,431 23	284,864 52	345.295 7540,710 75	656.910 01	697,620 7640,030 27	59.969 73	100,000 009,097 10	156.246 41	165.343 5116,024 17	33,618 00	49.642 178.022 72	103,930 70	111,953 42$209,359 SI $1,530,497 35	$1,739,857 16


HAMILTON GAULT FUND
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is E. H. Scammell, secretary of the Pensions and National Health department, also administrator of the Hamilton Gault Fund?
2.	If so: (a) what is that fund; (b) what does it amount to; (c) to whom does-it belong, and (d) what is the purpose of it?
3.	Is Scammell the only administrator of that fund?
4.	If so, when and by whom was he appointed, and, if not, who are the other administrators?
5.	In the calendar years 1935 and 1936, were there: (a) any returned soldiers, and (b) any civilians who received money in any shape, way, or form, from that fund?

6.	If so, how many, (a) returned soldiers; (b) civilians; who were the civilians, and for what purpose did each one receive any money?
7.	Did a Lieutenant-Colonel Walker, of Ottawa, receive any money at different intervals from that fund, and if so, when and how much each time?
8.	Does he receive a pension? If so, how much?
9.	How many returned soldiers' requests for borrowing money from that fund were turned down in calendar years, (a) 1934; (b) 1935, and (c) 1936?
10.	Does the administrator or do the administrators receive anything for administrating that fund, and, if so, how much?

Questions


Mr. POWER:: 1.	No.
2.	No information.
3.	and 4. Answered by No. 1.
5,	6 and 7. No information.
8.	Information not available without further means of identification.
9.	and 10. No information.


RETIREMENT OP RADIO COMMISSIONERS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Upon what date were Mr. Hector Charles-worth, Lieutenant-Colonel Steel and Mr. Chauveau retired as radio commissioners?
2.	In addition to receiving their regular salaries to the above date, were they each granted a bonus, an extension of salary payments, or any kind of gratuity?
3.	If so, how much in each case?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	November 2, 1936.
2.	(a) Mr. Charlesworth was granted a retiring allowance of one year's salary ($10,000) payable in instalments over a period of two years.
(b)	Lieutenant-Colonel Steel-No.
(c)	Colonel Chauveau-No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RETIREMENT OP TRUSTEES
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Upon what date were ex-Judge Fullerton and his two colleagues retired as trustees of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	In addition to their regular salaries to the above date, did each one receive a bonus, an extension of salary payments, or any kind of gratuity?
3.	If so, what is the amount of the bonus, salary extension or indemnity paid or to be paid by the Canadian National Railways or by the government?


Mr. HOWE:: I.	September 30, 1936.
2 and 3. Honourable C. P. Fullerton, K.C., was given a remunerative payment of $30,000.
J.	E. Labelle, K.C., was given a remunerative payment of $1,500.


CANADIAN RADIO BROADCASTING COMMISSION
Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Have the services of Mr. Hector Charles-worth, Colonel C. A. Chauveau, K.C., and Lieutenant-Colonel W. Arthur Steel, M.C., members of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, been dispensed with?
2.	If so, when, how, and on what terms and conditions?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) November 2nd, 1936.
(b)	Positions automatically expired on the promulgation of the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936, under P.C. 2362, September 10th, 1936.
(c)	Mr. Charlesworth was granted a retiring allowance of one year's salary ($10,000), payable in instalments over a period of two years.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	When was the Canada Shipping Act proclaimed?
2.	What has been the effect of this act on freight rates, particularly on grain being exported from western Canada?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	1st August, 1936.
2.	No apparent effect.



BANK OF CANADA-ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	When will the second annual report of the Bank of Canada be available for distribution to members of parliament?
2.	Will such report be referred to the committee on banking and commerce?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	A certified copy of the auditors' statement of the accounts of the Bank of Canada for the year ended December 31, 1936, was tabled on January 25, 1937. If by annual report is meant the address by the governor of the Bank of Canada to the shareholders, it should be noted that the annual meeting will not be held until February 23rd, and arrangements have been made to make copies available shortly thereafter.
2.	Under consideration.



BRITISH TREASURY BILLS

Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	How much did the British government pay in interest on its treasury bills against which fifty millions of dominion notes were issued in 1917?
2.	In what manner and when was this issue of dominion notes redeemed?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. No interest was paid by the British government on its treasury bills against which notes were issued. They were held as collateral only. Interest at varying rates up to 5i per cent was paid on the credit opened in favour of the British government for the purchase of munitions and' other supplies financed by this issue of dominion notes.

Motions jor Papers
2. Dominion notes were redeemed in cash during the following years:
1922-	23	$10,000,0001923-	24	
8,600,0001924-	25	
16,965,0001925-	26	
14,435,000



DOMINION TREASURY BILLS

Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	How much money is now owing by the dominion under short term treasury bills?
2.	What is the average of interest payable on such indebtedness?
3.	What is the length of the period such treasury bills are drawn for?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	$150,000,000.
2.	-7566 per cent.
3.	Three months.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	What are the hours of labour of hospital orderlies in the Department of Defence and in the Department of Pensions in and about Winnipeg, Manitoba?
2.	What are the hours of labour of inspectors in the Department of Agriculture in and about the city of Winnipeg, Manitoba?


Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Do firemen in the Department of Defence at Winnipeg work a seven-day week of eight hours per day?
2.	How many firemen are employed in said department?
3.	Do any workmen in said department work a seven-day week of eight hours per day?
4.	What is the number of hours comprising a week's work for firemen in or about Winnipeg in the Department of Defence?


DOMINION COAL COMPANY-COAL SUBVENTIONS
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	What amounts were paid by the Dominion government to the Dominion Coal Company as bonuses for the manufacture of coke, and the manufacture of steel, for the following years: 1934, 1935, 1936?
2.	What amount was paid by the Dominion government in subventions to each province to assist in the movement of coal during the year 1936?
3.	What quantities of coal were moved in each province under these subventions?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. LALONDE:: For a return showing:
1. The complete list of the positions announced by the Civil Service Commission for
'Mr. Dunning.]
the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936.	,	,
2.	The complete list of candidates who have applied for these positions, (a) English-speaking; (b) French-speaking.
3.	The complete list of successful candidates for the positions announced.


Mr. RINFRET:: The information asked for by this motion is very comprehensive, and to prepare it would take considerable time and cost a good deal. I call attention especially to No. 2:
The complete list of candidates who have applied for these positions, (a) English-speaking; (b) French-speaking.
To make such a list would mean hundreds, in some cases thousands of names for each position; so that hon. members can imagine what it would mean if this informatoin were prepared with respect to all positions over a period of seven years. Other questions asked by the -motion are not matters of record and we would have to take a small census to get the information. I may say, however, that I have explained the situation to the hon. member and he has been kind enough to agree to let the order drop.
Motion dropped.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OFFICIALS-ALBERTA

Mr. FAIR:: For a return showing:
(a) Name; (b) headquarters address; (c) title; (d) salary; (e) travelling expenses, of all permanent and temporary officials, with headquarters in Alberta, employed or supervised by the Dominion Department of Agriculture or any of its branches, for the year 1936.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): As a matter of personal explanation and privilege, may I refer to page 945 of yesterday's Hansard, the first column. Speaking of honorary colonels and honorary lieutenant-colonels, I am reported as saying:
These men take advantage of their wealth in order to parade in a uniform which they were too cowardly to wear during the war.
Exceptions confirm the rule.


Thomas Langton Church: That, in the opinion of this house, constitutional, parliamentary, cabinet and law reform are long overdue in Canada;

Constitutional Reform-Mr. Church
That with a view of increasing the efficiency of parliament and of government in this country and also of considering the whole question of over-government and over-taxation and giving the people a more modern constitution adapted to the solution of Canada's present day problems, a survey and study should be made either by a select committee of this house or by a joint committee of both houses of parliament with a view of having a report presented to both houses of parliament for these very necessary reforms and for legislation accordingly, so as to increase the efficiency as well as the stability of government in Canada.
Any such suggestions as aforesaid to be subject to the existing rights of minorities which are not to be interfered with but preserved.
He said: The resolution which is before the house this afternoon is No. 1 on this year's order paper but I thought that private members' day was to be abolished. The resolution was on the order paper in the sessions of 1935 and 1936.
The efficiency of this parliament is one of the most important questions for the people of Canada. Politics is supposed to be one of the greatest sports in the world. This parliament is operating under rules which are antiquated, rules three hundred years old. Take the annual estimates; instead of following the practice which is common to municipalities and private business enterprises, under which heads of departments meet together as a central board and go over the estimates carefully, cutting them down where feasible, and, in the case of the municipality, striking a tax rate, what do we do? We simply hold a post mortem on matters eighteen months old. We get the auditor general's report within fifteen days after the opening of parliament, but what is in it? Nothing but a post mortem examination of expenditure made in a previous year. It took three hundred years of parliamentary strife to secure the freedom of parliament and control by parliament over the executive and over the expenditure of money, but here we meet and pass millions of dollars of taxation representing money which has all been spent beforehand. We should reform our own ways of doing business. Parliament is getting to be nothing but a rich man's game. We sit here anywhere from three to six months. One of the glories of the Victorian era was that in those days they built up assets for the future. To-day these assets are being squandered by parliament, and the country does not know about it. In those days the people kept the state; to-day we are getting into a situation where the state keeps the people.
I say that the estimates are brought down early in the session. Under the constitution if this house moves to reduce the estimates
by one dollar, and the motion carries, the ministry resigns. What an absurd procedure! Many men in this house come up here from the municipalities of Quebec and the other provinces, and are accustomed to municipal practice. We have to get some modern business methods in the government of this countiy. We know at the annual meetings of the banks and financial institutions they are complaining about Canada's lack of business methods. Over-government and overtaxation are the curses of this country. There never should have been any provincial legislatures; they were not in the minds of the fathers of confederation but were created by the fathers of confederation for political, not economic purposes, with the result that you have in this country to-day a state of affairs which is intolerable. You have nine provinces all dealing with purely local matters, and a tenth legislature here, the House of Commons and Senate of Canada. In Great Britain there are no provincial legislatures; a population of some forty-six millions is governed by one federal parliament and local government boards over the municipalities. They get speedy results, while we sit here doing nothing.
I have travelled a little on the trains during the past few weeks, and I find them filled with members of commissions-they call them now committees; the Minister of Agriculture had an advisory rehabilitation committee to spend $10,000,000 on prairies, now changed to many committees. A committee of one hundred will be nothing when the work gets going. They are usurping the functions of parliament, going over the head of this House of Commons. We pass various acts, and at the end you see a board or committee provided for and given power to make rules and regulations which have the force of law. They are imposing direct taxes on the people of the country, and the people are not able to pay them.
It is my desire to offer constructive criticism, not particularly of any government, but based on principles. I believe that next session a select committee should be appointed as proposed in this motion, as was done in the old country, where the reform of the House of Lords and many other reforms, were brought about peacefully and without revolution, with the result that today the mother country is recovering from the depression faster than any other country in the world, by reason of a balanced budget, tariffs, a sane and sensible housing scheme, and control over the budget. They are meeting the enemy at the gate-bolshevism, socialism, fascism and all the rest. Look at England
970	COMMONS
Constitutional Reform-Mr. Church
about eighteen months ago, with the black shirts, the red shirts and the shirts of many colours, so that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But in England to-day a cardinal principle is respect for the monarchy, respect for institutions. Sometimes as I listen to things said in this house I begin to wonder whether there are not some Canadians who are ready to praise every country in the world except their own. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we will have to reform our ways, for the burdens and restraints and artificial barriers we have placed on business make it hard for men to carry on.
I would suggest that estimates committees be set up. This is not a new proposal. Such committees exist in other lands to-day. In England they have a committee system, and they have had such committees in the United States for about fifty years. Instead of taking up to-morrow the estimates of the Department of National Revenue or the Department of Immigration and having a discussion of policy on the vote for salaries we would appoint a committee on estimates or perhaps two or three committees. The officials of the departments concerned could appear before those committees and give all the information required. This is the municipal system, the board of control system, and in this way we would have some central authority looking after our expenditures. The committee, on which all parties would be represented, might strike off half a million dollars here or a million dollars there, and it would not affect the fate of the government. Under our present system of responsible government the ministry falls if anything like that happens. Our system is three hundred years old; it is out of date.
We have a great deal of useless overgovernment and over-taxation in Canada. If many of these provincial governments were out of existence entirely I think it would be a good thing for the country. I believe we should adopt the British system and enlarge the powers of the municipalities. Judging from the way some of these provinces are going on, after a while there will be no municipal institutions left. The provinces are grabbing all the revenue that formerly was collected by the municipalities. At one time the income tax was the exclusive field of the municipalities. That was the case from confederation down to 1917, when this parliament invaded that field and imposed an income tax for war purposes, which constituted a duplicate income tax. Not satisfied with that, the governments of the provinces came

along and imposed a triple income tax, which surely is an absurdity.
These provinces receive direct subsidies from parliament under the British North America Act, and what are the subsidies given for? The terms of confederation state why they are given; they are to compensate the provinces for their inability to levy indirect taxation, and to maintain provincial and municipal institutions. Now the provinces want the power of indirect taxation, and if it had not been for the action of the other branch of this parliament a bill would have been passed which would have given the provinces power to invade almost all fields of municipal taxation. They would have added a tax on real estate, a tax on the municipal assessment, and, in addition, a duplicate sales tax. That bill was thrown out by the senate, because the interests of the people of Canada and the interests of good government and law and order demanded that this should be done.
It is my opinion that the municipal system should be substituted for our present system. Parliament should meet here for only about three months. Under our present system some of the committees set up do not meet at all; others elect chairmen and that is the last we hear of them for the year. We have altogether too many committees, but we are very badly in need of a legal committee. Reforms must come in the interests of national security. If we had a single parliament during which there was a socialist majority, Canada would be ruined. Whither is Canada drifting? Where are we heading? As I say, in a single parliament untold damage could be done; the state could be revolutionized against the will of the people, if the socialists had a clear majority here. I suggest that we should consider changing the rules of this game. Did you ever hear of a game that had the same rules for three hundred years? Instead of being here for about three months, which is all the time that should be required to transact the necessary business even during the very heaviest session, we are here sometimes for six months, and when we have fall sessions we are here practically the year round. This political game should not be a dead game; it should be up-to-date and modem, and the rules of the game should meet changed conditions.
I believe some measure of constitutional reform should be adopted which will prevent amateurs from periodically interfering with industry and agriculture in Canada. That has been the curse of this country for many years. Artificial burdens and restraints which

Constitutional Rejorm-Mr. Church
have been imposed upon business have prevented business from functioning normally. Parliament hardly ever meets without creating some additional restraint on business and trade. As a matter of fact parliament has become the chief enemy rather than the protector of liberty in this country. Nothing has been done to check the shocking death toll on the highways. We meet here and talk about many things, but the terrible death rate on our roads and highways is ignored, while in England the problem has been practically solved.
Constitutional reform is the only remedy for the meddling of amateurs with business that is going on to-day. Nothing is more essential than good, housing for the working classes and cooperation between the farmers and the consumers, but efforts to deal with these matters have failed. As a result the consumer has been placed at the mercy of the producer. You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that when our parliamentary system was started some three hundred years ago the basis was territorial representation, because that was an agricultural age. Parliament included representatives of the shires and towns and of the producers and distributors of agricultural products. Thus the producers and the consumers were brought together in parliament, not to regulate other people but to regulate their own affairs. The government cannot isolate itself from trade and commerce; if it did so it would' have to cease functioning. I believe our activities should be reorganized so that industry may become self governing within the constitution. The country is sick of politics as it is practised here; that has been stated by many leaders of industry. I wonder how many of the front benchers opposite would be returned to parliament if they had to be elected by a referendum. If a new government were to be elected by a plebiscite how many members of the present cabinet would be returned to office? The government should discharge the trust it received from the people back in 1935, and that is not being done at the present time. The people gave the government a mandate to bring about reforms, and if this is not done it will be all the worse for us. We should have a clear cut national policy and we should concentrate along national economic lines. If nothing is done by the present government I fear-though I hope it will not come about-that we may see an even greater drift in Canada towards socialism.
I should like to see something done along the lines of the action taken in England.
There the union between the forces of Baldwin and Chamberlain and the sane, sensible thoughtful trade union movement saved England last May. I should like to see something done along this line. In the early days of this country everybody owned some property-a farm, a little mill, or something else. We have been slow to see how the rights of property have been taken away in Canada by big business; the old system has passed away, and a very large majority of the people are just proletarians. In the days of Sir John A. Macdonald it was very different. In this house we are behind1 the times, and unless we wake up and reform our house from within it will be reformed1 from without. So far as my knowledge goes, none of the great reforms that have marked the history of England since 1800 originated within parliament; every one began outside. The same is true of this house: all our great reforms, except those which were initiated two years ago by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), began outside the house. Reform was not enacted into law, either in Canada or in England, until parliaments were driven to do something. Look at the mother country : parliamentary reform did not start in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, but outside those houses. The abolition of the slave trade, the abolition of the corn laws, prison reform, colonial reform, Catholic emancipation, and the reform of the franchise-all these started outside parliament.
The government cannot isolate itself any longer from trade and commerce; if it does, so much the worse for the people. To-day the world is in a state where liberty has been contracted:. We must be on guard as a people, recognizing the extent to which liberty has been contracted, not only in Europe but the world over, until there are left to-day very few parliaments. Even in this country there is little freedom in the press, in the pulpit, in the legislatures, or in the universities. In former times the state was the defender of the people. Where are we today? A couple of sessions ago there was a newspaper identity bill before this house which raised the issue of who owns the newspapers. Many honest country weekly old type newspapers in this country have been driven to the wall because of the economic conditions I described a few moments ago; there have been others merged into unions of papers. Where there used to be two papers independently owned, in the larger cities we now find them controlled by the same interests, and in these newspapers a page and a half is devoted to the turf and

Constitutional Reform-Mr. Church
pages to professional sport as against about a column and a half devoted to parliament once in a while. In one paper to-day may be seen a list of 245 horses now racing, a number equal to the number of members of the House of Commons. I never in my life saw such names; if any hon. member has not a horse named after him let him apply to the paper in question. That is the direction in which the fourth estate in this country is heading, and the lack of attention the press give to government by the people. In no small measure it is due to the attitude of parliament itself, confronted with issues such as the great number of people out of work, and other important social problems. Today the press are paying little or no attention to the proceedings of this house; in fact if I read some papers I should not know that parliament was even meeting apart from the fact that I am required to attend it.
The other day I was in a little Anglican church called Holy Trinity. It is surrounded by towering factories, and at its noon Lenten service is filled with white-collar workers and girls from the factories. The choir consists of splendid men, a few of them are even out of work. As I say, the service attracts a number of white-collar workers; girls who have little money to buy lunch will refresh themselves with a five or ten cent meal and afterwards go into the church. The other day I heard them sing that well know Lenten hymn:
Take up thy cross, the Saviour said,
If thou wouldst My disciple be;
Deny thyself, the world forsake,
And humbly follow after Me.
After that hymn was announced, one of those white-collar workers said to me, "What are you going to do in parliament?" Others after the service asked me to do what I could for the poor white-collar workers who are being driven out of the land1 by the decisions of the law courts, while we sit in the high court of parliament and do nothing. One of the cardinal principles of the British constitution is that the courts are subservient to the legislature. To-day in Canada we find parliament with nothing to do, its powers taken away from it and given to committees and commissions of all kinds. Where are the principles of magna charta? With liberty contracted in every direction, is there such a thing in Canada to-day as magna charta? In the last two or three years, at any rate, I have been unable to find it. It will be remembered that when magna charta was adopted it embodied in many forms the spirit of liberty. One provision was that:
No free man shall be arrested or detained in prison or outlawed or banished or brought to ruin, nor shall we set forth against him nor
[Mr. Church.)
send against him, save by the judgment of his peers and in accordance with the law of the land.
And again:
No scutage or aid shall be imposed save by the common council of the realm.
"No taxation without representation." Is that the law in Canada to-day? No. We have appointed numerous outside bodies that are imposing taxation. It was in defence of that principle of no taxation without representation that the American colonies commenced their struggle with the British government. Yet under universal suffrage we see magna charta restricted, if not abolished, and almost kingly powers conferred upon magistrates in connection, for instance, with the restricting of bail. Thousands of people in Canada are in prison for debt. While such things are going on, liberty is a meaningless thing. Look at the penalties that are being handed out to juveniles fifteen and twenty years of age at a place called Guelph not authorized by law or the criminal code. Where is the spirit of magna charta to-day as regards trial by jury? What substitute have we? In many of the leading cities, the substitute for trial by jury is trial by newspaper. From the way some newspapers are allowed to carry on, trial by jury has become a farce; and when an appeal is made for law reform this parliament has not one member who will rise to say a word in favour of such reform.
All the great landmarks of our constitutional history, beginning with magna charta, going on to the Declaration of Rights, the Petition of Rights, and the Statute of Westminster, were founded on one principle; they were simply the reassertion of the principle of the subjection of the executive and of its members to the law of the land. It was the strength of the barons that made magna charta possible; a police force, so to speak, not to be used unless necessary, which gave us the liberty of our whole constitutional system. To-day that liberty is contracted. To-day the Canadian working man is at the mercy of arbitrary social conditions beyond his control. A century ago reform of the franchise secured the liberty of trade and industry for the mercantile and industrial middle classes. Later it was extended to wage earners; then women were given the franchise and their aid enlisted in the betterment of social conditions. We cannot afford any longer to sit still here and take no notice of what is going on in Canada. The danger to our freedom is greater from within Canada, than from without.
What is Canada's answer to all this? What is the answer of the House of Commons?

Constitutional Reform-Mr. Church
First, we should set our own place in order, overhaul the British North America Act, revise our parliamentary system, our constitutional system, our cabinet system, reform our house of parliament and increase its efficiency; above all, reform our social and economic life so that it will stand as a bulwark against the clamour and agitation of those forces which now find in our dominion so much scope for their work. We should adopt some system of Christian socialism for the workers of this country, the white-collar employees, the artisans and the farmers. A system of Christian socialism was brought in a hundred years ago by the industrial revolution. A similar movement brought about the evangelic and Oxford movements. There were great social reforms brought about in England a hundred years ago and similar reforms have been long overdue in Canada.
We must strive for freedom from within. We must be ever on our guard. Freedom from without will be taken care of by those who prize it even unto death. It was the armed strength of the barons which made magna charta possible, and it is the armed strength of the British Empire which will ensure the freedom of the British people. History shows that disarmament is impossible in a world where intolerance is so rampant. The disarmament of the free is the tyrant's chance now as in the days of King John.
We have been sitting here for many sessions talking about everything and doing nothing. Whenever reform has been mentioned we have been faced with that comedy of errors known as the British North America Act. As I said a few years ago in another debate this act is a relic of days long gone by. The workers of this country have been made to suffer great hardship because of the British North America Act, because back in 1867, certain wise men, whose vision was poor, loaded the provincial system on to the federal government. This is entirely opposite to the system which prevails in England and the United States. In 1867 there were no joint stock companies, there were no telephones, there were no power developments, no N.R.A., no eight hour day, and many of the great discoveries in science and medicine had not been thought of. The authors of the British North America Act did not play squash or badminton and they left us this relic as a result.
A lot of provincial legislatures were created. These are all spending money and the result is over-taxation. These provinces are nothing but a lot of Balkan states fighting among themselves, and the taxpayer is made to pay. The shortsightedness of this act of 1867 should
not be allowed to continue any longer because it has brought about in Canada the creation of a state equivalent to slavery among our men, women and children. Our workers are living in nothing less than hovels; they are being forced to exist in a state of slavery. Yet we sit here as a parliament and do nothing. On April 1 of last year I made the following statement in this house:
I would like to say a word or two in relation to industrial employment, because I want to contrast with the precepts of Christianity the way the industrial workers are used. Contrast our professions with the ruthless competition, the cruelty and vice of present day business and industry. Here personality counts as nothing, the dollar is all supreme. Modern life is machine life, soulless, a life of standardization, high speed production, a highly efficient organization for the making of profit. Everything is done in the mass, and life is made uniform, monotonous and artificial. Dividends are the chief objective; to get dividends human beings are sacrificed. Wages are shockingly low, often below the level of mere subsistence, so that people are forced into immoral and criminal ways of life to eke out a precarious livelihood. The maximum in hours of work is exacted in return for the minimum in wages. Senior employees, whose lifeblood has been drawn from them by long years of faithful service, are in many cases cast out without retiring allowance to make room for younger and cheaper people. It matters not what suffering is entailed for human beings so long as the stockholders are paid their dividends. This amazing selfishness and shortsightedness of the modern industrial system is creating a progressively lower standard of living and a vicious struggle for existence philosophy on the part of the people, increasingly serious social problems which must find their tragic solution either in war or in revolution. In the face of modern methods of competitive living the royal law of love, bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ, is a hollow mockery in Canada, presumably a Christian country. This is the contradiction of modern life; a truly wonderful appreciation of the value of the single soul in some quarters, but an absolute denial of any such value in others.
At that time I was speaking on the National Employment Commission. We are now into another session and nothing has been done. Edmund Burke once said that government is supposed to be a practicable thing, and not a thing to please the schemes of ordinary politicians. Is that so of this country? It is not. We have appointed a lot of commissions, but nothing has been done. My opinion is that the senate could be made a much more useful institution than it is. Last year it did a good work in throwing out legislation for indirect taxation. The senate should consist of the lords of mind and intellect in this country and it should have increased powers. Look at what the senate of the United States did for the people of that country. They exposed the absolute rottenness
974	COMMONS
Constitutional Reform-Mr. Church
of the financial institutions of Wall street and various institutions throughout the country. Has the Canadian senate ever done anything like that? No. The senate should have increased powers; under a new constitution it could be more useful.
Under the existing party system there is no security against further taxation. Parliamentary reform should do two things. It should define how far a money bill which may ruin the taxpayers of this country may go, and it should devise machinery to save the country from revolutionary socialistic acts on the part of any government. Reforms of a certain nature should not become law unless the people have given their assent at the polls. I am not criticizing the Canadian senate, because I believe its membership includes a few of the brightest minds of the country. If we sometimes handled our business here as well as they handle theirs, there would not be much room for complaint. They should have the power to refer back any matter of an extremely controversial nature, and the people should have a chance to give their assent to certain reform measures.
The senate should be representative of all sections of Canada and should be composed of the best minds in science, the learned professions, the employers of labour, the trades unions and the cooperative societies. Such a body would command the respect of the people of Canada. Look at what the senate of the United States did for the people of that country. Governor Couzens' senate committee sat in Washington in 1927 to deal with unemployment problems. The report of that committee was available in 1930 and when the depression came they coped with it. The senate of Canada should have done something about this great problem.
In conclusion I should like to say a word or two about law reform. A learned Scotsman told the law society at Osgoode Hall in Toronto a year ago that the lawyers have to clean up the messes made by the politicians. I commend those words to the government. Law reform has become a meaningless thing in this country. Our gaols are filled with young people whose only crime is that they cannot get a job. It is predicted that in England in fifteen years there will not be any prisons left, owing to the law reforms they have brought and are bringing into effect in the old land. What are we doing? We sit around and do nothing. We refer matters to the supreme court and the privy council, and then refer them all back again. We send to the supreme court and the privy council a lot of abstract questions about the new deal legislation of 1935, instead of submitting

concrete cases to the courts. England has had a system of unemployment insurance ever since 1900, but we are still talking about it. We have to wait to hear from the law officers, and before we hear from them probably the workers now living who would benefit from unemployment insurance will be dead.
There are several reforms that need to be made. There is trial by jury, for instance. The Minister of Justice and the leader of the opposition are benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and must be interested in these questions. As was said before the law society last year, the lawyers have to clean up the mess which the politicians made, and it will be a big job for the lawyers when this parliament gets through talking about the new deal legislation. The new deal in this country^ was all right, if only hon. gentlemen opposite when they were sitting over here had given the new deal a chance, instead of injecting doubts and throwing buckets of cold water over it. They would have given it a chance if they had had any desire to help the working people of this country.
I have in my hand a copy of another act which is helping to clean out the prisons in England, the Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Act, 1935. This act gives poor people time to pay the fines that are imposed. My bill last year was rejected by the Justice department, and I think, Mr. Speaker, we shall have to change the name of that department to the department of injustice, because people can still be imprisoned for debt in this country. It is no wonder that with such acts as this Money Payments Act and others which they have in England the prisons over there are being cleaned out. They have an up-to-date system, and have made many law reforms.
Talk about the new despotism! We have imprisonment for debt in this country, bail refused in trivial cases, and so forth. The whole system is a relic of the middle ages. No wonder it was stated at page 9 of the housing report of 1935:
Slums are a heavy indirect charge on the community. It is estimated by the bureau of statistics that crime costs us in Canada $60,000,000 per year, taking into consideration the lost time of those in our criminal institutions. The Department of Health estimates that public health costs us, including all phases such as medical fees, hospitalization, etc., $20,000,000 per year. These figures would be substantially reduced by the elimination of overcrowding and bad housing.
And, I might add, by urgently needed law reforms.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman's time has expired.

Constitutional Rejorm-Mr. MacNicol


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support in a general way what I believe to be the objective of the motion moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), I propose to confine my remarks chiefly to the effect which the present very high cost of government in Canada has on business, and through business, on employment in industry and in business. The hon. member in his motion refers to overgovernment and overtaxation, both of which we have in Canada, and both of which in my humble opinion, which I shall attempt to back up with facts, have had and do now have a very serious effect on employment.
I am pleased particularly with that part of the hon. gentleman's motion in which he suggests the appointment of a select committee of this house or of a joint committee of both houses of parliament to consider the subject matter of this resolution. I am glad that he suggested a committee, and not a commission, because this country has at present sixty commissions, if not more, the majority of which are overstaffed and overpaid, and the great majority of which are costly millstones on business in this country, and through business on employment. I am convinced, as the hon. member has said, that the members of this house and of the senate should do a lot of the work which is now being done by these sixty or more commissions that have been inflicted on the country.
A word or two on the cost of government in Canada. We have ten parliaments; we have a council in the Yukon; we have one senate, and I believe we have one legislative council. There are approximately 884 legislators of one kind or another, 764 of whom are elected and 120 appointed. If one looks into the administrative structure of the very large institutions in the United States, infinitely larger than anything we have in Canada, handling far more money than does the government of this country, and having many, many thousands of employees, I do not know of a single instance-and I have looked into the structure of many of them-where they have such an enormous and costly staff as this country has, including members of this parliament and the legislatures, to run our business. I am convinced that the cost of government in Canada could be very materially cut down.
I read a few days ago-and I confirmed it to-day-a statement issued by our own bureau of statistics, that the debt of Canada and of its provinces and municipalities, direct and indirect, but not -including the indirect debt of the municipalities, now totals almost seven
billions of dollars. This is an enormous debt for eleven millions of people to carry. It is a staggering millstone on production in this country, and is one of the major reasons why industry has slowed up. It is one of the major reasons why so many industries which I knew but which are not now in operation, have been compelled to close their doors.
I think the hon. member for Broadview was correct when he said that the provincial governments are doing or attempting to do much work which this parliament should do, and which is only interfered with by the legislatures. Just how that can be remedied I do not know, but perhaps a joint committee of this house and the senate, in association perhaps with a committee from the provincial legislatures, could bring about reforms along that line.
The bureau of statistics -tells me that the provincial debts of the nine provinces are very close to $1,700,000,000, and that they are ninety-nine per cent higher than they were ten years ago. This is something for business men to stop -and consider because we cannot go on in the way we are going. It imposes too overwhelming a coat on industry, and through industry on employment. That is what I am mostly concerned -about. All my working days I have been studying the question of employment, and I know that every cost of this kind which is -added to industry reduces employment. When we come to the third branch of government in this country, the municipalities, I find that the 4,200 municipalities in Canada also have a debt amounting to about a billion and a half. To try to carry on under the triple burden of federal, provincial and municipal .taxes, industry and business are faced with a very difficult task. Business in Canada has had inflicted upon it taxes which it is now almost impossible to bear, and I will mention a few of these taxes. I say they have been " inflicted " upon business, and I think that is the right word. Perhaps some of them are absolutely necessary, perhaps most of them are; but at any rate they have been inflicted to a large extent upon employment itself. For instance, we have the sales tax, the excise tax, the income tax, the stamp tax, the tax on cheques, the business profits tax, a small one in connection with the radio, the corporation tax, the municipal business tax, the tax on capital, taxes on gross revenue, taxes on branches of industry. If a company has its head office in Montreal and branch offices in cities throughout Canada additional taxes are inflicted upon these branches, notwithstanding that they give employment. Then we have other t-axes-the poll tax, the property tax,
976	COMMONS
Constitutional Reform-Mr. MacNicol
the gasoline tax, the picture show tax, soft drink and hard drink taxes and a hundred and one varieties of other taxes and licences.
A considerable number of these taxes are either duplicated or, as sometimes happens, levied from three directions. Take for instance the income tax. In Ontario we had a municipal income tax and a federal income tax, and now the province itself has taken the right to inflict an income tax on the people of Ontario. The gasoline tax is imposed in Canada in at least two ways and in the United States sometimes in three ways. If there are three gasoline taxes in the United States it will not be very long, if that tax is not now collected in Canada by three different taxing bodies, before every gasoline user will be compelled to pay taxes three times on his gasoline. When I was in the state of Mississippi last summer I had to pay a state tax of six cents on gasoline, a municipal tax of two cents and a federal tax of one cent. I do not know how many other states have it three ways, but every state in the American union has it two ways, federal and state.
All these taxes, whether we like them or not, do add to the cost of production, as every industrialist knows if he has trucks, and cars for his selling agents. Every one knows that these taxes add to the cost of production.
I was struck by an editorial that appeared in the Kingston Whig-Standard1 some time ago. This is an old, reliable newspaper, a supporter, I believe of the government of the day, and some fine editorials appear in it. It is a famous newspaper going back very many years, and the editorial in question, with which I very largely agree, refers to the present government of Ontario, though what it says is applicable to many other provincial governments. For my part I do not want to apply it to the present federal government. However, this is what it says:
We do not mean to reflect upon the capabilities of the members of the government, but not one of them has to-day any actual business connection, so far as we are aware, nor has any one of them had the difficult task of piloting a business through the depression and endeavouring to keep men at work. The government is composed of two doctors, four lawyers, one engineer and three farmers. Naturally, when any matter comes up affecting manufacturing, or wholesale or retail business, or even the capitalists of the province who finance business, there is no one to put forth their side of the question.
As I say, I do not wish to refer to the present government, nor in what I am saying have I any reference to the previous government ; but apart from those two I am convinced that it may be said quite truthfully of all governments in Canada that they have

had far too few business men in administration. I am not suggesting that a high class lawyer like my hon. friend from Middlesex West (Mr. Elliott), who is looking at me, knows nothing about business, but I would ask him to say whether he has been engaged practically in giving employment to five hundred or a thousand men in his time. What I say is that the man who provides employment, who is associated with the strenuous business life of the country, who is buying and selling and processing material and having it distributed throughout the country, always anxious to see that it gives satisfaction, is the type of man we too seldom find in the government of the country.


Ernest Lapointe: When he gets into trouble he goes to his lawyer.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And many a time his lawyer has misdirected him, as I have seen.


Ernest Lapointe: But he keeps on going.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am not one of those who believe that lawyers are infallible, because, as I have observed too frequently, if you go to five different lawyers they will give you five different kinds of advice. What the Whig-Standard says with regard to government I endorse, and that is not making any reflection on any hon. member.
Before I conclude I want to show exactly what has been the result of the high cost of government and the intolerable tax burden that has been imposed by government on business; and so as not to mention any Canadian business concerns, many of which have been forced out of business, I will refer to one that interested me intensely last summer-the Amoskeag concern, one of the greatest textile manufacturing companies in the United States. That company had been operating 700,000 spindles. It had 20,000 looms and its 22,000 employees-that was the maximum number-turned out in five days enough cloth to go around this world, a length of 25,000 miles. To-day that business is closed, and the closing was due among other things to the cost of government. This was the statement of the board of directors to a commission sent to investigate. The plant is situated on the Merrimac river in the state of New Hampshire. It had ample power, not unduly expensive, but during the last two or three years the A.A.A. set up by the United States government took out of that concern for processing tax close to 13,000,000. When they closed they had, I believe, over 12.000 employees; the number had been reduced from the high point, but even 12,000 is a large

Constitutional Reform-Mr. MacNicol
number. This industry was the mainstay of that fine city of Manchester and one of the great business enterprises in New Hampshire. The commission reported that the high taxes were an important factor in the inability of the plant to operate at a profit. It is so easy to inflict taxes on industry. People who know nothing about giving employment to hundreds or thousands of men, and the tremendous difficulty of keeping them employed, are ready to pile up taxes on industries. I am not defending the industry that exploits people, as some do; the great majority of industries do not, but unfortunately all suffer because of one that does not play the game. I have often wondered why the government cannot take care of the industrialist who does not play the game. In my opinion the government can, but why should all industry be attacked because one offends?
The commission recommended the repeal of the stock in trade tax and easing of local taxation, especially on buildings not now in productive use. There is a point; a plant may have a dozen buildings, several of them perhaps not in use for one reason or another, perhaps not fit for operation; yet the tax is imposed on the whole plant whereas it should be imposed only on the part that is actually operating and giving employment. The commission found that the federal processing tax imposed by the A.A.A. under the cotton control scheme wrought serious injury. The tax amounted to $2,500,000 in two years. The commission recommended the reduction of local and state taxation and insisted on the necessity of economies in state and local government.
After all, the purpose of government, and the object of all who really love their country, should be to provide employment, in either the primary or the secondary industries. In Canada I believe about a million men and women are engaged in the secondary industries, processing what has been produced by the primary industries. Any legislation or taxation which interferes with industry reduces employment, and that cannot be beneficial to the country. Employment is the major problem of any government. Later on, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) brings in his report about employment, we shall have a lot more to say in that regard. But it is the purpose of government to promote and ensure the employment of the people. Every man or woman has an inherent right to employment, and that which obstructs employment is not good for any country. In Canada the high cost of government tends to restrict opportunities of employment for our artisans. That great plant of which I have spoken is
much larger than any I have in mind in this dominion; it stretches for several miles up and down both sides of the Merrimac river, in many cases two or three rows of fine buildings, standing vacant, a warning to all those who seek to provide employment.
In this country to a smaller, but still too large a degree, the high cost of government is a serious menace to employment. We have at the present time certain commissions investigating industry in this country. I am not opposed to investigating industries which have been found wanting in honour and lacking in due sense of responsibility to the people, but I am opposed to the practice of withdrawing executives from their offices in large numbers, particularly in times of depression, when they should be diligently, occupied in seeking ways to provide more employment. I am opposed to these constant demands on the executives of industry. I know what it is to be taken away from an office for two or three weeks at a time to answer a lot of silly questions. Sometimes, perhaps in order to find out something, questions that seem silly have to be asked, but to me at any rate many of the questions asked of these men are silly and in many instances work hardship on men who are trying to make business grow and to give employment. In all too many instances these men drop dead in their offices or die from overexertion on returning home. More care should be exer cised on the part of the government aboui asking those who direct business to come to Ottawa for these investigations. The executives responsible for operating a plant should not be disturbed more than is absolutely necessary, for to disturb the executives disturbs employment in some measure at least.
One word in regard to the cost of municipal government. As one goes around our big cities to-day, Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and elsewhere, one sees wreckers pulling down fine buildings. I have in mind one in Toronto, on one of the main streets of the city, close to a main corner, pulled down not long ago. I inquired why it was being pulled down and was told by those who knew, that it cost too much to keep it standing, the taxes were too high. It had been vacant for a short time, and by pulling the building down they had to pay taxes on the land only. That seems to me a mistaken policy. I cannot see how the national wealth can be increased by destroying such buildings. There should be some way by which municipalities could lower the taxes on unoccupied buildings. This is just one more way by which cost of pro-

97S	COMMONS
Constitutional Reform-Mr. Lapointe
duction is increased, and every unnecessary cost added to production adds to unemployment. I do not want anyone to think I am stretching that in any manner. Someone may say a tariff adds to the cost of production.


Mr. GOLDING:: Hear, hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: An hon. member says, "Hear, hear." Very good, but in my time I saw a plant grow under the tariff from a personnel of thirty-seven to a total of nine hundred and twenty-five. That plant was a child of the tariff, one might say. The purpose of a tariff is not to increase the cost in a general way, and the government should regulate the tariff in order to prevent anyone from using it to exploit the people. It would be along that line that I would work if I had anything to do with the formation of tariffs. My sole purpose would be this: if a tariff would give employment by encouraging production in this country I would impose a tariff, but on the other hand I would take strong and vigorous measures to prevent the use of that tariff for the exploitation of the people.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the activities of the
hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) are very diversified, and this is a sort of omnibus resolution which embraces many different subjects. I am sorry I cannot support the resolution, because I have always had a great liking for my good friend, and especially have I had a high opinion of his judgment since I saw him cheering the Quebec hockey team here in Ottawa last week. I should like to read the resolution, in order to show its wide scope and what would be involved if it were adopted:
That, in the opinion of this house, constitutional, parliamentary, cabinet and law reform are long overdue in Canada-
That sentence is less than three lines in length, but it includes almost everything.
That with a view of increasing the efficiency of parliament and of government in this country and also of considering the whole question of over-government and over-taxation and giving the people a more modern constitution adapted to the solution of Canada's present day problems, a survey and study should be made either by a select committee of this house or by a joint committee of both houses of parliament with a view of having a report presented to both houses of parliament for these very necessary reforms and for legislation accordingly, so as to increase the efficiency as well as the stability of government in Canada.
Any such suggestions as aforesaid to be subject to the existing rights of minorities which are not to be interfered with but preserved.

The resolution, which is expressed in such sweeping, general terms, is not very easy to comprehend or to discuss adequately in all its implications and objects. The scope of the resolution is extremely wide, and it may be said with some truth that if this House of Commons set up a committee to consider all the things mentioned in the resolution it would be an investigation of a formidable character. It is obvious that to achieve the purpose of the resolution the constitution would have to be altered substantially; the British North America Act would have to be radically amended, particularly in regard to the matters in which all the provinces are interested, and such changes could not be attempted without at least some degree of consultation and agreement with the provinces concerned.
As to the various topics suggested by the resolution, I shall say only a word or two with regard to each.
The question of constitutional reform was debated in this house the other day on a resolution moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who also suggested the setting up of a committee to consider amendments to the British North America Act. Possibly this part of the resolution might have been stated to be out of order, because it deals with a matter already dealt with in a former debate; perhaps, therefore, I need not repeat what I stated when the resolution of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was under consideration. May I say merely that this subject has been considered by a dominion-provincial conference, by a committee of that conference and by a committee of experts which drafted the amendments which ought to be made and which even drafted a bill to be submitted to the imperial parliament for the purpose of giving Canada the right to amend the British North America Act. That work is not yet concluded.
With regard to financial questions a subconference was set up under the chairmanship of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). That was done last year, and it was agreed that an attempt should be made through an amendment to the British North America Act to define clearly the right of the provincial authorities to levy particular taxes and to remove any legal doubts as to certain forms of taxes of which the provinces desired to avail themselves. In pursuance of this recommendation of the subconference, which recommendation was accepted and supported by the various provincial governments as

Constitutional Rejorm-Mr. Lapointe
well as by the dominion government, last year a resolution was introduced into parliament providing for the adoption of an address to His Majesty to amend the British North America Act by way of an enactment of the imperial parliament, in the first place to widen the field of taxation available to the provinces by extending their legislative jurisdiction to include certain forms of indirect taxation, and, in the second place, to facilitate the granting of guarantees to provinces that could not finance without such guarantees. That resolution was adopted by this house but was amended by another house and failed of adoption there mainly on the ground that the proposal to confer on the provinces certain powers with regard to indirect taxation would disrupt the fundamental scheme of the British North America Act. The Prime Minister yesterday made an announcement that a royal commission would be appointed for the purpose of going into this whole matter of taxation between the dominion government and the provincial governments in order that any necessary financial adjustment might be made to enable the provincial legislatures to administer the matters entrusted to them under the British North America Act.
As to parliamentary reform, I do not conceive clearly what my hon. friend has in mind in this regard. If it is change in the representation in parliament, this is a very difficult matter which should not be part of a general resolution of the kind now proposed. If it is a change in the representation in the senate, or the substitution of an elective or partly elective senate for the present one, I might agree with my hon. friend, but he has not mentioned what scheme he would support. I do not know whether I myself could support it, but there might be improvements to be made in the light of the circumstances as they have been since 1867. Does he intend merely to alter the procedure in the House of Commons? He spoke about a committee on the estimates. Such a committee has been proposed many times in this house, but private members do not like the idea that they should be deprived to some extent of the opportunity of saying what they have to say on any items of the budget by letting a committee of their colleagues deal with those matters. I think there would be many reasons in favour of the creation of such a committee, but apparently the suggestion has never met the favour of the majority of this house, let alone unanimity, when it has been discussed.
My hon friend is certainly wrong when he says that this parliament is not a chamber 31111-621
of liberty but is killing liberty. I do not believe that there is anywhere in the world a freer parliament than the parliament of Canada. We have not even the restrictions which free houses such as the British parliament and the United States congress have imposed upon themselves, by way for example, of the "guillotine" and the restriction to one or two days of the discussion of various matters. Here we have perfect freedom. If my hon. friend has anything to complain about, it is not that there is no such liberty; it is perhaps that there is too much. It is certain that this parliament has not killed liberty. I need only refer to the proceedings of the last few days on the motion with regard to military expenditure. May I tell my hon. friends that if such speeches were made, or even if such motions were proposed, in some of the old parliaments in Europe or elsewhere at this time, those who made them would be in gaol instead of listening to me. No; as far as liberty and freedom are concerned we have them in Canada, and we should strive to maintain those privileges rather than express complaints which are certainly unjustified.
As to cabinet reform, there again I fail to understand what the hon. member has in view, because he has not expressed it. Perhaps cabinet reform would mean the change of the present ministers by substitution of others.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: I observe that my good friend from Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) applauds this sentiment, but he is not serious about it. Cabinet reform-is it the number of ministers? Well, the number has been reduced1 from twenty-one to sixteen, and, knowing what I do know of the amount of work that has to be done, I do not think it is possible to reduce it further. It is all very well to say that the United States have fewer ministers than Canada has, but they do not do anything else but look after their respective departments. They do not sit in congress or in the senate; they do not participate in legislative work; they are only administrators of their own departments, whereas ministers here have to attend the sittings of the house and committees and to look after all sorts of additional work. In the absence of any suggestion in regard to cabinet reform, I fail to see what can be done in that regard.
As for law reform, there again what the hon. member has in view is not apparent. Law reform, like parliamentary reform, embraces a great variety of proposals. Does he suggest the amendment or repeal of certain federal statutes, or bringing them into harmony with
9S0	COMMONS
Constitutional Reform-Mr. Lapointe
provincial laws? I do not know. What I do know is that after the last dominion-provincial conference a committee of dominion and provincial officials was convened1 in Ottawa to consider the Dominion Companies Act, and they have succeeded in securing a basis of proposals to the various governing bodies which would make uniform throughout the dominion laws dealing with companies.
As to other questions-and there are many- regarding government and over-government, there again I sympathize with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). There are in Canada many parliaments, but it is the result of overruling circumstances; for without the provincial governments having been retained and maintained it would have 'been impossible to reach agreement on any scheme of confederation; we should not have been able to form a national government in Canada. Possibly it would be in the financial interests of at least some sections of the country if two or three provinces were united into one, but that is their own business, and it would be not only futile but an impertinence on the part of any committee of this house to study the question as to the organization of the provinces.
As to overtaxation, this is a matter which has engaged the attention-


Mr. BENNETT:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: -of the dominion government, and I see that it is engaging the attention of my right hon. friend. One of the questions considered by the subconference on financial questions of the dominion-provincial conference of 1935 was " duplication of taxation and possible reallocation of tax sources as between the dominion and the provinces." A discussion of the evils of duplicate taxation in Canada and of the relative jurisdiction of the dominion and the provinces in the field of taxation resulted in the detailed consideration by the suboonference of the following suggestions:
1. That the dominion should abandon the field of income taxation, leaving this field solely to the provinces.
2.	That the dominion should continue to impose a sales tax but should turn over to the provinces all or part of the proceeds of this tax earmarked for unemployment relief.
3. That the dominion should upon request of any province assume responsibility for the collection of the provincial tax on individual incomes; the dominion to collect the tax for the provinces on the basis of rates fixed by the provinces and to remit such taxes to the provinces.
i. That a study should be made of the possibility of unified collection by the dominion of succession duties, the dominion either to remit the proceeds to the provinces or to retain them as a source of revenue in exchange for

either the transfer of other tax sources to the provinces or the assumption of governmental services now performed by the provinces.
There was a diversity of view in all (these matters and no agreement was reached respecting the proposal to transfer tax sources from one authority (to another. But there was general agreement that where both dominion and provincial authorities imposed the same type of tax, cooperation in the administrative field should be worked out in order to reduce unnecessary cost and inconvenience to the taxpayer and to produce increased revenue to governments.
Following the dominion-provincial conference of 1935, an arrangement was concluded between the dominion and the province of Ontario for the administration and collection of income tax on behalf of that province. The Ontario income tax is now being administered by the income tax division of the Department of National Revenue. A considerable economy in respect to cost of administration is being effected, and the inconvenience to the taxpayer, who is required to make out only one form, is reduced to the minimum.
I have referred already to some of the remarks made by the hon. member. He complains that in connection with parliamentary reform we have been talking too much since the opening of the session and not doing enough. I suppose he excepts himself from that indictment. He must realize that it is pretty hard to restrict the freedom of members who have or think they have something important to tell the house and the country. My hon. friend also says that there is no freedom of the press. I cannot see that. He says there is no freedom in the legislatures and no freedom in our pulpits. Why say that? We are free in Canada to say what we want to say in our legislatures and in our pulpits. The hon. member complains about newspapers giving only one column to parliamentary matters while they give three columns to the discussion of turf matters. I fail to see what a committee of this house could do about that. Newspaper owners publish what they think will best sell their papers to the people, and I do not think we could change that by any legislation or by the recommendations of any committee. The hon. member says that our churches are empty, that there is no longer any liberty in our pulpits. I may say that the church to which I go is far from being empty. I invite my hon. friend to come with me and I know he will see many people there.


Mr. SPENCE:: Perhaps you do not go often enough.
FEBRUARY 17, 1937	9S1
Constitutional Reform-Mr. Wood


Ernest Lapointe: That is something I shall discuss privately with my hon. friend.
This resolution involves a number of very important matters were they discussed apart from one another, but I fail to see how they could be a matter of investigation by a committee of this house.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I did not hear the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) speak to this resolution. I was interested in what the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) said with regard to high taxes making necessary the destruction of so many buildings. Some people are ready to recommend a revision of the British North America Act or some other method of getting us out of these dilemmas in which we find ourselves, but I am inclined to think that we should spend a little more time and energy in an attempt to keep from getting into these dilemmas in the first place. I should like to direct attention to a condition of affairs which exists in many of the municipalities in Ontario. The reason why taxes are so high at the present time is found in the extravagance of the past. We now find that we cannot maintain the standard of living we set up. Not very long ago my attention was called to the annual report of the bureau of municipal statistics. One of the striking features of this report is that the people who do the most complaining about the cost of keeping up our standards of living, live in the very sections which enjoy the highest standards. These people do the most grumbling about paying for these things, and object to the taxes levied therefor.
I find that the total city municipal debt of the province of Ontario is 8343,900,000, while the total municipal debt of Toronto alone is 8188.000,000, or considerably over fifty per cent of the total city debt for the province. Considering this debt on a per capita basis, we find that the debt of Toronto is $302 per capita as compared with a per capita debt of $147 for the whole province. Let	me draw attention	to	the	differencebetween city, village and township taxation. The	average per capita	debt	of	the	citiesthroughout the province of Ontario is $250, while some of our villages and towns have a per capita debt of only about half that, and in the rural municipalities the average per capita debt is only	$45.	If	we	couldhave	an amendment to	the	British	North
America Act which would instil into the minds of those who are responsible for municipal government the necessity for frugality
and thrift, I think we might accomplish something. But we boast about our liberty and give the people in our municipalities the right to formulate any policy they see fit to adopt, and the result is they have no qualms of conscience in mortgaging the future of the people who live in those communities.
Mention has been made of the moral standard of the people being so much lower. I do not think anything does more to lower the moral standard than debt. There are many people who through no fault of their own are endowed with only minor talents; for the parable of the talents still holds good -some are blessed with ten talents, some with five, and some with only two. And the man with only two talents in the complexity of our civilized life of to-day finds it very difficult to make a living and carry the heavy burden which the state places upon him. The result is that these people are forced to do things they otherwise would not do, and there is no doubt that they have to carry their share of the taxes, because concealed in the purchase of everything they buy for their household is a part of the taxes and the debts. That makes it veiy difficult for them to maintain the standard of living they would like to have. Hunger is one of the things which forces people to do things they otherwise would not do.
I would also draw attention to the fact that the major portion of our total income tax assessment comes from industrial and financial centres, and they are the ones who seem to have made the poorest use of their opportunities.	The city of Toronto, for
example, has an income assessment of $49,000,000, while the total for the province is only $86,000,000; in other words, Toronto's assessment is about 60 per cent of the total.
Coming back to the counties of which I was speaking a few moments ago, I see that there are seven counties listed here, out of a total of thirty-eight, which have no debt at all. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sanderson) who represents one of those counties, the county of Perth. It has furnished a very striking example of frugality in the province of Ontario. If you will go through this list you will find that the per capita tax in those counties is such that men can still make a fair living without having to share too much of their income with the tax collector.
Speaking of this virtue of thrift, I am very proud to say, and possibly the Toronto members may take a leaf out of the book of some municipalities outside their own, that in
9S2	COMMONS
Constitutional Reform-Mr. Wood
the county of Brant in the last six years we have paid off $140,000 of our regular debentures. That included, of course, interest and principal. On top of that we paid $99,756 cash on our twenty per cent share of the cost of provincial highway construction, which amounted to nearly $1,500,000. From 1930 to 1937 our county debt has been decreased considerably, and it is now about twenty per cent less than it was seven years ago at the beginning of the depression, in spite of the heavy commitments of the twenty per cent obligation in respect of highway construction.
The sponsor of this motion (Mr. Church) might well pay heed to what other municipalities have done instead of criticizing everything that comes along. The other day, for instance, I noticed that he was very militant on the housing legislation, and said that Toronto had received under the home improvement scheme only $103,000. Well, if I were in the lending business and observed the financial record of some of our municipalities, I think I would be reluctant to extend credit very much further to those who do not make a better showing in administering their own affairs.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave
of the house to withdraw my motion.
Motion withdrawn.



PROBLEMS OF WESTERN CANADA


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River) moved:: :
Whereas, the western Canadian provinces have materially increased in wealth and population since entering confederation;
And whereas, the geographical location of Canadian financial and industrial centres have prevented friendly understanding of western Canadian life leading to an accumulation of grievances either justified or psychlogical, tending to disrupt the harmony of confederation,
Therefore be it resolved,-That this parliament would serve a great need and greatly enhance Canadian unity by appointing a commission to investigate broadly the various problems of western Canada, both from an economic and psychological point of view and to bring in recommendations to this parliament
He said : Mr. Speaker, on February 1 last, speaking to a resolution moved1 by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coklwell) I took the opportunity to make to the house a statement regarding certain problems of western Canada, and at that time I laid down two rules which I think will bear repeating.

The first rule is this: The vitality of national life, being dependent upon the harmony of its component parts, is capable of resisting temporal erosion in proportion to the degree in which harmony exists.
The second rule is: The deterioration of a political entity, subject to the diversity of its constituent elements, is slow or rapid in proportion to the fractional facets of its local problems.
It would appear that many others hold these views because since I last spoke on this question I have come across various suggestions more or less in line with the ideas expressed in my resolution. For example, a letter was addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, over the signature of Henry W. Morgan, dated January 28, 1937, and reading in part as follows:
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce is at one with the government in recognizing that unusual financial difficulties are presently facing the prairie provinces. The chamber therefore notes with satisfaction that the government is in close touch with these emergent financial conditions, which with governmental concurrence, are now being reviewed on the ground.
And further on:
However necessary the above recommended survey may be to remedy effectively these special western problems, the Canadian chamber is unanimous in pressing strongly for the immediate naming by the dominion government of a national commission, whose functions, inter alia, will be federally and provincially, (1) to clarify the inter-relation of financing and taxing powers, (2) to survey the duplication of public services, (3) to redefine legislative policies and (4) to establish administrative responsibilities. Many of the actual relationships between the federal and provincial governments have, we believe, become out-moded and need readjustment. . . .
Because of the peculiar financial, economic, social and constitutional problems before the dominion, the present time seems particularly fitting for the empanelling of such a national committee.
It is to be noted that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce believes in a commission that would make an impartial and a thorough inquiry over the whole of Canada. While it might be desirable to adopt this suggestion, I am primarily concerned with western Canada and its relationship to Canada as a whole. I am not qualified to make a statement with regard to conditions in eastern Canada. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce speaks of these special western problems and I believe the interests of western Canada would be best served by a commission specially set up to study western Canadian problems.
Recently the president of the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation, addressing the

Western Canada-Mr. Pelletier
annual general meeting of shareholders in Toronto, said in part:
No one who is familiar with the history of the west will believe for a moment that the problem cannot be solved in a sane and reasonable way. Neither can any one fairly doubt that it is the sincere desire of all thinking men, whether they have a financial interest in it or not, that the problem should be so solved. What is required at the moment is assistance-sympathetic, of course-but, by all means, expert, and the suggestion which has been made that a commission, corresponding to what is known here as the "Duncan commission" of some ten years ago, should be appointed to deal with it seems to be a reasonable and proper suggestion. The future of the west is of vital concern to all of us.
It is also to be noted that this appeal is much more in accordance with the subject matter of this resolution. However, this organization is chiefly concerned with the financial problems of western Canada. A commission set up to study merely the financial problems of western Canada would, in my opinion, not be satisfactory to the west simply because the financial question is not the only one that needs to be solved. I intend to-day to review briefly some of the difficulties I pointed out on February 1 last, but I shall deal with these later.
Yesterday the Prime Minister's statement came to me as a surprise. I have read that statement very carefully. It is proposed:

to appoint a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the whole system of taxation in the dominion; to study the division of financial powers and financial responsibilities between the dominion and the provinces; and to make recommendations as to what should be done to secure a more equitable and practical division of the burden to enable all governments to function more effectively-and, I may add, more independently-within the spheres of their respective jurisdictions.
I do not believe that such a commission would give satisfaction to western Canada. Nowhere in this proposed royal commission do I find that such questions as the tariff and immigration, freight rates and the question of subsidies, are to be studied. It is not my intention to relate once more what I pointed out on February first in regard to the tariff and these various problems. I believe that on that occasion I placed on Hansard a fairly complete analysis of these problems and I should like the Prime Minister to take into consideration the remarks which I made then. In fact, I might say that I should like to make those remarks a part of what I have to say to-day.
Something else took place in this house last week. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) gave us what I considered a most
able and comprehensive survey of the drought situation and its effect on western Canada. The terrible consequences of this situation were made quite clear. He showed the loss which the drought bad caused to Canada as a whole and how it had aggravated the financial position of the western provinces. It was pointed out that this particular problem, because of its very nature, must be recognized as a national one. I had hoped that the minister would go on to show how the drought 'had compelled an increase in provincial expenditures, while at the same time it restricted the field of provincial revenue. Though this fact is well known to all hon. members, definite records would have greatly assisted all Canadians in obtaining a still more impressive picture of the situation.
But let us come back to the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. It appears that the royal commission will be set up as a result of a report made by the Bank of Canada regarding the finances of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I regret that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is not present to-day because I should like him to hear what I 'have to say. It appears further the Bank of Canada believes that unless financial assistance is given to Saskatchewan and Manitoba these two provinces face default, and therefore the dominion is of the opinion that in the circumstances it would be justified in extending temporary aid to the provinces in question pending the report of the royal commission. The Prime Minister concluded his remarks by saying that a recommendation to this effect would be made to the house when the supplementary estimates were brought down.
I wish to join with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in protesting with all my might against what I regard as a discrimination. There is no doubt that Alberta faced a financial situation just as difficult as that faced by Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba are to be saved by this dominion from default. Alberta, however, was allowed to default. If my memory serves me rightly, the reason given at the time this default was allowed to take place was that Alberta would not agree to a certain loan council which was then being proposed. I submit that the situation is unchanged; neither Saskatchewan nor Manitoba is being asked to agree to a loan council scheme. They are to be granted assistance without any strings attached, the reason given being that they face default unless the dominion helps them. Alberta also faced default, but if had to submit to impossible

Western Canada-Mr. Pelletier
conditions which are not now being exacted from Saskatchewan or Manitoba in order that they may receive assistance.
As the leader of the opposition said, no matter what explanation may be given, it is a fact that Alberta was allowed to default and find its own solution, whereas Manitoba and Saskatchewan are going to be saved by this parliament from this course. What happened on April 4, 1936? These are a few gems from the Financial Post of that date. I have before me a clipping from the Financial Post of April 4, 1936, in which the following statement appears:
Rejecting financial salvation in the form of the proposed loans counoil scheme of federal aid, Alberta defaulted payment of principal of bonds maturing April 1.
The maturing loan is $3-2 millions of six per cent bonds issued in 1916, and payable only in Canada, against which the province had sinking fund of some $560,900. The province is paying interest. ...	_ .	.
The dominion government was willing to aid Alberta in meeting the maturity, provided the provincial government subscribed to the loan council plan of financing.
And further on in regard to dominion policy, this statement is made:
This policy has been applied to Alberta with the result that Premier Aberhart has chosen to default. Its next application will be to British Columbia.
It is now hoped that the loans council plan will be of future service in salvaging provinces whose credit has suffered by reason of default.
And so on. But where is the loan council now? Why is Canada going to help Manitoba and Saskatchewan? Not because they have agreed to a loan council, but because the Bank of Canada says they need help.
I quite agree that the western provinces should be assisted, but once more I desire to protect emphatically against what is a serious discrimination against certain Canadians. Furthermore, I would point out that some of the policies adopted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) have had a good deal to do with things which have happened in Alberta. It has been pointed out by many people that relief has increased in Alberta, and for that there is a reason which I can give. During the past summer certain moneys were granted by the federal government to Alberta to help unemployment through road relief projects, and one of fee conditions attached was that no one who was not on relief could get employment on that work. What was the result? Everyone who was not on relief but wanted to earn a few dollars tried to get on relief in order to get employment and earn what he could. Therefore this had the effect of increasing relief in

Alberta. That is one feature which merits consideration when the figures are being analyzed.
However, it is not my intention to speak particularly of Alberta. I feel the problems faced by all the western provinces are very similar, and when the Prime Minister announced yesterday that he would set up a commission to study the financial problems of the west, that does not go far enough. It may not be correct to say that he has adopted the suggestion from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, but after a financial investigation by authorized persons he has come to the conclusion that the west needs financial assistance. Western Canada, however, will not be satisfied with simply an investigation or review of its financial problems. As I stated on February 1, there are many factors in western Canada to-day which are causing difficulty. Many people in the west feel that the east does not understand their problems. Some days ago it was said that eastern Canada responded and responded spendidly to the call for help from the west. I agree that that is a fact, but I also believe that western Canada should be given an opportunity to air all these grievances which have been fermenting in the minds of the people there. As I state in my resolution, some of these grievances may be fancied and others justified. But whether justified or psychological, they tend to disrupt the harmony of confederation.
I do not intend to cover again the ground that I traversed on February 1, but I should like the remarks I made then to be considered as part of what I have to say to-day. At present people in the west live under the shadow of wrongs, real or fancied. They fancy that eastern Canada does not understand them, looks on the west as a burden, a drain on the federal treasury, thinks the east pays the bills while the west lives in irresponsible affluence. When the western people think of what they have gone through during the last few years, the drought they have faced, the plagues of grasshoppers, the hot winds that have blown away their seed many times, and the impossible conditions under which they have had to live, they naturally feel bitter towards those who are not prepared to give them the sympathy which they deserve. Even though this resolution has come up after the statement given to the house yesterday by the Prime Minister, I trust there is still time for the government to reconsider the setting up of this royal commission and to give western Canada a really good hearing.

Western Canada-Mr. McIntosh
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): In rising to say a few words on this resolution, perhaps I had better touch upon the three main parts of it. The first part deals with the fact that the western provinces since coming into confederation have increased materially in wealth and population. That is a fact which cannot be gainsaid. Then we have the statement that because of the geographical location or centralization of financial and industrial power in eastern Canada since confederation, certain grievances have arisen, and that these grievances, whether justified or psychological, have a tendency to disrupt the harmony of confederation. There is a certain degree of truth about that too. Then in the last part of the resolution rve come to the statement that this parliament should appoint a commission to investigate these grievances and problems and bring in recommendations upon which parliament could act.
In discussing this resolution, my hon. friend made one or two very broad statements, which I think can be refuted as being absolutely without foundation. One statement concerned the matter of government policy in regard to the grievances existing across the country from ocean to ocean, grievances which are nation-wide and are to be investigated by a national commission. The hon. member stated that the dominion in dealing with Alberta adopted a discriminatory policy. Where he gets such an idea, in view of the statement made in the house yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), I do not understand. If he will turn to page 922 of Hansard of yesterday he will find in the closing remarks of the Minister of Finance this clear-cut, definite, constructive and, I would think, convincing statement, referring to the question of discrimination raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett):
I can say, however, that the province of Alberta has been treated by this government absolutely without discrimination in so far as financial assistance is concerned since this government came into power; and I can go further and say that the government has no intention whatsoever of discriminating against any province in this dominion and is prepared to sit down with any province and discuss its problems and bring forward such solutions as the circumstances may appear to warrant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will permit me, that statement happens to be inaccurate-although I am bound to accept it-Alberta was driven to default, and people holding its bonds have in some cases been practically ruined because of the inability of that province to pay. The Minister of Finance would not help Alberta although it
asked for help, and now the other two provinces are to be helped.


Mr. McINTOSH:: In answer to the statement made by the leader of the opposition I would say that if Alberta is seeing evil days financially and industrially the fault does not lie with the domihion government, the Finance minister, or the Prime Minister of this country. It lies very largely with Alberta, headed by the government existing in that province at the present time.


Mr. QUELCH:: What about Manitoba and Saskatchewan too?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Rather than be diverted from my remarks may I touch upon what the Prime Minister said in the house yesterday in regard to this national commission which the government is to appoint to investigate financial and industrial problems from ocean to ocean, that is, all over Canada, in the maritimes, in the industrial provinces of Quebec and Ontario, in the three prairie provinces and in far-off British Columbia. This commission will deal with every province; it will touch upon every financial and industrial question concerning which there is any grievance in the country, and the terms of reference will be wide enough and ample enough to enable this commission to consider all the grievances of the nation, and after hearing the evidence and considering it in the light of reason, to bring in a report upon which legislation will be based and put into effect by the government of the day. In dealing with the power and scope of that commission the Prime Minister used these words as reported at page 922 of yesterday's Hansard:
The difficulties of the prairie provinces have been greatly intensified by drought, and the earning power of their people has been affected accordingly. But other sections of the country are not free from problems of a similar character, although they may not be so acute. We have, in short, ample indication of certain fundamental strains and weaknesses arising out of our present allocation of financial powers and governmental responsibilities, and if no attempt is made to remove them, the ill effects will not be confined to the sections where they now appear.
In other words, all these fundamental grievances, all these complaints and strains not only of Manitoba and Saskatchewan but of all Canada, which surely includes Alberta, will be dealt with. They will all be dealt with impartially, not in a political or a partisan way but for the good of the whole country. When that is done we expect that a report will be brought in upon which progressive and advanced legislation will be based and enacted by the party now in power. That is the situation exactly.
Western Canada-Mr. McIntosh

May I say further, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution which has been moved by the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Pelletier) may have a certain degree of realism about it, but if I am not mistaken the hon. member is trying to place the blame upon a few financial and industrial organizations of eastern Canada for all the grievances that at present exist in this country. I think that is what is at the back of my hon. friend's mind, but I believe he is entirely mistaken. That is not true; that is the argument advanced by the hon. member and others of his group all over Canada; but it is not sound; it is not in accordance with the facts and it is not in accordance with history. We all admit that to-day there are serious problems facing the Canadian people. We all admit that we have problems affecting Canadian nationhood, problems with which we must deal and, to the best of our ability, solve, but I wonder whether there is any special financial or industrial organization or any special class of people or any particular individual responsible for these grievances. I would not think so. I believe we can truthfully say that the Canadian people themselves are responsible for all the problems confronting Canada to-day. Since confederation we have been dealing with national problems through the ballot box; every four or five years we have made pronouncements upon fiscal problems, tariff problems, financial problems and industrial problems, and on those pronouncements the governments of the day have acted. So I think it is rather late for any hon. member to attempt to pin upon any organization, financial or industrial, the responsibility for grievances that at present exist in Canada. I would say the Canadian people are responsible, and if they have made a wrong decision the only thing to do is to get busy and correct that decision.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, many wrong decisions have been rendered during the last fifty or sixty years. I do not believe our fiscal policy has been what it should. I believe that fiscal policy has been built up largely for the protection and development of secondary industry in Canada. Rather it should have been a combination policy, one for both the primary and the secondary industries of this country, with no discrimination shown. But what did the Canadian people do every time they were asked about the matter? They rendered a decision in favour of high protection, and they got it. That is democracy; that is responsible government. I would say that if we want these tariff, financial and industrial grievances rectified, the commission method is the right way to

go about finding out just what are the difficulties. Then, when these grievances are corrected, we expect the Canadian people in future to keep themselves on more solid ground industrially and financially in considering problems of government. That is the proper way to proceed, rather than to deal discriminately with any one section or any one industry of the country. All the industries should be dealt with in a constructive manner.
I shall conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that in my opinion the government is to be complimented upon having decided to appoint a national commission to investigate the financial and industrial problems confronting the whole nation, not leaving out any one province but covering the whole country. After the fullest possible information has been secured, with all the facts pertinent to the matter, a report can be made, and upon that report action can be taken in order to enable the provinces and the dominion to function more successfully, more effectively and more constructively within the respective orbits of their jurisdiction. To my mind, if that is done we shall live in a new day in Canada, and I would say that the sooner this commission can get busy and bring in a report, and the sooner that report can be acted upon, the better it will be for all the dominion.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: I should like to ask the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat if I was correct when I understood him to say that the financial condition of Alberta in April of this year was the result of the misdeeds of the government in power during that month.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What I want to make plain, Mr. Speaker, and what I wish to affirm is that if there is anything wrong with Alberta, financially or industrially, this dominion government is not responsible. The way to cure a condition of that kind is to go back and lead your own people to the constructive and sane solution of your own problems in a way that will mean a better day for the province of Alberta.


Mr. HEAPS:: Then may I ask the hon. gentleman a question. Would he apply the same rule to Saskatchewan?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Why, certainly. We can depend upon the people of Saskatchewan making a sound decision. There is no question about that.


John Horne Blackmore: Are not all the people of Saskatchewan Liberals now?

Western Canada-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. Is the house ready for the question?


John Horne Blackmore: The hon. member did not answer my question.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: Then I wish to say
this:	I understood the hon. gentleman to
say that the condition of Alberta in April, 1936, was the result of the policies of the government which was in power in that province at that time. I challenge the hon. member to prove that the financial position of Alberta on April 1, 1936, was in any way due to the government in power in that province at that time. He absolutely cannot do it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The government of
Alberta has a definite financial responsibility. It has had it for the last two years. It has not faced it aggressively or effectively. So much for the provincial government. While Alberta has not done that, I fear it has not done the next essential thing; it has not cooperated with the present dominion government in a manner to get anywhere. Because of these precarious limitations I suggest that the best thing for Albertans to do is to adopt a new perspective and a new type of action -cooperative action, and then, perhaps, Alberta will be more successful and contented.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Vote Liberal, eh?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, they might do
worse than that.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, as has been said, the first section of the resolution before the house deals with the increase in population and the increase in wealth of western Canada since it came into confederation. My experience in that country started long before the west came into confederation. I have been forty-five years in that section of Canada, and since I have been old enough I have watched the development of western Canada.
When that country was first settled and the land broken up, naturally it would stand much more strain than it can at the present time. When I say that I am speaking of agriculture. In other words, when land is first broken up in a new country you have very few crop diseases, very few insect pests, and practically no noxious weeds to fight. During the first twenty years of occupancy of a new agricultural country, the cream, or a large portion of the cream, is taken out of that country, and in that period such a country can stand much heavier tolls than it can support at a later period.
Western Canada developed very rapidly. Part of its trouble came at the time of the great war. The people of the west were asked by the then dominion government to produce as large as possible a volume of foodstuffs for the armies overseas. They were urged to bend every effort to that end. As a matter of fact, we in western Canada who had not gone overseas and were on the land did bend every effort to produce all we could in the way of foodstuffs for those who had gone overseas and for the rest of the country. In doing so, in many cases we did not carry on the very best system of agriculture. We cropped our land too heavily; we did not summer-fallow enough; we endeavoured to produce as much as possible for the immediate time, and largely as a consequence we got ourselves into a lot of trouble. I should like to say on behalf of the farmers of western Canada that they were the only people in the whole dominion who were asked to do a certain thing and then had complete control taken of their product and a price set upon it by the federal government. Many people have said that the price of wheat during the war was very high. It was high then as compared with other times. Prices ranged from, first, $2.04 to $2.20, to $2.15 with a certificate that later brought 48 cents. But there was no restriction upon the charge that any other person in Canada might make for the commodities the farmers needed to buy.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


John Gordon Ross: The commodities they had to buy in order to produce grain went to tremendous prices. I remember having paid at that time as much as $30 per bag for sugar. At that time wheat was $2.20 per bushel. I recall having paid as high as $9 per day and their board to men who came to labour in the fields. Every last thing that the farmer in that country had to buy at that time went to extremely high prices, much higher proportionately than the price of products he had to sell, and many of us found ourselves at the end of the war period, when it might be supposed that we would be wealthy, in a worse condition than when the war started.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


John Gordon Ross: We said nothing about that. We felt at that time that it was our duty and our contribution. No one has ever heard the western Canadian farmer make any real complaint, as to his position at that time. But hon. members should remember or should know the extent of the farmer's contribution at that time when they are deal-
988	COMMONS
Western Canada-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
mg with conditions in western Canada to-day, for his present plight is in part due to the conditions of that time.
The hon. member who moved this resolution (Mr. Pelletier) made mention of tariff. I was glad to hear the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) state, what I know to be true, that this commission which has been formed will look into all the troubles or grievances of any province in Canada. Surely one of the greatest grievances of many people in practically all the provinces is the taxation arising from the tariff in this country, not as a taxation by the government, but as a taxation by special interests in Canada upon the rest of the people.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Why a commission, then?


John Gordon Ross: Why a commission? What can be done but to get the facts before a body which is impartial?


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


John Gordon Ross: As I said the other day, the tariff in this country has greatly affected many of the provinces since confederation. Only a short time ago a commission in Nova Scotia made certain recommendations with regard to the tariff. They said:
We believe that the tariff policy of Canada has reacted unfavourably upon the economic development of Nova Scotia. It has tended to retard the growth of the exporting industries of the province without providing adequate compensation in other directions. It is true that, by means of the tariff and subventions, the central Canadian market has been brought within the reach of the coal mining industry, which would otherwise have been the monopoly of the United States industry; and that the steel and car construction industries have received a share of the orders for railway material and equipment from the Canadian railways; and that the dominion government has assisted in other ways. When, however, the advantages and disadvantages have been set against each other, we are definitely of the opinion that the fiscal policy pursued by successive governments has reacted injuriously upon the welfare of Nova Scotia.
We agree with the following statement quoted from the brief submitted by the then government of Nova Scotia to the royal commission on maritime claims in 1926;
"Protection, or free trade, or an exclusively revenue tariff, may be advocated with some show of logic, but surely no reasonable defence, no consideration based on equity or sound public policy, can be advanced in support of a system under which Nova Scotians are compelled to buy what they consume in a substantially protected home market, and to sell what they produce in a virtually unprotected one."
This applies not only to Nova Scotia but to the seven provinces outside the industrial area and to the majority of those people in

the two industrial provinces who are not engaged in industry. The tariff has given to certain people engaged in industry the power to tax other people, to such an extent that, in many cases, out of every dollar we have spent we have had to pay twenty-five cents for nothing. There are two or three aspects of the tariff which should be brought out. Until a few years ago it was always believed that the taxing power lay with this House of Commons. This has been the case in most British countries, but during the last two decades this taxing power has been gradually taken away from the House of Commons. In the first place, it has been turned over to the industrialists by means of the protective tariff. In the second place, certain provisions have been enacted which place this taxing power in the hands of the officials of the Department of National Revenue. When the budget is brought down, some hon. members may think they are making the tariff of this country, but that is not what is being done. There are some 1,200 items in the tariff schedule and about 120,000 different articles are imported into the country. The rate of duty charged depends upon the classification into which an article is placed. An article may come in under a duty of twenty per cent, but it will have to pay forty per cent if it is placed in another classification. The rate of duty depends upon what classification the officials of the customs department decide shall apply to a particular article.
The Department of National Revenue is located in Ottawa and anyone who has watched the operation of government, no matter what government may be in power, realizes that it is not difficult for those engaged in industry to come to Ottawa in an endeavour to obtain concessions in tariff rates or a more satisfactory classification for the articles they wish to import. The industrial areas are spread out around Ottawa and those engaged in industry are able to put considerable pressure upon the department. You will see these people coming to Ottawa and exerting every influence on the ministers of whatever government may be in power in order to obtain concessions. These people are able to place their views before those who administer the Customs Act, whereas the consumer as a whole has no chance to place himself in a similar position.
The result is that no matter what tariff schedule is brought down in the House of Commons, that is not the schedule under which goods are brought into the country. During the last several years higher and higher rates of duty -have been charged upon

Western Canada-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)
goods coming into Canada. Speaking on the suggested British North America Act changes the other day, I referred to the general effect of the tariff upon the country. I stated that the effect had been to centre the industrial areas in this part of Canada and thereby take away the. means of raising revenue from the outlying provinces.


Mr. WALSH:: Is the hon. member inferring that the industrial area is centred within a radius of 100 or 150 miles of Ottawa because the seat of government is in Ottawa? Is he suggesting that that is the reason why Ontario and Quebec are so highly developed industrially?


John Gordon Ross: No; I never tried to infer that that was the case because the government is located here.


Mr. YOUNG:: He did not say so, either.


John Gordon Ross: This area has been developed because of a protective tariff. The hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that in the past several years, since this policy of protection has been in effect, many industries which used to be located in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have moved into the central area of Canada.


William Allen Walsh: Would the hon. member care to suggest one or two of them?


John Gordon Ross: There are a great many.


William Allen Walsh: Suggest one or two.


John Gordon Ross: No, I shall not.


William Allen Walsh: Then do not make the
statement.


John Gordon Ross: If my hon. friend thinks my statement is incorrect, he may make a speech. Some maritime members will probably speak on this resolution and they will tell my friend plenty. I realize that he is very much interested in this matter from the attitude he took the other day when he said that the Turgeon commission was more or less window-dressing. I want to tell my hon. friend that the Turgeon commission is one of the best commissions ever set up by parliament.


William Allen Walsh: I suggested it was political window-dressing.


John Gordon Ross: That is worse than what the hon. member said before. The Turgeon commission is one of the best commissions ever set up in this country. Fortunately for the people of this country it has brought out many facts which prove the contention we have made in this house for years, that the men in the textile industry are just racketeers and not industrialists.
When the report finally comes out, I hope that this government will act upon it in a way to prevent any industry in Canada from again having the temerity to do what these gentlemen have done during the last twenty or thirty years.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will the government act?


John Gordon Ross: Certainly they will act.


William Allen Walsh: May I ask if the hon. member has been instructed by the government so to answer the question that has just been asked?


Mr. DEACHMAN:: May I ask if my hon. friend was instructed to ask his question?


John Gordon Ross: I would say to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) that in this party and under this government every man has a right to say what he sees fit, and as for myself I will say what I think is proper whether the government says anything about it or not.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: How can the federal government act on the report of the Turgeon commission when provincial governments have jurisdiction over corporations?


John Gordon Ross: I am not going to lay down the policies of the government; that is for the government itself. But when the facts have been brought out before that commission, they will be turned over to the government, and I have every confidence that the government will act in the interests of the people of Canada in that matter.
There has been talk-and my hon. friend mentions the same thing in his resolution- about disruption of the country. The other day, speaking in this house, I happened to say that there was more danger of disruption to-day than there ever was before, and one or two of my friends on the other side of the house asked me: Are you saying that as propaganda for that part of the country or do you believe it to be true? I replied: I am not saying it as propaganda at all. I am saying it as a warning to this House of Commons and the country. My hon. friends who sit over in that corner of the house may think they are in this parliament because of their professed policy of social credit. If they think so, or if anyone else in this country thinks that is the case, they are entirely wrong. My hon. friends are sitting in that corner of the house as proof of an economic revolt in western Canada to-day. That is the reason they are there, because of an economic revolt against the old party.
990	COMMONS
Western Canada-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is why this government is in office.


John Gordon Ross: Perhaps, but that is the real reason why my friends are sitting in that corner of the house, because there
is an economic revolt in western Canada.
As one who was born in western Canada, I might give a little of the history of that country. Many people came to western Canada from Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces about fifty or fifty-two or fifty-three years ago. They came from all the different constituencies that are represented in this house. They settled in western Canada, and started to develop that part of the dominion. They raised their families there, and their families are still there, but the original settlers who went out from the east are now most of them dead.
What is the racial complexion of western Canada to-day? The main part of the population is composed of the sons and daughters, and the grandsons and granddaughters of the people who came out to western Canada from this part of the country, but remember this, very few of them have ever been back east. Then there are many people who came directly from the British isles, and who know from experience nothing whatever of eastern Canada. There are also many people from the United States, and many others from different parts of Europe. When one gets west of the great lakes, one will find very many people there who have never had an opportunity of associating with the people on this side of the great lakes.
In western Canada to-day a certain feeling is growing amongst the younger people. They walk into a store to purchase something, and they find they have to pay a certain price. They realize that the price is too high, and they ask why. Somebody says: "In order to build industry in Canada." And the young people will ask: "Whereabouts?" The answer will be: "Oh, fifteen hundred or two thousand miles away from where you live, in order to give employment to the people in the east." Then they will ask: "What is all this being done for?" And the reply will be: "To build up Canada." And these young people are saying: "Well, are we not a part of Canada? If we are, where do we come in? What has this to do with us except that we must pay?" And, Mr. Speaker, that is the only portion they have in this "Canada First" policy.


Mr. KINLEY:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Gordon Ross: Certainly.


John James Kinley: I was not in the house when the hon. gentlemen made the statement that central Canada had by various means contributed to the ruination of industries in the maritime provinces, and I understand he was asked to name specific instances. I agree with his statement, and I shall be glad to give specific instances, if necessary.


John Gordon Ross: The hon. gentleman knows that my statement was correct, and there are many who would be willing to support it.


John James Kinley: I just wanted to settle that before six o'clock.


John Gordon Ross: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that many of these people had no experience of the east and many of them were thinking to-day that they were not being treated as a part of Canada under the "Canada First" policy. One cannot blame them for endeavouring to fight in every way possible against a situation such as that. After all, we must remember that no British people ever stood for such a thing before, and I do not think British people would ever stand for it.
I do not intend to support this resolution because I think the commission to be set up, which was announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday, will cover the question in all its phases in every part of Canada, and it will be up to the members in that corner of the house as well as the members over here from Saskatchewan and other provinces, along with their governments and others interested, to place before that royal commission the grievances of every part of this dominion, so that we may finally get them straightened out and come to some definite conclusion.


William Allen Walsh: It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 18, 1937