1937-03-04

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	How many applications did the Civil Service Commission receive for the position of inspector of weights and measures which was advertised in the province of Quebec in 1936 (examination No. 25111)?
2.	Were those who made application called upon to pass an examination?
3.	If so, what was the number of eligible candidates?
4.	Has an appointment been made?
5.	If so, upon what date, who was appointed, and what is his address?


Mr. RINFRET:: 
CENTRE BURLINGTON, N.S., WHARF
Mr. PURDY:: 1.	What was the total amount of expenditure in connection with the repairs to wharf at Centre Burlington, Hants county, during the year 1935?
2.	Who was the foreman in charge of the work?
3.	To whom, and what amounts were paid for the following: (a) wages; (b) materials; (cj supplies?
4.	What was the original estimate of the cost of the work?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	SI.184.66.
2.	Ernest Sanford.
3.	(a) Ernest Sanford, foreman, $99; Percy Mann. $24; John Mann, $16.80; Harold McLeod, $30; Sydney Walker, $27.60; Henry Blackburn. $26.40; Clyde Sanford, $31.20; George Salter. $28.80; Clarence Sanford, $18.80; Ross Barkhouse, $31.20; Silas Sanford, $19.20; Layton Reynolds, $26.40; Harry Reynolds, $26.40; Ralph Blackburn, $16.80; Curtis Sanford, $19.20; Lloyd Sanford, $21.60; Coles Greene, $19.20; Hollis Rhodes, $19.20; Henry Smith, $14.40; Herbert Salter, $15.60; Clifford Burgess, $7.20; Robert Shaw, $9.60; Walter Salter, $4.80; Herbert Salter and team, $28.60; Prescott Sanford, $9.60; Curry Sanford, $7.20; total, $598.80.
(b) and (c) Clarence Sanford, timber, $16.02; James D. Sanford, timber, $75.69; Dan Young, timber, $80.64; Elbert Sanford, timber, $60.57; Murray Salter, timber, $43.20; Donald Carde, timber, $66.15; Murray Sanford, timber, $43.74; Walter Salter, timber, $27; John McKenzie, timber, $39.15; Robie C. Sanford, timber, $71.19; Wilcox Bros., hardware, $62.51; total $585.86.
Grand total, $1,184.66.
4.	$1,180.


HUDSON BAY ROUTE-INSURANCE RATES ON WHEAT
Mr. TUCKER:: 1.	What was the average amount of insurance payable in respect of a full cargo of wheat being shipped to Liverpool in a ship of 5,000 tons gross using the Hudson Bay route (such as referred to in (2) of the answer to question No. 4 on the orders of the day, February 22, 1937), in each of the years 1932 to 1936, inclusive?
2.	What was the average amount of insurance payable on a similar ship and cargo using the St. Lawrence route carrying a full cargo of wheat to Liverpool during each of the years 1932 to 1936, inclusive?


Mr. HOWE:: The insurance on the hull of a ship of 5,000 gross tons, valued at $250,000, capable of carrying about 300,000 bushels of wheat was about as follows, the English pound being taken as worth five dollars, Canadian, in all cases:
Questions
Churchill	Churchill	Churchill	MontrealAug. 10th	Oct. 1st	Oct. 8th	May 15thto	to	to	toSept. 30th	Oct. 7th	Oct. 15th	Nov. 15th1932	$8,750.00	$9,625.00	$10,937.50	$1,250.001933	8,750.00	8,750.00	10,937.50	1,250.001934	7,500.00	7,500.00	9,375.00	1,250.001935	* 5,625.00	5,625.00	7.031.25	1,250.00Aug. 5th to Oct. 10th	Oct. 10th to 15th	1936	5,625.00	7,031.25	1,250.00The above figures for Churchill	are for ships not equipped with gyro compasses for each	trip made into the Bay.	For ships equipped with gyro compasses the comparison would be	about as follows for each trip of	the ship:	Churchill	Churchill	Churchill	MontrealAug. 10th	Oct. 1st	Oct. 8th	May 15thto	to	to	toSept. 30th	Oct. 7th	Oct. 15th	Nov. 15th1932	$7,500.00	$8,250.00	$9,375.00	$1,250.001933	7.500.00	7,500.00	9,375.00	1,250.001934	6,250.00	6,250.00	7,812.00	1,250.001935	4,687.50	4,687.50	5,859.35	1,250.00Aug. 5thto Oct. 10th	1936	4,062.50	1,250.00Ships are charged about $500 for the rental	bushel. The	insurance on the	cargo out ofof a gyro compass for a	trip to	Churchill.	Churchill in 1936 amounted to	I of 1 cent,The insurance on hulls	is fixed	by a com-	and out of Montreal to about	i of 1 centmittee of the Imperial Shipping	Committee,	per bushel.	and the above figures cover all usual losses,	including total loss of the ship.	QUESTIONS	PASSED AS ORDERS FOR	Ihe insurance on cargoes is free to com-	RETURNS	
petition among underwriters, and while the Department of Transport has no definite information about the charges, they are understood to have been about as follows:


MINISTERS OF THE CROWN-TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND PRIVATE CARS
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN-ALLOWANCES FOR CARS AND CHAUFFEURS
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What allowance is made to the ministers of the crown in lieu of car and chauffeurs?
2.	What was the total amount paid to each minister of the crown for this purpose for 1936?


ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. COLD  WELL@: What was the cost of all royal commissions during the periods 1922-1927; 1927-1931; 19311935; 1935, 1936, and those at present sitting,
Trans-Canada Air Lines

as follows: (a) salaries or honoraria paid to individuals; (b) per diem living allowances paid to individuals; (e) clerical assistance and per diem living allowance; (d) all other expenses?


GRADE SEPARATION FUND, ONTARIO
Mr. CHURCH:: Of the commitments made for the grade separation fund in Ontario given on page 1052 of Hansard, to the amount of $656,910, what crossings were included, and where?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled herewith.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES ARRANGEMENT WITH CORPORATION RESPECTING LINES AND SERVICES FOR TRANSPORT OF PASSENGERS, GOODS AND MAILS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to incorporate a corporation to be known as trans-Canada air lines with authority to establish and operate air lines and services across Canada and matters incidental thereto, also to authorize the government to enter into a contract with the corporation providing for the organization and operation of such lines and services including the transport of passengers, goods and mails, and for -the payment of a subsidy to the corporation and for the operation and maintenance by the government of emergency landing fields and other specified services, and also to authorize the government at its discretion to acquire and pay for all of the shares of the capital stock of the corporation, and further to authorize the Board of Railway Commissioners to fix the rates to be paid to the corporation for its services.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Tolmie) asked a question of the government, as follows:
I should like to inquire of the government when the report of the veterans' assistance commission will be laid on the table?

This matter was discussed in the house on February 23. It will be seen on page 1181 of the debates that in reply to a question put to me by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) I stated that a number of interim reports, I believe four in number, had been tabled already. Another report had been submitted to me which was at that time and still is the subject of correspondence between the commission and myself. Further on in the debate I stated that I would see that the report was tabled in ample time for the fullest discussion.


LABOUR DISPUTE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to a very grave situation which exists in Sarnia. The Holmes Foundry Company, which is controlled by Port Huron, Michigan interests, is located in Sarnia. It seems that the workers in this foundry have gone on strike demanding what workers in the United States have already received. These men were attacked, the union organizer in particular, by a mob, the attack being carried into the homes of the men. I should like to ask whether the Minister of Labour proposes to make an independent inquiry concerning this matter.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to my attention yesterday by the hon. member for Lambton West (Mr. Gray). I assured him that if the Department of Labour could be of service in the matter it would be pleased indeed to send a conciliation officer to Sarnia. I believe the matter is now under consideration by the mayor of Sarnia, in so far as it still calls for intervention or conciliation. My latest information, however, is that the dispute as such has been settled. So far as any property damage is concerned, I take it that this will be a matter for the provincial authorities.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it not a matter which concerns the whole country? It seems to me that this is a matter about which the department might well be asked to do something.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

The Budget-Mr. Poole


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned yesterday I was endeavouring to point out that both this year and last year this group had at least endeavoured to indicate the direction in which we had to go to bring about economic security and to banish from our midst not so much unemployment as destitution. I have wondered many times whether ministers of the crown have ever taken the trouble or have been sufficiently interested to go to some, of the relief camps of western Canada or to the soup kitchens throughout the country to see for themselves the terrible price we are paying because of our apathy in respect to this question.
I believe the first duty of a government is to look after its people, and all other things must take a secondary place. That is the responsibility of the present Liberal government. Both this and the last government failed miserably to bring about a happy life for Canadian people who are unemployed!. We speak of everything in terms of dollars and cents. We always measure cost in money, and many statements made in the house have been contradictory. For instance, we have been told that prosperity is returning. I would suggest to the government that the unemployed' in Canada are not sharing in that prosperity. If there is any section of Canadian society which has paid the price of the deflationary period through which we have passed, it is the unemployed. To-day I want to make a plea for those whose hopes have been frustrated and who, through the years, have been waiting for a generous government to do something for them. I should like to ask the government to state its long range view on the question. Are we waiting for increasing external trade? Is that the only hope for Canadian youth? Are we waiting until such time as we may have a greater volume of trade before these people can be absorbed into industry and can obtain economic security? If we are, then I say now to the government that for these people there is no hope.
As I said last night, in the last six years we have spent over a billion dollars on relief, and the position of the unemployed in Canada is no better to-day than it was four or five years ago. I see no hope in expanding trade. I do not believe it is natural, even,-and while there have been some expressions in the house regarding increases in prices of farm products and increases in volume of production, we must remember that we are now entering an inflationary period. The demand for Canadian products in the markets of the world does not arise because the people of Europe are consuming more; it is not a natural demand. So far as Canada is concerned, our greatest market is the Canadian market, and if we are to bring economic security to these people, if we are to give them a greater measure of hope and an opportunity for creative life, then I say to the government there is only one way it can be done.
This little group has endeavoured to point out time and time again-and through the years we will still hammer at this one thing, something the government absolutely refuses to touch-that there must be monetary reform. The wage system has broken down. It is unscientific; it is unsound; it does not give the great masses of the people that opportunity and that security which our production and our scientific knowledge have made available to us. After all, what is the purpose of an economic system? How do we measure prosperity? Do we measure it by the increased profits of great industries? I do not think so. The standard of living of the Canadian people should be measured in one way, and in one only, and that is the making of their lives secure to a point commensurate with the ability of the Canadian people to produce goods.
A few days ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) made a statement to the effect that purchasing power comes from production. I challenge that statement. Purchasing power does not come from production. Production is one thing; the monetary system is another. In Canada we have the ability to produce great volumes of wealth. We have the machinery; we are a generation better equipped than any which has preceded us, and still we find unfortunate people passing through the years without a break. I make a plea for the unemployed in Canada: for God's sake let us get down to business! Let us get these people through the present transitional period, through this time of great change, and give them a break. Give them an opportunity to live; give them something-some measure of hope. We must not be content
The Budget-Mr. Poole

with fooling around, dilly-dallying, doing nothing, waiting for expanding trade, or hoping for something to fall from heaven which will help us out.
I said last night, and I now repeat, that the volume of international trade will be less, not more, in years to come. Every nation is becoming self-sufficient. The foundation and basis of the system under which we are living to-day is the ability of nations to export greater volume of goods. As each nation becomes self-sufficient there will be a lesser demand for Canadian products. In terms of the capitalistic system, under which we live, it will mean that there will be less wages paid. As each nation becomes selfsufficient, irrespective of our great wealth, our natural resources and our production through machine and scientific skill, the lots of the great masses of the people will become more miserable and the debts of nations will rise.
I am sure many hon. members do not understand what it means to go on drifting through the years. Men who are married and with families, but without jobs, know none of the natural pleasures or luxuries of life; in many cases, they have not even the necessities. We have set up a commission; there have been suggestions here and suggestions there, but we have not yet got to the root of this problem, and there has not been a suggestion in this house as to what is the real cause of destitution. Let us at this session do something definite to help the unemployed people of Canada-not with charitable doles, but, until such time as this government has monetary reform thrust upon it, let it be recognized that wages is the only medium whereby these men can receive the necessities of life; so for God's sake let us give them wages. We need roads, we need houses; there is in this country fifty years' work to be done. We have great production and on the other hand great poverty. I ask the government now to get down to the root of this matter, not to leave it until next year or the year afterwards as material for another election promise. Let us construct a better Canada, recognizing that our most valuable asset is the youth of the country, now better equipped than youth has ever been before; let us not be always measuring this problem by considerations of dollars and cents. After all, money is only a ticket; it is an expedient by which we distribute goods and services. We have the goods, the services, the machines, the natural resources. Let us give the young people of Canada happiness, security, a future, and a more creative life than they have known in the last six years.

This is the greatest responsibility before the government to-day; in comparison with it all other things fall into insignificance, because by continuing as we are doing we destroy the souls of human beings and condemn them to live without hope, without objective, without a future. That is the penalty we pay for measuring this problem in terms of dollars and cents. The greatest cost of the depression can never be computed in that way; for it is a moral loss, a tragedy of lost hopes and lost opportunities. That is the history of the generation to which I belong. To that generation this government it responsible; to that generation it will have to answer some day. The question cannot be thrust lightly aside; it will remain with us even though the government tries to forget about it. What we sow to-day we shall reap to-morrow. If therefore as Canadians we are interested in building up this country, let us remember that our greatest asset is the youth of Canada, and that we are responsible for giving them opportunities to live creative lives.


Thomas Langton Church: I regret that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is not in his seat this afternoon. I regret also to hear that illness keeps him away, for he is one who commands the respect and admiration of every hon. member of this house and of the country at large. A short time ago I lived around the corner from him in Rosedale. At that time he was not a member of this house, from 1930 to 1935, but I well remember the tribute which he, as a private citizen of this country, paid to my leader, who was then bearing great burdens as the prime minister of this country. The Minister of Finance may not thereby have won applause from his own party or from the political machine of his party, but he won the admiration and respect of all right-thinking citizens, including a great newspaperman, the late Harry Anderson, chief editor of the Toronto Globe. The minister (Mr. Dunning) referred at that time to the absolute necessity of every good citizen coming to the support of the government of the day in the great crisis-the greatest depression the world has even seen-that then confronted the country. I am glad to pay him this tribute as a great Canadian then, and as a patriot. I am thankful that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who was then shouldering greater burdens than even the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier or Sir John A. Macdonald had to face, has regained his health, and I

The Budget-Mr. Church
believe he will rank very high in. the history of this country, as he does with all the members of this house.
In this connection I might refer to the remarks of another member of the govern-, ment, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), who is either not in his seat this afternoon or has gone out: I would rather have said in his presence what I have to say. I have nothing against him personally. A month ago, and again on Tuesday evening, he alluded to the leader of the opposition, who has been giving the government of the day the best of support, in accordance with a good British principle; because he realizes that, while we are in opposition to hon. gentlemen opposite, they are a government of Canadians and will do what they no doubt believe to be the best not only for their own party but for the general good of the country.	I myself am not a very strong or
bigoted party man; neither is the leader of the opposition, because he is a great empire statesman on the British model. In this budget the Minister of Finance is simply carrying out, with some reductions, modifications and some extensions and deductions, the great British Empire agreement that was made in 1932, by my hon. leader and but for which the depression and unemployment would have been ten times worse than they are to-day. I was glad to notice that Mr. Joseph Atkinson of the Toronto Star has in an article in the Star by Observer paid tribute to Mr. Bennett. The bouquets which my right hon. leader received from the Minister of Labour are gratefully accepted, both those of a month ago and those on Tuesday evening, andi acknowledged on this side. But the minister delivered a moral lecture to the unemployed and to private members and to the opposition, and I may remind him that, although he is a professor, we do not need any lectures from him on unemployment. In the olden days it used to be said that "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." Now, with the Minister of Labour, it seems that a professor a day keeps the bailiff away. Last Tuesday night the Minister of Labour referred to the right hon. leader of the opposition and used the words:
In spite of flagrant distortion and misunderstanding with regard to the attitude of the Labour department.
There appeared on February 11 of this year in the Toronto Star, a Liberal organ, an idea too great for mere party politics: in a whole double header column "The Observer'' pays tribute to the right hon. the 31111-93
leader of the opposition and says he is assured of a distinguished place in Canadian history. I quote:
No single act in his long and notable political career will be so long and so gratefully remembered by posterity as his proposal in the House of Commons last Monday evening that the dominion government should go into the business of gold mining.
The writer goes on to refer to all he has done in his many years of public service and the principles for which he stood during the five years that he was Prime Minister. He mentions the resources of the country.
Riches, once remarked the prince of American preachers, are like manure. Heaped in one small spot it is a noisome and unwholesome mass; distributed over the whole field it means fertility and beauty and plenty.
This tribute, paid to my leader by a Liberal paper, is well deserved, because he has in this parliament again proved himself a statesman. He has given the government independent support when he believed it to be justified, and he deserves all credit for the empire trade agreements of 1932, which saved this country from bankruptcy, notwithstanding the opinions of the Minister of Labour, who at that time was not a member of this house. In so doing, the former prime minister and the present Minister of Finance have revived the policies of the late Joseph Chamberlain on tariff reform and preferential trade with the dominions and our best customer the mother land. Our leader started it, and what we have now is a vest pocket edition of it with a few cuts here and there. As Canadians let us not forget the lessons of history. For every dollar we put into the pockets of John Bull he pays us back ten times over. I do not know where our industries and the prairies would be without the British market; it is the most steadfast market we have and not one here to-day and gone to-morrow. As regards the great questions of trade, defence and immigration, let us learn from Australia and New Zealand and keep Canada a white man's country.
Last July, in the great city of Birmingham, which for two generations has led all the cities in the empire as a well-governed city, they celebrated the anniversary of the birth of Joseph Chamberlain. Where is the man anywhere who did for his city what Chamberlain did while mayor of Birmingham? Although he was bora in London, he gave away for the benefit of his city the fortune he made. He was without doubt one of the greatest Englishmen, if not the greatest, of the nineteenth century.

The Budget-Mr. Church

Chamberlain's vision was one of the glories of the Victorian and Edwardian eras, both at home and abroad. Britain took thirty years to find out that he was right on the tariff, at great cost to her people and to the working classes, and to the welfare of her dominions. Kipling's tribute to him was written in 1904, two years before his great policy was rejected, in which the poet says:
Thrones, powers, dominions block the view With episodes and underlings,
The meek historian deems them true,
Nor heeds the song that Clio sings-
The simple, central truth that stings The mob to boo, the priest to ban.
(Things never yet created things).
Once on a time there was a man.
And under that man British statecraft and diplomacy reached their greatest heights of all time. He was too big for the smallness of the House of Commons which under our so-called democracy is fast becoming a mock parliament. If the tariff policy proposed by Chamberlain in 1906 had been adopted I doubt whether there would have been a world war.
And now I wish to say a few words with regard to the policies of the Minister of Labour. About a year ago he delivered a series of lectures in this house, all purely theoretical -because if ever there was a theorist he is one. He is not a practical administrator of public affairs. As I say, about a year ago he delivered certain lectures in which he quoted copiously from the pages of Carlyle. May day was approaching, and if he had handed the unemployed a bound copy of Carlyle it would have been just as effective as anything practical that he did. There were as many out of work. Well, I have a copy of a work dealing with: the du Pont dynasty written, by John K. Winkler of New York, and reference is made to the head of the commission. This gentleman, is the head of the du Pont dynasty in this	country-gentlemen who made
hundreds of millions of dollars out of the war and got away with it, subject to no regulation. The senate of the United States has been showing what this particular concern has been doing.
I want to say something with regard' to the minister's policy, because a year ago I took strong ground against a commission being appointed on behalf of the unemployed. But a commission was appointed, and the large staff whom Mr. Purvis engaged to work on that commission, if they stood two deep, would extend from here to the Chateau Laurier. These are the people who are appointed to work on this useless commission. Mr. Purvis said that he wanted to get the facts. The municipalities already had all

the facts; for we know to-day, just as we knew then, how many registered1 unemployed there are in the various cities of Canada. The city relief departments could all have given him the information he wanted, but he adopted a system of registration of his own for Canada that was not accurate. This commission does not know half the unemployed in the riding I represent. I say that because there are a number of the unemployed who are not on relief. Many of them are near the point of starvation, but these men, good honest industrial workers, are too proud to take relief and consequently are suffering untold hardship.
I have always thought that one of the cardinal principles of Liberalism was the right to deputize, but the minister has denied that right, because a deputation of the corporation from Toronto was refused a hearing by the Minister of Labour. They saw a courtly gentleman, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who was acting prime minister last fall, and he received quite courteously the mayor and board of control of that city. He listened attentively to them and replied that when the Prime Minister came back he would lay before him the representations that had been submitted by this deputation. But what did the Minister of Labour do, this new disciple of Liberalism? He simply told the mayor and board of control that he would not receive them, advising them instead to go and see Mr. Purvis, the representative in Canada of the du Pont dynasty, president of the Dunlop company, and director of the Bell Telephone company, the Bank of Montreal, the Sun Life, Chemical Industries and General Motors of New York. The deputation was informed that it might be allowed to see this citizen, and this in face of the fact that outside labour had been brought into the country in contravention of the alien labour act. In some of our industries-there was one in my riding-Americans were put to work, having been brought in in violation of that act. What about the right to deputize? I remember the time long ago-it is one of my earliest memories-when as a member of the city council I came down with a deputation as president of the Union of Canadian Municipalities representing the municipalities to interview Sir Wilfrid Laurier. We were received most courteously by Sir Wilfrid. He waited patiently until every member of the delegation was seated before he would allow us to proceed with the business that had brought us to Ottawa, and he gave us a patient hearing.

The Budget-Mr. Church
I asked a question the other day in this house but I got no answer. The Minister of Labour has compelled the municipalities to go hat in hand to this useless national employment commission which came into being on the first of April last-an appropriate day for such an event. But the unemployed got nothing out of it; there were no jobs to be had. This commission has ignored entirely the industrial workers of Canada, constituting fifty per cent of the population. I have here a return laid on the table by the Minister of Labour on February 15, 1937, showing how the municipalities of Quebec have been treated. I am not objecting to any benefits extended to that province, which contributes largely to the revenues of the country, but I find that in Quebec city provision has been made for parks, public baths, fences, public toilets, paving alleys in park, drains, water services and correlated works including material, the total estimated cost of all such construction being $100,000. In Three Rivers provision is made for the court house which is to be enlarged and improved; there are expenditures in LTslet, Sherbrooke and Wolfe; in Three Rivers there are to be various repairs and additions to St. Maurice river bridges, amounting to $160,000. and many other public works of a similar kind. There is a whole list here amounting to $2,750,000. When you come to Ontario what was done? This is a report tabled by the Minister of Labour on January 15, under the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936. I pleaded with the minister last session to amend the act to give direct relief to the municipalities and enable him to enter into relief agreements with them, especially the larger municipalities, such as Toronto, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver and Hamilton. How much was the province of Ontario given? Not one red cent. The city of Toronto brought down a $4,000,000 relief works program; the revenue collected from there was $91,000,000, but Toronto never got a cent. When on September 16 last the government made an agreement with Ontario and gave them a large sum of money, how was it spent? On road's in new Ontario, roads in almost every Liberal constituency in that province. I have a list here; it is too long to read, but any hon. member can get this return, No. 115. Many of these roads are purely municipal undertakings, but the province was given all this money over the heads of the municipalities, which got nothing. All Toronto city got was $15,000 for some improvements in the post office, including two revolving doors, and one revolving door in the riding of the hon. member for Danforth
31111-93$
(Mr. Harris). Toronto had to contribute $125,000 for the island breakwater. It is the first time since confederation that the city of Toronto has been asked to contribute anything to it, and in my opinion it was very unwise to do so, because it is contrary to the British North America Act. The island is the breakwater for Toronto harbour and in other places the federal government pays all the cost.
I asked the Minister of Labour the question: what grants towards this relief to municipalities were made in Ontario by order in council? There has not been one order in council passed for those works, notwithstanding the money has been appropriated. I asked him in the house last Monday:
What municipal works in Ontario were so aided, giving the name of the municipality in Ontario in each case.
And his reply was, "Same as No. 1." That refers to an agreement with Ontario tabled January 15. It was not set out at all in that return; not one municipality or town got a dollar. That is the way the minister has treated the municipalities of this province, I very much regret that the municipalities of ' Ontario have been treated1 in the manner indicated. The report of the assessment commissioner of Toronto shows how home owners have been reduced under the depression. In 1929 home ownership in Toronto, according to the report of the assessment department, amounted to 63,417 out of 105,112 occupied dwellings, or sixty per cent. In 1936 the number had decreased to 59,093 out of a total of 108,065, less than fifty-five per cent. The assessment reports for 1935-36 indicate the extent to which the depression has made renters out of families which previously held an equity in the premises. The depression has forced two or three families into one house or apartment. This number was 3,407 in 1932 and in 1936 it is reduced to 2.129.
The Minister of Labour and the government have made a further raid on the municipalities. I am sorry the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) is not here. They passed an act in 1936. chapter 38, amending the Income War Tax Act, adding section 76A, under which the Minister of National Revenue collects income tax for the provincial governments. I thought the government were better politicians than to send out tax collectors and bailiffs to collect a duplicate income tax from the starved municipalities and force them to put it on real estate. The inebme tax was exclusively a prerogative of the municipalities from 1867 to 1918, when it was taken away by a duplicate income tax by the dominion for
The Budget-Mr. Church

war purposes. Now along comes the province and collects an income tax. The Minister of National Revenue has been making speeches in Ontario. If he had told them that he is the man who is collecting duplicate income tax and putting the bailiff in on them, he might have been telling something practical. That statute should be repealed; the municipalities should get their tax back. In the case of Toronto, 82,600.000 has been taken away; they have been given some back but the city is still out 8862,000, as a result of the new system and will have to add that loss to real estate.
I should like to find out from the Minister of Labour what plan the government has from now to the first of May to provide useful employment this spring for the great number of unemployed. Nothing is being done. The commission has no suburban policy. Half the people of this country are industrial workers. I have pleaded for them in this house before, asking some measure of protection to save their equity. What has the commission done for these poor workmen? Absolutely nothing. In Toronto and York west, north and east there is a. population of workmen who have been driven to the wall by the hard1 times, many of them on relief, and have lost their equity in that property. A great many are not on relief, because they are too independent, but they have lost their equity in their homes. What has the commission done for these men? Not a thing. In England they have done something, by balanced budgets, by tariffs, by sane and sensible housing and reconstruction policies, a safe suburban policy for the workers; and by state assistance to the industrial worker. They have had to tide them over bad times, as this parliament has the fishermen and the farmers. But this commission of figureheads has done nothing but make reports, and have forgotten all about the suburban and industrial worker. They have a youth committee now, and all they do is travel on the trains. They have made reports, and what are these reports? Mr. Burton of Simpson's wanted to have a regimentation of youth, a regular standing army. The Minister of Labour seems to have a small standing army in his department. In the United States one man, Mr. Hopkins, can handle all that work of relief for a population of 129,000,000, but this country's labour department is the most useless department of the government. It should be called the department of capital, not of labour. It is the most useless organization of any department in the government and I know something about labour conditions.

I see my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) here. The government have not been altogether kind to him; they have amalgamated his Irish regiment with the Toronto Scottish. He is very popular with the industrial workers in his constituency, and he can see as a military man that an ordinary militia regiment is not to be compared with the Minister of Labour's unemployed commission regiment. Mr. Purvis is not a military man. He was bom in England, and a short time before the war started he went to the United States and then went down to South America. After the war he came to Montreal and became a millionaire as the representative of the du Pont and other interests. He has a small standing army of an unemployment commission all making reports. It consists of privates making reports under this act to the lance-corporal, the lance-corporal making reports to the corporal, the corporal to the lieutenant, the lieutenant to the captain, the captain to the major, the major to the colonel, and so on to the major-general, Mr. Purvis- a long retinue making reports before they reach the minister under the act. And while this is going on the industrial workers in my own and many other ridings have been driven out of their homes and have lost their equity, while waiting for this useless commission to do something. Is it any wonder that the right hon. leader of the opposition-notwithstanding the great assistance that he has given this government, supporting things which he deemed it to be the duty of the opposition to support-used the language he did in this house? I am prepared to use language ten times stronger, if necessary, for I know and have seen something about these conditions.
In my riding there are families whose great grandfathers, whose grandfathers and whose fathers owned property. Now many of the sons are industrial workers, many of their children are out of work and some of them are on relief. What has happened? The oldest boys do not like to hang around the house when they are not able to earn anything, so they take to the rods and wander looking for work as far as British 'Columbia. I saw some of these young fellows last summer; I found nearly sixty-five of them riding the box cars. The train was halted and I got out of my automobile and started talking to some of them. Several were wearing high school sweaters, and I found that I knew half a dozen of them. I asked them where they were going, and they said they were going to the coast, or to new Ontario. When they got up to the mines in Ontario and the west they found the work being done by foreigners, and they could not get jobs. As a result

The Budget-Mr. Church
they were locked up, all because of the policy followed by this parliament of divesting itself of responsibility. We might just as well go home and let the house of Purvis and the du Pont dynasty run the affairs of the country. We might as well close up here if we are going to allow Mr. Purvis to lord it over the municipal representatives and members of parliament from the province of Ontario. I know something about the mishandling of this employment question, and when I see these men being driven out of their homes while this parliament does nothing for them I think the time has come to say something in this house, whether the Minister of Labour likes it or not.
Last year I made some constructive suggestions to the minister in this regard. I told him he should do as was done by the government in 1919; he should add a clause in the act by which these agreements could be made directly with the municipalities. The previous minister, a very able man, Hon. Mr. Gordon, who was Minister of Labour and Mines, did ten times the work that is being done by the present minister; he tided us over the worst five years of the depression. You could telephone to him and any municipal officer could get relief at once, but the situation is different to-day. You have to run around after this Purvis commission, this travelling minstrel show which is touring the country. At one time I was in a minstrel show myself; I know something about how such shows are run, and I can tell you that the amateur minstrel show at the old Grand opera house with which I was connected could not be compared with Mr. Purvis and his minstrels, who are travelling from Vancouver to Halifax. In the United States one man can handle all that work, and something has been done over there. It is true that they have made mistakes, but conditions are not the same.
Let me tell my hon. friend that I sat in this house from 1921 to 1930, when the Liberal party was in power. What did they do? Every session a speech from the throne was delivered, but the subject of unemployment was never mentioned during the nine years they were in office. On December 14, 1926, I said:
I very much regret that in the speech from the throne the government have given no indication that they are going to take any active steps to solve the economic ills of this country. There is the problem, for instance, of unemployment. Unemployment to-day in the larger centres of population is very acute. I might refer to the unemployment in the large manufacturing city from which I come. I know the conditions there, and I know that in the
past few days very rapid preparations have been made by the social and charitable institutions and public bodies of various kinds in the city to try and cope with the unemployment situation with which we shall be faced this coming winter. I regret, I say, that the government in the speech from the throne has announced no definite policy for taking care of the economic ills in the larger centres of population in this country.
I asked the then minister of labour, Mr. Heenan, who is now in another house, whether the government had made any plans for providing work for the unemployed, .and whether or not the government were prepared to contribute one-third of the cost of relief. Mr. Heenan in reply to me said the government would do nothing, that it would be contrary to the British North America Act, and that this was a matter for the provinces. Then I asked if the government would appoint a royal commission, as was done in 1927, in the United States senate, about a month later on the motion of the late mayor of Detroit, Senator Couzens. When the depression came on they were ready, but the government here said there was no unemployment, and that if there was it was a matter for the provinces. So nothing was done right down\ to 1930. The government refused to have count of the unemployed taken, with the result that when the late government came into* office they had nothing before them. During: the five years hon. gentlemen opposite wera in opposition they did not treat* the government as the present government is being treated by the right hon. leader of the opposition. Oh, no; they threw cold water on the social legislation and unemployment insurance and put all kinds of stumbling blocks in the way, with the result that we have the present condition of affairs.
The judgments that have been rendered by the privy council after all are only opinions having to do with abstract and not with concrete questions and are only dicta and opinions. Sickness and unemployment insurance was part of the Liberal platform of 1919, but this Liberal government was in power from 1921 to 1930 without making an attempt to bring in that insurance. That scheme has been in operation in England since 1910, and as a result England was better prepared for the depression than any [DOT] other country. The supreme court divided three to two on the question of unemployment insurance; the two strongest judges said we could grant money under the first part of section 91, having to do with "public debt and property." What is the use of the Minister of Labour talking about the provinces
The Budget-Mr. Church


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, if I may I would like to read a telegram which I received this morning from Leduc, Alberta. It reads:
Due to the fact that the importation of vegetable oils to be used as shortening in the place of butter and lard is seriously damaging the markets for these products in Canada we respectfully urge you to support the national Dairy Council in its application for a special duty on such oils.
Gus Lingert,
W. L. Perley,
H. Hamilton,
R. Hetsler,
John I. Wanicka,
Algot Pearson,
O. Bostrom,
E. O. Weedman,
E. W. Roth,
Arthur Pearson,
E. S. Anderson,
E. A. Westlund.
It is said that unemployment is the greatest problem we have to face in Canada. I believe that to be true. It has been said in this house that the only way to preserve our democracy is to put everyone to work. I do not believe that is so; in fact I believe the very reverse to be true. What are the facts? Everybody has been put to work in Russia, in Germany and in Italy, and in every one of th%se countries democracy has ceased to exist. Everybody has not been put to work in the British Empire or in the United States, and in these countries democracy still exists. I think we must accept the idea of permanent unemployment and must make provision for it.
I do not wish to take up any time in discussing ways and means of curing or providing for unemployment, but I should like to suggest one very simple and obvious thing to do, and that is to lower the age at which old age pensions are paid. What is the sense of making men of seventy work when there are hundreds of thousands of young men idle? I do not know to what age this limit should be reduced, but to start with I would suggest sixty years. I know I shall be told that this is not a wise thing to do, and I shall be asked, where is the money to come from? That is the invariable question. If I may make a further suggestion it would be this. I would say to
The Budget-Mr. Jaques

those who control the finances of the country: "Gentlemen, we have received a mandate from the people of Canada to end poverty and unemployment. We believe that it is mainly a question of finance. You claim a monopoly of the knowledge of money, and certainly you enjoy a monopoly of creating it. We are going to give you the job of financing the provision for unemployment which, by your very policies, you have mainly brought about. We will give you reasonable time to do this, and meantime we will sharpen your wits. We propose to license financial institutions, all branches and branch managers, accepting at first a nominal licence fee. But if at the end of, say, a year you have not arrived at a solution we shall multiply that fee one thousand times, and will use the money to take care of the unemployed." The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) told us of the increased business prosperity of Canada, which I believe to be more apparent than real, and claimed the credit was due to the tariff policies of the government. I do not agree with him. I believe any improvement in business there may be is due to a policy of easy money, behind a smoke screen of trade agreements. Since I have been in Canada I have heard questions of tariff and free trade debated, and all I want to say is that if you quote the opinions of fifty of the most eminent business men who are in favour of free trade I will quote the words of fifty equally eminent men who are in favour of protection. I have the advantage over some members of having lived part of my life in a totally free trade country, and another part in protected Canada. When I lived in England, which of course was then under free trade, I enjoyed financial independence; and certainly for people in that position free trade is a fine thing. One's money goes a long way. But there is another side to the picture: there is the horrible and disgusting poverty behind the scenes; and whatever hon. members opposite may say about free trade, this much is certain, that during a policy of free trade the slums of England, Scotland and Wales were developed. I do not say the free trade policy was the only cause of slums, but certainly it did not prevent them. When as a young man I came to Canada I soon learned that my money did not go so far as it did in England. I found that a shilling was equal to about seventy-five cents. In spite of that fact, I do not think anyone will question that at the beginning of the century the masses of the people were better off in protected Canada than they were in free trade England. I believe there is no 
doubt about that, and the fact that Canada attracted hundreds of thousands of British people is proof of it.
However, I would hesitate to say the same thing to-day. I believe that particularly at the present time as a place in which to live, England is more attractive than Canada.


Mr. SPENCE:: But they have not free trade now.


Norman Jaques: That is true. The fact that England has adopted a policy of protection may or may not be the cause of it.
May I say a few words about inflation? Whenever any monetary reform is suggested, at once we are told about inflation. That is the bogey to frighten the naughty children. But we never hear anything about the evils of deflation. I believe the obvious reason is that those who enjoy financial independence, those who have good salaries and who control finance, do very well during times of deflation. Their money goes farther, and prices are lower, but at the expense of those who produce the wealth of Canada. I represent thousands of people who in the last seven years, through a policy of deflation, have been utterly ruined. The work of a lifetime has been swept away, and from a position of economic independence, hundreds of thousands of people in western Canada have been brought to ruin simply because deflation has made it impossible except at a loss to produce the wealth of the country. What we need is a system which will avoid the evils of inflation and1 those of deflation, but certainly that is not possible under a system of orthodox finance.
Then we have the good old velocity of circulation. Of course, that is a smoke screen to hide a shortage of money. When we say there is a shortage of money we are told that there is enough of it, but that it does not circulate quickly enough. May I be permitted to read the definition of velocity of circulation as stated by Professor D. B. Copland, doctor of science, and an eminent economist:
A given unit of money will circulate many times in a unit of time. It will make many payments because it has what economists call velocity of circulation.
May I illustrate the point with a story? It seems that two Irishmen, Pat and Mike, invested' in a keg of beer which they were going to retail at the local race meet. As they had only ten cents left after buying the beer they found they had to carry it to the track. It was a hot day with a bright sun overhead. Pat, who had the ten cents, said to Mike, "Sell me a drink of beer," and paid

The Budget-Mr. Jaques
over to Mike the ten cents for the drink. Of course that made Mike thirsty, and he said to Pat, "Sell me a glass of beer," and passed the ten cents back to Pat. And since it was a hot day, it was not long before the ten cents had passed a good many times and the keg was empty. I think hon. members will agree with me that, given two Irishmen and a keg of beer and a hot day, you would have a very satisfactory and satisfying velocity of circulation. That is a perfectly good illustration of the velocity of circulation theory, but what I should like to be told is this: How does ten cents recoup Pat and Mike for their beer, and how does it replace the beer? It will replace ten. cents' worth of beer and no more.
We are also given the illustration of the baker who takes in, say fifty dollars; he runs across to the butcher and spends the fifty dollars. The butcher, we are told, goes to the hardware merchant and spends the fifty dollars there; the hardware merchant goes to the grocer, and so on, so that according to this argument the same fifty dollars will do hundreds of dollars' worth of business. But it will do nothing of the sort. One dollar will liquidate one dollar's worth of debt and no more. And it is easy to see the reason. The money issues from, a bank as a debt through production, and it is paid out in wages and salaries to the public. There is no other source of purchasing power than wages, salaries and dividends. The public take their wages and salaries and dividends to the local storekeeper or to the theatre and buy what they need with it. As soon as it crosses the counter it is on its way back to where it started from, and a cancellation results. So, as Major Douglas says, it is a complete fallacy to suppose that one dollar of purchasing power can liquidate nore than one dollar's worth of debts.
There is another subject about which I have heard a great deal in this house, and that is the subject of thrift, hard work, " tightening your belt " and working harder. But it seems to me that we have forgotten the meaning of the word " thrift." Thrift, I think, means to thrive. If we travel about Canada we see little evidence of any real thrift. I have travelled a great deal this last year, and, looking out of the windows, what have I seen? Thousands of miles of forest destroyed by the axe or by fire, hundreds of thousands of acres of wind-blown and weed-infested land, thousands of buildings rotting from lack of paint, idle plants, idle machinery, and idle men. Yet we pride ourselves on being a thrifty people! As a matter of fact
we are not thrifty; we are thriftless. Thrift in the modern sense means saving money. I suggest that that is not thrift; it is avarice, and I believe that avarice, or the hoarding of money, has caused more human misery than all the forces of nature combined. A man saves money, that is he refrains from consuming, and to that extent goods cannot be sold. We are told, of course, that to-day money which is saved is invested, so that if one person does not spend it somebody else will. That is not quite true. When money is invested it is paid out in wages and salaries in respect of a fresh cycle of production, and on its way to the consumer's pockets again it lays a fresh trail of costs. The same lot of money cannot liquidate two lots of costs; in other words, you have two lots of goods and only one lot of money.
Of course saving is the only individual remedy for financial insecurity, but at the same time it is, I believe, a social evil of the worst kind. It is all right for the individual to save for a rainy day, but when the individual saves for a rainy day and numbers of individuals do likewise they are bringing about a continuous wet spell for increasing numbers of people.	The same reasoning
applies to insurance of all kinds. I am perfectly well aware that the only security which the individual can command is his insurance. At the same time he does so to a very large extent at the expense of the community. And so with unemployment insurance: that, it seems to me, if it were adopted would lead to an increase of unemployment; it would represent poverty, and surely we do not want to represent poverty, we want to abolish it.
And what is the workman to save? I am not speaking of men who are lucky enough to have so much money that they simply cannot spend it; of course they must save and invest it. Neither do I advocate taking that excess money from those people. There is no need of that; we are glad that there are at least some people who have enough. But consider the average wage earner, receiving about seventy dollars per month, who is told that he should put aside part of his wages to insure himself against unemployment or against old age. What I want to know is, what is he going to save? From a national standpoint there is no need to save money, considering money to-day-in spite of the denials-as simply figures in a book.	As
there is no need to save that, is he to save his food and his clothes? When he is in the heyday of his strength is he to save for his old age, his overalls, some clothes and some
The Budget-Mr. Jaques

food which will either be mouldy or rotten when he needs them? Where is the point in saving? How can he save without bringing about a shortage of purchasing power?
Consider a community on an island. We will say that they have been shipwrecked. For a considerable time those people will be put to it to supply themselves with the necessities of life. It will take the efforts of all to keep themselves alive. But if they have any intelligence, sooner or later somebody will say, for instance, "If we had a boat and a net one of us could catch all the fish that we need and the rest of us could devote ourselves to something else." That would be a case of real saving. In order to build the boat and make the net, the community would have to put aside some other work until the boat was built; but when the boat was finished, of course, they would have the advantage of it and more time to devote to other things. But meantime they must save on their production in order to build the boat. That was true so long as the world was in an age of real scarcity. But suppose we want to build a boat to-day: where is the point in saving money for it? If we do we are going to cause a certain amount of unemployment in the meantime, because goods to that extent cannot be sold. And what do we need to save labour for when there is labour and machinery to spare? There is no need to lay anyone off to build the boat because there are hundreds of thousands, not to say millions, of men looking for the job. We could build hundreds of boats, we could make practically everything we need without saving a cent. I suggest that the mere fact of saving is one of the causes of unemployment and poverty. I do not mean to suggest that we should prohibit or attempt to prohibit saving and insurance, but I do suggest that care must be taken to see that those who must save and want to save can do so without penalizing the rest of the community.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke some days ago he quoted certain well-known lines of Shakespeare. I will read only three:
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
And the right hon. gentleman spoke these words of his own:
I say to those who hesitate to realize the stature to which Canada has thus far advanced, and what is expected of her as a nation, they will do well to heed and to apply to our country the words of profound wisdom addressed by Polonius to his son Laertes, as Laertes set out upon his own.

Having been the victim of borrowing for purposes of production, I know full well the truth that borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. People are encouraged to borrow money when money is plentiful; in fact, that is the only time they can borrow; and if they are enterprising they want of course to branch out and enlarge their operations. Things look good, times are promising, money is easy and they borrow. But when they come to pay back they find that money has become tight, scarce, and their prices have fallen, so that they cannot pay and their security is lost. That has been the story of the farming people whom I represent here.
The blame for the poverty in the west is put entirely on one thing, the drought. That is not true of my riding. The riding which I represent has never suffered from drought; the farmers have had fairly good crops right along. But they have had to market their crops at about twenty-five per cent of what it cost to produce them. I myself have delivered perfectly good barley at seven cents a bushel, and it cost me six cents to thresh it. That is why the farmers of northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan are in the condition they are in to-day. The policy of deflation, sound money, has made it impossible for them to pay their debts; and then, to add insult to injury, they are called dishones't. If we are to bring about and maintain any kind of permanent prosperity, one of the most obvious things to do is this. When people borrow money the money must be available with which to pay back. And I would add, in closing, words of even more profound wisdom tfian Shakespeare's-the love of money is the root of all evil.


Mr. A. J. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: In rising to take part in this debate, I wish at the outset to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on his budget. I shall not attempt to discuss it in detail. I shall leave that task to hon. members who are better informed and more experienced than I am.
I wish also to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and all the members of his government on the unceasing and strenuous efforts they have made to improve the situation of the country. Their efforts have not been in vain, for, ever since the Liberal party came into power, a new confidence has arisen among the people of Canada and conditions have improved to a remarkable extent. Our trade has increased, our industrial production has expanded as a result of the opening of new markets, and our railway traffic has felt the initial effects

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
of the policies now in force. But in spite of these general improvements it must be admitted that we are still far from the prosperity at which we all aim. Indeed our agricultural and labouring classes, for whom the depression has been most severe, are still suffering keenly.
The wages paid to certain classes of workers, especially in the rural districts, are entirely out of proportion to the cost of living. For instance I cannot conceive of a family with eight children living on an income of $1.50 a day. It is hardly enough to provide decent food; what then is left for clothing, shelter, taxes, and other necessities? Real prosperity cannot be expected so long as the purchasing power of the masses is not increased, and it cannot increase so long as our working classes are not paid better wages. I do not pretend to be an economist, but I believe I have acquired during my lifetime a certain experience that has been denied to some. I have known the poverty of the masses through having shared it myself, and if I feel so deeply for our humble workers who put in many hours of arduous toil for a wage of SI.50 it is because of the understanding I have of their lamentable situation. How often have I been profoundly moved at the sad stories of poor workingmen who complained to me of their sufferings and hardships, and whose complaints I found to be fully justified. Our labouring classes have long been demanding reasonable wages, wages which would allow them to improve their situation and to look to the future with greater hope, but they are tired of waiting for reforms that are essential but are so long in coming. In an age when colossal fortunes are being built up so rapidly, it is only right that our poor workingmen should be paid wages sufficient to provide their families with at least a minimum of the comforts of life.
One of the most pressing duties of any government anxious to maintain our internal peace is to take drastic measures to end such shocking abuses as those which have been revealed in the past few years. In passing I wish to congratulate once more the Prime Minister upon having ordered the investigation, which has been conducted with such firmness, of the textile industry. The present century has been called a century of progress, but to me it seems a century of slavery and crying social injustice such as the world has perhaps never seen before. At the rate we are now going, if governments do not bring about extensive reforms to end the present abuses the most frightful disaster will inevitably overtake us.
I wish to take the opportunity of my participation in this debate to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the lamentable situation in which a large number of farmers and agricultural workers in my constituency find themselves as a result of the bad weather conditions of last summer, followed by early frosts which prevented their crops from ripening. In some parishes at least seventy-five per cent of our farmers will not have any seed this spring, and unless something is done to assist them a large number will be ruined.
I shall now conclude my remarks in the French language, and I trust that the right hon. leader of the opposition will not consider that as a concession.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, I now wish to revert to a subject which I mentioned during the last session and which is most important for the future welfare of eastern Quebec. I am referring to the development of natural t resources in the hinterland of Gaspe peninsula, which offer great posibilities. I am absolutely convinced that if we were to study thoroughly this plan and give it due consideration, we would find in it a solution to our unemployment problem in a good many counties.
Gaspe peninsula, known to thousands of Canadian and American tourists who visit it each year is a really delightful country, covers all that part of the province of Quebec which is bounded on the north and northeast by the St. Lawrence gulf, on the south by Chaleur bay, and on the west by the Matapedia valley.	It includes the large
constituencies of Gaspe, Bonaventure, and Matapedia-Matane.	From Pointe a Pere
to the mouth of the Metis river it is 190 miles long; its width is about 85 miles, and its area, more than 12,000 miles.
In so far as its climate is concerned, one must not base his opinion on the remarks I made a few moments ago, for the weather last year, was quite exceptional. Gaspe's climate cold as it may be reputed to be, has a favouring influence on plant life. In winter it is dry and healthy, and in summer, sufficiently favourable to ensure the ripening of the crops. Excessive heat is unknown in that district. Gaspe's climate might be compared to that of Sault Ste Marie, in Ontario, or that of Edmonton, in Alberta.
The south shore of the peninsula is served by three railway sections which are now part of the Canadian National Railways and which are as follows: from Mont Joli to Matapedia, the old Intercolonial; from Matapedia to New-Carlisle, the Quebec Western; and from New Carlisle to Gaspe, the Quebec Oriental and Atlantic.
1482	COMMONS
The Budget-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
The north shore has no railways, except its western end which is served for a distance of 36 miles, namely from Mont Joli to Matane, by the Canada & Gulf Terminal Railway. As to the hinterland, there are no transportation facilities. It remained in a wild state just as it was when Jacques Cartier discovered Canada, 400 years ago. However, it is not for lack of natural wealth, and it is this natural wealth which I would now like to dwell upon.
The lofty Shickshoeks range, with peaks reaching up to 4,000 feet, runs across the peninsula on the greatest part of its length. On this high Shickshoeks range, at about two thirds of its width from Chaleur bay, there are two plateaus spreading one towards the north, the other towards the south. The headwaters which are draining that part of the country bear the following names: Nou-velle, Cascapedia, Bonaventure, Pabos, St. John and York.
It is estimated that 85 to 90 per cent of the district is wooded country. These forests of the Gaspe peninsula might contain approximately 40 million cords of soft wood, balsam and spruce, or 20 billion feet b.m. of lumber, and about one billion feet of hard wood and pine. These forests constitute the greatest timber wealth of eastern Quebec, but they have now attained their full growth, and moreover they are now subject to attacks from pests and other foes of the tree. Therefore, if they are not developed in the very near future, it will be an incalculable loss for our province and the country at large.
Forest fires also caused considerable damage in the Gaspe peninsula. It is worth noting that most of .the big fires which broke out did most damage in the centre part of the peninsula where development after a fire was practically impossible, which meant a total loss. Since 1916, it is estimated that about 5,000.000 cords of pulwood were thus destroyed. If you only value a cord at $5, you will realize what enormous amount that represents. If you add the loss brought about by pests which are causing considerable damage, as well as the rapidly increasing depreciation of the trees after they are fully grown, you will realize what immense wealth we are thus wasting through our inaction. I maintain that our governments have no right to forsake and waste such plentiful resources which Providence has placed at our disposal, particularly at a time when thousands of unemployed are daman-ding work.
Having considered Gaspe's timber resources I shall now turn to its mineral possibilities. Around 1854, Sir William Logan was sent

there in quest of coal. It was in the course of that survey that oil was spotted out, first around Gaspe, from the York river district down near cape St. Pierre. According to more recent surveys, the oil fields would seem to spread from Gaspe bay to the Matapedia valley. As regards mineral ores, they have been found in large quantities all over the peninsula. Gold and silver bearing ores were found along the York river, at Marsouins, Cross Point, but they did not carry their search any further. During the last few years, the investigations have rather had to do with lead and zinc along Berry brook, a tributary to the Cascapedia. Numerous veins with a satisfactory content were found since 1909. They found in Deslandes and Lesseps townships chrome iron pyrites bearing some splendid iron. Although the investigations were not carried on very far, asbestos was found at St. Moise, at Matapedia, and also in the townships of Blanchet, Courcelette and Weir. Almost everywhere there is plenty of granite for building purposes. Some blocks have been known to measure 8 feet in diameter and to reach up to 350 feet in length. Moreover, there is marble, limestone and sandstone of the best quality. Notwithstanding the investigations that were carried on more for examination than development purposes, geologists are in agreement as to the zinc, lead and copper resources of the Gaspe peninsula. One of them, Alcock, noted some copper bearing fields in Tessier and St. Denis townships, in Matane county and in the York river district. Others suggested in their reports to undertake more extensive surveys and prospection on a large scale in those districts.
It will thus be seen that Gaspe's resources are real. But we lack the necessary means for their development. At the present time, prospection and development cannot be actively carried on. owing to the many difficulties to be overcome in reaching the centre of the peninsula. There are no transportation facilities and prospectors must carry on their backs their equipment and food over narrow trails that are blocked up most of the time. If communications were easier, it would be possible to undertake more exhaustive investigations, to work the mines already discovered and to find new ones. The results that have been achieved so far, were obtained with the greatest difficulty. The gold mines of Ontario and northern Quebec offered no greater opportunities than those of the Gaspe district, but transportation facilities made their development possible.
So, Gaspe peninsula where, so far, only incomplete investigations have been made, where only a bird's eye view, as it were, has been

The Budget-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
taken, shows every indication of a mineral wealth which only awaits human intervention to reveal itself and become a valuable economic asset for Canada as a whole. Gaspe peninsula could become the most important mining centre of eastern Quebec, which would increase our national welfare.
Besides the wealth which I have just mentioned, the Gaspe district has great possibilities from the standpoint of agriculture and colonization. According to the geologist Alcock, the Gaspe district has a most fertile soil. It would appear that the peninsula has enough land for 40 or 60 new parishes. It would be the most suitable place for carrying into effect a comprehensive colonization scheme, which would relieve our population in our older parishes and afford room for our farmers' sons, who would find there the necessary land and the proper conditions for the development of their energy and ability.
The Gaspe district has many other resources, but let me mention only its long famed fisheries, its splendid rivers, its wonderful seaports through which the goods produced inland could be shipped. It is one of those few regions wdiich lack almost nothing and are practically self-sufficient.
Since we still have acute unemployment, since all those remedies which have been used so far have proved to be mere palliatives, and have not given the expected results, since this unemployment calamity threatens more and more to disorganize our economic system, why not consider a scheme for the development of our resources on a large scale? How many countries would like to own the wonderful heritage with which Providence has blessed us, in order to make it productive.
Industry will never be able to absorb all our working men. Yet, it is imperative that we should give up that baneful policy of relief, initiated by' the former government, which has spoiled our people in teaching them to rely upon the nation for their upkeep.
Therefore. Mr. Speaker, work is what we need. Work for our honest unemployed who are courageous and find it humiliating to appeal unceasingly for help. Work for our young people who are losing their spirit through idleness. At a time when there is so much unrest, when so many false prophets are propagating their nefarious doctrines throughout the world, we must necessarily draw our young people from the harmful environment in which they now live. Otherwise, we would be turning this rising generation into a communistic and revolutionary class. To all those who are courageous and proud, to all those
who are industrious and wish to get on in the world, we should hold out new prospects. To all these people, the great Gaspe district opens a wide field of activity, provided the governments will make it accessible for them.
And here is what I suggest: a five-year plan through which the federal and provincial governments would each spend, in cooperation, $500,000 a year, first to provide transportation facilities consisting at first in a highway along the centre of the whole peninsula, its starting points being, from the St. Lawrence river, Matane, and from the Matapedia valley either Sayabec, Val-Brillant, Amqui or Lac au Saumon. Then, mineral prospection on a large scale, the opening up of regions suitable for settlement and the development of accessible forests, and after that, the building of a railroad which would then be, I am quite sure, considered as absolutely necessary.
Air. Speaker, in the past, the province of Quebec has not been pampered like some other provinces as regards railways. To-day, she would need hundreds of millions to make up for the lost time. And in order to see whether our claim is justified, it is only necessary to look over our railway maps and to compare them to those of other provinces. Eastern Quebec was never treated fairly in that respect, and Gaspe has been especially overlooked. That district has been lamentably disregarded by all the successive governments in this country.
That is the reason why, in spite of the countless wealth which is to be found in Gaspe, that region, which is as vast as some kingdoms, has not developed at the same rate as the rest of the country. At various times, its people have been compelled to go into exile, because they could not make a living or find enough room on that land which, however, they loved so much.
Will our governments decide at last to hear the claims of Gaspe. that land full of promise which for so many years has been overlooked and forgotten? I am confident that the present government which, I know, is quite favourably disposed, will give its best attention to the suggestions I have just made and find it possible to carry out the plan which I have just outlined in this house. Then our old land of Gaspe will awake from her slumber of the past four centuries. And for our younger generation, dispirited by those six years of depression, this will mean the dawn of a new and better day. and for our thousands of unemployed, who live in poverty, it will bring the prospect of more prosperous times to which they have been looking forward for so long.
The Budget-Mr. Perley


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for me to review in detail in forty minutes the many important questions raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in his budget speech. Therefore, I shall endeavour to confine myself to those problems which pertain particularly to western Canada. The minister expressed hopes for a bright fiscal year in 1937-38. If things are to improve as he thinks they are, why did he not endeavour to give some encouragement to the consumers of Canada by reducing some of the forms of taxation? I refer particularly to the sales tax which, as the minister stated, represents about thirty per cent of the total income of the government. A one per cent reduction would have meant $15,000,000 which the consumer would not have to pay, and a two per cent reduction would have meant something worth while to the consumer.
The minister stated that the financial picture was much better and he was particularly pleased to announce that the wheat board had repaid all government and bank advances and other obligations and were returning 18,000,000 to the dominion treasury. I am sure it will be interesting for the farmers of western Canada to note that, as $3,000,000 of it will be used to return the five per cent cut to the civil servants.
I should like to draw the attention of this house to the importance of the agricultural industry. Unless the farmers of Canada, and the farmers of western Canada in particular, are prosperous, Canada cannot bp prosperous. The three prairie provinces have produced as much as one billion dollars worth of new wealth in a year. The average annual production of new wealth during the past ten years has been $700,000,000. Hon. members can readily appreciate what that means to industry in eastern Canada and to the railways through the carriage of freight.
In the few remarks I have to make I intend to deal more particularly with wheat. Our difficulties of marketing this and other grains began in 1929-30. Because of the depression, the wheat importing countries of the world took less wheat and we in Canada found ourselves in difficulties. Some of the leading wheat companies, particularly the pool, found themselves in difficulty in 1930. I shall not review all that the previous government did in dealing with this problem, nor do I think it is necessary for me to cover all that occurred prior to the passing of the wheat board act in 1935 because I think all this is well within thp memoiy of nearly every hon. member. Suffice it to say that Mr. McFarland was
TMr A. J. Lapointe.]
in charge from 1930 to 1935 when the wheat board act came into force. During that period he not only handled the surplus which he took over in 1930, but he added considerably to that surplus because of the stabilization operations which he conducted. The government was asked to allow him to conduct these operations by boards of trade, municipal organizations, banks, wheat pools, the grain exchange and other organizations in western Canada. I shall state only this fact, that Mr. Mclvor appearing before the committee investigating the Canadian Wheat Board Act, passed in 1935, gave evidence, in answer to a question I put to him, to the effect that the McFarland operations had meant at least 15 cents a bushel on all the wheat which had been grown in a four-year period in western Canada, over and above what the farmer would have received if he had not carried on those operations.
In the month of October, 1935, there was a change of government, and a change in the wheat board. .Mr. Murray was put in charge, as chairman. I make this statement: From the first day he took over he pursued a fire sale policy with respect to the surplus and the selling of wheat. We knew Mr. Murray quite well; we know that he was the man who had informed Mr. Ralston, when Mr. Ralston made the charges. It was he who supplied Mr. Ralston with the information he used, and in making the charges Mr. Ralston often used the expresion "if I am correctly informed" or "if information given me is correct," and we knew from where that intormation came.
I shall deal with three things that Mr. Murray did when he first took over, and as matters went along, to show conclusively that he pursued a fire sale policy. He took office on December 5, and the first sale is recorded on December 9. One of the first things he did in taking office was to make an agreement with the members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, or a committee of it. The agreement is to be found at page 259 of the evidence taken last year. I would ask hon. members to pay attention to the second paragraph of the agreement, which reads as follows:-
No. 2. The board are willing to agree to the second suggestion made by the exporters committee: namely, that the board will make wheat available to exporters in sufficient quantity to cover their overnight acceptances during the first ten minutes after the opening of the market, at not more than i cent over the previous day's close.
The wording suggests that they accepted the suggestion made by the committee of the

The Budget-Mr. Perley
grain exchange, and the basis of the agreement was production of offers and acceptances.
I wish further to draw this to the attention of the house. At page 508 of Hansard for this session hon. members will see that the agreement was made without the knowledge of the government, and that the agreement which was cancelled ten days later was cancelled without the knowledge of the government. That was the reply to the question I had asked.
Following the agreement being made, sales were made on the 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th and so on. On December 13 he sold 22,025,000 bushels of wheat, 8,500,000 or more of which was delivered under the terms of the agreement. That was the morning that word was received in Winnipeg that the Argentine market had increased 19 cents, and Liverpool was up 7. It is interesting to note that that agreement was cancelled, however, on the 20th, and the sales following the cancellation of the agreement dropped from millions to thousands. On December 23, there were 333,000 bushels of wheat sold; on December 24, 371,000; and on February 28 it dropped to 51,000. I claim that that is evidence that he was playing into the hands of the members of the exchange.
Owing to that sale on December 13, the leader of the opposition made a charge on the floor of the House of Commons after the house met last year. On February 13 I made a statement that when the committee was investigating we would demand the production of these offers and acceptances as proof of sale. I may say we never received them before the committee. If hon. members will look at page 307 of the evidence they will find that in reply to my question the chairman stated that those documents had never been in the hands of the government or the wheat board, and that Mr. Murray also stated he was unable to produce them. In their place they produced an auditors' report, which is a most interesting document. It was tabled before the committee, is dated March 6, and states the cause of the delay was that they had to communicate with the principals of certain companies in the old country in order to get the offers and acceptances, and documents necessary to offer as proof of sale. That is two and a half months after.
There is a second matter I should like to draw to the attention of the house, and it is this: On December 12, a day or two after he took over, he dispatched Mr. Cecil Lamont to the old country. Mr. Lamont had a letter of some importance to British millers and
importers, to one or two parts of which I shall refer. The letter is to be found at page 145 of the evidence. As it is long I shall not attempt to read it all, but one paragraph states he may inform the British millers that the fixed minimum price paid producers by the board does not necessarily bear any relation to the board's selling price. Another paragraph states that he may inform the British millers what the board considers a fair value or premium for Canadian wheat as compared with other wheats, and that the board does not agree that the premium at which our wheat had been held in the past two years was a fair premium. I say that shows clearly they were anxious to sell our wheat at almost any price.
That letter, which I call the Lamont letter, cost the farmers of western Canada at least 820,000.000. Here is my reason for making the statement: I have myself, personally- not second hand-been in conversation with representatives of British millers. In conversation with a representative of a subsidiary company of Joseph Ranke and Company within the last three months I asked about the Lamont letter. The person to whom I spoke knew it almost word for word. I asked him what he considered it meant. He said they interpreted it as an invitation to bid for the wheat at anything less than the fixed minimum price. I asked him how much he considered it had lowered the purchase price, and he replied that it was at least ten cents, and possibly nearer fifteen cents. He indicated to me that they had purchased the wheat at from ten to fifteen cents a bushel less, from the date they saw that letter until July 31 last year. That is a serious matter, and I give the circumstances from first-hand information.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Second-hand.


Ernest Edward Perley: It is secondhand to you, but it came first-hand to me. May I say here and now that if hon. members review the evidence they will find that last year there was produced before the committee a statement from a certain Rotterdam firm as to the low price at which the Canadian government was selling its wheat. The Australian government had protested. There were many evidences that the board was underselling the market.
A committee was set up last year, and may I point out an interesting fact in connection with its work. When the committee met and organized on March 24 they sent for Mr. Murray, but Mr. Murray wrote a letter, dated March 26, to the secretary of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, a copy of which I have in my hand. In that letter he states:
The Budget-Mr. Perley

The Canadian wheat board will continue, as far as they are able to do so, cooperating with the trade in spreading as well as other marketing operations. . . . The next spread will be Jifly-October, and we wish to suggest to the trade that they should consider if it is desirable for them to continue depending blindly on the board for all or any particular part of this spread.
That was a nice invitation to the members of the grain exchange, just before he departed for Ottawa to appear before the committee. In my opinion it was an absolutely improper statement on his part. In effect he was saying to the trade, "You need not worry; we are going to take care of you. It does not matter about the investigation or anything else."
The report of the committee which investigated this subject last year is an interesting document. It recites, first, that a full examination of Mr. Murray was conducted, and that in selling wheat he was complying with the policy the government had in view when it set up the wheat board. The second paragraph is as follows:
While there was a short interest in the Winnipeg wheat market in December of 1935. no evidence was produced that would warrant the conclusion that speculative short interests were protected by the board in that month. As the committee finds it impracticable to obtain conclusive evidence on this point, we recommend that this matter be referred for further investigation to the Royal Commission, the appointment of which is recommended in this report.
There is the reason for the Turgeon commission, the commission which has been inquiring for several months into the grain trade, yet I have not seen in the published reports of the evidence they have been taking any reference to this important matter, the first thing they were asked to consider. It is not necessary for me to say anything about the cost of the inquiry. Mr. Ralston, who from his seat on the opposition benches repeatedly rose to oppose the passing of this act,-than whom no man was more bitter in opposition to it-is to-day employed at the handsome figure of $200 per day and $20 expenses to make these inquiries. It will cost this country more to pay his salary for one month than the farmers of Saskatchewan will pay in income tax in a year.
Mr. Murray's report of his operations to January 1 of this year is very interesting, not for what it contains but for what it omits. He first refers to the dismissal of the old board and of the advisory committee, but he does not in that report tell the public that upon the dismissal of the advisory committee its place was taken by a committee of four members of this cabinet. On the third page

he asserts that there will be no fire sale policy pursued by the board. The fact that they sold in one day 22,000,000 bushels of wheat, and the further fact that in about ten days they sold over 40,000,000 bushels of wheat, gives some evidence of fire sale methods. In two months, December, 1935 and July, 1936, they sold 113,000,000 bushels. I wish to draw attention to the fact that in July of last year the board sold in the neighbourhood of 63,000,000 bushels of wheat, when there was every evidence that there would be a very substantial increase in price and practically a crop failure all over the western states and the southern part of the prairie provinces. I hold in my hand a copy of a daily report issued by the crop reporters who go through the west during the growing season and, report on the crop situation. Here are some extracts:
July 1-Hot, dry weather over western Canada will make a general and serious reduction in the crop in the prairie provinces.
July 3-For the third time in the last six years, drought is destroying the spring wheat crops in thp United States.
July 4-The increased alarm in the United States over the drought situation has a deep interest in western Canada.
July 6-A week-end of unrelenting dry heat in western Canada and the spring grain areas of the United States saw wheat prices on the Winnipeg grain exchange pushed forward to the five cent limit.
July 8-Tom Moody, North Dakota, W.P.A. administrator, stood to-day in the tower of the state capital at Bismark and said that the drought was worse than the one in 1934, and was causing more damage than anything in the memory of the oldest pioneer.
It goes on through the whole month.


Malcolm McLean: Would the hon. member read to the house the report that Mr. McFarland gave out in the middle of June, when he said the crop would amount to over 400,000.000 bushels?


Ernest Edward Perley: When I went home from this parliament last year a splendid crop was growing on my own farm, but it did not amount to anything. When the hot weather struck it in the early part of July, it practically petered out. We know that there was a splendid prospect in June.


Malcolm McLean: Could the hon. member give us Mr. McFarland's prophecy along with the others?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, and there were a lot of others who made prophecies of a good crop. In 1935 we had a splendid crop of grain almost until the binder was ready to go into the field, and then rust took it. From that it will be seen how soon a crop in western Canada can peter out.

The Budget-Mr. Perley
July 9-Western Canadian farmers should rise up and arrange an injunction against the Canadian wheat board and prevent the board selling any more wheat under $1.25 a bushel, as a result of present crop prospects.
Each day there is a similar report.
July 18-All the information that is obtain-[DOT] able at this trading centre suggests that the government board will sell its last bushel of carry-over at the market. . . . But, in the very midst of the scorching heat wave, with every surface indication of a reduced crop in Canada and utter destruction over a wide area in the central States, the Winnipeg market declined four cents! Why? Government wheat board selling.
Later, this report states that during the month the wheat board had thrown into the Winnipeg pit 60,000,000 bushels of wheat.
But even the market itself, under that flood of wheat, did its level best to show that throwing that immense bushelage into speculators' hands between July 1 and July 31, 1936, was not a sales policy at all, but was a crime against the producers.
Four of the large firms in the Winnipeg exchange participated, no doubt more than they should have, in the profits that were made through the government board selling as they did. In face of the evidence that there would be a poor crop that action, I say, was a crime against the producer, and I think an investigation should be held into the operations of those firms. I was in Winnipeg in November, and talking with different members of the exchange I was informed that indications of an increase in price were so apparent in July that three or four of the large firms were allowed to buy their wheat without hedging, and that one firm in particular operated and had a twenty cent profit before it started to hedge its wheat. I was informed that James Richardson and company in January had practically 75 per cent of the wheat west of the lakes. Mr. Murray has stated in the report I have here that he set out to sell before the end of the year all the wheat remaining from the 1935 crop. He accomplished that purpose, and it will be noted that he states, on page 5 of the report, that they took a final loss of 811,858,000. Therefore the wheat on which they made this splendid profit lately, as a result of which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) states $8,000,000 was returned to the treasury, must have been wheat accumulated by Mr. McFarland and not sold before that date.
As regards the 1936 crop, the government's failure to continue the fixed price unless the wheat depreciated below ninety cents really meant the repeal of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and to substantiate that statement I need only refer the house to the fact that the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Mother-31111-94
well)-I am sorry he is not in his place and I trust that he is in better health-in the town of Cupar, and in the presence of three or four hundred farmers, stated that the order in council P.C. 2202 really meant the repeal of that act, and he declared that he was very much disappointed at that action. I have the order in council here and I will read the last paragraph, which is interesting:
The minister therefore recommends that the recommendation of the Canadian Wheat Board be not approved unconditionally but that approval be given only in the event of the closing market price for wheat dropping below ninety cents per bushel.
The wheat board must have made some recommendations, because according to that paragraph of the order in council their recommendation was not to be approved except in the event stated. As I say, that really meant the repeal of the act and it cost the farmers a great deal. I calculate that on the 1935 crop, 150,000,000 bushels and more, they lost ten cents a bushel. At any rate, Mr. Murray says they lost 811,000,000. On the 1936 crop the farmers, not having an opportunity to market through the board, lost twenty cents a bushel, or $25,000,000; and as regards the McFarland wheat, while there was a profit on the late sales the early sales showed a loss of ten cents a bushel, which meant another $20,000,000.
And what about barley and coarse grain? What happened in connection with durum wheat last year was a crime against the producers, because, not being able to put the wheat through the board, they sold it at from eight to ten cents under the price of No. 1 northern in Fort William, and in December it was twenty-five cents a bushel over No. 1 northern. There is a serious loss there. The racket put over in western Canada this year in the marketing of barley is one the whole story of which will never be told. Unquestionably it is the greatest racket ever put over the farmer. There were 20,000,000 bushels of barley, a great deal of it malting barley, that went on the market and the farmer lost at least twenty cents a bushel. The barley was cornered by certain interests in Winnipeg and the price advanced, but the farmer did not get the benefit of it because he had sold it. I have figured a loss to the farmer of between fifty and sixty million dollars altogether in the operations of the board, and its failure to operate for 1936 crop.
The Turgeon commission has been sitting, and there are one or two interesting things I want to refer to in this regard. Let me quote from a report that appeared in a Winnipeg newspaper on January 20:
Turgeon probe hears report of barley marlo "corner."

The Budget-Mr. Perley

Counsel bares alleged "squeeze" of "short interests" during December.
Reports of a "squeeze" of "short interests" in barley on the Winnipeg grain exchange in December last were bared to the Turgeon royal grain commission to-day by M. M. Porter, K.C., Calgary, counsel for the Alberta wheat pool. Examining Henry Gauer, vice-president oi the Winnipeg grain exchange, Mr. Porter said he understood the barley market had been cornered in Winnipeg. . . .
The December barley future on the Winnipeg grain exchange advanced 29 cents in December. .	.	. Mr. Porter said he understood the
"squeeze" resulted from the barley market being cornered and the shorts being forced to make a settlement. "Wasn't one of your subsidiaries interested because of its 'long' position in the barley market?" Mr. Porter asked Mr. Gauer, western manager for James Richardson and Sons, Limited. Mr. Gauer said a subsidiary might have been interested through owning bailey.
He said that possibly the subsidiaries had barley and figured in the corner. The fact ;hat there was a corner in barley is, I submit, a major offence, and it is so regarded in the taws of Canada. It is therefore something that should be investigated. Any government or parliament that would permit such an operation as was carried on last fall in connection with the marketing of barley and durum wheat should be censured, and an inquiry should be started. There should be a thorough investigation to find out where the money went and also to look into the operations of four firms in particular in the Winnipeg grain exchange.
The order in council to which I have referred meant, as I say, the repeal of the act, and against this action on the part of the government many meetings in protest were held throughout western Canada. The farmers and the different municipal organizations met and passed resolutions censuring the government for not continuing the board. To these resolutions the government evidently paid no attention but took the advice of their chief commissioner. I say, therefore, that the welfare of the farmers of western Canada has never been more completely disregarded; never have they been so betrayed or exploited, never have they been so double-crossed and sacrificed as during the last four or five months through the action of the present government in not allowing the wheat board to function so as to try to obtain a fair price for the producer, but turning the flow of grain into the grain exchange. And this is the govern. ment whose leader, when he went west in the campaign of 1935, made the statement that his party had been responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It was he who made that statement in Brandon, and the next day all the western newspapers, the Leader-Post in
tMr. E. E. Perlry.1
particular, came out with large headlines to the effect that the Liberals had been responsible for the act. The claim was made that it was the Liberals who were responsible for the clause giving the board the power to take the farmers' wheat at a fixed minimum price. In fact, the right hon. gentleman claimed credit for practically the whole of the act. I submit that no greater misrepresentation of facts was ever indulged in by any public man in Canada, and in my opinion it was most unfortunate that even the farmers fell for it.
As I said a moment ago, there was widespread protest against the failure of the government to carry on the board. I have here several resolutions passed at the meetings I have referred to. Several meetings were held and the resolutions-a whole stack of them- would take you a day to read. There was one passed recently in the city of Moose Jaw. I read the headline:
Unanimous request for grain board. Want minimum price to cover cost of production.
This resolution was passed at a meeting of the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and the report is to the effect that when the resolution was proposed at least half of the six hundred delegates present rose to their feet wishing to second it. Here is another headline:
Anger voiced as Gardiner not present.
This meeting was held in Saskatoon and I understand that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was in that city that day. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) called at the meeting, but he would not stay because he had to meet the minister. Here is another headline:
Gardiner plea on wheat said to be evasion.
The Minister of Agriculture spoke to the young Liberals in the city of Regina the following night, and then we find him speaking in the city of Winnipeg to the junior members of the board of trade. I have it on good authority-because I was talking with a man who sat within ten feet of him-that the minister, speaking to these young men, a number of them members of the Winnipeg grain exchange, made the statement that to all intents and purposes we now have an open market. Within the last three or four weeks the minister declared that the wheat had been going on the market in greater volume than previously and, oddly enough in view of the pessimistic statements made, someone had been found to take the hedges. I understand that Mr. Richardson and others were permitted by the bankers to carry their wheat without hedging, the market had been so good. He congratulated the grain ex-

The Budget-Mr. Perley
change for the successful way they had carried on the business of marketing western wheat from the beginning of the season.
Now the gem of all these resolutions, and we have many of them, comes from the constituency of Prince Albert. I have here a few that have been tabled, resolutions and protests sent to the Prime Minister. I understand that he has received many hundreds of these, and I think no better evidence could be produced to show that the farmers of western Canada lack confidence in this government and its leader than to have the Prime Minister stand up himself and read from the hundred or more resolutions that he has received from farmers of western Canada in meetings of that sort. I have here one passed at Watrous by the Watrous business men at a meeting on September 18, going on record as demanding that the federal government implement the following, and then they set out that they want the wheat board to continue, a minimum price set, and so on.
Then we have one from Shellbrook, dated September 9, 1936, which reads:
Therefore we the farmers of the Shellbrook district, which includes Holbein, Sturgeon Valley, Foxdale, Brightholm and Cameo, wish to express our resentment and to register our bitter protest against the actions of the government in failing to comply with our request. . . .
They go on to say that they want a wheat board and a fixed minimum price of $1.15 per bushel. Then the second paragraph says:
Whereas our representative at Ottawa, the Hon. Mackenzie King, is not in sympathy with nor interested in the welfare of the western farmer; therefore be it resolved that we the farmers of Holbein, Sturgeon Valley, Brightholm. Foxdale and Cameo assembled at Shellbrook call on him to resign as our representative.
And further that in future elections we elect a western man to represent us.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: If I may ask the hon. member a question, did he ever attend any of those protest meetings that were held in western Canada?


Ernest Edward Perley: Not one, and I had invitations to hundreds.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Has the hon. member knowledge of the manner in which those resolutions were prepared, and does he know that the resolutions were brought to these meetings already typewritten and with the mover and seconder's name set out?


Ernest Edward Perley: I have not attended one. I had invitations to attend hundreds and I kept away for the reason that I knew someone would say I had agitated, and there is not one word that can be found which I suggested.


Mr. GARDINER:: I would like to ask
the hon. gentleman why he objects to my objecting to attend one of those meetings when he objected to attending any of them.
Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle: That is easily answered. The hon. gentleman is a minister of the crown, a member of the wheat committee which advises the government; he is the man responsible for the order in council. I have no responsibility at all and it was right that I should not attend because I have no authority, but if the Minister of Agriculture had attended he could have assured the farmers of his policy and given them some encouragement.
As I say, there are many other resolutions, I have not time to read them, but to all these resolutions received by the Prime Minister there was one answer, written by his secretary, the last clause of which is:
Mr. King has noted the representations contained in your communication, and has instructed me to bring them to the attention of the Honourable W. D. Euler, Minister of Trade and Commerce.
That is about as far as they ever got.
Now my time is short. I say that as the commission which is now investigating evidently will not report before this session concludes, probably not before next session, the government in face of these resolutions demanding that they take action before the 1937 crop is seeded, should declare their policy with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The farmer means to stick by that act. No matter what the Turgeon committee reports, that act is here to stay. The farmers of western Canada will not long stand this sculduggery which took place last fall with respect to the marketing of their wheat and barley and coarse grain.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order.


Ernest Edward Perley: When the
matter is in committee I may have an opportunity to say a little more on this subject-


Mr. HYNDMAN:: Mr. Speaker, it is getting close to six o'clock and I expect to take the full forty minutes. Will you call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: Mr. Speaker, before continuing the debate on the budget I should like to express my apprecia-

The Budget-Mr. Hyndman
tion to you and to the acting leader of the government (Mr. Lapointe) for permitting me to call it six o'clock when the preceding speaker had concluded. I still consider myself one of the junior members of the house, and I venture to say that some of the older members, from their own experience, realize that it is rather difficult for a new member to make his first speech here. I should like also to express my regrets at the illness of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). During the past year the hon. gentleman became a resident of my riding, and I can assure the house that we in Carleton county deem it a distinct honour to have such an outstanding Canadian in our midst.
When the budget was delivered in this house I think every hon. member was ready and willing to congratulate the minister on the manner in which he presented it. A statement was made in the very first paragraph, however, with which I can hardly agree. The minister said that if he could not bring brevity, at least he could bring good cheer. As far as financial conditions and trade are concerned perhaps he did bring us some measure of good cheer, but that was not the case in regard to the vital interests of this country.
On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the house on behalf of three groups in this country; that is, the farmers, the unemployed and the taxpayers. After listening very attentively to the budget, and having read it very carefully; having read also the splendid speech delivered a short time ago by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), I have been unable to find anything promising any advantage to the farmers of eastern Canada. When I speak of eastern Canada I mean the farmers from the great lakes down to the maritimes, and in particular the farmers of Carleton county. Right here I should like to state that last summer the farmers of my county had a very, very favourable year. They had good crops; there was no drought, and no difficulties at all as far as the farming situation was concerned. Fortunately the price of barley was high, but that was not due to this government; we must thank providence for that, in a way. That was not the result of the trade agreement between this country and the United States, but it was wholly due to the failure of the corn crop across the border. If the price of barley had not been high last summer the farmers in my own county at least would have suffered very materially.
I should have liked also to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance, if he had been here, to the fact that on the day. he delivered his budget he could have stepped

out of his back door and looked into the faces of 215 families who are on relief. He could have seen also a township belonging to my county which is on the point of bankruptcy.
This evening, Mr. Speaker, I want to divorce myself from any party. For the next forty minutes I am not a Tory, a Liberal, a member of the C.C.F. or of the Social Credit group.


An hon. MEMBER:: And then you will go back?


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I may go back afterwards, but I want to speak about the people among whom I have lived and practised my profession for the past eighteen years. I do not think anyone in this house knows better than I the conditions under which those people live. I should like to make it clear that any figures I quote have been secured from either the bureau of statistics, the Labour Gazette or Hansard, so I assume that they are accurate. First I should like to say a word as to the importance of agriculture. No doubt hon. members have read the last annual statement made by the president of the Imperial Bank of Canada, in which he said that the dollar value of primary production of Canada for 1936 was approximately as follows:
Agriculture, $800,000,900.
Forestry, $250,000,000.
Fisheries, $40,000,000.
Trapping. $8,500,000.
Mining, $370,000,000.
Electric power, $175,000,000.
Those items total SI,643.500,000 and these figures, especially with regard to agriculture, are by no means complete. I should like to point out also that the value in dollars of the agricultural production of Canada in 1936 was far higher than the value of any other production. Therefore I am speaking of an important industry. According to the census of 1931 there were 1,128,154 farmers in Canada, and of these 651,648 were farm owners. The total government revenue from income tax last year amounted to 882,710,000, but the amount paid by farmers was only $46,609.35. In other words, more than a million persons employed in agriculture were able to pay only some $46,000 in income tax.
Last year in this house I brought up the question of the revenue derived from different types of farms, and I may say that this revenue has not increased very much during the past year. I am going to be very brief. One farmer with a 200 acre farm, valued at $9,000, with a herd of 30 cows and shipping milk to the dairy, received an income of $2,151.50, with expenses of $1,640, leaving a net total of Sail.50 with which to keep himself and his family. The price of cheese advanced slightly last year, as was prophesied by the

Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). This having happened, the government cut off the bonus on cheese. Another farmer, shipping his milk to a cheese factory, received $710 from a herd of fourteen cattle. His expenses were $506, which left him $204 for the year. I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Matapedia (Mr. Lapointe) say a word this afternoon for the farmers of eastern Canad'a. This summer the United Farmers of Ontario held a meeting, and I should like to quote a report of the remarks of the president and past president, as follows:
"Prospects, therefore, are that in many sections of Ontario the farmer's net proceeds on the year's operations will be far from satisfactory,'' was Mr. Nicholson's conclusion.
"We are pleased to note during the past year, activities on the part of a number of countries leading toward an increase in international trade," he went on. "This is a step in the right direction, but increased trade alone will not solve the problem of the farmer."
The past president, Mr. Amos, is reported as follows:
How can any industry like ours be prosperous and carry on under a debt load up to the total value of the whole agrarian assets of the farmer, whose buildings are deteriorating, his fences falling down and his machinery in disrepair? How can he carry on under these conditions, and how can the morale of the farmer grow in strength? I am sorry to say I cannot see much light ahead.
I feel also that we are not paying enough attention to our home markets. I realize the importance of external markets, but we should not neglect our home markets. I should like to give some figures showing the percentage of consumption in the Canadian market of different commodities. These figures, taken from the Canada Year Book, for 1933-34, are as follows:
Cattle and beef.. Hogs and pork.. Sheep and lambs.
Butter	
Poultry	
Eggs	
Potatoes	
Oats	
Barley	
Per cent
97-	3
95-	4 99-4
98-	9
98-	3
99-	8
96-	9 94-1 88-2
I think these figures show the importance of our home market. The prices received by the farmer of eastern Canada have not increased materially in the past year. In 1935 he received for beef cattle only five cents a pound; in 1936 he received 4J cents a pound, and at the present time he is receiving six cents a pound. These are the prices paid for choice beef. The prices received for pork were eight cents in 1935, eight cents in 1936 and eight cents in 1937. I shall refer again to pork later on. Lamb, seven cents in 1935, ten cents in 1936 and nine cents at
The Budget-Mr. Hyndman
the present time, mutton, four cents in 1935, five cents in 1936 and four cents in 1937. Veal, five cents in 1935, five cents in 1936 and seven cents in 1937. For cheese he received 9J cents per pound in 1936 while last year the price had risen to 13 cents per pound. For cream shipped to the dairies he is receiving forty cents per gallon.
Last fall the price of pork kept dropping until it reached a level of cents per pound. The lowest point was reached just at tax time. Why? I submit that this drop in price can be laid at the doors of the Canadian packers. The packers of this country control the price of farm products. The packers knew that the farmers had their hogs ready for market, that they must dispose of them or they would go overweight, and the price was forced down to 7| cents per pound at which the farmer was forced to sell in order to pay his taxes. After the farmer had sold his pork at that figure, up went the price. The packers of this country have a monopoly of the products of the farm. Forty per cent of the products of the packers are made from vegetable oils, which provide unfair competition to the farmers of this country.
This afternoon the hon. member for Qu-Appelle (Mr. Perley) gave a very outstanding address on behalf of the farmers of western Canada. I hardly think I need say anything on behalf of the farmers of that part of the country. Federal governments-I am referring both to the present and the previous administration-have not helped the eastern farmer to the extent they have the western farmer. Outside of the small bonus on cheese granted by the previous administration, farmers of eastern Canada have received very little assistance. The western wheat grower has received large sums from previous federal governments, and it is proposed to spend a large amount this year for their benefit. Last year $25,181,697.87 was spent on agriculture, of which $17,247,449.38 was spent in western Canada. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr, Gardiner) threw some light upon the money being spent in Saskatchewan, and he is reported on pages 774, 775 and 780 of Hansard of February 11, 1937, as follows:
This brings me down to the period from 1931 to 1936. During the first year, 1931, the government, in its best judgment, and I think the government had the support of all sides of the house in so doing, paid a bonus of five cents a bushel on the wheat grown in the northern part of the three western provinces. That bonus amounted ultimately to somewhere between $12,000,000 and $13,000,000.
And again:
But eventually the notes taken from the farmers were cancelled and the dominion of
The Budget-Mr. Hyndman

Canada to-day is carrying the entire cost of the $10,000,000 that was spent in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan-
And then he continues on another page:
That, added to the other total of $8,715,000 which I mentioned a few moments ago, gives a total of $58,715,000 which has been advanced by the people of Canada towards the maintenance of people in the area of which I have spoken.
And again:
We believe the time has arrived when the Dominion of Canada, looking back at an expenditure of $50,000,000, should at least be prepared to face an expenditure of at least $10,000,000 over a period in order to avoid similar expenditures in the future.
One would almost think it was a game of poker. They had put the $50,000,000 into the pot, and had lost it, and now they are going to spend another $10,000,000 to get the $50,000,000 back. I believe that too much money has been spent in the west. In the past it has been favoured. Years ago they clamoured for railways and were successful in having two railways pass through the western provinces. Branch lines were built all through the country. Elevators were built at Nelson in connection with which millions of dollars were spent. Then the elevator service was changed to Churchill. More money was spent, and railroads were built to connect with those elevators. Now they come here asking for more money.
In the past we heard of the golden west, and I think that is coming true. If we keep on pouring gold into the western provinces we will surely have a golden west. May I add that I have every sympathy with the farmers of western Canada-


An hon. MEMBER:: You said it that
time.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: May I say to the group who come from western Canada that last summer when the appeal from the west reached my county we sent ten carloads of fruits, vegetables, clothing and one thing and another to the western provinces. I divided the potatoes and other vegetables raised in my own little garden, at home, put them into cars, and sent them out to the west. But I feel they have been getting too much help, and the eastern part of Canada is unable to stand it.
What must be done?-that is a fair question. What will have to be done for the farmers? I maintain Canada will never be prosperous again until the farmer is in a more prosperous condition. He certainly must get some relief from taxation; there is no question about that. He must receive a higher

price for his products. He must have a market for his products, both abroad and at home. He must have cheaper rates of interest, and I am going to repeat what I said last year: I feel the time is coming when there will have to be a moratorium on farm mortgages. At the present time farmers cannot possibly pay off their mortgages at the rates of interest they are paying. They will have to have a breathing space to let them get on their feet. The group to my left will certainly be agreeable to that. So much for the farmers.
Now I come to the other groups I want to talk about, namely, the taxpayers and the unemployed. I believe we have never had any government in the history of Canada which has thrown out so much camouflage and so many smoke screens. We hear what the government has done; but what did they really do? That is the question we must ask ourselves. In connection with the railway question, so far as I can figure out, all they did was to fire the three trustees. They fired Mr. Fullerton, and if they will give me the same pension or retiring allowance they gave him, and permit me to go on with my practice, they can fire me any time. Then they appointed seven directors to carry on the same work.
We have heard a great deal about the Bank of Canada, and how it was going to be controlled by the government. I want to tell you that the man who is controlling the Bank of Canada to-day is none other than Graham Towers. He is the final resort; he is the head man in the bank, and I think that fact was demonstrated not so long ago when an hon. member on this side of the house questioned one of the ministers about contracts in connection with the new bank building to be built on Sparks street. The Minister of Public Works said the matter was not under his control, but that it was totally in the hands of the manager of the Bank of Canada.
In my opinion nothing has been done for the unemployed, and certainly nothing has been done for the taxpayers. True enough, a commission has been appointed, but I need not discuss it at length because the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) did so this afternoon.
May I now make some observations concerning the tax situation in the country? Figures secured from the bureau of statistics show that in March, 1935, the dominion government owed $2,846,110,958; the provinces owed $999,440,241; the municipalities owed $1,469,142,077, making a total grand debt of

The Budget-Mr. Hyndman
$5,314,693,276. Then, we had an indirect debt, in addition to that, of $6,786,869,473. Therefore on dominion debt alone we pay an annual interest charge of $127,075,580. On our provincial and municipal debt we pay $130,000,000, making a grand total of annual interest payments which we as citizens of Canada have to pay of $357,075,580. Taking our population at eleven million, it would work out that each citizen of Canada owes $616.98 -at the present time, and that each citizen owes an annual interest charge of $32.04.
I know that these charges will not affect the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or the leader of this group (Mr. Bennett), but I should like to know how it would affect the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Grant) who has a family of fifteen. At that rate he would owe the country $9,254.70. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) with a family of eleven would owe $6,786.78. The leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Black-more) would owe $6,786.71. I maintain that this will never be paid, even though we have an increase this year of $200 in our indemnity.
I believe the country is overtaxed, and we will never be able to pay the total amount of our taxation. The sooner we forget about it the better. In 1935 the dominion government failed to balance its budget by $113,986,617; the nine provinces failed to balance their budgets by $63,000,000, and four thousand municipalities failed to balance their budgets by $20,500,000, making a grand total deficit in 1935 of $197,486,617. Under those conditions how are we going to be prosperous; how are we going to get along? It has been stated that one day's work in three is taken to pay taxes.
This afternoon we heard that the Prime Minister of this country quoted Shakespeare. I wish to recall a passage from Shakespeare's Merchant of, Venice which deals with the Jew after the trial. When the judge had ordered him to turn over all his property, Shylock said:
You take my house, when you do take the prop
That doth sustain my house; you take my life
When you do take the means whereby I live.
In the present condition of this country that applies to the home owner. You are taking his home by taxing him so hard that he cannot pay the taxes; and I contend you are taking the lives of over a million people in this country when you fail to provide them with work by which they can earn a living.
There is something to which I should like to draw the attention of all parties, especially
the government side and the party to which I belong. This is not intended as a postmortem, but in the 1930 election the Conservatives received 1,909,955 votes, and the Liberals received 1,714,860 votes.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too many.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: All other parties received 274,180 votes. But look at the picture of the last election. In 1935 the Conservatives received 1,311,392 votes, the Liberals received 1,955,594 votes, and-let the two major parties take especial note of this-all other parties received 1,139,618 votes,-a tremendous increase during the five years between 1930 and 1935. Another fact to which I direct the government's attention is that the communist vote of 5,685 in 1930 had increased to 31,151, in 1935.
I would also point out that at the present time-I care not for the figures of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), because he is camouflaging the thing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: -there are a million people in Canada unemployed. I should like to know how the minister got his record. I know that so far as my country is concerned, all that was done was to write to the township clerk and ask how many were unemployed. In my little township we have none on relief, but there are a good many unemployed. It is not a fair registration. There are men in this country who are too proud to go on relief, yet they are unemployed. It has been estimated that if the destitute people in this country were to join hands the line would reach from here to Winnipeg. I should like to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) looking out of the window on his way home and confronted with this line of unemployed, and required to shake hands with them all. I do not understand how the government can expect to increase the purchasing power of the people at the present level of wages paid to the working classes in this country. According to the Labour Gazette, August, 1936, employees of construction and trade contractors and sub-contractors, numbering 37,561, received an average wage yearly of $745; employees in cities, towns, villages and municipalities, numbering 49,946, had an average wage of $385; employees of harbour commissions, numbering 1,137 received an average wage of $882. And so on down the list. The weekly cost of a family budget for a family of five, including food, laundry, fuel, light and rent, averaged $16.99, or a total of $883.48 a year. So if we deduct the amount of the average budget from the

The Budget-Mr. Hyndman
highest wage there remains a balance of less than nothing; in fact, the wage worker is in the hole to the extent of $1.48.
President Roosevelt gave the proper definition or test of prosperity. These are his words:
The test of our prosperity is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.
That certainly covers the question. It may be asked, how is the President of the United States going to alter conditions? He has advocated an expenditure of $5,011,000,000 on a six-year construction plan.
Feb. 3-President Roosevelt transmitted to the United States Congress to-day a national resources committee report recommending a six-year $5,011,090,000 federal construction program.
While I am dealing with this question I should like to report the opinion of the Duke of Windsor, while Prince of Wales:
The depression and economic disturbance have been largely caused by maladjustment of distribution. The potential output is far greater than ever before. If all employable labour were employed for a reasonable number of hours per week, the "world would have at its disposal a volume of commodities and services which would enable the entire population to live on a higher level of comfort and well-being than has ever been contemplated in the rosiest dreams of the social reformer. Our urgent task is to bring consumption and production into a proper real relationship-not a simple, but a quite possible task.
The Minister of Labour states that he is trying to relieve unemployment, but so far as I can figure out, the only thing that he has done is to appoint a commission to look after it. Not so long ago I was honoured with the privilege of presenting certificates to ten pupils of the graduating class of a continuation school in my county. I never felt so sorry in my life as when I gave those students their certificates. They had those certificates, but what were they going to do? So far as I could see, they had an absolutely blank future ahead of them in this country. We have here a house of commons, but I think the name should be changed to C.C.C.-the chamber of commissions and committees. We have a commission for nearly everything, and the expense is simply preposterous. The cost of the employment commission has been mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and this afternoon by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I will not further refer to it, but I will point out that the appointment, as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) of a royal commission to investigate the whole taxation system of Canada will increase to Mr Hyndman.]
five the number of commissions now inquiring into different matters in the dominion. The others are:	the commission investigating
Canadian penitentiaries, the textile commission, the royal commission investigating the grain business, and the royal commission investigating the extent of illegal lobster and smelt fishing in the maritimes. Commissions! We have nothing but commissions. Now we have this wheat inquiry. An agriculture committee was appointed last year and continued its sittings this session. I attended a few times, but I got sick and tired of listening to discussions about wheat. They talked of nothing but wheat. I went home and looked in the dictionary to see if there were such words as oats, barley, pork, beef, eggs or mutton, and I found there were. Yet this committee talks about wheat and nothing else. Then there was the committee that was appointed to inquire into the prices of farm implements. They have been meeting and paying large fees to their lawyers, but as far as I can see they are getting nowhere. Then we have the wheat inquiry, which was mentioned this afternoon.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


Mr. A. A. BROWN (Hamilton East):: As representative of Hamilton East, possibly one of the largest industrial constituencies in the dominion, I feel it my duty to take part in this debate on the problem of unemployment. Hamilton, which is a city of diversified industries, is extremely sensitive to the fluctuations of the tariff, and these fluctuations invariably affect the employment situation. The industries in Hamilton have a capitalization of some $260,000,000 and employ about
30,000	hands, paying out in wages some $40,000,000. There is no doubt that the present government was elected to power by the Canadian people for the purpose of solving the unemployment problem, which, as various members have shown, is still with us on at least as large a scale as prior to the election of the present government, if not larger. The government has been in power about sixteen months, and apparently all that it has done towards solving this vital problem is to have appointed a commission, which gathered together considerable data; enacted the home improvement legislation, on the strength of which building is going on to some small extent; and negotiated several treaties, or rather, I should say, burdened the country with several treaties which have adversely affected employment in Canada.
It is strange that a government that was elected by such a huge majority for the

The Budget-Mr. Brown
major purpose of solving the unemployment problem should take pride, not in any efforts made towards its solution, but in the efforts it has mad'e in the direction of international trade, regardless of the effect on employment in Canada. Judging by the remarks made on the government side, they take great pride in the achievement of the Canada-United States trade agreement. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) stated this treaty resulted in a total trade of some $787,000,000 in the year ended January 1, 1936, as compared with $683,000,000 in the year 1935, or an increase of $104,000,000. Excluding commercial gold from the figures for the two years, he states that the trade increase was just over twenty-two per cent; and, calculated on the same basis, exports to the United States were greater by twenty-six per cent, while imports from that country were higher by eighteen per cent.
This does not tell the true story by any means, because the greater proportion of Canada's exports consisted of whisky, nickel and other products, some of which were not affected by the treaty, but which the United States needed because of economic conditions. While our farmers have obtained some immediate benefit from this agreement, past experience shows that this prosperity will be outweighed by corresponding hardships when economic and political changes take place in the United States, as they undoubtedly will. The greater proportion of the United States exports to Canada were manufactured goods, many of which could have been made here, thus absorbing many of our unemployed. Shortly after the treaty was signed, an American concern offered metal-ware for sale in Canada at a price which Canadian firms could not meet. A conservative estimate would show, I believe, that this treaty has put five Americans to work for one Canadian, and has helped in this way to solve the United States unemployment problem instead of Canada's.
The next major achievement of the present government was the alleged Japanese trade settlement. When the former government was in power Japan made certain demands which practically meant throwing open the Canadian market to the cheap-labour goods of that country. There is no question that Japan, with its low scale of wages and its lower standard of living, can undersell Canadian products under ordinary conditions. During the last few years Japan has invaded the Indian field in cotton goods and undersold the products of the factories of India, and it has brought about the closing of many factories in the United States. At the present time,
along with these adverse conditions, the Japanese government is subsidizing shipping and the export trade on a scale never before attempted in any country, with the possible exception of Germany; and with the credits obtained from these exports she is importing nickel, aluminum and other commodities which are of vital importance to her. It is quite true that the statistics for the past year do not show the extent of Japanese inroads into the Canadian market, but since the Japanese trade settlement Japanese factories have been circularizing the wholesalers, jobbers and retailers of Canada, offering goods at prices as low as or lower than those at which our industries can obtain the raw material. For example, a firm in Tokyo has offered pruning shears, in any number, at a price at which the manufacturers of Canada could not even purchase the raw material.
There is one store in Hamilton which for four years refused to buy Japanese goods, but last year in order to meet competition they were compelled to buy them. As one walks through the various stores in any city in the dominion he will notice for sale lighters, electric light bulbs, penknives, and socks, at the most ridiculous prices. Last fall a Japanese firm was taking orders in Ontario for screen wire at a price 20 per cent cheaper than that at which other firms were offering the same goods. I was informed not very long ago of a case in Toronto where a knitted suit came from Japan, the quality of which was so good that the store could afford to unravel the suit and make money on the wool material. Judging from the sale of these articles at prices at which they could not be manufactured in Canada. I do not think the most ardent supporter of the government could find much in this treaty to help Canada's unemployment problem.
The next alleged outstanding achievement of the present government is the new Canada-United Kingdom treaty. The first such treaty was ably negotiated by the present leader of the opposition some years ago, and from it Canada derived exceptional benefits, because it guarded Canadian markets and Canadian workmen. The new treaty is substantially the same as the old, with the exception that the negotiators failed to protect Canadian markets and Canadian workmen. I have here an article written by Douglas Hallam, secretary of the Primary Textile Institute, which states:
Headlines in the press say that in England "textile zones are related," and a press cable says that industrialists at Manchester, Leeds and Bradford find that the textile market in Canada has been substantially enlarged. The
The Budget-Mr. Brown

textile manufacturers in Great Britain are related because there will be more workers employed there in making textiles for sale in Canada, but the reverse side of this is that fewer Canadian workers will be employed making textiles for the home market than at present.
Twice before in my lifetime I have seen the wool cloth industry in Canada practically wiped out by imports from Great Britain driving down production of Canadian wool cloth to 20 per cent of the market. Last year Canadian mills had 60 per cent of the wool market and the British mills 40 per cent. Now the main wool cloth item has been slashed in the present budget by cutting 18 per cent off the ad valorem duty and 29 per cent off the specific duty. There are some fifty cloth mills in Canada to-day. The British cloth mills shipped in 15,334,000 square yards of wool cloth in 1936 over the old rates, what will they ship in over the new rates? The net profits of the woollen industry in Canada for the last five years were:
1931	
1-9	per	cent	loss1932	
*9	per	cent1933	
4-7	per	cent1934	
4-7	per	cent
Socks and stockings are produced in ninety-four mills in Canada and the production is about 5,500,000 dozen pairs per annum. Imports have run under 100,000 dozen pairs. Now the British preferential rates on socks and stockings, which were 27 per cent and 67 cents a dozen, have been slashed, where they are wholly or in part of wool, to 18 per cent and 27 cents a dozen, and where made from other fibres than wool to 18 per cent without any specific duty. The situation is such that every dozen pair brought in from Great Britain will take away the work of making a dozen pair from a Canadian textile worker. In 1929, when the duties on hosiery from Great Britain were, on the whole, giving more protection than the duties in the present budget, some 556,000 dozen pairs valued at $3,300,000 entered Canada from Great Britain.
Specific duties have been slashed off carpets coming from Great Britain and British India. This opens the door to severe competition by low paid workers in British India with Canadian workers in carpet factories who are paid the highest hourly rates of any textile workers in Canada.
There never was a specific duty on knit goods such as sweaters, jerseys, underwear and so on coming into Canada from Great Britain, but even the old duty rate of 22$ per cent has been slashed to 18 per cent. There are some 131 mills in Canada producing these knit goods, and it is expected their production will be reduced by increased imports. The net profits made by fifty-three of these mills during the last five years are as follows:
1931	
1-8	per	cent	loss1932	
-9	per	cent	loss1933	
2-3	per	cent1934	
2-5	per	cent1935	
2-9	per	cent
Duties on artificial silk fabrics which were slashed in the 1935 budget are again slashed in the present budget, the new rate being 24$
ger cent; and this in spite of the fact that the ritish government bonuses exports of artificial 
silk fabrics to Canada to the extent of about 12 cents per pound. Duty rates on silk fabrics from England were also cut to 20$ per cent under the British preferential.
While all specific duties on cotton goods from Great Britain were wiped out in the 1935 budget, there are further cuts and concessions to Great Britain in the present budget and two or three tariff concessions to the United States. In 1936 Great Britain shipped into Canada 5,130,000 pounds of cotton yarn and 73,725,000 square yards of cotton cloth. It is apparent that under the new duties imports will increase.
To sum up, it may be said that taken as a whole the textile schedule in the Canadian tariff as set out in the present budget prorides even less protection to the textile industry in Canada from their main competitor Great Britain, than the schedule in the Dunning budget of May, 1930, and that in view of these reductions it will be of great interest to those paying taxes for unemployment relief to follow the employment figures in the textile industry during the next two or three years. It is not generally realized how the textile industry maintained and increased employment in Canada during the depression. The figures of direct employment in the primary textile industry are as follows:
1930		 50,263
1931		 50,931
1932		 51,030
1933		 53,753
1934		 59,038
1935		 61,204
1936		 63,000
This employment is widespread throughout
the maritimes, Quebec and Ontario as the majority of the five hundred textile mills in Canada are mainly located in the smaller centres of population. And in conclusion, everybody seems to forget that already more than one-third of Canada's total purchases from Great Britain are textile fibres and their products. In the fiscal year 1936 the textile imports from Great Britain amounted to $40,594,719 out of total imports of $117,874,822.
My object in dwelling on the results of these three treaties, Mr. Speaker, is to show that in its desire for international trade the government has neglected or ignored the question of employment at home. It is quite true that Canada cannot live unto itself, but I believe that in making any treaty with any country the first consideration should be how it will affect employment at home.
During the course of his speech the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) regretted that the government had not been able to do more in solving the unemployment problem. I would suggest that the minister take a leaf out of the book of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and call together the leaders of industry, inquire as to their needs and, if possible, grant their requirements if they will agree to bring up their staffs to full capacity. If this were done and the further condition imposed that employees should be paid fair living wages, I think we would go a long way towards solving the unemploy-

The Budget-Mr. Graydon
naent problem in this country. This could be placed under the jurisdiction of the tariff board, and in order that the employees might obtain fair treatment, arrangements could be made under which any employee could make application to the board under a pseudonym, and have his complaint dealt with in summary fashion. In this way the government, if it was sincerely anxious to end unemployment, could provide that working men would obtain fair living wages, without any worry as to whether a particular matter was within the jurisdiction of the provincial or the federal government. The leader of the Conservative party gave a great example of that when he raised tariffs after obtaining an agreement from the manufacturers that they would not take advantage of the tariff increases to raise prices.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the country that it is only a few days since parliament voted millions of dollars for the defence of this country. I suggest that we should be prepared for the trade war, which no doubt will reach its peak within the next year or so, with nations such as Japan and Germany, whose industries are subsidized to such an extent that their goods can be sold in Canada below cost, in order to obtain credits so that they may keep up in the armament race that is going on throughout the world.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, to one who has occupied a seat in this house for something less than two full sessions, the budget address presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in the first session of this parliament was very thought-provoking. When one considers the situation which was then brought to the attention of the house in a very lucid manner one realizes that our national position presents problems not only for the older generation in Canada, but for the younger people of the country as well. May I say to you, sir, and to the house that I have had some considerable experience with youth organizations of this province, and I believe it is only necessary that the youth of our country understand the problems with which we are faced to have them assume their full share of the responsibility and discharge their duties resulting therefrom. To-day in Canada youth stands ready to bear its share of the burden; it only needs the leadership of governments and men of more mature years, in order to indicate the trail that it must follow.
May I say also that one cannot sit in this house and listen to the national inventory being given by the Minister of Finance year by year without coming to the inevitable and
inescapable conclusion that the best brains and the utmost energy of our people from one end of this country to the other must be applied if the problems with which we are faced are to be solved within a reasonable length of time.
The budget speech this year, Mr. Speaker, continued to paint the national financial and economic picture, and it brought to our attention in a very emphatic manner the exact situation with respect to the affairs of the country. According to the statement of the minister the unmatured funded debt of the country, together with treasury bills outstanding, amounted to about three and a half billion dollars. I wonder if we fully realize what that means. I wonder if we realize that- if we are to continue to fulfil our sacred obligation to pay the debts that some time, somewhere, and by some means, that debt must be discharged by the people of this land. That is a thing which I sometimes believe is not brought before the people forcefully or clearly enough. According to the statement of the minister it will take at least two years for us to reach the point where, in our national bookkeeping system, we actually will have as much income as we are spending year by year.
Taking that as a basis, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is not unreasonable to assume that even in times of fairly reasonable prosperity in this land, governments may regard as satisfactory a surplus of $50,000,000 a year in the national budget. Beginning with the year 1940, it will take seventy years with annual surpluses of $50,000,000 to wipe out the national debt which has been incurred. It will be said that the interest will be reduced in the meantime and that the acceleration in reduction of principal will be more rapid, but I believe that any decrease in the interest payments brought about by the progressive decrease in our national debt will be more than offset by other contingencies which will inevitably arise during such a long period in the nation's life. Even at the end of that seventy years we would still have the liabilities with respect to our guarantees to railway companies and otherwise. I do not make any pretense at prediction; I only draw this to the attention of the house to show in a clear way the actual financial position of this dominion. The magnitude of the task is one of which I believe we all, especially the newer generation, should be fully seized. We should be prepared to do our share in wiping out within a reasonable time the deficit which this country has incurred in the years gone by and still continues to pile up.
.1498
The Budget-Mr. Graydon

I do not think any hon. member of this house can suggest that since I have taken my seat as the representative for the county of Peel I have attempted to indulge in careless, useless or obstructive criticism of governmental action. My personal views on matters of that kind will not permit me to indulge in that sort of thing. While it is necessary to be stern and severe sometimes in one's criticism in order to salvage for the erection of a new structure, at the same time I think we should realize that all through the dominion, especially among the younger generation, there is a feeling that this business of obstructive criticism must cease if democracy is to survive in this country of ours.
I should like to make just one minor observation with regard to this. It was my misfortune, or perhaps my good fortune, not to be a member of the last parliament, but after reading the pages of Hansard it seems to me to be fairly clear that some of those who now sit in the seats of the mighty- I congratulate them upon their success-did not follow too religiously the policy I have laid down as being the one desirable to follow in circumstances of this kind. Perhaps it is not too much to expect that the sobering effect of office and of being on the treasury benches will be such that we shall never have a repetition of that sort of thing in any parliament of Canada. Perhaps the results of the 1935 election may be taken in some way as an endorsation of that type of conduct in public life. However, I am not convinced that the people of Canada as a whole desire that our parliamentary institutions should be carried on in that fashion.
I desire to go a step further and refer to the riding which I have the honour of representing in this house. As most hon. members know, the county of Peel is predominantly agricultural, but with a substantial industrial development in Brampton, Port Credit and elsewhere. Therefore the new agreement entered into between the Dominion of Canada and the United Kingdom has a special significance and interest for the people of this constituency. Perhaps I might be pardoned for taking great pride in the work of the last administration in opening up markets for and expanding the trade of the agricultural people of Canada. I believe the farmers of Ontario, and of the Dominion of Canada, thoroughly appreciate the work done by the last administration in providing a market for their agricultural products in the United Kingdom. Even though the results of the last election might indicate otherwise, I believe this is true. When Mr. Rhodes, the Minister of Finance in the previous administration, brought down his budget on March 22, 1935, he stated that

the export trade from Canada to the United Kingdom had increased by 52 per cent since 1932. As every one recognized, that increase was attributable to the agreements entered into by our party. I shall be brief, but the particulars of these matters are so important as to warrant repetition. The Canada Year Book shows clearly that in 1935 agricultural and vegetable products to a total value of $127,500,000 were exported to the United Kingdom. This was an increase over the exportations for 1932, before the agreements were entered into, of $29,000,000. This was the increase in the amount which went into the pockets of the agricultural population of this Canada of ours. The year book goes on further with the story. In 1935 the exports from Canada to the United Kingdom of animals and animal products totalled $54,500,000, an advance of $22,000,000 over the 1932 figures.
I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not in his seat this evening. He has been called away on urgent national business, but I want to congratulate him upon having retained for the farmers of this country the sheltered markets which the Conservative party originally got for them. I was always puzzled by the attitude which he and his party took during the last term of parliament. I could not understand why one	with the wisdom of the Prime
Minister, and I say that advisedly, could oppose in any way agreements which meant so much to the farmers of the Dominion of Canada. Yet he did. I congratulate him now, however, upon having done nothing to interfere with the great work started by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who sits in the house this evening. Great men can change their minds and I congratulate the Prime Minister for having changed his when he realized his error. He is a greater man for having done so.
I should like to say a word or two with respect to farmers' export markets. I think the suggestion I have to make in this regard may be of much importance to the government in power. It is one thing to obtain markets for our farmers but it is another thing for the farmers to be able to retain the advantages they have been so given. I suggest that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has shown an interest in the farmers, see to it that no stone is left unturned to provide from time to time those facilities, that encouragement and the necessary technical assistance which will enable them to maintain that position in world markets which has been obtained for them.

The Budget-Mr. Graydon
I trust they may be able to hold that position and steadily improve and utilize it, as do the farmers of New Zealand and Denmark, who hold such a high place in world markets to-day.
Leadership in matters of this kind cannot always come from individual farmers, but reasonable leadership should come from the dominion government. They should make sure that we take up our quotas in the various importing countries so that the farmer may reap for decades to come some real benefit from the agreements.
In the county of Peel we realize the importance of what I have been saying with respect to the encouragement of farmers to make the best of their position in outside markets. Possibly no place in the whole of Canada has a higher quality or a higher testing whole milk trade then the county of Peel, which supplies a large proportion of the whole milk consumed in the large metropolitan area of Toronto. The producers in my constituency have found that to maintain the whole milk market against all competitors in this large metropolitan area they must have clean and sanitary stables, and must follow various other regulations. Quality counts in the sale of agricultural as well as other products.
While we talk about the opening of our markets for our farm products, let us not disregard that greatest, safest and most convenient market which the farmer can have, the home market in Canada. I was surprised, as I am sure most hon. members must have been, to read the statistics showing the great percentage of our agricultural products actually consumed by our own people. I shall not attempt to give the list on an occasion of this kind, but on a great range of agricultural products not more than three per cent of the entire Canadian production is exported, the remainder being consumed at home. In the light of these figures it would seem that the purchasing power of Canada's urban districts is a most important thing for the farmer and must always be a major factor in farm success. Rural people realize more and more the great value of the working man and his family in the suburban and urban centres having a full pay envelope to make purchases of the products of the farmers of Canada. That is a most important factor.
And so I say to the house that while there has been a confusion of figures with respect to our progress so far as the relief of unemployment is concerned, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) having given certain sets of figures and other hon. members other sets, yet through all the maze of differentiation in actual figures it must fairly be conceded that no real or appreciable progress has been made in the relief of this gigantic cancer which is eating into the vitals of our country's constitution. May I say, too, that it is rather a pity and a shame, because last year as I looked into the countenance of the Minister of Labour I could read there high hopes for the success of the great National Employment Commission. I myself was willing to give that commission a trial. But, Mr. Speaker, may I say to you that if a ten per cent betterment is all the commission has accomplished after a year's operations, then we ought to do away with it or get a new one to take its place or, better still, let the Minister of Labour do a real job himself.
There is nothing quite so revolting to me, Mr. Speaker, as to hear great sections of our community, from one end of the country to the other, shouting that we have prosperity back again. No person wants more than I do to see prosperity, but I do say that it is not proper to shout prosperity until almost half a million people in Canada are in a position to sustain themselves by gainful employment. That is the real test of prosperity.
Then there are by the scores of thousands, many of them good friends of mine in my own constituency, who are drawing wages that are less by a long way than the wages considered essential for their reasonable livelihood. So I say that the farmer's best insurance policy for the maintenance of good markets for his products is that the industrial workers of our great cities and towns in the dominion shall have full pay envelopes, so that they may purchase the products of our farms as they require them.
In the town of Brampton, from which I hail, and of which perhaps hon. members may have heard before in the house, there is an uneasiness felt with respect to the provisions of the United Kingdom agreement which lower the tariff on certain goods, and especially is there uneasiness felt with respect to the textile trade. I do not want severely to castigate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) with respect to this, but wish only to say that we have none of the large textile factories in our county. I believe we have none of those against which the minister may have directed his action in lowering duties. However, we have several small factories which are dependent upon a reasonable tariff shelter so that they can market their products at home. I will place on Hansard an illustration of what I mean. I have in mind the manufacture of woollen socks. Formerly there was a 30 per cent duty on socks, and a further duty of 75 cents per dozen

The Budget-Mr. Gray don
pairs coming into this country from the United Kingdom. Now the rate is reduced to 20 per cent ad valorem and 30 cents per dozen pairs. In the n.o.p. item the original tariff rate was 30 per cent ad valorem, plus a specific duty of 75 cents, and the present reduced rates stand at 20 per cent with the specific duty entirely removed. One of the manufacturers has told me that the profit is very often not as much as the actual sheltering margin included in the specific duty.
In the Brampton Knitting Mills there are about 70 employees. Not- long ago the mill owner told me it was expected that with the increase of business he would soon have about 30 more employees to hire. It is now problematical if this will be done. In view of the changes in the items under the agreement I can only hope that, in the light of the competition of the British spinner with his greater production, his greater manufacturing facilities and his lower wage scale, the harm done to our textile firms will be ,ess severe than we anticipate. I am hopeful af this because I am anxious that the labouring class in my constituency shall not find themselves severely dealt with by virtue of any change in tariff arrangements.
We heard some most interesting observations in the presentation of the budget with respect to the inroads being made by vegetable oils coming into Canada, and their effect in competition with the butter fat trade. Perhaps I may be pardoned for saying that the county of Peel is a heavy producer of butter fat. I am sorry the hon. member for Stan-stead (Mr. Davidson) is not in his seat, because as one of the most prominent Jersey breeders in the dominion, he would be able to vouch for the truth of my statement that there is owned and stabled in the county of Peel the famous cow known as Brampton Basilua, the champion butter-fat producing cow in the entire world for all breeds of cattle. I had the honour and privilege-


Mr. STREIGHT:: You have the bull there.


Gordon Graydon: We may have a little bull sometimes in Peel, but we have nothing like the bull that is in York West. Turning to the serious side again I was saying that I had the privilege and honour of attending some three or four weeks ago a banquet at the Royal York hotel when three members of the firm of B. H. Bull and Sons, the continent's largest Jersey herdsmen, whose farms are in my county, were banqueted by the Jersey Cattle Breeders' Association of Canada; and I had the unique experience, in common with many others of the five or six hundred people who were there, of seeing

Brampton Basilua climbing into an elevator in the Royal York hotel, coming through the spacious carpeted halls, and taking her position as a lady should, right at the head of the table in that great banquet hall in the largest hotel in the city. May I say further that I paid special attention to the lady, as I always do to ladies-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Graydon: I am glad that I am not alone in the house in that respect-and I noticed that not once did she in front of her admirers raise her powder puff to her nose or put any rouge on her lips. In view of the interest taken by our people in the county of Peel in butter fat production, I may perhaps be pardoned for having taken up some time in discussing the matter, and suggesting that the government follow the lead of the great republic to the south and guard the butter fat producers of Canada in the same manner as the American government is taking measures to protect the industry in that country.
I have tried to appreciate the manifold problems which face the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in attempting to balance his budget and make an efficient job of financing this country, but I would urge that, with the picture he has painted of improved revenues and returning prosperity, which to a large extent is probably a reflection of world conditions, the one cent tax on sugar which has been in force since 1933 should be removed once and for all. I realize that in 1933, due to the emergency created by world conditions, the government of the time, finding that it was almost impossible to raise enough money through the ordinary channels, resorted to an emergency tax of two cents per pound on sugar. The other day I was looking through Hansard and, noticing the remarks made with respect to that tax by many hon. members who now sit on the government side of the house, I felt sure they could not but agree with me in the statement that, while this tax was reduced in 1934 to one cent per pound, it is now time that the housewives of this country should receive from the government a really practical piece of encouragement and that this particular burden should be removed from shoulders which under present conditions are sometimes least able to bear it.
One of the major influences which prompted me to enter public life-whether the decision was fortunate or unfortunate for myself or for my constituents I am not prepared to say-was the social legislation which was promoted and brought to the house by the Prime Minister of the day. I do not think that this house should be allowed to forget the situation which existed at that time. I

The Budget-Mr. Deachman
desire to make this personal statement, that I was "sold on the idea,." if I may use common parlance, that something should be done with respect to reforming our capitalistic system. I had hoped after coming to the house that the unemployment insurance legislation, the eight-hour day law and the minimum wage legislation would have been upheld by the courts of our land, but the reverse has unfortunately been the case. As I have already urged upon the Minister of Labour upon another occasion this session, I again urge in all seriousness that the working people of this country are anxious that something should be done along the lines of that legislation and that steps should be taken speedily to see to it that the provinces in cooperation with the dominion become a unit in this matter, so that we may have uniform social legislation covering these important reforms from one end of Canada to the other. I appeal to the government to take this into serious consideration, as one of the most important issues before the country. I also suggest that they should press forward in the long and hard fight which is ahead to rid this country of unemployment, and that they should bend every effort to an early amendment of the British North America Act. It may be because I am inexperienced in public life, but I have never been able to see why a man-made piece of legislation should be allowed to stand in the way of and offer almost insuperable difficulties to the solution of some of the most pressing problems which this country is called upon to face. If the government will see to it that these suggestions are acted upon, we may yet be able to usher in a new day for the workingman and his family, and consequent upon that a new era of happiness and prosperity for that other great primary producer, the Canadian farmer.
For the reasons I have given, and others, it is my intention to support the amendment which has been moved by the leader of the opposition.


Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):: what about Japan, a country about which there has been so much controversy of late? We imported $4,000,000 of goods from Japan and exported $19,000,000 worth. With Japan's low wages, they gave us almost $5 of a market for every dollar that we gave them. And trade is improving because in 1932, when my right hon. friend was in the heyday of power, our exports to these three countries were $30,000,000 whereas they are now $47,000,000, an evidence of the fact that we are capable of selling to low wage countries because of our superior efficiency and because in some cases we produce different things. We are, therefore, able to sell in low wage countries just as well as we can in countries paying high wages.
But this is not a new doctrine from my right hon. friend, for I find him saying the same thing in 1934. Speaking in the house on January 30, 1934, he said:
Along with other countries, Canada has become a great industrial country. All countries are endeavouring to utilize their raw materials and develop them into finished products. Where a market existed thirty years ago, there is none to-day;

He was still a pessimist in 1934.
-where one existed ten years ago, there is none to-day. We are endeavouring to supply our own wants and other countries are doing the same.
Now what was the situation in 1934? My hon. friend said that where a market existed thirty years ago-that is to say in 1904- there was no market at the time he spoke; yet in 1904 Canada exported $211,000,000 and in 1934 we were exporting $480,000,000. At the bottom of the depression our market was more than twice as great, despite his statement that there was no market at that time. 3ut I ask this question: What would he have jaid if we could have told him then that just three years from that date the export trade of Canada would be double what it was in 1934? And we are still going forward, and the prospect now is that we shall pass the high mark of the last boom within the next few years. Courage, brother; forward! There are great things ahead for Canada. It is not the time for pessimism; it is the time for hope.
But to return to unemployment. I give to my right hon. friend, as I think everyone does, full credit for his efforts to cure unemployment. But with his policies he could not have cured it if he had had the power to pull the stars from their courses. He promised at that time to cure unemployment and I am very glad that he lived to move in this House of Commons a resolution in which he asked others to cure it. He promised to perish in the attempt if he did not cure it.
Mr. Deachman.


Mr. BENNETT:: And he did.


Robert John Deachman: As he made his speech the other day I could not help realizing that though he had failed to carry out that promise it was no ghost that spoke to us on that occasion. He did not perish unless a return to this house, surrounded by a rather diminished band of sometimes mute and somewhat inglorious Miltons, constitutes the act of perishing. But I could not find fault with the man who, having tried honestly and failed in strenuous times, admitted his failure. My right hon. friend has admitted that he failed and I am glad of that. I am glad, too, that the Minister of Labour the other night admitted that he had not succeeded as well as he would like to have succeeded; for the simple fact is that when a man confronts the difficulties of a problem and sees what it involves and admits them, then we have more hope for him in the future and there is more prospect of his succeeding in accomplishing his task. It is after all only natural that we have dreams of being able to do things that are difficult of achievement, and sometimes we do not succeed.
I wonder if ever a song was sung
But the singer's heart sang sweeter;
I wonder if ever a rhyme was rung But the thought surpassed the metre;
I wonder if ever a sculptor wrought
Till the cold stone echoed his inmost thought;
Or if ever a painter with light and shade The dream of his inmost soul portrayed.
But the question is not who is to blame for unemployment; the question is, What is the remedy for unemployment? The employment commission has its functions and it has succeeded in doing some good work. But after all it is a mopping up operation. Its task is not exactly a searching examination of the problem of unemployment; it is not one of getting down to the bottom and effecting a cure, but rather of trying to remove the debris in an effort to save something from the wreck and put the unemployed to work. If we are to geit at the source of the trouble we must find out the cause, and our approach must be a fundamental one. And what is the cause? I submit that there is one cause and a primary cause, and that is the condition of agriculture as we find it in Canada to-day. And what is the cause of that? Well, it rests largely on this-that beginning with the depression, and for some years prior thereto, the price of manufactured products was high while the price of farm products was relatively low. There was a spread between these two, and that spread rendered it practically impossible for the farmer to attain a decent standard of living

The Budget-Mr. Deachman
and become, a factor in the buying power of the nation. In the year which has just closed, according to the records of the bureau of statistics, 46 per cent of the people of Canada were rural, including some in the rural villages. But with a total national income of over $4,500,000,000 in Canada the revenue of the farmer was $747,000,000. In other words, 46 per cent of the population received one-fifth of the revenue. Is it not well that we should try to get at the bottom of that situation? Our great basic industry cannot live when it employs about 46 per cent of the population and gets one-fifth of the revenue, while 54 per cent of the population get four-fifths of the revenue. There is a fundamental problem, and a problem that the House of Commons ought to face, and face seriously, if it is going to be solved.
Now the result has been that the people have deserted the farms of Ontario. In my own county of Huron between 1901 and 1931 there has been a decline in the agricultural population of 13,000 and in the urban population a decline of 3,000. There is a county certainly among the best in the province of Ontario, yet such is the situation that the men are deserting the farms and moving to the cities. Are your cities prosperous? Look at the relief rolls and see if they are. They are not, and the reason they are not prosperous is the shortage of purchasing power in the country and in the hands of the workers. After all, you must face this fact, that in the cities the cost of production is high, rents are high, land values are high, cost of construction is high, overhead is high, wages are nominally high. If these people were back in the small towns their nominal wage might be lower but their real wage would be higher. I ask the house to consider some attempt to equalize conditions between the towns and the cities, so that we may begin to get rid of unemployment by developing the industry of the towns, and drawing to a certain extent from the surplus which exists in the cities. To my hon. friends who are members for city constituencies I say that it would not necessarily follow that this would result in injury to the cities; far from it. Under the present conditions their burden of taxation is excessively high because of the relief problem, but if the industries moved back to the towns, where costs of production are lower, the result would be to lower the cost of goods; therefore goods could be sold at lower prices to consumers, the market would expand instead of contracting as is taking place under present conditions. I trust that some of my friends here have read-I know some of them must have done so-of the very capable work done by 31111-95
the Brookings Institution of Washington some two or three years ago. With ample funds at their disposal and ample time they analyzed the whole situation as far as the economic life of America is concerned. They studied every form of change in the industrial system which might possibly be considered and then published their work in four volumes. The essence of the story is that the cause of the present unemployment was the failure of prices to fall following the introduction of technical and mechanical improvements in the means of production. That is, prices still remained high. I shall give one illustration; you could apply it to anything you liked. In the old days at home there was a man making shoes in a little village near where I was bom. That man is now keeping a shoe store in an adjacent town. Many a time when I was a boy I watched him making shoes, and talking to that man last summer I asked him:	How
is it that after all the changes which have taken place, with all the fine machinery with which the shoe factories are equipped to-day, with all the improved methods of distribution, when I come to buy a pair of shoes from you to-day they cost more than they did in my boyhood when a man working at the bench made them? If industry is not capable of lowering the price of commodities, then industry has failed in its task. If we can do our work just as efficiently and cheaply by hand labour we might as well go back to hand labour. It is along these lines that the remedy will be found for the problem which confronts us. And while I may laugh at the efforts of the Conservatives to solve this problem, as occasionally I do, because it was somewhat amusing to see them fail after their gorgeous promises, in serious reality we have to try to solve the problem by moving along the lines I have suggested or along some other lines.
I have placed this matter before the house dogmatically, perhaps didactically, because that is the shortest and easiest form of presentation. Do not accept my word for it, but I plead with hon. members; there are these problems which must be solved, and if in the House of Commons we face them instead of trying to scrap with one another there is hope that we may achieve some progress.
I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not in his seat to-night. But here is one thing that I wish to put before the house; we have heard, and I think all hon. members on both sides of the house are agreed that a policy of easy money is an acceptable policy at the present time. But I point out a difficulty that confronts us when we accept the policy

The Budget-Mr. Deachman

of easy money. When money is cheap the tendency is towards more rapid mechanization, because it makes the investment of money in improvements and machinery and equipment cheaper. That is obvious to any man who has had anything to do with industry. In fact, in our larger business organizations they consider carefully the cost of capital, and, dependent upon the cost of money, they determine whether they will advance still further in mechanical improvements which will reduce labour costs but increase capital and carrying charges. If interest rates are low and, we intensify the speed of mechanization, and if at the same time our tariffs and other obstructions in the way of exchange of commodities are continued, what follows? We throw men out of employment, but the cost of commodities does not fall, so the difficulty is intensified by the very remedy which is adopted. These problems should receive the very careful consideration of the house. I wish the Minister of Labour all speed in his task, for the problem before him is the gravest and most profound that we face in Canada to-day, but I believe that the genius of men who have learned how to whisper around the world and turn a music box into an instrument of art which breathes forth the sweetest sounds, will not fail to find a solution of this problem. If we work with a will and with the penetrating power of thought nothing can stop us.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I have often listened to the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) and talked to him on one or two occasions, and I came to the conclusion that he was quite impossible, that he would never change. But now I am convinced that if he carries on with the intellectual honesty that he has shown to-night he will soon find it very difficult to sit in the ranks of the Liberal party.
Mr, DEACHMAN: It is the only hope.


Angus MacInnis: I can understand his
bitterness, being an exponent of free trade and having to support a party of high tariffs. However, while there is life there is hope.
Last Thursday we listened to a very excellent survey of the financial position of the government of Canada. I am sure that all hon. members will agree that it was a pleasure to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) give his budget speech. It was a piece of work well done, and it is always a .pleasure either to look at or listen to something well done. Then on Tuesday last we listened to the criticism of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). As one who was in the house during the last parliament and

who heard the criticisms offered by the then opposition, it seemed to me that the criticism of the present leader of the opposition was quite justified. In. my opinion his speech also was very excellent, and his criticism worthy and deserved.
The government was criticized for many things, but mainly for its failure to deal with the pressing problem of unemployment. During the time I have sat in this house I have listened to quite a number of speeches from both sides as to who was responsible for the depression. Now the arguments continue as to who is responsible for our so-called prosperity, such as it is. I think the exercise of a small amount of intellectual honesty would be in order in our debates. T have said more than once in this house that neither the Liberal party when it was in office nor the Conservative party when it held office was responsible for the economic conditions that prevailed in this country, in common with nearly all other countries; in fact, I can say in common with all other countries. If our policies improved conditions here, and conditions in other countries also improved, then to be logical we could say that our policies must have been responsible for the improvement that took place elsewhere.
The depression that overtook the world in the fall of 1929 began, as far as Canada was concerned, when the Liberal party was in office. It continued, increasing in severity, during about half the time the Conservative party was in power. Gradual improvement began in the spring of 1933, and that improvement has continued up to the present time. It seems to me, from examining the charts of the progress made in any one of the years since 1933 that it has been almost identical with the progress made in any other of those years. The progress from 1933 to 1934, from 1934 to 1935, or from 1935 to 1936 was just as great as the progress from 1936 to 1937. So what nonsense it is to say that this policy or that was responsible for sudh progress as there has been.
The gradual improvement, as I have said already, began in the spring of 1933 and has continued until the present time. It may continue for some time yet. That time may be long or short, but as surely as we had the last depression we will have another one unless steps are taken very quickly to change the present anti-social character of our production and distribution. The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) put his finger on the weak point in our social structure, the difference between agricultural incomes and incomes in the cities. There is no mystery

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
about it. The farmer is unprotected; that is, he is selling in a world market, and he is unorganized. When the price of the commodity he is selling goes down, does he restrict his production? No, he increases it, and still further lowers the price of his commodity. When the market begins to decline in the industrial world the manufacturer restricts his production and keeps up the price of his commodity. The farmer will continue to be in that defenceless position until he has the sense to organize in order to protect himself. Booms and depressions are the inevitable consequence of capitalist production. We are either slowly getting out of a depression or quickly sliding into one; that has been the situation ever since the beginning of the capitalist system, and the time between the period of depression and the period of prosperity is continually becoming shorter.
Now let us see how the depression began to be broken up, or how prosperity began to return. I said that the movement started in the spring of 1933. The first break in the depression, as far as the North American continent was concerned, began with President Roosevelt's first term of office, in the spring of 1933, when he began to pour huge amounts of government credit into various works and projects. Almost every country followed suit, in varying degrees. If you will look at the graphs and charts showing Canada's emergence from the depression, you will see that it, too, began at that time. A phenomenon common to all depressions is that in a period of stagnation stores of supplies become consumed, and again a demand for goods is created. This is occurring at the present time, but the recovery in trade to-day is due largely to government credit and to the increasing expenditure for armaments. That without the slightest doubt accounts for a great deal of Canada's foreign trade. It does not require a great deal of understanding of economics to be able to perceive this fact, but in case some hon. members do not want to take my word for it I should like to quote an authority who I think is beyond question. Sir George Paish, speaking I believe, to the New York section of the American Manufacturers' Association or the American Chamber of Commerce, I am not sure which, as reported in the New York Times of February 7, made this statement:
"The creation of huge amounts of government credits by many nations since 1931 has prevented a complete breakdown of credit and the banking system and led to a general recovery in trade," he said. "The improved trade was due, however, in no small measure to increased expenditure for armaments."
That is a very poor basis on which to build enduring prosperity, and I am afraid it will not be enduring.
There are many points in the budget speech with which I should like to deal, but as unemployment is still the most pressing problem facing this country, and as the amendment deals specifically with unemployment, I shall confine myself largely to that subject. I have already said that unemployment is the most pressing problem facing the people of Canada, but to say that unemployment is the problem is not putting the matter quite correctly. What concerns us, or what should concern us, is the effect of unemployment, calculated in terms of human values. We have not got down to that yet. The previous government undoubtedly was elected on its promise to end unemployment. It failed to do so. It failed to deal effectively with the problem created by unemployment, and for this it was severely criticized by members of the party now in power. I have said before, and I wish to say again, that this government should be in a better position to deal with unemployment than the last government was because it has the experience of the last government, as well as that of every other government in the world to draw upon, and surely it should be able to make use of that experience. I think it is correct to say that the failure of the Conservative government to deal with this matter is why the present government is in office to-day.
During the last few years we have heard a great deal about promises, but I woidd point out that this government has also made promises. I have in my hand a report which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of an address made in Vancouver by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on August 29, 1935. Ten points of Liberal policy are enunciated in this report, number six of which reads:
The immediate abolition of the relief camps, and handling of the unemployment problem on a national basis, utilizing in adequately paid work of social value to the nation, those now unemployed.
I maintain that the government has not kept that promise. I have before me a copy of the agreement entered into between the government of British Columbia and the government of the Dominion of Canada, under the terms of the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act. I am not going to read all of this agreement, but I should like to quote subsection B of section 1 which refers to the wages to be paid to men placed on farms. The agreement reads:
, The total of all amounts paid by the province to all individuals placed and maintained in employment on farms as aforesaid, who at

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
the time of placement are oyer sixteen years of age, unemployed and without means of support, not in excess of a rate equal, at the end of the aforesaid period to $7.50 per individual.
I understand that these men would be entitled to this $7.50 only if they stayed a full six months. Then they are allowed the magnificent sum of $3 with which to buy winter clothing. How much clothing can a man buy for farm wear in the winter time for $3? How would any hon. member here like to go out and work on a farm in weather such as we have in British Columbia-I admit it is not as cold as in some of the other provinces-in an outfit that could be bought for S3? I am told that sufficient clothing for this sort of work would cost at least $22. This is not putting the unemployed to work at adequate wages.
Speaking the other evening, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) referred to the unemployment camps as being blind alleys. Surely if those camps could be referred to in such terms, this sort of employment is equally blind alley employment. Not only that, but the farmer is to be paid nearly the same amount for keeping the man on the farm. This is not what was promised to the unemployed before the election of 1935. I have in my hand a page from the Vancouver Province of August 1, 1935, containing a report of an address by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). What did he promise the unemployed? The report reads:
Mr. Mackenzie made a frank announcement of his own and his party's intentions if they were placed in power.
There are various things the minister promised the unemployed. The first item he mentioned was the early construction of the First Narrows bridge and. the completion of the Canadian National hotel. I suppose the unemployed were to occupy that hotel when completed. He promised the completion of the Pacific Great Eastern railway to the Peace River or the construction of a highway to that district. He promised the creation of a national park at Garibaldi mountain and the building of the necessary highways. He promised the abolition of the relief camps and the establishment of construction camps to employ men at forty cents per hour for a five day week. He then went on to give his views on finance, which I think the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) might find interesting, if not useful. The report continues:
Referring to the relief problem, Mr. Mackenzie recommended the establishment of construction camps where men would be given work at $2 a day for a five day week. Under this system, relief costs, including supervision

of work and tools, would be increased by $7,500,600 annually and workers would receive a monthly return, after board and other fees had been deducted, of $30.25.
His statements were cheered lustily by the gathering, but I imagine that all they have up to date is a memory of those cheers. In 1935 the unemployed were not promised farm work at twenty-five cents per day in British Columbia or on the prairies, plus fifty cents per month for winter clothing; they were promised at least $30 per month after board and other charges had been deducted. I remember the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) moving a vote of want of confidence in the last government in the 1935 session for not having dealt with the question of unemployment. The unemployment situation may be slightly improved' now, but the figures in the January issue of the Labour Gazette show higher figures for unemployment and relief in November, 1936, than for November, 1935 or 1934.
The living conditions of large numbers of employed and unemployed are deplorable. In the Montreal Daily Star of March 2 appears a report of a study made of social conditions in that city by various welfare associations. This report is a damning indictment of social conditions in this country. I should like to read, briefly from it:
Unemployment has ravaged the health and shattered the social standards of thousands in Montreal during the past few years, it is shown in a survey completed by the Family Welfare Association yesterday. A study made of all the families helped by the association in January indicates the following:
In every 100 families of unemployed there are:
Thirty cases of more or less permanently disabling illness;
Seven families where lack of clothing prevents the children from going to school;
Nine where overcrowding is serious enough to cause immorality or serious family difficulty;
Twenty-three showing completely lost or badly impaired moral standards;
Fourteen where the children are running wild;
They tell us that socialism would break up the home. The report continues:
Nineteen cases of malnutrition reported by medical authorities. Surveys made by the Catholic Welfare Bureau and the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies at the same time show similar conditions found by these organizations.
Then the report continues:
Unemployment relief is supposed to cover rent, fuel, food, clothing, light and medical care. But the social workers have found that many of the families have practically nothing left in their homes that is usable. During the years on relief the families in many cases have completely worn out all their bedding, their furniture and their cooking utensils.

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
And we are looking for foreign markets! I think we could get a "foreign" market in Montreal.
Another incident reported recently: showed how life on the relief rolls has caused people to change their ways of thinking. The families of a young girl and of a young man had both been on relief for the past five years. The boy twenty-one and the girl twenty hardly knew of another way of living. Since they were in love they decided to get married. Now on the relief rolls there will appear one more husband and wife and two less dependent children. Social workers report that in many families men have given up looking for work and have obviously lost all confidence in themselves and in their ability to work. The development of neurosis appears often. It is found in many cases that even the younger members of a family have lost the ambition to get a steady job and to hold it.
I can truly say that unemployment and its effects are the great problem facing the people of Canada. That problem has not been solved, and it has not even been attacked in the proper way. Again:
In 66 of the 591 unemployed families studied by the association the strain of worry has precipitated situations that in January were threatening to cause the break-up of the home. In 51 others the father actually deserted, leaving his wife and children ineligible for relief. In the one month there were 84 cases of juvenile delinquency, where the children were either involved with the juvenile court or were suffering from deterioration of character and habits which presented serious immediate problems.
Although during January the Family Welfare Association assisted 1,169 families, of these unemployment was a major problem in 591.
Now we will see how unemployment affected these 591:
Among the 591 families the following figures were reported: In 524 the head of the family was unemployed; 201 other adults were unemployed; there were 178 cases of serious and more or less permanent illness-
178 cases out of 591-
-in 40 cases children could not attend school on account of lack of clothing; 47 families were suffering from bad housing conditions; 59 families were seriously overcrowded; 139 families showed a loss of standards; 115 cases of malnutrition had been bad enough to be reported by the medical authorities; 29 cases of mental disease had been reported by the medical authorities.
These conditions prevailed also in the cases reported by the Catholic Welfare Bureau and also by the Jewish Federation. The Frenchspeaking Canadian Federation reported that
3,000	children had dropped out of Catholic schools in the, city since the month of September, because they had not enough clothing to attend the classes.
Can anyone tell me that we are dealing with the problem of unemployment? We have not even begun to study it as yet. While I
have been reading about conditions in the city of Montreal, I believe we can assume that conditions in that city are not materially different from those existing in any other part of the dominion. Some provinces and municipalities undoubtedly have better relief allowances, and no doubt some have even less adequate provision. But it is not only the-unemployed who find themselves in poor circumstances. Many of the employed are receiving less pay than if they were on relief-That is not only my statement, because I can substantiate it by referring to no less an authority than Mr. Arthur B. Purvis, president and managing director of Canadian Industries Limited, and now head of the National Employment Commission of Canada. Speaking to the Canadian Club in Montreal on January 12 he is reported in the Montreal Daily-Herald as follows:
The unskilled and semi-skilled worker, representing some 50 per cent of those on relief, can, under prevailing wage rates frequently do better financially on relief than if he is at work.
This startling statement was incorporated in the address of Arthur B. Purvis, president and managing director of Canadian Industries Limited and head of the National Employment Commission to-day when he gave a detailed resume of the progress made by that group before the Canadian Club luncheon.
_ Reduction of the relief rolls, he continued, is commensurate "neither with the improvement in business nor in the employment indices, and relief costs are even less favourable in comparison."
From a Vancouver paper I find that the relief officer in Vancouver makes a similar statement. I read:
Mr. W. R. Bone, city relief officer, supporting appeal of Vancouver Welfare Federation for $350,000, an increase of $30,000 over estimates of 1935, to meet increasing needs of distressed families:	"It has been unofficially
estimated that a proportion of our citizens equal in number to those in receipt of relief, are maintaining themselves and their dependents on incomes no greater, and in some cases less, than the relief allowances to which their family units would be entitled."
Mr. Purvis referred to the other accomplishments of the National Employment Commission. He said that a questionnaire for registration in connection with relief had been developed. If the answering of questions in questionnaires could have brought relief to the unemployed, they would have been on easy street long ago. I am told that the applicant for relief in the city of Vancouver has to answer four different sets of questions, the questions in all cases being the same. I suppose the purpose is to see if his condition is as he states it to be. I presume
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis

the same is true in every other city. The unemployed have been questioned to death. They have almost been turned inside out in order, I suppose, to find out the reasons for unemployment or the causes of it. Something much more substantial and more tangible than questionnaires will be necessary to overcome the problem. What is needed, in order that the people may have a picture of conditions under which the masses are living, is not a questionnaire; what we need is a commission which will investigate the conditions of the people in the country and in the cities, to find out what they have, what they have not, and how they live. Until we find that out we can never have a true picture of how the great mass of the people live. Mr. Purvis referred also to the recommendations made to the government, chief among them being the one which resulted in the home improvement plan which was embodied in a bill that came before this house a few days ago. I am not going to quarrel with the home improvement plan as a palliative. It is nothing more. For, after all, what does it amount to? What is the principle on which it is based? Is it not merely the principle of instalment buying applied to the building and repairing of homes? I have heard statements on a number of occasions in this house and in other places that instalment buying was one of the causes of the depression. I do not know whether that is true, but I am convinced that had it not been for the extent to which instalment buying developed in the boom years of 1927 to 1929 the depression would have come much sooner, though possibly its effect would not have been so great. Through the home improvement plan more money may be put into circulation this year or so long as it remains in operation, but as the loans are paid less money will be available for other purposes, and so we cancel next year and the year after what we have accomplished this year. We are not going to create prosperity by borrowing, no matter for what purposes.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And then paying
interest.


Angus MacInnis: In conclusion, I wish to
repeat that unemployment is not a cause; it is an effect. It is the inevitable consequence [DOT]of the system of profit production. In his budget speech the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) made this statement:
Profits are the mainspring of economic activity in the system under which we operate.
Then why complain about the logical consequences of a system which we voluntarily

accept? The main concern of the owners of industry under a profit system is not the production of goods and services to meet the needs of the people; it is the creation of profits. To this end all else is sacrificed. Wages are driven down, machines, as the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deach-man) said a few moments ago, are installed, displacing workers; the workers are speeded up; the consequent flow of profits into the hands of a few makes impossible a general distribution of the products of industry to the people who need them. A few have far more purchasing power than they can spend in consumers' goods or than they can invest in productive industry, while the masses lack sufficient purchasing power to keep body and soul together. Those are the inevitable results of the system under which we live. Industry stagnates, workers become unemployed, until during a period of time goods are consumed and the glut in the market disappears. It may happen that in the attempt to find markets abroad the nations of the world begin, as they are doing now, to prepare for war, and then the workers may begin to work again, only to meet the same conditions in a very few years. This has been the story of capitalism and it will continue to be so as long as the production and distribution of the necessities of life are in the hands of gamblers and speculators on the stock exchanges and markets of the world, as they are to-day.
On motion of Mr. Stirling the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.37 p.m.
Friday, March 5, 1937