1938-02-10

PRIVILEGE-MR. LAWSON POWERS OP CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION RESPECTING OPERATION AND CONTROL OF STATIONS

Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: I rise to a question of privilege. Speaking in the house on Tuesday on the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, with regard to the powers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I made a statement which, in an interruption by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), was alleged to be erroneous; and subsequently, at the end of my speech, the minister said that my statement was wrong and that I should admit it.
I claim the privilege of quoting to the house the authority upon which I base my statement; that authority is the Canadian Broadcasting Act. If you will refer to page 263 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker, you will find that I used these words:

Privy Council Appeals-Mr. Cahan
May I Bay to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) that I understood the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation not only operates stations but controls all stations in Canada.
The minister said:	-
The hon. member is entirely wrong.
I tried in a hurry to locate the provisions in the act but was unable to do so, and the Minister of Transport, immediately upon the conclusion of my address, as shown at page 266, said:
What the hon. member stated is not the fact; why not say so?
I quote from the Canadian Broadcasting Act, being chapter 24 of the statutes of Canada for the year 1936, section 22:
The corporation may make regulations:
(b)	to prescribe the periods to be reserved periodically by any private station for the broadcasting of programs of the corporation.
This was a program of the corporation, that was in question.
(c)	to control the character of any and all programs broadcast by corporation or private stations.
I say, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that my statement was correct. It was correct also on a further ground; the broadcast in question was a chain broadcast. A private station cannot obtain wires for the conduct of a chain broadcast without application to the commission under section 22, subsection 1(a), and therefore the commission has control of the private stations.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:
That the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1937, and the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1937, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, respecting appeals to the judicial committee of the privy council.
He said: In moving for leave to introduce this bill, which is entitled An Act Respecting Appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I would ask the privilege of
making a few explanatory remarks, not by way of argument but for the purpose of enabling lay members of the house to appreciate more clearly the development of the constitutional law with respect to prerogative appeals to his majesty in council and with respect to the appeal under the statutory provision of a later act to the judicial committee of the privy council.
A statute of the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was enacted in 1833 and is best known by its short title, The Judicial Committee Act, 1833, recites the fact that "from the decisions of various courts of judicature in the East Indies and in the plantations, colonies and other dominions of his majesty abroad, an appeal lies to his majesty in council," and proceeds by its provisions to regulate the proceedings in such an appeal. But under the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, it was never claimed that as a matter of royal prerogative the king and his privy council had jurisdiction to review the judgments of a colonial court, other than from the final appellate court in the colony, which, in the British American provinces, was the governor and his executive council.
The first royal commission appointing a governor of a province in that part of British North America now known as the Dominion of Canada was the commission issued in 1749 to Edward Cornwallis as governor of the newly-created province of Nova Scotia. Upon his arrival at Halifax Cornwallis appointed his council and established three courts for the province; a court of general sessions, similar to courts of sessions in England, a county court of five justices of the peace having jurisdiction over the entire province, and a general court consisting of the governor and members of his council, having a supreme appellate jurisdiction in the province. This supreme court of the governor in council exercised both political and judicial functions. The right of appeal to the governor in council was omitted from the royal instructions to the governors of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in 1861.
In 1754 Jonathan Belcher was appointed chief justice of the province of Nova Scotia, and chief justice of the supreme court of judicature, which was then constituted. This court thereafter exercised the appellate jurisdiction that formerly appertained to the governor in council.
The royal proclamation of October 7, 1763, established a judicial system in Quebec, consisting of civil and criminal courts, with a right of appeal in civil cases to the king in council. The Quebec Act, 1774, repealed all existing ordinances relating to the administra-
[Stage Direction]
Privy Council Appeals-Mr. Cahan
tion of justice, but the instructions to Governor Carleton in 1775 authorized the constitution of criminal and civil courts, with an appeal in civil matters to the governor in council in certain cases.
The Constitutional Act of 1791 provided for the division of the old province of Quebec into two new provinces to be called Upper and Lower Canada, and provided that all existing laws, statutes and ordinances should remain in force until altered by the legislatures of the new provinces. The respective legislatures of the two new provinces each enacted statutes making provision for appeals to the governor in council, with a further provision for appeals to the king in council. Lower Canada legislated by 34 George III, chapter 6, section 23. Upper Canada legislated by 34 George III, chapter 2, section 33, which reads as follows:
And be it enacted that the governor, lieutenant governor, or person administering the government of this province, or the chief justice of the province, together with any two or more members of the executive council of the province, shall compose a court of appeal for hearing and determining all appeals from such judgments or sentences as may lawfully be brought before them.
One of the grievances most bitterly complained of in the province of Lower Canada was this constitution of the governor in council as a court of error and appeal, inasmuch as the governor in council exercised, in practice, political rather than judicial functions.
In 1841 the appeal In re Samuel Cambridge from Prince Edward Island was heard before the privy council. By the royal instructions to the governor of that island, then in force, he was directed to allow appeals to himself in council where the value appealed from amounted to £300 sterling and to the king in council where the value appealed from amounted to £500. Cambridge, to avoid a multiplicity of suits against himself, petitioned her majesty in council for leave to appeal from a judgment of the supreme court of the island to the amount of £135 which under the instructions to the governor was not appealable either to the governor in council or to her majesty in council. The judicial committee, Lord Brougham, a former lord chancellor, presiding, held that there being an intermediate court of appeal in the island, namely the governor in council, no appeal could be received by the privy council directly from the supreme court of the island. Appeals from the supreme court of the island under the instructions should be made to the governor in council of the island. The reference is Moore's Privy Council Cases, volume III, page 175. This case was decided in 1841, and thereafter Lord Brougham introduced to

parliament the bill which was enacted as the Judicial Committee Act, 1844, to overcome the difficulty which had arisen, by allowing in future appeals to the privy council from other courts in the colonies although they were not courts of error or courts of appeal.
When this statute was enacted in 1844 the royal instructions to every British governor, without exception, constituted him and his executive council a court of appeal exercising judicial functions as a court of error and appeal, and made further provision for an appeal from the governor in coimcil to the king in his privy council. The Judicial Committee Act of 1844 recites that:
*-the judicial committee, acting under the authority of the said acts-
The act of 1833 and an amending act.
-hath been found to answer well the purposes for which it was so established by parliament, but it is found necessary to improve its proceedings in some respects for the better despatch of business and expedient also to extend its jurisdiction and powers.
The first section of the act of 1844 enacts that it shall be competent to her majesty by general or special order in council to-
-provide for the admission of any appeal or appeals to Her Majesty in council from any judgments, sentences, decrees or orders of any court of justice within any British colony or possession abroad.
The jurisdiction of the king in council to review judgments of colonial courts, other than the final court of appeal where such court existed in the colonies, was never claimed as a matter of royal prerogative prior to the enactment of The Judicial Committee Act, 1844, which converted the pre-existing prerogative right into a statutory right.
The conditions which Lord Brougham desired and intended to remove are shown by the preamble to The Judicial Committee Act, 1844 which recites:
Whereas by the laws now in force in certain of Her Majesty's colonies and possessions abroad no appeals can be brought to Her Majesty in council for the reversal of the judgments, sentences, decrees and orders of any courts of justice wdthin such colonies save only of the courts of error or courts of appeal within the same, and it is expedient that Her Majesty in council should be authorized to provide for the admission of appeals from other courts of justice within such colonies or possessions-
Then it proceeds with the enactment of section 1:
1. It shall be competent to her majesty, by any order or orders to be from time to time for that purpose made with the advice of her privy council, to provide for the admission of any appeal or appeals to her majesty in council

Privy Council Appeals-Mr. Cahan
from the judgments, sentences, decrees or orders of any court of justice within any British oolony or possession abroad, although such court shall not be a court of error or a court of appeal within such colony or possession; and it shall also be competent to her majesty, by any such order or orders as aforesaid to make all such provisions as to her majesty in council shall seem meet for the instituting and prosecuting of any such appeals, and for carrying into effect any such decisions or sentences as her majesty in council shall pronounce thereon.
This statute of 1844, says the late Mr. E. R. Cameron in his valued work on The Canadian Constitution, never contemplated interfering with the power to regulate appeals from the courts of appeal in the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, given them by the Constitutional Act of 1791. This undoubtedly was the view of the imperial authorities in passing the earlier orders in council which provided for the institution and prosecution of appeals in the Canadian provinces which had no courts of error and appeal other than the governor in council, and which orders are clearly supplementary to the provisions of The Judicial Committee Act, 1844.
The preamble to the orders in council, providing for appeals from New Brunswick in 1852 and Nova Scotia in 1863, recites the language of The Judicial Committee Act, 1844, and proceeds:
And whereas it is expedient that provision should be made in pursuance of the said cited enactments to enable parties to appeal in civil causes from the decision of the supreme court of the province to His Majesty in council, the same not being a court of error and appeal.
When these orders in council of 1852 and 1863 were passed by his majesty in council, each of the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia was "a British colony or possession" within the meaning and intent of The Judicial Committee Act, 1844; but it may be doubted, I think, whether a province of the Dominion of Canada may now be properly so described. It is clear that in respect of any future enactment of the parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland it may not be so described, because section 11 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, provides:
Notwithstanding anything in The Interpretation Act, 1889, the expression "colony" shall not, in any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this act, include a dominion or _ any province or state forming part of a dominion.
In 1849, by 12 Victoria, chapter 37, in Lower Canada, and by 12 Victoria, chapter 63, in Upper Canada, the governor in council as a court of error and appeal was abolished, but provision was made for appeals to the king
in his privy council. Subsequently the thirty, fourth resolution adopted at the Quebec conference in October, 1864, provided that the general parliament should have power to make laws for-
The establishment of a general court of appeal for the federated provinces.
Section 101 of The British North America Act, 1867, subsequently enacted:
101. The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this act, from time to time provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada, and for the establishment of any additional courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada.
During the parliamentary session of 1875, which was during the period when this country was administered by the government of Mr. Mackenzie, a bill was introduced by Mr. Fournier, then minister of justice in the Liberal administration of that day, to establish the Supreme Court of Canada. The political records of that time disclose that Edward Blake had a large part in drafting the bill, and that the bill, as originally drawn, contained a clause providing that judgments of the supreme court should be final, thus precluding appeals to the privy council, but that the government of the United Kingdom then intimated to the government of Canada that the proposed act would not receive the assent of the crown unless that section of the bill was amended so as to preserve the prerogative right of appeal. Professor Kennedy, of the university of Toronto, in his work, The Constitution of Canada, at page 341, relates:
When the parliament of Canada in 1875 proceeded to constitute a supreme court for Canada, the bill, as introduced, provided for the cessation of all appeals to the privy council, but the colonial office at London notified the Liberal government of that day that unless this provision was eliminated the whole bill would be disallowed by the government at Westminster.
In May's Constitutional History (1912), volume III, he says that when in 1875 the Liberal government of Canada proposed to abolish appeals to the privy council, the judicial committee prepared a memorandum in which they said:
To abolish this controlling power and abandon each colony and dependency to a separate court of appeal of its own would obviously be to destroy one of the most important ties connecting all parts of the empire in common obedience to the courts of law, and to renounce the last and most essential mode of exercising the authority of the crown over its possessions abroad.
It is to be noted that Canada was then regarded as a colony, dependency or possession of the crown, over which the government of
[Stage Direction]
Privy Council Appeals-Mr. Cahan
the United Kingdom should not renounce the last and most essential mode of exercising authority in the name of and as advisers of his majesty.
The forty-seventh section of the Supreme Court Act of 1875 as then enacted, reads as follows:
47. The judgment of the supreme court shall in all cases be final and conclusive, and no appeal shall be brought from any judgment or order of the supreme court to any court of appeal established by the parliament of Great Britain and Ireland, by which appeals or petitions to her majesty in council may be ordered to be heard; saving any right which her majesty may be graciously pleased to exercise by virtue of her royal prerogative.
That section now appears as section 54 of the Supreme Court Act, chapter 35 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
The parliament of Canada in 1888, by chapter 43 of the statutes of 1888, subsequently enacted amendments to the criminal code, which provided that in criminal cases the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada should in all cases be final and conclusive, and that no appeal shall be brought in any criminal case to his majesty in council. That remained the law in Canada for thirty-eight years, until, in 1926, in the Nadan case, the privy council held that this enactment of the parliament of Canada was inconsistent with the provisions of the Judicial Committee Acts, 1833 and 1844, and therefore invalid under section 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, which enacts that:
Any colonial law which is or shall be in any way repugnant to any provisions of any act of parliament extending to the colony to which such law may relate . . . shall to the extent of such repugnancy, but not otherwise, be and remain absolutely void and inoperative.
In the Nadan case it was declared that that enactment in the criminal law of Canada, which presumably had been in force for some thirty-eight years, was invalid and void, by reason of repugnancy to the Colonial Laws Validity Act.
Section 2 of the Statute of Westminster, 1931, has more recently declared that:
The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, shall not apply to any law made after the commencement of this act by the parliament of a dominion.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but on the introduction of bills statements should be made succinctly and briefly.


Mr. CAHAN:: I have only one more citation to make, and I shall have finished. I
had no intention of being argumentative, but having these notations in my notebook I thought that by placing them on Hansard I might save hon. members some time.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I think
so, too.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I thought that if they had the exact references it might be helpful.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the observations of the hon. member will be very useful to hon. members who would like to speak on the second reading.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In 1931, in chapter 28, section 15, the parliament of Canada reenacted the same section of the criminal code abolishing appeals to the privy council in criminal cases; and the privy council in 1935, in the British Coal Corporation case, held that the enactment is now valid.
Nevertheless The Judicial Committee Acts of 1833 and 1844 still apply to appeals to his majesty in council in civil cases; and the purpose of this bill is to repeal the said acts and all orders, rules and regulations made thereunder in so far as they are a part of the law of the Dominion of Canada.
Before second reading of the bill, which will not take place for several days, hon. members will have ample opportunity to study its terms and consider their effect. At that time I shall endeavour to present such arguments as I may in favour of the enactment of the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: I am pleased to hear the hon. member say that he does not propose to move second reading before several days have passed. I would ask him, if possible, to give us some private notice of bis intentions to move second reading.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall be very glad to consult with the Minister of Justice and to arrange for such day as may be convenient to him.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you.
Motion agreed to and hill read the first time.



POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to amend the Post Office Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. MacNICOL
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I rise to a question of privilege-I

Privilege-Mr. Gardiner
suppose I can call it that. In reply to a question I asked yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said: "My hon. friend is an older man than I am" and, I have the recollection that he said "has been longer in this house than I have been." I am happy to say that I am several years younger than the Prime Minister is, but I am very sorry to say that I have drawn twelve or thirteen fewer sessional indemnities than he has.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I must congratulate my
hon. friend: I am only sorry he does not look younger.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that I don't dye my hair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I haven't
enough hair to dye.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. GARDINER



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE ON LIVE STOCK SHIPPED TO FEEDING GROUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day are called I wish to call the attention of the house, on a question of privilege, to a reference made by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) to the Saskatchewan government. The reference is to be found at page 290 of Hansard.
I wired the provincial Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. J. G. Taggart, quoting the reference to freight paid on live stock from the town of Wolseley to the province of Manitoba. In reply I received the following wire this morning:
Hon. J. G. Gardiner,
Ottawa, Ontario.
In September we provided freight assistance on two cars sheep and one car cattle for Albert Schuster, Wolseley to Kemnay and in October one car horses and two cars cattle for David Laidlaw. and in November one mixed car containing horses and cattle for Wilfred Laidlaw, Wolseley to Gladstone. Understand Laidlaws have Perley property under lease, but do not know financial standing or recent earnings or cash revenue.
I wired Mr. Taggart this morning as follows:
Hon. J. G. Taggart,
Minister of Agriculture,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
In referring to Laidlaw Perley states, "he was refused assistance from the municipality. He was refused by the local inspector but he went to Regina and got it." My understanding is no one can get assistance of any kind without being passed by the municipality.
Where there is doubt if your inspector cannot convince municipal representatives the man is refused assistance. Kindly wire me additional information at once if possible.
James G. Gardiner.
I received this wire from Mr. Taggart:
Hon. J. G. Gardiner,
Minister of Agriculture,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Both Laidlaw applications investigated and recommended by municipal secretary and our district representative. Schuster came to Regina to complete freight arrangements after his application had been approved by municipality. Laidlaw until recently tenant of Perley but declines to continue. Municipality advanced seed and supplies to value of four hundred eiglity-two dollars fifty-four cents in 1937. being about half amount desired by tenant and landlord. Termination of tenancy by Laidlaw may partly explain criticism. Understand tenancy has been unprofitable throughout to Laidlaw which reduced him to circumstances necessitating aid in shipment of live stock out.
J. G. Taggart.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it must be apparent to your honour that the observations which have just been made are wholly out of order, and directly contrary to the rules of this house. We are having introduced into a debate a statement made by one not a member of this house and reflecting upon a member of this house, a statement which has been met with cheers from hon. members opposite but which the rules say must not be made. I did not interrupt the minister before because I desired that he should conclude what he had to say. But I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as the custodian of the proceedings of this house, should make it clear that this procedure is not only contrary to parliamentary practice but is a direct violation of the rules themselves.


James Garfield Gardiner: I would direct the
attention of the house to the fact that I did not make any statement at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point exactly.


James Garfield Gardiner: I merely quoted the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the very point.


James Garfield Gardiner: I quoted a statement which he made with regard to an accusation against himself, made in this house. Since he is administering the expenditure of considerable money provided as a result of a vote of this house, I think it perfectly proper that the statement should be made here.
Unemployment Insurance


Richard Bedford Bennett: The rule is just the contrary to what has been stated by the minister. The minister has said that he made no statement, but by reading a telegram he is attempting to have someone who is not a member of the house make a statement in this house. The rules are very clear upon that point. The idea of the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan speaking in this house through another mouthpiece is contrary to the rules of any deliberative assembly. No one can do that.


James Garfield Gardiner: In reply to the right hon. gentleman I would like to point out that just about a year ago he did exactly the same thing. He read to this house a wire which he had received from Mr. John I. McFarland, giving information which he said was-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not an accurate statement, as one would expect. The wire which I read at that time was a distinct denial by Mr. McFarland of a statement which had been attributed to him and which subsequent events proved had not been made by him. That is not what is being done here. The minister has said that he has no statement to make, but that Mr. Taggart is making a statement in this house. That is an entirely different thing. The rules are very clear that one must not use his position in parliament for the purpose of enabling someone not a member of parliament to make a statement in this house. That would seem to be reasonably clear about a controversial matter and a statement to the effect that a certain man was a tenant of a member of this house and that that tenancy brought about his ruin. That is the sense of the statement and it should be stricken from the record.


James Garfield Gardiner: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is out of order.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, one man shipped from southern Saskatchewan long before I ever had anything to do with him or knew anything about him. As far as Laid-law is concerned, the cancellation of his lease was sent to him by registered mail last July or August and he was no longer a lessee of mine when he moved out. As to Laidlaw's association with me causing his ruin, I may say that right from the very start this association has been most unsatisfactory to me. The result was the lease was cancelled and he was not a tenant of mine when he moved out.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to explain a reference made on Monday to a speech delivered by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), in November, 1934. As reported in Hansard I stated that the then secretary of state declared in very definite terms that the jurisdiction to deal with unemployment insurance lay properly with the provinces. The speech of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of November 27, contains the following relevant quotations:
It has been clearly decided that many matters now being discussed in the press and elsewhere relating to hours of labour, wages, price spreads, costs and profits, are exclusively within the jurisdiction of provincial legislatures.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is entirely out of order. We may as well conduct the business of the house with regard to the rules. What right has the Minister of Labour to refer to something said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George as quoted in the Montreal Gazette? This matter might have been a part of his original speech, but it cannot by any possibility be brought up now as a matter of privilege.


Mr. ROGERS:: If the leader of the opposition does not wish me to proceed, I am quite content. As a matter of fact, what I was about to say was in correction of a statement which I had made on a previous occasion. I

The Address-Mr. Donnelly
thought this correction should be made in fairness to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it is a correction, it is quite within the rules, but the minister did not say it was a correction.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The second relevant quotation was:
It is a proper matter for intelligent discussion as to whether the exclusive power of the provinces in matters of social reform should be considerably curtailed and the powers of the dominion correspondingly extended. Meanwhile until the British North America Act is amended by constitutional methods no good purpose can be served by either the dominion parliament or the provincial legislatures attempting illegally to exercise powers now fully vested in the other or others of them.
My hon. friend did not refer specifically to unemployment insurance and he has informed me that he did not have unemployment insurance in mind when he referred to matters of social reform as being within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I felt that I should make this statement in fairness to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, although he had not asked me to do so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister could have made his correction very simply by stating that through a lapse of memory he had stated in the house that I had discussed unemployment insurance in Montreal, when, as a matter of fact, so far as I am aware, I have never discussed this matter in any address which I have made outside of this house up to the present time.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. N. Francceur for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Wood Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was dealing with conditions in the drought area in western Canada, and I had referred to a series of radio addresses and articles in English newspapers by a Mr. A. G. Street with regard to conditions in western Canada. In these articles and addresses Mr. Street lays the blame for conditions in western Canada upon the methods of our farmers there. He says that we were mining the land, taking everything out and putting nothing
back, and that that was the cause of our present conditions. I omitted to say last night, as I intended to say and wish to say now, that if his argument is sound that our conditions are due to our methods of farming, then the older sections of Canada would have no crop and the newer sections would be having crops, because it would be the older sections that would be mined and would run out first. But the very opposite is true. In the older sections of the country, in Manitoba, for example, they are having good crops this year, while in the newer sections, in the southern part of Saskatchewan where I come from, they had no crop. So that our conditions cannot be due to our methods of farming.
I want to deal now with what is being done for the people in the dried-out area, but before entering upon what this government has done. I wish to express my thanks and the thanks of the people of western Canada to all the people in the other sections of this country who, not only last fall but for the past seven or eight yearn, have been giving to us freely and cheerfully of their vegetables and their fruits and products of different kinds in order to help carry our people over the period of depression and crop failures. Our people in western Canada deeply appreciate the generosity of the rest of the people of Canada. We are thankful to them, and we hope the time will soon come when it will not be necessary for us to receive relief from other parts of the country.
I wish also while on this matter to express to this government, and especially to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), the thanks of the people in that district for the carloads of vegetables, fruit, fish, cheese, and beans that were sent out there. It was well received and well distributed-and there was no politics in it, either.
Now I turn to what this government is doing for the people in that area in Saskatchewan. Let me say at the start that for purposes of relief the province of Saskatchewan is divided into two areas. There is, first of all, what we call the one hundred per cent area, consisting of 170 municipalities and several local improvement districts. In that area the federal government pays one hundred per cent of the cost of all the relief. Outside of that area there is a large section of the country on behalf of which this government gives to the province of Saskatchewan, first of all, a grant of one million dollars, to pay for feed and fodder for the people in that district; and they allow the province of Saskatchewan to borrow another million dollars for the same purpose. This govern-
The Address-Mr. Donnelly

ment also gives to Saskatchewan a grant of something like $230,000 a month for taking care of relief in other parts of the province.
I wish to deal particularly with the people in the one hundred per cent area, because that is the district we are concerned with, and it is the district the federal government is specially looking after.
The people in that district are better fed, better clothed and better looked after this year than ever before. I have talked, not to one or two or three but to many men in that district, and invariably they have said to me, one after another, "Doctor, I have more fruit, more vegetables, and more food in my celler with which to feed my family now than. I had in the good years in Saskatchewan. What I say about myself is true of ninety per cent of the people in this district, but they do not want to admit it." Of course there are people who go round finding fault. There are always some people who can never get enough relief. There are also people who go round and carry on an agitation among the people inducing them to complain. Some of these agitators are irresponsible people, but I also know responsible men, men holding public office, men who should not do things of this kind, who have gone throughout the country, stood on public platforms and told the people in that district to sign anything and do anything to get more relief, urging people to be dishonest in order to get relief, and then more and more relief. How can we wonder, then, that there are people who are dissatisfied and who complain that they are not receiving enough relief?
With regard to this relief problem generally, perhaps I had better first outline the methods by which it is administered. The dominion government pa3's one hundred per cent of the relief in the area I have described, and the administration of that relief is entirely in the hands of the provincial government. The provincial government appoints relief inspectors, one for about every five municipalities. The application forms for relief are sent from Regina to the different municipalities, and the municipalities have the relief applicants come into whatever office they designate and make out their applications for relief. These applications, when filled out, are put to one side for the inspection of a committee. A committee is set up, consisting of a relief officer and at least two councillors. In many cases the whole council is on the relief committee. Every one of these relief applications is gone over by this committee. No applicant for

relief can get his relief order increased or decreased or changed in any way except with the consent of this whole committee. Any changes that are made are made by the committee, so if any man's relief order is cut down or increased it is the fault of the committee and of the council, because the council comprises the majority on that committee.
When I hear that there are politics in it, when we are told that people have their relief orders changed because of politics, it is a complete mystery to me how that can happen, and I defy any man in this house or out of it to tell me of one individual in western Canada who has had his relief order changed on account of his political affiliations. No man is asked what his politics are when he applies for relief. There are some C.C.F.-ers and Conservatives in that area, and naturally some of them will slip in on the municipal councils in western Canada, but of course the majority of the people there are Liberals and the majority of our councils are Liberals. These committees are not political machines by any means, and these men are not swayed by politics in the administration of relief. There is no federal politics in it, there is no provincial politics in it. There may be a little municipal politics; sometimes a councillor favours one of his neighbours because he thinks he will vote for him at the next municipal election, or something of that kind. It is said that these relief officers are going around the country building up a great Liberal machine. So far as that is concerned, I have only this to say. I know only one or two relief officers in my constituency, but if I were selecting men to build up a Liberal machine I would choose a far different type of men from these officers; I would look for men who were more effective along the political line and not men who were so favourable to some of my opponents.
Let me now deal for a moment with feed and fodder. Early last summer we realized that there would be a shortage of feed and fodder for stock in the west. The government in its wisdom decided to pay the freight in order to allow the people to ship the cattle out to pasturage. I do not believe that very much of this wras done in my section of the country. We have been doing this for the last four or five years and we have not found it very profitable. Invariably when we have shipped horses or cattle they have come back in the spring poorer than when they went out; a great number of them have died, a great many have never come back. Horses and cattle shipped from that short grass

The Address-Mr. Donnelly
country that I come from, when they go into the north or into Manitoba do not do so well; it takes them a long time to become acclimatized and they do not thrive on the feed they get there. Some of our people last fall shipped cattle into Manitoba. They weighed them before they left and after six weeks the cattle weighed less than they did when they were shipped from Saskatchewan and they had good pasturage. We did not find that practice a good thing. It may be better in other sections of the country, but we did not find it so.
The government, however, put into effect a program whereby they bought cattle and shipped them out of the country, and this is one of the best things it has done for the cattle raisers of the west. I have not heard one complaint with regard to the buying of cattle. There was an independent commission buying cattle, and shipping points were established throughout the province. The cattle raisers were notified when shipments were going to take place and were asked to bring in their stock. Again, some of our agitators went about the country and said to the farmers, "Don't bring in your cattle and offer them to the government; you will have to give them for practically nothing." The result was that some people did not bring in any cattle, and when the shipping day came these people came to town to see what was going on. When they found that the buyers were paying the prices that were actually being paid some of them rushed home and tried to get their cattle into the market. The next week some of them drove across the country, twenty-five, thirty and forty miles, herds of cattle which they sought to market at other shipping points.
Let me give an example of what I know with regard to the price of cattle at that time. One man had a herd for which he said he was willing to take S350. About two weeks after the government initiated this program I saw this man and he told me that he was going to hold his cattle and sell them to the government. I told him I thought he was well advised. About a week before the shipping day a buyer came around and this man took him to his farm. The buyer asked him how much he wanted for his cattle, and the farmer said he would take 8550. The buyer laughed at him, but, pointing to a particular animal, he said he would give $40 for it. The man said he would not take S40 for it. He said, "I will let the hair go with the hide
519,42-21
to the government." The government officials came the week after and bought that stock, and that farmer got, not $350, not $550, but $640 for the lot; and the animal for which he was offered $40 he sold for $62.
I do not know of any man in the whole of my constituency, or anybody in any other part of the province, who was not satisfied with the price received for stock sold to the government buying agency. My hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) referred to a price of $12, $13 or $14 for a milch cow. It must have been many years ago that that was a milch cow; it was one of those canners and cutters. I doubt whether the hon. gentleman would know the difference between a canner and cutter and a milch cow.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I know a Liberal.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Yes, but you don't know the difference between a C.C.F.-er and a Social Crediter. You would not tell the people which you were before the last election.
The only complaint I have to make with regard to the cattle buying program was that they did not buy enough; I should like to see them buy more. After it was discovered that such good prices were being paid, sixty or seventy different shipping points wrote to the government and asked them to have another shipping day.


James Garfield Gardiner: Ninety-two of them.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Ninety-two of them
asked for another shipping day so that more stock could be disposed of. We should like to see the government do this every year. The cattle held by the ordinary farmers in the west-not the ranchers-were more or less nondescript. There were some Holsteins mixed with beef cattle and coarse breeds of one kind or another, so that there was nothing but a mixture, and the best thing to do with these cattle was to get rid of them, 60 as to make way for a better class of stock next year. That will be better for the cattle raisers and the farmers themselves. I would urge the Minister of Agriculture to see next spring that steps are taken to help these people to establish better herds than they have had in the past, and for this very reason I think it would be wise to ship more. The idea of putting from $25 to $35 worth of feed into an animal worth only from $20 to $25 is foolish.
The next problem was to look after the stock that was left and to make provision for their fodder. In this connection, some people are of the opinion that nothing has been done. For shipment into the province

The Address-Mr. Donnelly

of Saskatchewan there have already been purchased 6,500,000 bushels of feed oats; 2,000,000 bushels of barley; 1,250,000 bushels of wheat, and corn and mill feed. All this is ready for shipment. Then we have the coarse feeds. Some people here talk about shipping crews into Manitoba to cut feed. We tried that for a couple of years and found that it was an expensive business. Not only that, but some of our people last fall went from our own municipalities in western Canada to bale hay and feed, but the weather was so wet that they could not make it pay and they came back, not having baled very much. We did find that on account of wet and bad weather in Manitoba and Alberta many farmers there would not leave the cutting of their crops to cut feed, and I do not blame them much. But when I came here and said to hon. members from different parts of Manitoba, "There was lots of feed not cut in your section of the country, lots of hay?" invariably they told me the same thing, that there was no hay worth anything not cut in their districts. They said that any hay that remained uncut they would not haul five miles from the slough to feed any kind of stock. Most of the hay in Manitoba was cut. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) spoke of seeing burning stacks of straw. Well, Manitoba had quite a lot of straw last year, but much of it was rusted, and a lot was filled with sow thistle. Rusted wheat straw and sow thistle are not very good feed for stock. It was burnt because it was of no value whatever.
Then we had another hon. member speaking about the commission for which the pool offered to look after feed. He mentioned 75 cents; I understood it was 50 cents. That commission was to be paid to the pool on top of the price. The price for No. 1 hay was $8.50 and they wanted 50 cents in addition to that. But in fact there was no commission paid to anyone. No commission has been or is being paid to anybody anywhere to buy hay for western Canada. Three councillors came to me last fall; they wanted to go to Manitoba and bale hay. They wanted to get a baler, and we tried to get one for them. While we were trying, one of them said: " You know, I can get lots of hay in Manitoba, anyway. I have had offers; I have letters here." I asked him what they wanted. He said, " They want $5 to $7.50 a ton." " Have you got the letters?" "Yes." "Well, then, here is fifty cents; send a night letter and order 100 carloads of hay right away." Another man sitting there also said, " Here is fifty cents; send to that other fellow and order 100 carloads right away from him and ask him when he can deliver it and at what

price." We got a wire back next morning saying they did not know when they could deliver, and the price would be $9.50. These were just commission merchants trying to make a little money buying and selling feed. All the feed available in Manitoba and in Alberta has been bought, and we believe that our stock will be well looked after and is being well looked after at the present time.
Now', as to this question of how much stock a man is allowed to keep: the government said, " Tell the people and tell them plainly that this is an emergency measure, that it is only for people who are in need, for people on relief. The government will help a man to keep two or three or four head of stock, or even five, depending upon the size of his family. But if he is able to feed five or six head of stock himself we are not going to give him any feed at all." Some farmers of course said, " I can feed ten or fifteen head of stock, and the government is going to feed five more; so I will keep fifteen or twenty," and they were surprised when the government said, " No, we are not going to give you any feed." Feed was short; why should the government feed stock which a man was able to keep himself? If he was able to keep five or ten or twenty head of stock, he could buy his own feed. It was this misunderstanding that brought about a lot of difficulty.
We have heard a dire tale about animals dying around the country. Well, stock has died in western Canada ever since I have been there, and will continue to die. I investigated a lot of these tales myself. Invariably w'hen I went to the man and asked how old the animal was, he would reply, " Well, eighteen or twenty years." It should have been shot two or three years ago. That is what I found. Some of our United Farmers of Canada lodges, Saskatchewan section, kept writing to the president complaining that unless something was done the stock was all going to die. I want hon. members to notice that; it was " They will die," not " They have died." They were prophets, prophesying what was going to happen. Mr. Bickerton, the president, became alarmed and sent a circular letter to the different United Farmers of Canada lodges. Let me read a section of it:
Prior to sending the telegram to Mr. Gardiner-
That was a telegram stating that he had. received all these letters predicting that so much stock was going to die.

we had received numerous letters from lodges stating that horses were dying or being shot because of lack of feed, fodder and shelter . . .
We trust that you will realize our position in this matter. We have taken a strong stand.

The Address-Mr. Donnelly
The governments differ with us. Now we want you to either back us up to the limit or tell us that the information we have already received is wrong and the government is right. If we are right wire Hon. Mr. Gardiner at Ottawa, Mr J. Taggart at Regina and the Regina Leader Post, the Regina Star and the Western Producers something to the effect that "the telegram to Mr. Gardiner from the U.F.C. officials is a true statement of conditions." If telegrams are too expensive write to these various parties and papers, but above all write to us by return of mail and tell us the truth about conditions in your district now.
It was due to this letter being sent out that these articles which were read by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) were published. Notice what he said about them. One of them is from the town of Indian Head, one from Broadview, another from Grenfell. I drove over that district myself from Indian Head north-I have a farm north of there-and I saw more feed in a five mile drive out of Indian Head than there is in the whole of my constituency; if animals are dying there it is because the people are too lazy to feed them. But that district the hon. member referred to is not in the one hundred per cent area at all.


Ernest Edward Perley: Some is in the one hundred per cent area.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Those three places are outside the one hundred per cent area. I shall deal with the others.
Then next the hon. member said something about the towns of Halbrite, Midale and Macoun. That is down in the south country, a long way off, pretty safe to talk about. This man he mentions wrote an article to the newspaper from down there, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said. But here is a letter from another man in the same district in reply to that; this is what he says:
No truth exists in the statement of the United Farmers of Canada that thirty per cent of horses in the Macoun, Midale and Halbrite districts are sick, dying or dead from starvation.
In a letter to the Regina Leader-Post, Mr. P. B. Peterson, of Midale, said:
In November and the first part of December hay was rather scarce in this municipality, although we had a good supply of straw. But at present most farmers at least have a fair supply of hay and straw.
During the good years, when feed and fodder was plentiful, there was always a certain number of old horses that died.
I think the government has done wonderfully well in supplying us with the feed and fodder they have up to the present time.
So that settles the Midale and Halbrite complaints of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle.


James Garfield Gardiner: No more letters came in?
51952-21*


Thomas F. Donnelly: No more from that man; he never wrote back about it again. Then there was an indefinite place down in the southern part of the province.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to have to tell the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I will finish in five or ten minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Perhaps less than that. I only want to say that the other complaints were very indefinite. They are the sort of thing I have investigated personally. There was one man down at Verwood who said he had some horses die. I was in that district, which happens to be in my own constituency. There were horses that died there, but there have been horses die all over the country ever since that has been a country. The death rate among horses, cattle or stock of any kind is about five per cent every year.


Walter Edward Foster: Do I understand that the hon. member has the consent of the house to complete his remarks?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.
Mr. DONNELL\ : I just want to say that the province of Saskatchewan made an investigation in a number of municipalities scattered throughout the province, in order to get what they considered to be a fair sample of conditions. They found that the death rate this year was going to be practically the same as always; about five per cent, no more and no less. It may be possible that we will have a little higher rate this year. Many of our young horses have been shipped out of the country; we have nothing left but old horses, and naturally more of them may be expected to die, but the death rate this year presumably will be about the same as it has been in the past, about five per cent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the hon. member mind saying what municipalities were included in that investigation, just for the information of the house?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I could not say. My instructions are that Mr. Taggart picked out representative municipalities throughout the province and had a survey made, and it was found that the death rate would be about the same as it had been in the past.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I share the views expressed by

The Address-Mr. MacNeil
my colleagues in this group as to the inadequacy of the legislative program outlined by the government. At this time I do not intend to state my personal views in regard to the policies under debate; I desire to direct the attention of the house to certain conclusions reached by representative and non-partisan bodies across Canada as to the necessity for definite action by this parliament to deal with the need for low cost and low rental houses.
I believe there is general disappointment that in the speech from the throne there has been no reference to this important subject. Statements previously made by members of the government had given rise to the hope that during the present session some advance might be made to relieve the acute housing shortage and thereby lend impetus to economic recovery. I believe members of all parties would welcome such an advance, and, I am sure, hope that the plans of the government hinted at elsewhere may mature at a very early date. There is an amazing unanimity of opinion everywhere that additional measures can and should be undertaken now by the government to meet this pressing problem. Definite action in this direction would be less costly than further delay. In any event many members must feel, as I feel, that in this house we should lend support to the splendid service rendered by public spirited citizens in many groups across Canada in reference to this problem. I refer particularly to those associated with the National Planning and Housing Association. Their approach to the question has been based wholly on considerations of public welfare. They have brought out the undeniable fact that proper housing is as much a matter of public interest and public welfare as the maintenance of a pure water supply. They have shown that the conditions of a complex industrial society make it impossible for governments to avoid assuming increasing responsibilities to assure to every individual a decent minimum of shelter.
The omission of any reference to this subject in the speech from the throne is all the more significant because of the recommendation contained in the interim report of the National Housing Commission, which report was placed in the hands of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in July of 1937. The recommendation in connection with housing construction reads in part as follows:
The commission recognized the desirability of a rounding out of governmental housing policy, particularly as regards accommodation for those unable themselves to afford an economic rent-often associated with slum clearance. Action in this field was considered necessary both from the viewpoint of eliminating a social sore all too prevalent, especially

in the larger cities, and because of its effect in stimulating employment in the construction field. This employment stimulus the commission considered would be felt directly, and also indirectly through the impetus that would be given to the Home Improvement Plan and to the Dominion Housing Act.
Again, in another section of the report, the commission states:
In making this recommendation the commission was influenced by the fact that Canadian governmental bodies had expended some $14,000,000 in 1936 to rent accommodation for relief recipients, and that in many instances such accommodation was unsanitary and unsuitable in the extreme. The commission feels that such a situation should not be allowed to continue, in that it breeds conditions tending to increase unemployment by decreasing the employability of numbers of workers, thus making it harder for them to secure employment.	,	. .
The plan recommended by the commission was put before the minister some time after the opening of the parliamentary session of 1937, and it is understood action thereon has been held over. As the government stated on September 10, 1936, that it accepted certain general principles laid down by the commission to govern its intended attack on this important branch of the housing problem, it is hoped that action may shortly prove possible.
In view of the circumstances related in this report it is not unreasonable to expect that the government should take appropriate action this session to implement the recommendations of the commission. It would also seem most unwise to disregard the recommendation on this score of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities. This federation represents the local government of more than five millions of the population of the dominion. In the submission of this body to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations it is recommended:
That the federal government enact a national low rent housing act.
This recommendation was based on the following considerations:
(a)	It has been demonstrated that a substantial proportion of the urban population lives in sub-standard houses and in neighbourhoods that are injurious to health and ^ morals, conducive to delinquency and destructive of family life.	.
(b)	It is also true that private enterprise and local authorities have found no way thus far to provide decent housing for those with low incomes. Competent spokesmen for private enterprise admit that the provision of housing for this social group is beyond their ability. Local authorities are unable to function without financial and other help from the senior governments.
(c)	The provisions of the Dominion Housing Act (1935) are unsuited and inadequate to facilitate a housing program for the low-wage income group.

The Address-Mr. MacNeil
(d)	Therefore, in order that a large proportion of our urban families should not continue to live in unfit dwellings, and to supply the urgent need for housing facilities, conforming to an acceptable minimum standard for the low income groups and thus to attack the serious problems of health, welfare and order, which are directly related to inadequate housing, the municipalities of Canada recommend that:
(1)	A national policy should be adopted for rehousing the low income groups at acceptable minimum standards, as a cooperative undertaking by federal, provincial and local governments, and private enterprise. This policy should be designed to stimulate local initiative, recognize local circumstances, and vest the control, save in exceptional cases, in the local authorities.
(2)	The federal and provincial governments should extend, in accordance with local needs, financial assistance conditioned on the existence of a comprehensive city plan and a housing program meeting satisfactory standards.
(3)	Financial aid should be either in the form of capital grants, long term, low interest loans, or annual rent subsidies.
Here you have the recommendations of practical men who are close to the problem and who have had every opportunity to measure it and to gauge its difficulties.
I submit it is becoming more and more apparent that existing provisions of the Dominion Housing Act, 1935, do not adequately meet the situation. The reasons are obvious.
Here I would say that a good deal of praise is merited by the officials in charge of the administration of the act. They have done much to increase the scope of its usefulness. I do not wish to minimize the value of the pioneering work done, or the importance of plans now under consideration. I believe the information made available with respect to operations under the act indicate definite limitations which exclude the possibility of relieving the housing shortage, or of providing houses for those who need them most.
I wish briefly to touch upon the latest statistics available with regard to operations under the present housing program. The total loans as of December 31, 1937, amounted to 2,150. The total number of family units provided for, by such loans, stood at 3,018, while the total value of loans was $13,034,858.
These statistics should be considered in conjunction with the reports of the construction industry. In 1934 there were 10,135 residential contracts in the dominion, having a total valuation of $30-588,100. In 1936 the number of residential contracts increased to 13,606, with a total valuation of $42,857,900. In 1937 the 18,284 residential contracts had a valuation of $56,207,000. It is true that these statistics indicate an important gain, but when we compare these figures with the estimated
shortage of housing they at once appear pitifully inadequate. It becomes painfully clear that operations under the act do not even touch the fringe of the shortage, and that more extensive measures are sorely needed.
In this connection again we must note the serious backlog in the construction industry. Going back to 1929 we find the total value of construction work stood at $576,651,800. Then, in 1933, at the low point of construction in Canada, the valuation was $97,289,800. In 1936 an increase is indicated to $162,588,000. According to the latest records construction contracts in 1937 were valued at $224,000,000. It may be unwise to attempt to express this backlog in terms of dollars and cents, but there is sufficient to show that it is serious, and that the construction industry is lagging behind all other major national industries in Canada.
In 1931, according to census statistics, there were 2,252,729 households in Canada. In 1937 the number was estimated at 2.350,000. The estimated increase in population since 1931 has been at the rate of 130.000 per year, or 30,000 families per year. It will be seen at once that we are building only about onedhird the number of houses required to keep pace with the growth in population and we are making no adequate provisior for the necessary replacements. It has been reliably estimated that the total shortage of houses in Canada exceeds 300,000. When we consider operations under the act we find that up to December, 1937, the number of loans in British Columbia stood at 253. Vancouver city alone reports a housing shortage of over 12,000. Loans in the province of Quebec totalled 992, while in the city of Montreal 40,000 houses are required to make up the shortage, and that figure does not include the requirements of necessary slum clearance.
Then, there is another phase of the problem with respect to operations under the Dominion Housing Act. The average loan per family unit for the entire period ended December 31, 1937, under the Dominion Housing Act has been $4,319. The lowest average loan for any three-month period during 1937 is shown to be $3,806. Only 756 family units were financed by loans under $3,000. When we face realities with regard to the distribution of income in Canada we realize why the present housing program cannot be expected to serve the needs of those who are now without proper housing facilities. Detailed studies of this phase of the problem have been prepared and published by Mr. H. L. Seymour, planning and housing consultant of this city.
The Address-Mr. MacNeil

It is estimated that in 1935 there was a total income of S3,750,000.000 earned in Canada by 3,800,000 persons receiving wages and salaries, or their equivalent. It is shown that of the gainfully employed:
Only 10	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $1,700	20	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $1,120	30	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $	98040	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $	90050	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $	80060	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $	70070	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $	56080	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $	40090	per cent or over.	received	an	income	of $	230This	shows that more	than half	the wage	
earners in Canada received less than S850 per annum. It can be shown that if under the housing act we allow 25 per cent of income for amortization and taxes, which is a reasonable percentage, it would require an income of SI,700 per annum to provide a payment of S35 per month towards the purchase of a S5.000 home. On the average, only those having this income, or more, could save the 20 per cent down payment necessary under the housing act. Certainly we can hardly expect more than ten per cent of the new homes to be built under the present plan.
It is believed, however, that a program could be launched to enable payment for a $3,000 home over a twenty-five year period on the basis of monthly payments of $14, representing approximately 20 per cent of an income of $850. Less than this income, as I have stated, is received by half the wage earners in Canada.
While giving consideration to the question of income in connection with the problem I am compelled to refer to the plight of the unemployed on relief who are herded together under housing conditions which are a disgrace to our communities. I must remind the house again that federal, provincial and municipal authorities during one year subsidized these housing conditions to an amount of $14,000,000, by way of shelter allowances. Certainly it would be better and more constructive to subsidize better housing conditions. While there were approximately 1,000.000 persons on relief, about $135,000,000 was paid out in that year for relief allowances by federal, provincial and municipal authorities. That amounts to about $135 per person, or $620 per family. One will readily see that there were few families on
fMr. MacNeil.]
relief which could pay more than $8 or $12 per month for shelter, and consequently many of these people have been living in dilapidated houses unfit for human habitation. At the same time statistics show that there were
1,750,000	persons in about 385,000 families which had an estimated family income of $620 or less, and an average income of well under $400. A number equal to or greater than the number actually in receipt of relief were receiving incomes as low as or lower than relief standards.
The lesson from this experience is plain. Private enterprise seeking profitable investment at prevailing returns cannot provide decent shelter for the low-wage income group. Professor Urwick of the university of Toronto aptly describes the situation when he states that the economics of the problem are "ridiculously simple." He says further:
The poor have not got decent homes because they cannot pay for them; no one attempts to build better homes for them for exactly the same reason. There is no money in low-cost housing; it is doubtful whether it can ever be low-cost enough. For the present, private enterprise does not come into the picture at all, no sane individual or company would touch the business. So the case for state aid does not need to be proven, it is patent on the surface.
Someone said recently that our society is divided into two classes, those who have more dinners than appetites and those who have more appetites than dinners. The same may be said of the disparities apparent in the housing accommodation of the Canadian people. Some dwell on the sunny side of the fence while the many dwell in the shadows. That which lurks in the shadows threatens the well being of the whole community. I consider that this house has definite responsibilities in this matter which can no longer be evaded.
It is not to our credit that Canada is far behind many other countries in carrying out a housing program. I might refer especially to Sweden, Holland, Belgium and Great Britain. In England and Wales 3.300.000 household units have been constructed from the war up to March, 1937. In proportion to population that is over four times what we have accomplished in Canada. We can learn about housing from Great Britain. We can learn that any stimulus to the building industry is passed on to other industries and has startling and cumulative results. Mr. Herbert N. Casson, writing in Maclean's magazine, has the following observations to make of the results.
British bricklayers are overwhelmed with orders. They have not been able to produce enough. Almost every day, ships come to Britain loaded with brick from Belgium.

The Address

Mr. MacNeil
Many timber merchants have had to double their staffs. Practically every furniture factory is working overtime. Decorators and paperhangers have never in their lives been as busy as they are to-day. Britain is building houses.
And again:
By 1931, a building boom had begun. More than 130,000 houses were built in that year by private builders. Since then the boom has continued. At present it has reached its highest point and is confidently expected to go higher. To any tourist, the most striking feature in Great Britain is the vast number of new houses, and houses in course of construction, most of them on the outskirts of the towns and cities. At last, in spite of a bad start, Britain has succeeded in solving her housing problem.
I think it is agreed by all that any stimulus to the building industry has an immediate effect upon other industries. I submit that the findings of the public bodies to which I have referred, and the various reports which have been published, make it abundantly clear that the situation in Canada with regard to housing is grave. The Montreal Metropolitan commission undertook a survey which was carried out in a very painstaking manner, and I think the report they made is more than fair. They do not attempt to exaggerate the situation in any way. A total of 4,216 houses were inspected and the following conclusions reached:
According to the Central Housing Committee, Washington, D.C., in a recently published glossary of housing terms, a slum is defined as "an area in which dwellings predominate that because of either dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, arrangement or design, lack of ventilation, light or sanitary facilities, or a combination of these factors are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, comfort and welfare of the inhabitants thereof."
If we accept the above definition, we are bound to affirm that there are districts in Montreal which can aptly be described as " slum areas."
They probably do not dramatically reflect each and every one of the characteristics mentioned in the foregoing definition. Overcrowding is not in wide evidence. Sanitary facilities are, on the whole, passable. But these districts do embrace predominantly old housing. Much of it is obsolescent, a considerable portion of it is dilapidated. The arrangement or design of the dwellings, either in their structural defects or the manner in which they are crowded on the land, along with "a combination of other factors are detrimental to the safety, health, morals, comfort and welfare of the inhabitants thereof."
In this sense Montreal has a slum problem.
The report continues:
As such, they represent an economic liability, the social costs of which are too expensive a luxury for us to indefinitely continue to tolerate.
Passing across the country, we find the following statement made by Dr. T. A. Lomer of Ottawa:
The scarcity of reasonably low rental houses is so great that the health department has not been able to take action to abate overcrowding except in the most extreme cases.
The chief inspector of the health department at Winnipeg has this to say:
From time to time this department has drawn attention to the increasing congestion by the conversion of one-family dwellings into tenements or multiple dwellings; housing from two to ten families. Nothing was being done to such houses to make them fit for multiple occupation, except that in order to attract tenants, gas stoves were installed in the various rooms. Pages have been written about the undesirable conditions thus being created; the lack of adequate plumbing, want of ventilation, occupation of cellars and attics, danger from fire, danger from communicable disease propagation, increased expense to the city for hospitalization, the moral effects of such conditions, etc.
And again:
-during the past five years, only one house or suite has been provided for every ten marriages.
An authority in Saskatchewan has this to say:
Saskatchewan has the doubtful honour of being the most overcrowded province, from the point of view of housing, in the entire dominion.
The report of a special committee appointed by the city council of Vancouver to investigate housing conditions contains the following paragraph:
Apart from overcrowding, a very unfortunate condition is being perpetuated in connection with dilapidated, and in some cases, condemned dwellings. Under ordinary circumstances, these buildings would stand vacant, or be demolished, but the great lack of suitable accommodation has forced people to occupy these premises to the detriment of their health and well being. The rentals obtained are small and, therefore, the landlords will carry out no repairs, nor make any improvements; thus, damp and cold add their toll to the misery of the occupants.
This report is signed by Helena R. Gutte-ridge, chairman of the building, civic planning and parks committee. The Vancouver branch of the National Planning and Housing Association has this to say:
There is at present an acute shortage of housing accommodation in Vancouver. Apartment house surveys reveal that less than one per cent of the suites are vacant, and the position with regard to the cheapest types of accommodation is worse still. It is practically impossible to find a vacant house in the poorer districts.
The housing shortage not only results in overcrowding; it also prevents the effective
The Address-Mr. MacNeil

enforcement of the sanitary and zoning by-laws, since it becomes impossible to remove tenants from insanitary dwellings. The reports of the medical health officer indicate that there are many buildings occupied as dwellings which would not ordinarily pass for that purpose.
A recent civic housing survey revealed serious overcrowding and slum conditions in many rooming houses. It also disclosed that over 600 persons (including children) are living in shacks or houseboats on the waterfront, all without sewage facilities and mostly without a direct water supply. Unless active measures of prevention arc immediately undertaken, these conditions will continue to spread and multiply.
The population of Vancouver has increased by over 12.000 during the last two years. New houses built during this period provided accommodation for less than half this increase in population, and were mainly of a type far beyond the means of the lower paid sections of the community. Marriages deferred from the depression, the "unscrambling" of families, and the steady decline in the size of the family unit, has still further aggravated the situation.
They give the number of houses and apartments which have been built in Vancouver during the last six years. The report continues:
It is estimated that an annual output of at least 2,000 houses a year for the next six yea-rs is required to make good the existing shortage.
At the date of the 1931 census, nearly 40 per cent of the families renting houses in Vancouver were paying under $25 a month in rent, and their average income was approximately $70 per month. Allowing one-fifth of income for rent, the average rent which this group can afford to pay is under $15 a month. About half of the population own (or have an equity in) their own homes. The other half, and probably a good proportion of those who have attempted to buy their homes, have, for the most part, neither the capital nor the stability of income to justify house purchase.
Unassisted private enterprise cannot build satisfactory houses to rent at under $30 per month.
The 1935 Housing Act does not touch the problem of the lower paid worker, since the average cost of the 154 houses (including land) so far built in British Columbia under the act, is over $4,400. Direct governmental assistance for low cost housing is therefore essential.
8. The key to the situation is cheap finance, since financing charges usually represent well over half the net rent. The dominion is alone in a position to provide this financial assistance, and without it the municipalities are powerless to act.
He goes on to point out:
Public responsibility for housing conditions has been accepted in Europe for many years.
I think it has been made abundantly clear that the situation is grave and demands action by this parliament, and I urge that such action be taken soon. When we review housing conditions across Canada, I think we will agree with the statement made by

Professor Percy E. Nobbs, in a report of a recent survey of the situation in Montreal in conjunction with the junior board of trade:
Private enterprise has never been able to cope with the problem of providing decent accommodation at these rentals for low-wage families. Large-scale operations and corporate management combined with a measure of social service are the only solution . . . Bad housing is often profitable to the landlords, but never to the community; for it carries with it vast economic burdens, many of which are calculable to a fraction of a cent-hospitalization, juvenile delinquency, etc. It is on purely economic grounds that I urge rehabilitation loans to retard the growth of slums, and large scale housing operations, as a prelude to slum clearance later on. The alternative is to see society destroyed by the mounting burdens due to bad environment.
I submit that in view of these conditions so well described, it would be not only sound economy but wise statesmanship to introduce without delay a measure to extend the housing program to provide low rental and low cost houses.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, some of the measures to be submitted to parliament during this session deserve the very serious attention of the legislator. Trade agreements, constitutional amendments, unemployment insurance, assistance to agriculture, the economic situation of the country, constitutionality of legislation, repression of agitators, and all that is required for the sound administration of the state. As to trade agreements, not only do they contribute largely to Canada's economic recovery, but they help to establish peaceful relations between nations. Were those their only advantages they would deserve the most careful attention of the people's representatives and our whole-hearted support in so far as they tend to benefit our people.
In this troubled world the efforts of our rulers should tend solely towards peace, the creator of initiative, of work and of happiness, but nothing is more difficult to-day than to unite the best elements of the country for the attainment of that ideal. The endeavours of statesmen to give to the country the best possible administration are constantly beset by the most serious obstacles. However, in spite of adverse winds, the ship is making for the port where prosperity so long in sight, awaits its arrival.
Let us not forget, sir, that it is by farming that we have lived as a colony and that we shall survive as a nation. That is true not only of Quebec but of all the provinces of Canada. To the great agricultural industry I am resolved to bring, as in the past, all my help and the experience I have acquired

The Address-Mr. Lacombe
in this chamber. As to the matter of unemployment insurance, it should in my humble opinion be approached with the greatest care and considered only to the extent that it will put an end to the depressing and disastrous method of direct relief. I go further: better have no unemployment insurance than allow provincial prerogatives to suffer.
During the past week there has been the question of submitting certain provincial laws to the consideration of the supreme court. One of these laws is known as the "Padlock Act" passed by the Quebec Legislature. At all events, should the highest court of the country hold this law unconstitutional, it would be the federal government's own duty to take immediate measures to curb agitators, by whatever name they call themselves. All revolutionary movements and organizations should be promptly, firmly, energetically and effectively suppressed by the government. For do they not constitute an attack upon established authority? Do they not provoke deep reactions among the masses, thus preparing the decline of the authority of the state and the constitution of the country?
Nobody will deny that for some time there has been a marked improvement in more than one sphere. The number of relief recipients was reduced. Better prices prevailed for certain kinds of farm products. However there is still room for improvement from a social and economic viewpoint. Small wage earners and farmers wrere the most severely affected by the economic unrest which prevailed during these last few years. Our young people were in great distress. The governments made commendable efforts to remedy these deplorable conditions. However, we need something besides theories, speeches, and lectures, in order to reestablish the condition of all classes in our community. From the people we require initiative and enterprise; from the governments, efficiency in their administration, and a clear vision of present requirements. Thus, the present government, who enjoy the confidence of the people, may carry on their work or reconstruction, in the interest of the country and its ratepayers.
Since the speech from the throne allows the members to make all the suggestions which they consider as being in the public interest, I shall draw the attention of the government to the small salaries which are being paid to our rural carriers for the carrying of his majesty's mail, in certain parts of the country. Some may contend that these carriers have freely agreed to the salary they are getting. It is true that contracts are let out only after a call for tenders. It is also true
that, except for some serious reasons, the contract is awarded to the lowest bidder. Is that a good reason to deprive these carriers of the reward of their labour? I know some pitiful cases where carriers have been operating at a loss for two years.
Mr. Speaker, on all sides you hear of nothing but social justice, minimum wages, and fair remuneration of labour. Still, rural carriers, who shoulder great responsibilities, are most unfairly treated, when you consider the expenses they incur to carry out their work for his majesty. I regret very much to be precluded by the rules of this house from introducing a bill in order to grant these rural mail carriers a reasonable salary and a fair remuneration. In fact, only a minister of the crown may introduce such a bill. That is why, for the sake of fairness, and justice, I would ask the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) to submit to parliament the necessary measure, since I have not the right to do so myself. Otherwise, the government will give the people the edifying spectacle of men being exploited while carrying his majesty's mail. I shall probably be told in reply to my request that the Post Office Department and the carriers are already bound by a contract. An empty excuse! When any legislation in force constitutes a denial of justice toward the people of a country, the first duty of the government is to amend it or to substitute another therefor. Besides, it would be easy, in the notice calling for tenders, to fix a minimum annual rate of, say, $35 per mile provided of course, the government were satisfied that the tender system was the best one. Moreover, in the notice and request for tenders it should be clearly and definitely stated that any tender involving a rate of compensation lower, for example, than the annual rate of $35 per mile, shall be deemed null and void.
Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to discuss other problems of national importance, such as the defence estimates. But "all in good time," as the saying goes. Therefore, when the National Defence department's estimates are brought up in the house I shall, as I have done before, consider and discuss them in such a manner and spirit as appear to me in the best interests of Canada. When that troublesome question comes up, I shall be governed by no other consideration than the love of my country and its welfare and progress.
In concluding, I wish to tell the house that I shall, again this year, insist upon the application of a seasonal tariff for the benefit of
The Address-Mr. Hansell

truck gardeners in my constituency and in the whole country. When, at the very first session of this parliament, the government gave favourable consideration to my resolution requesting a seasonal tariff for fruit and vegetable producers, an immediate improvement was noticed in the selling price of these nationally important products. Truck gardening holds a prominent place in the economic life of Canada. Therefore, not only should the government help that industry to preserve its present standing, but it should also promote its development in the best interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, a member sitting in this corner and being from Alberta can hardly rise in this house to-day without adverting to the now famous Powell and Unwin case recently concluded. The press has had a	good deal to say during past
months concerning this matter, and in yesterday's newspapers we read of the telegram that had been sent the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) from the Attorney General of Alberta requesting the full remission of these sentences. To-day's press carries the news that the Minister of Justice has not seen his way clear to granting the request. The charge against these gentlemen would appear to be, and is generally accepted to be, actuated by political motivation. This being the case, one might be excused for having entertained the hope that the Minister of Justice would see his way clear to grant the dignified request of His Majesty's Attorney General for the Province of Alberta, especially when it is borne in mind that Alberta's attorney general, being on the ground and therefore intimately familiar with all aspects of the situation involved, is singularly qualified to make recommendations as to the disposition of the sentences. The Minister of Justice having made his decision, I feel impelled to ask that he sympathetically consider the possibility of granting at a very early date a parole for these persecuted gentlemen, who are after all the servants of the people of Alberta.
I had not intended to speak to the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne, but after listening to several remarks that have been made in debate thus far I am compelled to say a few words on some matters. I wish to refer particularly to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) wherein he endeavours to justify the argument against the present policy of subventions on coal. The hon. gentleman made considerable reference to this matter

during the last session, and I think that he should be better informed. It is generally argued by those living at the head of the lakes that subventions on coal destroy to a very large extent the shipping industry at the head of the great lakes. It is argued by some that millions of dollars have been invested in elevators, coal docks and harbour improvements on the assumption that the natural advantage of the harbours at Fort William and Port Arthur as shipping centres assures their future growth and improvement. But those who so argue overlook the fact that millions of dollars have been invested in the coal industry of Alberta upon the assumption that the people of Canada need coal and should naturally buy home products.
In an editorial that appeared in the Daily Times-Journal of Fort William about a year ago the statement was made that the destruction of the coal trade at the head of the lakes was the result of deliberate action on the part of the government in response to agitation for subventions on the part of western coal operators. It is stated that because of the subvention policy the amount of coal handled at the head of the lakes dropped about one and a quarter million tons. In reply let me say that the policy of subventions for coal was instituted by a Liberal government, first in Nova Scotia and later in the west. The fact that subventions were granted to Nova Scotia gave the coal mining industry in the west a natural right to expect that the same thing would be done for it. The statement that this coal subvention policy reduced the coal trade at the head of the lakes one and a quarter million tons is entirely incorrect. The movement of Alberta and British Columbia coal under the subvention has never exceeded
340.000	tons, and part of this goes to points in eastern Ontario which were never served from Fort William. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) seems very much concerned about the employment of 100 to 150 men in his constituency. The movement of
340.000	tons of coal from the west gives employment to something like 400 miners and partial employment to some 2,250 trainmen, in addition to other railroad employees who otherwise would be put on short time or thrown entirely on relief. In addition there are farmers in western Canada who are able to make ends meet by selling mine props made from timber cut from their small forests. The editorial referred to would lead the public to believe that Alberta coal is of inferior quality to imported coals. The very opposite is the fact. That is proved by actual tests.

The Address-Mr. Hansell
We have coals in Alberta and in Nova Scotia that compare most favourably with any imported coal.
It is also suggested that by doing away with coal subventions and importing additional coal from the United States the amount of the subvention would be saved and the revenue increased by the duty collected. Such an argument is untenable, for if it were carried to its logical conclusion we would be, in effect, saying: Destroy all Canadian industry and reap the revenue collected in duty on imports. But money spent on our own coal production at least stays in the country, and that part paid to employees and railway men, as well as any small dividends or profits to the operators, also remains in Canada, except perhaps a small amount. Most important of all is that if the comparatively small amount now being spent for western subventions, about $300,000, were discontinued and such coal displaced by United States coal, the result would be more unemployment, more relief costs, and money going abroad, thus reducing the purchasing power of the Canadian people and placing upon them a greater burden of taxation.
The hon. member said, as reported on page 104 of Hansard:
I do not like to see western coal coming down to within a few miles of Fort William to the detriment of our workers.
Surely my hon. friend does not mean that he desires the destruction of an entire coal mining industry with its thousands of employees in order to employ 100 to 150 men in his constituency. He must remember that to interfere with subventions in western Canada would mean that there would have to be the same interference with subventions for Nova Scotia coal, thus destroying the entire coal mining industry of Canada. I believe the coal mining industry of Canada is a matter of national importance, and we are dealing with national policies. What should be done to save the coal mining industry of this country, under the present system at least, is to increase the subvention.
The hon. member said also that he viewed with alarm any action taken by any province to curtail the freedom of the press. I have discussed this matter with some of my colleagues. I know it is contrary to parliamentary procedure to discus a matter which is before the courts, but I find nothing in the rules to prevent me from simply reading the act which was passed by the Alberta legislature. I would like to have your ruling on this Mr. Speaker...


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead and read it.


Ernest George Hansell: I shall read it without any comment whatsoever. 'It is Bill No. 9, entitled, "An Act to Ensure the Publication of Accurate News and Information," and it reads:
Whereas it is expedient and in the public interest that the newspapers published in the province should furnish to the people of the province statements made by the authority of the government of the province as to the true and exact objects of the policy of the government and as to the hindrances to or difficulties in achieving such objects, to the end that the people may be informed with respect thereto.
Now therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative assembly of the province of Alberta enacts as follows:
1.	This act may be cited as "The Accurate News and Information Act."
2.	In this act, unless the context otherwise requiresfa) "Chairman" means the chairman of the board constituted by section 3 of the Alberta Social Credit Act;
(b) "Newspaper" means a paper containing public news, intelligence or occurrences or remarks or observations thereon, printed for sale and published periodically in parts or numbers at regular intervals not exceeding thirty-one days between the publication of any two of such papers, parts or numbers, and includes a paper printed in order to be made public w-eekly or oftener, or at intervals not exceeding thirty-one days containing only or principally advertisements, and a paper containing accounts of events occurring within thirty-one days before the date of publication.
3.	(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, every person who is the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any newspaper published in the province, shall when required so to do by the chairman, publish in that newspaper any statement furnished by the chairman which has for its object the correction or amplification of any statement relating to any policy or activity of the government of the province published by that newspaper within the next preceding thirty-one days.
(2)	Every such statement shall have written upon it a certificate in the following words: "The foregoing statement is published by the direction of the chairman of the social credit board," which certificate shall be printed at the foot of the statement to which it relates.
(3)	Every such statement shall be printed with the type ordinarily used in the printing of the newspaper.
(4)	The length of any statement required to be published shall not exceed the length of the statement corrected thereby and such statement shall be given the same prominence as to position, type and space as the statement corrected thereby.
(5)	Every requirement by the chairman for the publication of any statement shall be in writing signed by the chairman, and shall be deemed to have been duly made upon the receipt of the requirement together with the statements referred to therein at the office or usual place of business of any of the following persons, namely, the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of the newspaper.
The Address-Mr. Hansell

(6)	Every statement so required to be published in a newspaper shall be submitted in the language used in the publication of such newspaper .and shall be published in the next regular issue thereof after the day upon which the requirement for the publication thereof referred to in subsection (5) is received at the office or usual place of business of any of the following persons, namely, the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of the newspaper.
(7)	No statement required to be published pursuant to this act shall contain any notice or other matter the publication of which is required to be made pursuant to any other statute or which is ordinarily published as advertising.
4.	Every person who is the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any newspaper, shall upon being required so to do by the chairman in writing, within twenty-four hours after the delivery of such requirement at the office or usual place of business of any of the following persons, namely, the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of the newspaper, make a return in writing setting out every source from which any information emanated, as to any statement contained in any issue of the newspaper published within sixty days of the making of the requirement and the names, addresses and occupations of all persons by whom such information was furnished to the newspaper, and the name and address of the writer of any editorial, article or news item contained in any such issue of the newspaper as aforesaid.
5.	No action for libel shall be maintainable on account of the publication of any statement pursuant to this act against any person who is the proprietor, editor, publisher, manager or printer of the new'spaper publishing the same or against any employee of any such person or against any person on account of any subsequent publication of any such statement.
6.	In case the proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any newspaper has been guilty of any contravention of any of the provisions of this act the lieutenant governor in council, upon the recommendation of the chairman, may by order prohibit,-
(a)	the publication of such newspaper either for a definite time or until further order;
(b)	the publication in any newspaper of anything written by any person specified in the order;
(c)	the publication of any information emanating from any person or source specified in the order.
7.	(1) Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of this act or who makes any default in complying with any requirement made in pursuance of this act shall be liable to a penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars.
(2)	Every person who contravenes any of the provisions of any order in council made pursuant to section 6 of this act shall in respect of every such contravention be liable to a penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars.
(3)	Any penalty which any person is liable to pay pursuant to any provision of this act shall be recoverable either by suit brought by the chairman in any court of competent civil jurisdiction, or upon summary conviction upon

the information or complaint of the chairman or of some person authorized in writing by the chairman to lay such information.
8.	This act shall come into force on the day upon which it is assented to.
Now my hon. friend can read the act for his own information. I am not going to make any comment on it whatever, but I wish to deal with one phase of thought that is prevalent in the minds of many people, relative to what is meant by the freedom of the press. It seems to me the freedom of the press means that it is free to print the truth. Let us make no mistake about that; it is free to print the truth. The hon. member for Fort William, who made this reference,. is a clergyman. Perhaps it is only fitting that one clergyman should reply to another.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the hon. member a clergyman?
Mr. HANSELL; He is; he may not look like it, but he is.
Mr. LAWSON; As a clergyman, apart from the Bible can the hon. gentleman say what is the truth?
Mr. HANSELL; It is not a matter of a definition of truth; it is a matter of a statement of fact. I do not want to become involved in a discussion of what the act itself purported to do; I am avoiding that, but I should know what is the truth about myself and the Alberta government should know what is the truth about itself. That is the question which is involved.
Now let me ask my hon. friend the clergyman, sincerely and without malice or satire: In the ethics of his religion could he say that people or institutions should be free to say and publish that which is false? Let me ask him further: Would he deem it a thing objectionable to demand a true statement of the facts in answer to a falsity which has been spoken or published?
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to some remarks that were made by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), who commenced his speech, appearing at page 79 of Hansard, by making reference to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), who is the leader of this group. I would not regard this reference as particularly important were it not for the fact that in connection with it the hon. gentleman also referred to the government of Alberta. The hon. gentleman started off by saying that a year ago last summer-and I am surprised that as a parliamentarian he would build up an argument on such a flimsy foundation-he read something somewhere. He does not say when he read it, but he builds up a fantastic

The Address-Mr. Hansell
argument because he heard or read something somewhere at some indefinite time, before the last session of the house, in some morning newspaper which he does not name, in which appeared some report from some small town in Alberta, which he also does not name. On that basis he builds up an argument with which he attempts to ridicule not only the hon. member for Lethbridge but the government of Alberta. I submit that the Canadian public will do well to judge the strength of the argument of my hon. friend by the meagreness of his reference. The hon. gentleman wont on to say that no government had been a more complete failure than the government of Alberta in carrying out its promises.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: In response to the " hear, hear " I am going to say that no government has succeeded as the government of Alberta has in carrying out its promises.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend should be better informed. Perhaps in making a statement of that kind he was depending upon information which appeared in some little newspaper in some one-horse town, away back in Timbuctoo, in the remote ages of the past. Does he not know that under the present administration in Alberta surveys have been made in the interests of the oil industry in such a way as to induce a great amount of capital to come into Alberta from the Dominion of Canada, from the United States and from across the water? In the last little while we have heard a great deal about capital going out of Alberta, but millions of dollars have come into that province because hard-headed business men in the oil industry have had confidence in the Alberta government. In 1935, before the present government took office in Alberta, 60.000 feet were drilled in the Turner valley oil fields. For the first nine months of 1937 nearly four times that number of feet were drilled. Under the policy of the Alberta government that province is producing about 7,000,000 barrels of oil every year. For the information of the hon. member, Canada takes third place in the British Empire as an oil producer and, may I add, largely through the social credit policies of the Alberta government.
I could say something about the lumbering industry. I could make some observations about tar sands, the production of salt, and other matters, but time will not permit me to go into details. I suppose the hon. member has reference to the fact that social credit policies had promised much in terms of
monetary reform. Let me say that the hon. member should sweep his own doorstep first. If any charge can be made that a government has not kept its promises with respect to monetary reform, then certainly that charge can be laid at the foot of the present Liberal government at Ottawa.
What did we read as to what the Liberal government was going to do? All hon. members must be familiar with the famous speech made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at Saskatoon on September 21. 1935, when he is reported to have said:
Canada is faced with a great battle between the money power and the people, a battle which will be waged in the new parliament. I plead for a sweeping Liberal victory to carry out my policies of public control of currency and credit. Until the control of currency and credit is restored to the government, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile.
We find that the right hon. gentleman says that Canada is faced with a great battle between the money powers and the people, and that that battle will be waged in parliament. Well, when was the battle waged? Some of us have been sitting in the house for a couple of sessions and we are now asking ourselves when the battle was waged.


Mr. MARTIN:: Would the hon. member permit me to ask a question?


Ernest George Hansell: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: When may the people of
Alberta expect the $25 a month by way of dividend?


Ernest George Hansell: I would be very glad to
answer my hon. friend's question.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: As soon as the Liberals keep out of our hair.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Answer the question, please.


Ernest George Hansell: When the social credit
forces of Alberta began to explain the philosophies of social credit, it was brought to the attention of the people in that province that there was a shortage of purchasing power.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Why not answer the
question?


Ernest George Hansell: I am answering the question. There was a shortage of purchasing power between production and consumption which must be made up in some way or another. That shortage could be made up by the issuance- of what Major Douglas terms a national dividend. That $25 a month represents a dividend, and it was promised that
The Address-Mr. Hansell

such a dividend was possible under a social credit scheme. My hon. friend now asks me when the Alberta government is going to issue that dividend. When we have a social credit system operating, that will be possible. It is our firm conviction that the Liberal forces in Alberta are blocking the institution of social credit in that province. That is my answer to the hon. member's question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What about the eighteenmonth period? It has expired.


Ernest George Hansell: I have only ten minutes
in which to finish my observations, and I should like to spend the time in answering the hon. member for North Huron. He has been viewing the Alberta situation from a distance. May I now bring information from Alberta showing what some Liberals in that province think of the battle which was supposed to be fought in this house against the money powers. Before proceeding to the reference, may I ask when the battle was fought. If it has been fought, when was it finished? If it is finished, who won the victory? If it is finished, was the victory won by parliament or by the money powers? If it is not finished, why was money reform absent from the speech from the throne?
I have said that I would let the hon. member view the matter from the standpoint of people who are a little nearer the situation. All hon. members have received a letter from the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. That assembly is substantially Liberal, and yet we find that it does not recognize that a battle has been fought or won. This is the resolution moved and carried by the legislature of Manitoba:
Whereas the standard of living in Canada can only be raised by increased production and consumption of goods and services,
Whereas such increased production and consumption can only be accomplished effectively by national control of currency and credit issued in terms of public need,
Whereas the government of Canada, by recent legislation, now control fifty-one per cent of the shares of the Bank of Canada,
Now, therefore, be it resolved that in the opinion of this legislature that the government of Canada proceed forthwith to implement its election pledges and issue through the Bank of Canada currency and credit, considered in terms of public need, the amount of which to be determined in relation to the domestic and industrial requirements of the Canadian people.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be sent to the premier of Canada, every member of his cabinet, and all members of the House of Commons.
That, Mr. Speaker, comes from the legislature of Manitoba.

In the -five minutes left at my disposal may I deal with what some people from Alberta who are interested in Liberal policies have to say. In that connection I shall read a letter from a gentleman who during the last election campaign was an organizer for the Liberal forces in Alberta. This letter was written to the Prime Minister and, so far as I can learn, has not yet been acknowledged. In sending a copy of the letter to the Edmonton Bulletin the gentleman in question wrote:
Editor
Bulletin.
On August 10th the writer sent the enclosed letter to Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Premier of Canada.
Having supported his government in the 1933 election in reliance upon his election pledges, the courtesy of an acknowledgment was deemed reasonable whether the explanation was satisfactory or not.
The people should know how those of us who worked and voted for his election, now feel about the present situation.
This is the letter:
Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. King:
Edmonton's recent unique legislative activities must have shocked Ottawa nearly as much as Ottawa's continued inactivity on the same question has disappointed and disheartened the west.
Alberta's misguided and desperate attempts to secure for her citizens as a life-sustaining necessity, an increase in her people's purchasing power in view of Ottawa's failure therein, has resulted in the present legislation.
The writer opposed the social credit idea of monthly "dividends" not because relief from the present situation was not required, but because that group was proposing to grant purchasing power in a way that seemed beyond the province's constitutional powers to accomplish, whereas you, on behalf of the Liberal party of Canada, to which I belong because I believe in a minimum of tariff barriers to trade, and which I helped as local organizer at election time, had given a definite pledge on behalf of the Liberals of Canada, to remedy the long standing financial and economic injustice to the Canadian people due to the shackles imposed upon commercial and economic progress by the Bank Act which farms out the national credit to private interests for their profit rather than for the nation's welfare.
Your pledge, given in parliament in 1934 and which formed the chief plank in the Liberal platform when they were returned to power under your leadership is widely known and well remembered. It is as follows:
" Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to the government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of

The Address-Mr. Hansell
sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. ... To regain for the nation what has thus been lost will continue to be the first objective of Liberal effort."
That pledge is incorporated in the speech from the throne reported on page 17 of the 1936 Hansard, after your government took office, in the following words:
" The control of credit, and the issue of currency, being public matters of direct concern to every citizen, it is intended, at the present session, to ask parliament to make such changes in the ownership and control of the Bank of Canada, as may be necessary to give to the government a predominant interest in the ownership as well as effective control of the bank."
In the 1936 session of parliament you mentioned for example the development of the tourist trade as a proper and desirable activity of the National Employment Commission. Mr. Bennett agreed, and there was general parliamentary and other agreement on the subject.
That meant highway construction-of necessity involved the spending of money.
What has happened in that regard?
Alberta has the finest scenery in the world but it can't be observed because of bad roads.
In this connection it will be noted that the changes you requested in the set-up of the Bank of Canada were made which enabled your government to control the country's credit and to issue the necessary currency to accomplish on a wide front the building and improving of national highways.
Why did you want the government to have power of control over credit and the issue of currency if that power was not going to be exercised for the people's benefit?
The 1936 session of parliament produced a number of earnest voices insistent that such power be restored to the government and used.
What happened to those voices?
Why were Tucker, and McGeer, and Stitt, and others who last year were insistent upon the people's rights being exercised, silent in the 1937 session? What assurance did you give that induced them to remain silent in the face of an ever growing necessity for action?
The people are asking this and they insist on knowing.
As you are recognized personally as an outstanding authority on economics, your election pledge had more weight than that of a person not so equipped. As you had an unimpeachable private record your word was accepted.
The only suggested explanation of your inertia since then, in the face of a condition of increasing need, would appear to be lack of courage.
Is that the trouble? Or do you now doubt your estimate of existing conditions, and the correctness of your remedy? Or, again, is it your purpose to make the Bank of Canada a useful adjunct to the chartered banking system (to repeat the words of the general manager of the Royal Bank of Canada in his address to the bank shareholders at their annual meeting in January, 1934)?
If you were correct, as we still confidently believe, when are you going to do something about it? You can't wait forever, because people's lives and their living-their hopes for the future are at stake. Old people, too old to get work if it could be had, and too young to get the meagre old age pension- are sick with defeat. Middle aged people, if employed, find their tenure of employment less and less secure, and their remuneration diminishing while living costs rise. If they are unemployed, their spirits are utterly broken by the sense of helplessness and, worse still, of uselessness which grips them. Young people cannot make plans for their life work or for marriage or homes or families of their own, and the spark of ambition is quenched.
Desperate people are apt to take desperate measures and go to any extreme to maintain their God given right to live. And where only the outworn, criminally conceived system, which your government has both the power and a specific mandate from the people to replace, stands in the way of this right, how can they be prevented or blamed for doing so, if you continue to refuse to act?
The time for effective, constructive, intelligent action is overdue.
What are you going to do about it?
The hopes and the prayers of a stricken people are yours as you let your conscience direct your intelligence to effective action in this crisis.
Awaiting your explanation and reply, I am, sir, on behalf of myself and all western Canadians.
Yours sincerely,
A. L. Marks.
Mr. Marks is a well known lawyer and a respected citizen of Edmonton. I hope the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Deach-man) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) will take notice of these things. To repeat what the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Mitchell) said yesterday, Alberta is not playing a game; she is tackling a problem which the Prime Minister of this country promised the country he himself would tackle. With these remarks I ask the house to take notice that we in this corner are insisting upon a solution of the problem which confronts Canada.


Mr. J. J. DUFFUS (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I did not desire to interrupt the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) while he was speaking, but I think it may be fairly said that had the Hon. Mr. Howson, leader of the Liberal party, promised the people of Alberta $50 a month in the last Alberta election he would have carried the election.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
336	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabasha)
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. P. J. ROWE (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding, that of Athabaska, which is in the area known as the park land section of Alberta. Into that area during the last five or six years have come farmers from the dust bowl of the west, men who have been defeated in their efforts to make a living there, and are now pioneering in Alberta under conditions very closely approximating those which our ancestors had to face in Ontario a hundred years ago. They have come into that area without their implements, or with just the remnants of them, and such stock, as they were able to save from the wreck. This summer, when I was there, I found them heroically facing conditions which, had I the time to tell hon. members here about, I am sure would deepen their feelings of sympathy and respect for the courage and fortitude of these people who, having seen the things they gave their lives to, broken, are stooping to build them up again with worn-out tools.
One question which the people on the farnu are asking-and it is a question that I have always asked myself, born and reared as I was on a farm in Ontario-is, Why are the farmers unable to have the same incomes as the people in the cities? It seems a selfevident truth that the farmers, who are literally feeding and clothing the world, should be entitled, from the standpoint of the social value of the services they render, to remuneration comparable with that received by those who manufacture wool and hides into clothing and shoes, or lumber into chairs and furniture, or those who render services to society professionally. That is a question to which I hope we can begin to find an answer before parliament prorogues.
During the last two weeks members of the house from different parts of Canada have told us about conditions in their various ridings, and I was particularly	interested in	thespeeches made by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hyndman). I want to congratulate the hon. member for Huron North on the effectual analysis of operating costs which he presented to the house showing the income and expenditures of the farmers of Ontario, analyzing their investments and	showing	their	net income, fromwhich the	startling	fact	emerged that	thefarmers of	Ontario	are	receiving less	remuneration than the wages of a junio'r office boy. less than one dollar a day, he said. The 
hon. member for Carleton said that seventy-five per cent of the farms in Ontario were mortgaged. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can say that in the new sections of Athabaska, in the park areas where settlement is taking place under pioneering conditions, the farmers have neither investments nor electric lights. The hon. member for Huron North spoke about the cost of electricity to the farmer, and I just want to say that the farmers in my district have neither electricity nor investments.
The reason I refer to the addresses made by these two gentlemen is that they are members of parties which have alternated in power, administering the affairs of this country for the last seventy years since confederation, and looking at the situation from the standpoint from which any institution or policy or system must be judged, by the fruits it produces, the net results are those pathetic and heart-breaking conditions which have been described by these two hon. members.
I do not know whether other hon. members have noticed it or not, but since coming to Ottawa this session I have been impressed by the fact that among members of all parties- and I have had the pleasure and privilege of talking with members of all parties in the house-I have found a serious undertone, a grave, earnest desire to make a contribution to the solution of the perplexing problems that confront us. As I met these men and talked in a heart to heart fashion with them, my feeling of comradeship and respect has been deepened. It is true they are here to represent different political and economic philosophies; but it seems to me that there is a growing tendency towards the recognition of the fact that we have all failed, and that our common task is to find a way to lay the foundations of a plan that will endure. Indeed, that kindliness and magnanimity, and the evident desire to be friendly, is a characteristic of all the people that I meet, when I meet them man to man.
During the last twenty-five years of my life I have lived and rubbed shoulders in western Canada with people from every land beneath the sun. I have in my riding representatives of most of the races that have come from the older parts of the world, and I find in them the same kindliness. I venture to say that no one of these peoples desires to injure his fellow man in other countries. It makes me think of the words of the great French philosopher. Rousseau, who said, about two hundred years ago, "Men are naturally good. It is by their institutions alone that they become corrupt." If men are naturally

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
good and have a desire to cooperate with each other, surely we can recognize the equal worth of all peoples and races, the common blood and common destiny of mankind, and try in our policies to remember that the world is interdependent culturally, economically, and spiritually, if you will; that we are just beginning to get acquainted; and that we should not do or say anything, or institute any policy which would injure or invade the rights of people in other countries.
I can never forgive Herbert Spencer for having written that manifesto, on which I believe the constitution of Japan was founded, in which he said that society flourishes by the antagonism of its atoms. I believe on the contrary that the obvious golden truth is that constructive cooperation and not destructive combativeness is the rule by which we must be guided, because the former is the first principle of life upon which the universe is founded, the principle of self-preservation by which we seek to avoid friction. That is true of every atom in life and of every individual in society. We must seek the minimum of frustration and the avoidance of friction.
Just the other day there came to my desk a cartoon called Two Mules, a fable for the Nations. In the first cartoon two mules are pictured tied together with a rope. There are two stacks of hay, one on each side of the mules which are tethered in such a way that by going together they can reach either stack. They are looking at the hay in pleasurable anticipation. In the second picture each is straining to reach the stack nearest him and pulling against the other. In the third picture they are kicking, each refusing to go with the other. All they lack is understanding; they do not know how to cooperate. In the fourth picture they have decided to sit down and talk it over, and there is a large interrogation mark between them. The hay is still there. In the fifth picture they decide to cooperate constructively and they are consuming the hay. They are both standing by one of the stacks. In the last picture they are eating the other stack.
I am not going to suggest that we should have horse sense; perhaps that is too much to expect of the human family; but I do suggest that we have at least mule sense.
Five hundred years ago the Indians ruled this country and the standard of living they enjoyed was measured by their collective capacity to produce wealth. The very young children and the very old men and women lived off the surplus that could be produced by those who caught fish in the lakes and
rivers and game in the forest. The one yardstick by which the Indians measured their standard of living was their collective capacity to produce wealth. If there was a bad year, then, of course, they were short; perhaps there was famine; but in a good year everybody was happy.
I want to draw a little picture of what would have happened among the Indians had their wise counsellors and leaders, their medicine men, if you like, informed them that a policy of "scarcity" had been decided upon and that a certain percentage of the strong young men should go back into the stockade, sit down and twiddle their thumbs, notwithstanding the fact that the rivers and lakes were teeming with fish and the woods were filled with game. Another percentage of young men, let us say, were asked to go into the northern part of the country and dig a curious yellow metal out of the ground, transport it laboriously to the mouth of the Hudson river and bury it in another hole in the ground. Because that metal could not be eaten, because it could not be worn or burned to warm them in their wigwams, the labour that these men performed in the production and transport of gold was all wasted. It was not wealth at all, and those who toiled in the forest and on the rivers and lakes to produce game and fish had to support these men who had dug up this gold. Then it was decided that a certain percentage should engage in the production of goods for shipment abroad; there was to be foreign trade. So that notwithstanding the fact that these goods were needed at home these men had to go to work and produce a certain quantity of goods to be shipped out of the country. Then, because it was necessary for some of the men to leave the country sometimes to fight for the right to continue sending abroad goods that were needed at home, a certain percentage of braves had to undergo training in order to engage in death duels with members of other tribes. And they, too, had to be fed and clothed.
I wonder how long it would have taken those young braves to discover that their witch-doctors and medicine-men were nothing but imbeciles to be locked up or put out of the way as painlessly as possible. Yet that is an accurate picture of what is going on in Canada to-day. Last year the nations of the world produced and distributed, by borrowing, fifteen billions worth of armaments and munitions. Every dollar of that was wasted; every dollar of it came out of useful labour. If the people in other countries bought from us metals which were used in the manufacture of war materials their governments had to tax

338	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
them to pay for these commodities, and therefore their standard of living was reduced exactly by the cost of these implements of war. I do not think there can be any answer to that.
I have observed a few things which I wish to call to the attention of hon. members with respect to foreign affairs and our foreign policy. In the first place I wish to commend warmly the action of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in going to Berlin last year. I covet for Canada leadership in the direction of instituting measures which will reduce the cause of the friction, fear, animosity and antagonism which exist between ourselves and that great nation, a nation that has established itself as one of the foremost among the peoples of the world in science and art and culture. Anything that can be done to break down prejudices, to assure these people that we do not desire their harm, is all to the good. But I wonder whether the Prime Minister did not make a slip in Paris, because there seems to be a conflict between his views and those of the hon. member (Mr. Francoeur) who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. He said that we do not intend to engage in foreign wars; that we do not intend anything but defence. Yet the Prime Minister said that if Britain finds herself in trouble she will find Canada at her side. There seems to be a contradiction there. I call attention to the fact that those interests which we might be called upon to defend in some foreign country were the result of a defect in the present economic system in its development one hundred years ago. The workers who produced that wealth were not paid enough to enable them to buy back the goods, and therefore there came about the rise of capital investments by Great Britain in other countries. These capital investments have proved a boomerang, because when they were used to develop industries abroad Britain found herself in competition with other countries as a result of the export of her surplus. I want it clearly understood as far as I am concerned that if patriotism means the art of inducing someone who has no interests at home to defend someone else's interests abroad, then we had better revise our idea of patriotism. I suggest further that it takes neither moral nor physical courage to arrange wars for other people to fight. Most hon. members are beyond the age to be conscripted, but I suggest that we should be very careful about the policies we institute, policies of foreign trade which give rise to conflict resulting in war. It is very easy to 
launch such policies, but it would be a different thing if we were made to go out and fight for policies that we initiated.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his broadcast on September 19, said:
Canada is anxious and prepared to do whatever lies within her power to promote the widest measure of international cooperation.
I read in the Canadian Press dispatch from New York of February 4:
Canada prepares for her display at New York fair.
Plans for Canadian participation in the New York World's Fair next year moved ahead to-day as fair officials announced the dominion had contracted for 40,000 square feet of space and would send destroyers and airplanes as a ceremonial gesture.
That is a peculiar kind of "ceremonial gesture".
Then there is the question of our policy of defence. The statement of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), in initiating what he calls an " adequate policy " of defence, that it is necessary to keep down subversive elements from within, has been repeated many times in the house. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said repeatedly last year and again this year that the way to control subversive elements is to remove the cause. That is a sound principle. I mention that to show members of the government that there appears to be something there which requires explanation. I believe that most if not all of the so-called moral diseases of mankind are due to the abnormal conditions under which people have been compelled to live. If that is true, obviously the cure consists in nothing less than removing the cause. And the cause is to be found in the conflict arising out of competition, competition that is unnecessary. We have to ask ourselves whether if we were to utilize the productive capacity of our machinery in the factories and the farms of this country with a view to producing goods and services to be consumed by our people, it is possible to produce enough for all. I think it is. Therefore I suggest that a system based upon competition has now become outworn and is an anachronism. It is necessary now to undertake some mental readjustment to keep pace with the changing needs of society. I would also call attention to the rather optimistic suggestion in the speech from the throne to the effect that conditions in Canada are fairly good, and suggest that it is a mistake to measure them by comparison with what has happened in the past or what is happening in other countries. The only accurate measure of value when we are

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
evaluating the soundness of our policies is, what is it possible to do with the machinery we have?
I should like to congratulate the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) on the broadcasts which he has made throughout Canada about our natural resources. Of course it is commonly understood that education is vested in the provinces; but this form of education is in my opinion invaluable, in creating an informed, enlightened, intelligent public opinion by disseminating factual and scientific information about Canada and what we possess. But I should like to suggest that our great mineral wealth is badly needed to provide the comforts of life for our own people. I should like to see our mineral wealth diverted from channels of destruction into channels of construction. I should like to think that our wealth is to be used to minister to the needs of our people rather than to assist ourselves and others in preparations for mutual extermination.
This is not the time to go in any great detail into the many defects and abuses which we are here to remedy, but may I suggest that there are one or two things we should bear in mind. In my own experience in the commercial life of this country for about twenty-five years I have observed some glaring defects. While we all recognize the complexity of our problems and that one nation alone cannot solve the world's problems, yet there are measures that can be taken here in Canada as a first step towards the removal of these abuses.
_ I am familiar with the affairs of a town in western Canada which in 1912 to 1915 borrowed $80,000 on long term debentures. Those debentures were issued at a discount; from the proceeds of the sale the people received $71,000. Prior to 1937 they have paid back $95,000 and still owe $150,000. That is not an isolated case, Mr. Speaker; that illustrates the effect of one of the greatest drains upon our purchasing power in Canada. I could apply the same principle to the Canadian National Railways. The interest on the stocks and bonds of that company, if it averaged five per cent and were paid regularly for twenty years, would be equal to the entire capital invested in that company, and still we would have to pay it over and over and over again, every generation. That is one of the problems to which I think we should give careful consideration at this session, and I have no doubt that opportunities will arise to permit that to be done.
Another abuse is gambling in futures on the grain exchange. I have before me a short
51052-22}
article taken from Common Sense for January, 1938, in which the writer, Mr. Ernest Mac-dougall, points out:
The futures market is a parasitical overgrowth on the body of the commodity market. The annual business of the grain futures gambling market runs to four billion dollars, and the commissions of grain futures brokers amount to one hundred million dollars a year. Divided among five hundred futures brokers, that is a prize worth fighting for! And this has nothing to do with the commissions paid on the actual sale and delivery of actual commodities.
I hope to have something more to say on that question a little later on in the session. Broadly speaking, I think the answer to our problem is increased production. I have under my hand a short article from another issue of Common Sense, that of November, 1937, by Congressman Allen of Pennsylvania. I should like to put on Hansard his conclusions with regard to the situation across the line, because it closely approximates our own. He says:
In spite of the earnest attempts of the Roosevelt administration the share of the workers in the national income produced was less in 1936 than in 1929. The owners of our industrial machinery, however, pocketed $4,573,000,000 in dividends in 1936 or an increase of 50 per cent over 1935. During the same time the total income of the workers was held down to an increase of only 14 per cent. Commodities are manufactured to be sold. They cannot be sold so long as people do not have sufficient income to buy them. In this machine age mass consumption is a prime requisite. Under the conditions described above we have stifled our own customers. They are helpless. At the same time huge profits have been directed into the pockets of a small number of our people whose consuming power is limited and whose surplus wealth is invested, if at all, in new mechanical equipment designed to produce a constantly increased amount of goods which our people cannot consume. The abuse of technological improvements is constantly threatening to make the machine a curse instead of a blessing to labour. It has brought unemployment and poverty when it could bring security and abundance. Much of our liberal legislation, intended to eliminate unemployment, raise wages and increase production, has been thwarted. We have in many respects actually played into the hands of those whose privileges we sought to curb. Instead of halting them we have set in motion the very forces that nearly ruined us in 1929.
Scarcity and contraction are impossible in thi9 machine age. No longer can we "plough under" our labour force, and mechanical equipment. We must expand our output and then make that output available to those who need it. The creation of more wealth alone can solve the economic problem of the underprivileged without inflicting hardships on other classes of our people.
I think we have some food for serious thought there.
340	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
Now, Mr. Speaker, before sitting down I should like to suggest that there are steps we can take in Canada. We can plan for the utilization of our resources to a far greater extent than we are doing. I have before me a copy of Wonders of World Engineering, for August. 1937, published in London, England. At page 730 I read:
The hydrogen gas is made from coke in a special plant and the total raw coal consumption at Billingham for the 100,000 tons of petrol made directly from coal each year is
500,000	tons.
That shows that with our great coal resources in Alberta, in addition to the raw oil in the Turner valley and the oil contained in the Athabaska tar sands we have great quantities of oil in our coal, and that oil already is being commercially extracted.
The other day I read in the Regina Star of January 22 a proposal for-the irrigation of the western prairies. The writer, Mr. Cleugh, suggested that by piping streams such as the Bow river and the Saskatchewan river high enough upstream, we could run the water by gravity over the prairies and turn them into a garden. I suggest that we should divert some of the $50,000,000 a day used by the world last year in the construction of armaments with which to destroy the people of the world into a .constructive channel such as that, in order to feed the world. If the world spent fifteen billion dollars last year on armaments, this means that $50,000,000 was spent every day for 300 days, taking out two weeks for holidays and every Sunday, when we mocked off to pray for peace. We might livert that money and that labour into a instructive channel and show the people of the world that we are ready to cooperate in feeding them and supplying their wants rather than in preparing to destroy them.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what we are going to say to the young people and the unemployed in this country. As the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) said the other day, I feel that we should stay here until, working together, we have formulated a plan that will be the beginning of the solution of the problems which confront us. So far as I am concerned I do not think parliament should prorogue until some plan of that kind has been found.
I am confronted now with the question of how I shall vote on this motion and the amendment thereto. I have been forced to indulge in some destructive criticism; but I am sure members of the government appre-

ciate the fact that these defects and abuses exist, and no doubt they are as anxious as I am to solve them.
The question in regard to the amendment is this: Is it a sound principle to suggest that free trade could ever conceivably cause friction among the nations of the world? My idea of trade is that we should export only that surplus required to bring in those goods which we cannot produce advantageously within Canada. To make effective our domestic market; to rearrange and bring up the wages of farmers and workers in the country so as to absorb more of the domestic market, and to undertake to remove from our trade arrangements with other nations retaliatory and discriminatory tariffs which hamper and thwart other nations from developing their own economy, must, in my view, be the ideal and ultimate goal of world trade.
I cannot conceive of free trade being the cause of war. I will grant hon. members this, that under our present competitive price and profit system difficulties do exist; but I have been a student of international affairs for some time, and I am most anxious to do everything possible to alleviate and disarm the fears of people in other countries. Therefore, on that one point alone, I have decided to vote with the government.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I wish to confine my remarks to a paragraph from the speech from the throne, the implications of which I consider fundamental to successful democratic government in Canada. I refer to the paragraph concerning contemplated amendments to the British North America Act. What I have to say on this important subject I shall say not from a partisan point of view or even as the representative, particularly, of the electors in my constituency. Rather I shall speak as a Canadian representing the Canadian people.
Since elected to this house I have been deeply interested in the constitutional position obtaining in Canada. I am sorry to be compelled to relate that my investigations into the subject have sadly disillusioned me on many matters. I hope it will not be considered presumptuous for a back-bencher, without law school diplomas, to express opinions on a subject as intricate as constitutional law. I approach the question more from the point of view of the average citizen who wishes to know the why and wherefore of all he sees and hears.
Speaking on this question the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) referred to the methods employed by other British dominions, notably Australia and South Africa,

in amending their constitutions. After reading the constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, and the method by which the people of Australia amend it, I wondered, since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster of 1931 which made Canadian citizens politically independent of the imperial parliament, why we have not the same privilege with respect to a constitution.
I am pleased to note that the speech from the throne mentions the Statute of Westminster, and indicates that it is being recognized as an effective measure.
In considering the present constitutional position in Canada I find myself faced with the situation referred to by Professor Keith in his book, The Sovereignty of the British Dominions. At page 201 he says:
Those who claim autonomy for Canada naturally cannot acquiesce in a position under which the supremacy of the imperial parliament is insistent and undeniable. A sovereign state whose constitution can only be altered by another power is a contradiction in adjecto.
The more one studies these matters, the more contradictions he finds. In order to have an intelligent understanding of our constitutional status I have spent considerable time in making a study of the history surrounding the passing of the British North America Act. All the evidence I have been able to gather compels me to entertain grave doubts as to whether or not any individual member of this assembly has authority, or whether as a group we have authority to legislate as a parliament. I have discovered what in my opinion are discrepancies both in the British North America Act and in the historical record. I trust I am doing an acceptable service in bringing some of these matters to the attention of the house, the legal authorities in which may be able to provide me with the necessary enlightenment.
In Hansard of April 1,	1936, the leader of
the opposition	is quoted	as	saying that	thepreamble is an important part of a bill. I wish to discuss the preamble to the British North America Act, as we find it in the printed copies.	In order	to	indicate the	importance of a	preamble	I	shall quote	the
observations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) in the debate which took place on the wheat bill.
I quote from Hansard of April 1, 1936.
Mr. Bennett: Parliament for the first time within my knowledge . . .is asked to pass a preamble . . . that is not supported by documents attached as schedules to the bill. A preamble is rather an important part of a bill. ... A preamble is useful when you are
The Address-Mr. Kuhl
endeavouring to interpret the legislation in respect to it. .	.	. In private bills it is
essential to establish by competent testimony every fact inserted in the preamble. . . .
Mr. Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend will I think, agree that there is no better authority on legislative methods and forms than Sir Courtenay Ubert, Parliamentary Council to the Treasury. At page 269 of his treatise "Legislative Methods and Forms," I find the following with respect to preambles:
As. a rule a preamble is unnecessary in a public bill. Where the object is merely to describe briefly the reason for and the intended effect of the proposed legislation, the object can often be better obtained by prefixing a short explanatory memorandum to the bill, ouch a memorandum should state concisely the e^tmg law, the reasons for amendment and the effect of the proposed amendments. A local bill must always have a preamble, the recital in which must be proved/'
Mr. Cahan: And they must be proved.
Mr. Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says they must be proved. That is correct. . . . Then the only remaining point at issue is whether or not the preamble contains an exact recital of facts.
Mr. Bennett:	And whether it has been
proven . . .
I would direct the attention of hon. members to a particular statement of the leader of the opposition as reported at page 1695 where he states:


	ujneas uie preamoi
before the committee, the bill fails.
The gist of the argument would seem to be, then, that the language in the preamble must be consistent; the recital of the words must be in accordance with the facts, and unless the preamble can be proven the bill fails. Let us in the light of these facts examine the preamble to the British North America Act. Let us ask of the preamble these questions: Is the language in the preamble consistent? Is the recital of the words in the preamble in accordance with facts? Can the preamble be proven? Was the preamble proven?
In order to make sure that we are not starting out on a false premise I wish to submit a few historical facts which will substantiate that the British North America Act is a private act, or a public act resembling a private act. As the British North America Act did not affect the entire empire, but was restricted to the three colonies enumerated, and further restricted in its scope to north America, it was a private bill in its relation to the parliament by which it was enacted. Sir John A. Macdonald, in his letter of July 18, 1889, to Lord Knutsford, said this:
The union was treated by them much as if the British North America Act were a private bill uniting two or three English parishes.
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

Let us now turn to the first question on the preamble: Is the language in_ the preamble consistent? Before proceeding with that question I should like to read the preamble to the British North America Act. I hold in my hand a photostatic copy of the preamble to that act, which reads as follows:
An act for the union of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and the government thereof, and for purposes connected therewith.
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom;
Before we can determine whether or not the language in the preamble is consistent, there are two terms in the preamble which, I think, we must define. Those are "federally united" and "one dominion." Are these terms synonymous, or are they the antithesis of each other? Bouvier, in his law dictionary, says of the words "federal government" that it consists of "a union or confederation of sovereign states, created either by treaty,^ or by the mutual adoption of a federal constitution."
Doctor Ollivier, law clerk of the House of Commons, at page 85 of the evidence of the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935, says this:
A confederation is a union of independent and sovereign states bound together by a pact or a treaty for the observance of certain conditions dependent upon the unanimous consent of the contracting parties, who are free to withdraw from the union.
It is quite apparent, Mr. Speaker, from these definitions that the status of sovereignty must precede confederation and that a federal union can be consummated only by the mutual consent of contracting states, adopting a constitution.
Now as to the term "dominion." What is a dominion? Is a dominion the same as a federal union? Before the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus the term dominion was used to denote a state or country that was dominated by the imperial parliament. Wales is called a "dominion" in the Acts of Henry VIII as in article 25 of the Treaty of Union, 1707. The Isle of Man was also known as a dominion. Newfoundland, the first colony of England in America, was a dominion founded by Sir Humphrey Gilbert in 1583. Virginia, founded by Sir Walter Raleigh, was a dominion, and is known to-day by the name of "The Old Dominion" in the United States of America.

Section 18, paragraph 3, of the Interpretation Act of 1889 says this:
The expression "colony" shall mean any of Her Majesty's dominions. . . .
We see, then, that a dominion was nothing more than a colony. Do these definitions not indicate that a federal union and a dominion are opposed in nature; that one is the antithesis of the other? How then could the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick be federally united into one dominion? Is this not a positive contradiction? Furthermore, how could a colony have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom?
The next question we were to consider was, Is the recital of the words in the preamble in accordance with facts? Did the provinces express the desire to be federally united into one dominion? Before discussing the desire of the provinces I believe it would be well to indicate the constitutional status of the provinces before the British North America Act was passed. As all hon. members know, the province of Canada governed herself for more than twenty-five years prior to the passing of the British North America Act, by the Act of Union of 1840. I wish to quote a few sections from the Act of Union to indicate the nature of the government at that time.
3. Her Majesty shall have power by and with the advice and consent of said legislative council and assembly to provide for the peace, order and good government of the province of Canada .	.	. and that such laws being
passed by the said legislative council and assembly and assented to by Her Majesty or assented in Her Majesty's name by the governor general of the province of Canada shall be valid and tending to all intents and purposes within the province of Canada.
44. Taxes shall be levied by Her Majesty in such manner only as shall be directed by any law or laws which may be made by Her Majesty by and with the advice and consent of _ the legislative council and assembly of such province.
61. In this act, unless otherwise expressed therein the words "acts of the legislature of the province of Canada" are to be understood to mean an act of Her Majesty, heirs or successors, enacted by Her Majesty with the advice and consent of the legislative council and assembly of the province of Canada and the words "governor of the province of Canada' are to be understood as comprehending the governor or person authorized to execute the office of governor of the said province.
In 1854 the imperial parliament passed, in response to an address of the legislative assembly, an act to empower the legislature to alter the constitution of the legislative council, imperial act 17-18 Victoria, chapter 118. The first election of councillors took place in the summer of 1856. Twelve members were elected to the legislative council

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
every two years to hold office for eight years and could be reelected. In 1862 the speaker of the legislative council was elected by the members, Sir Allan MacNab being chosen speaker. In the twenty-seven years between 1840 and 1867, during which time Canada enjoyed responsible government, no act of the province was disallowed. Mr. Gladstone in the British Hansard of March 28, 1867, at page 754, states:
We have for a full quarter of a century acknowledged absolutely the right of selfgovernment in the colonies.
The words "federally united" in the preamble are equivalent to the recognition and acceptance by the imperial parliament of the status of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, that they were free and competent to sign a compact to which they, without coercion, would mutually agree. Now, what was the desire expressed by the provinces? The preamble to the Quebec resolutions states:
The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a federal union under the crown.
Section 70 of these resolutions states:
The sanction of the imperial and local parliaments shall be sought for the union of the provinces on the principles adopted by the conference.
The bill drafted in London by the delegates from the provinces, and presented by the Hon. John A. Macdonald to Lord Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies, contains a reiteration of this desire in the following words:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, have expressed their desire to form a federal union under the crown-
In order further to determine the desire expressed by the provinces, let us examine the manner in which the bill was drafted and presented. The act was drafted by the law officers of the crown attached to the colonial office. Lord Carnarvon was chairman. I quote Sir Frederick Rogers, Under Secretary for the Colonies:
They held many meetings at which I was always present. Lord Carnarvon was in the chair, and I was rather disappointed in his power of presidency.
That is taken from Lord Blachford's letters, page 301.
The law officers of the crown drafted the bill to guide the delegates, the title and preamble of which read respectively:
The union of the British North American colonies, and for the government of the united colony.
And the preamble:
Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for purposes of government and legislation would be attended with great benefits to the colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom.
This was the desire of the colonial office, and it appears that it prevailed over the desire of the provinces, which read:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a federal union under the British crown for the purpose of government and legislation, based upon the principles of the British constitution-
Why was Lord Carnarvon chairman of the delegates from Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Is this not a violation of natural law?
Consider this: If the British North America Act contained in some measure the desire expressed by the provinces, would it not have been simply a matter of common courtesy on the part of the noble lord who was chairman of the delegates from Canada, and who introduced the bill in the House of Lords, to have at least returned a copy of the act for the consideration and consent of the local legislatures?
Let us now consider how the act was presented. In presenting the bill to the House of Lords, Lord Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the Colonies, and chairman when the bill was being drafted, asserts that:
The bill opens by reciting tbe desire of the several provinces to be federally united.
That will be found in the British Hansard of February 19, 1867, page 559. When presented, the Quebec resolutions were attached to the bill as an enunciation of the motives prompting or impelling the colonial office to present the measure, for on the second reading, on Februaiy 26, Lord Campbell says:
The bill is founded, I believe, on what is termed the Quebec scheme of 1864 .... Our lights indeed may be imperfect upon this part of the subject, and I will not dwell upon it. But one thing is clear: The preamble of the resolution comes before us in full and perfect authenticity.
That will be found in the British Hansard of February 26, 1867, page 1012.
The present preamble as printed was not debated.
The act was not yet printed, as is evidenced by the excerpts from the speeches in the House of Commons. I should like now to quote Mr. Hadfield. as reported at page 1090 of the British Hansard of February 27, 1867:
Mr. Hadfield said be rose to ask of the government why it was the second reading of this bill had been fixed for to-morrow. It was one which affected 4.600.000 of people and upon which great doubts and differences of opinion
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

were entertained. It was not yet printed and was of so important a character that he thought some little time ought to elapse after it was in the hands of the members before it was introduced, in order that some little consultation should take place upon it. He was not at all sure that he should be opposed to it but he certainly required more time to consider it.
On the following day, February 28, at page 1195 of the British Hansard, Mr. Hadfield is reported as follows:
He (Mr. Hadfield) thought that a bill of Bueh great importance ought not to be passed through parliament with such haste. It was read a third time in the House of Lords, only on Tuesday night, and two days after they were called to give it a second reading in that house (Commons). That was a bad precedent to establish and might produce ill ' effect at another time. If the bill had been delayed only for a few weeks, the people of Nova Scotia would have been able to express an opinion upon it. He had not had time to consider either the bill itself or the papers on the subject which had been put into his hands.
I have another quotation which casts light on the manner in which the matter was presented. It will be found in the British Hansard of February 28, 1867, at page 1179. Mr. Bright said:
I have heard there is at present in London a petition complaining of the hasty proceedings of parliament and asking for delay, signed by 31,000 adult males of the province of Nova Scotia, and that petition is in reality signed by at least half of all the male inhabitants of that province. So far as I know, the petition does not protest absolutely against union but against the manner in which it is being carried out by this scheme and bill and by the hasty measures of the colonial office. . . . Nobody pretends that the people of Canada prefer a nominated council to an elective council . . . to put seventy men in that council for life inserts into the whole scheme the germ of a malady which will spread and rvhich before long will require an alteration of this act, and of the constitution of this new confederation. ... I am satisfied . . . that we run a great danger of making this act work ill from almost the beginning. . . . There is no part of the world in my opinion which runs less risk^ of aggression than Canada. .	.	. No political
party in America ever dreamed for a moment of aggression upon Canada or of annexing Canada by force. And therefore every farthing you spend upon fortresses ... is money squandered. through an hallucination we ought to get rid of. . . . For my share I want the population of these provinces to do that which they believe the best for their own interest- remain with this country if they like, in the most friendly manner, or become independent states if they like.
Is it not quite apparent from this evidence, Mr. Speaker, that the desire expressed by the provinces was for a federal union and for nothing but that?

I have searched many records and nowhere have I been able to find that the provinces expressed the desire to be federally united into one dominion. I ask hon. members, Can the preamble to the British North America Act, in the light of this evidence, be said to be an exact recital of facts?
Before answering the last two questions regarding the preamble which I asked in the early part of my address, there is one other question which may very well be answered first: Did the British North America Act do for the provinces what they desired it to do? Or, putting it in other words; Did the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick become a confederation or a federal union through the British North America Act? In reply to that question could we not very well ask: Had the provinces federated, would not an agreement or a pact have had to be signed? Had an agreement been signed, would we not have a record of it? Would we not at least have had a certified copy of the act?
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding that the imperial parliament recognized Canada as being responsible since 1840, Canada was reduced to the position of a colony by the British North America Act. Canada did not become a federal union or a confederation but was demoted to the status of a colony under the name of "dominion." An important piece of evidence on this point is, I believe, a statement by Sir John Bourinot in Canada under British Rule, chapter 8, page 215, in which he says:
It is interesting to know' that in the original draft of the bill the united provinces were called the Kingdom of Canada, but when it came eventually before parliament, they were designated as " the dominion of Canada," and the writer had it from Sir John A. Macdonald himself that this amendment did not emanate from the colonial delegates, but from the imperial ministry.
In order that we might know definitely the constitutional status Canada attained through the British North America Act, the imperial parliament defined the term "dominion" in section 18, paragraph 3 of The Interpretations Act of 1889, which reads:
The expression "colony" shall mean any of Her Majesty's dominions exclusive of the British islands and of British India; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central legislature and local legislatures, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purpose of this definition, be deemed to be one colony.
Excepting Canada, no country in the empire had a central legislature and local legislatures; therefore, twenty-two years after the enactment of the British North America Act, Can-

The Address-Mr. Kuhl
ada is deemed to be one colony. Prior to 1867 her majesty could act only by and with the advice and consent of the legislative council and assembly of the province of Canada. Members of both the legislative assembly and the legislative council were elected by the people. The members of the legislative council elected their speaker. According to the provisions of the British North America Act, the members of the legislative council are appointed by the governor general. The Speaker is appointed and can be removed at his discretion. Members of the privy council are appointed to aid and advise him and can be removed at his discretion. Canada lost all power of self-government through the British North America Act.
Sir John A. Macdonald protested against the British North America Act while it was being drafted as well as later. If hon. members will take the trouble to refer to Pope's Confederation Documents they will find a written protest of Sir John A. Macdonald's against the British North America Act. In the forepart of the book we find a copy of the draft of the bill, the title of which reads:
Draft of a bill for the union of the British North American colonies, and for the government of the united colony.
Judging from the way in which the page is disfigured, Sir John A. Macdonald was not agreeable to this. Alongside it we find in his own handwriting what he desired, and it reads:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a federal union for the purposes of government and legislation, based on the principles of the British constitution. . . .
And in a letter to Lord Knutsford, dated July 18, 18S9, Sir John said:
Had a different course been pursued-for instance, had united Canada been declared to be an auxiliary kingdom, as it was in the Canadian draft of .the bill, I feel sure (almost) that the Australian colonies would ere this, have been applying to be placed in the same rank as the kingdom of Canada.
Now, as to the last two questions: Can the preamble be proven? Was the preamble proven? The evidence which I have submitted proves conclusively, I believe, that a dominion and a colony were identical; that to be federally united an agreement must be signed; that no compact or agreement was signed; that to be federally united into one dominion was an impossibility; that the provinces did not express their desire to be federally united into one dominion. I ask, therefore: How can the preamble be proven? Furthermore, if the preamble cannot be proven to-day, how could it have been proven in 1867? My opinion, therefore, based upon the evidence which I have submitted, is similar
to that expressed by the leader of the opposition on the wheat bill of 1936. Speaking to the preamble the leader of the opposition said, as reported at page 1694 of Hansard of 1936:
I do not think the Prime Minister would desire that the house should give its support to a preamble which is not in accordance with the facts. I point out that the language which is employed in this preamble is not even consistent, and is not in accordance with the facts.
That is exactly my opinion with regard to the preamble to the British North America Act. I wish to repeat the statement of the leader of the opposition as reported on page 1695:
. . . in every case, unless the preamble is proven before the committee, the bill fails.
The preamble to the British North America Act was not proven and could not be proven, as it is incapable of proof. Therefore the bill fails. If the foregoing be true, then I submit that the British North America Act is null and void.
To suggest that we refer this evidence to the courts would be in my opinion another way of sidestepping our responsibility in the matter. As it is impossible to submit all the evidence in this debate, I suggest that the house should consider the question in committee of the whole. In order to suggest what must be done under the circumstances to rectify the present situation I wish to quote some evidence given by eminent Canadian constitutional authorities to the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935. Hon. members would do well to take heed of the evidence given by eminent constitutional authorities in Canada. The logical question, after one peruses the evidence, which I have submitted is: Where do we go from here? I believe the answer was very well suggested in the evidence that was given to the committee. Professor Norman McLeod Rogers, now Minister of Labour, was giving evidence at this particular time. As reported at page 116 of the evidence Mr. Cowan asked this question:
You get back to this: your start is another interprovincial conference?
The answer was:
I am afraid it is. I see no feasible alternative.
Hon. Mr. Lapointe:	There is no doubt
about it.
I wish now to quote Doctor W. P. M. Kennedy, professor of Law of the university of Toronto. At page 69 he is reported as follows:
1 think we have got to get away from the idea that the British North America Act is a "contract" or "treaty." I do not want to go into that, but it is true neither in history nor
The Address-Mr. Kuhl

in law. The British North America Act is a statute, and has always been interpreted as a statute. Suppose now we assume that it is necessary to have constituent powers in Canada, power's to change the constitution. (sic) I approach that problem from two angles. First of all	I	want to break	the British NorthAmerica Act up. We have got to ask ourselves,	Is	the dead hand	of the past to	beconstantly laid with numbing effect on the body politic? That is really what it amounts to .	. . If we in Canada are not capable of
interpreting our own constitution we should not have a legislature at all.
I quote now Doctor Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, at page 27:
Now	it	might be said,	Why not trust	togrowth	of	convention or custom altogether	for
the necessary changes in our constitution? The obvious answer, I think, is that the process is too slow, and is applicable only in cases where unanimity has been reached.
And at page 42:
No other country in the world looks to the parliament of another country for the shaping of its constitution. This solution would only be supported if we believe that Canadians are the only people so incompetent that they cannot work out a solution of their constitutional problem, and so biased that they alone among the peoples of the world cannot be trusted to deal fairly with the various domestic interests concerned. . . .
It is not safe to leave the question open and ambiguous indefinitely; for at any time a dispute on a concrete issue may arise.
... To retain permanently the intervention of the parliament of the United Kingdom is either superfluous or dangerous.
Doctor Maurice Ollivier says, at page 55:
Furthermore our constitution is a law adopted by the British parliament exercising its incontestable right of sovereignty towards its colonies. . . . This explains the fact that the British North America Act is not a reproduction of the Quebec resolutions.
I should like now to quote Doctor Beau-;hesne, the worthy clerk of this house. I oelieve Doctor Beauchesne should be highly commended for the very progressive suggestions he made to this committee. They are found at page 125, as follows:
It is quite true that if we apply to the British North America Act the principles followed in the interpretation of statutes it is not a compact between provinces; it is an act of parliament which does not even embody all the resolutions passed in Canada and in London prior to its passage in the British parliament where certain clauses that had not been recommended by the Canadian provinces were added. . . .
The Statute of Westminster has altered our status. . . . What we want is a new constitution.
The new constitution must leave nobody with a grievance.

A spirit of conciliation should predominate. For these reasons, the task must be entrusted to an independent body in which all the elements of the country will be represented.
I want the assembly to sit in a city in the west. It would not be necessary for a delegate to be a member of parliament or of a provincial legislature.
I _ would suggest that the assembly do not sit in Ottawa, in order that it may not have the appearance of being dominated, or even influenced by the dominion power; and, as the western provinces are of such paramount importance in the country, I suggest the best city for the representatives to gather in would be Winnipeg.
Whether our country should be changed from a dominion to a kingdom is also a subject which might be discussed. I would suggest that the country could be called "The Federated States of Canada."
There have been many disputes about provincial rights since 1867 and it seems certain that when a new constitution is drawn up the distribution of federal and provincial powers will have to be modified.
At page 131:
1 submit that appeals to the privy council should be dealt with by our constitution. This method would preserve the principle of taking our cases to the highest tribunal without going out of our own country.
At page 132:
If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will just make another suggestion; if we have a constituent assembly and if we, discuss the making of a new' constitution, I think it is an anomaly that dominion affairs should, to a certain extent, be subject to provincial authority. I would suggest that we have a federal district, taking in about tw-enty-five square miles on each side of the Ottawa river.
And at page 134:
I would not have any minority rights discussed. There is nothing more dangerous in Canada than a discussion of minority rights. A discussion of them would wreck the whole constituent assembly.
I think the time is ripe for a change in the constitution. I do not thirtk you would need much publicity in order to draw to the attention of the people of this country that the British North America Act is inadequate.
In prefacing my remarks I stated that I was speaking not from a partisan point of view or as representing particularly my constituency in Alberta, but as a Canadian representing the people of Canada. I appeal particularly to hon. members from Ontario and Quebec. From Ontario came William Lyon Mackenzie; from Quebec, Papineau, who were exiled from Canada for their patriotism, and whose followers were imprisoned and hanged. But by their efforts from 1835 to 1837, Ontario and Quebec achieved the right to govern themselves, by the Act of Union of 1840. The right of self-government was taken from Canadians by the British North America Act. No

The Address-Mr. Barber
longer do we elect our upper house, or the Speaker of that house, and to-day under this act our enactments are subject to the power of disallowance. The prima facie evidence which I have presented to the house to-day stands upon the record until it is refuted. How, may I ask, is the government to proceed to amend an act the preamble of which cannot be proven? This is manifestly impossible.
I take pleasure, therefore, in placing myself on record in favour of the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, so far at least as any reference in the speech from the throne concerns an amendment to the British North America Act. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will agree with me when I suggest an interprovincial conference, as they suggested in 1935. That there was no confederation is attested by Doctor Ollivier, Doctor Kennedy, Doctor Skelton and Doctor Beauchesne, also by the incontestable fact that there was no certified copy of the act in Canada, showing that the provinces of Canada were not consulted. In closing, I desire to record my approval of the suggestion made by Doctor Beauchesne, that the provinces choose members for an assembly to construct a constitution, and that the country could be called "The Federated States of Canada."


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, not being a constitutional lawyer or even a member of the legal profession I shall not undertake to deal with the last speaker's observations. I shall leave that to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who some day may reply.
This debate is a free-for-all, the first of the session. I think from the beginning until to-night it has been a real free-for-all. I am going to use this opportunity, not to dwell very long on the speech from the throne but to bring to the attention of the government some matters which in the interest of Canada, I believe, should be dealt with at this session. I think it is generally understood that the speech of his excellency presented at the opening of the session is a means taken by the government to place before parliament the program of legislation which it is intended to deal with during the session. In the first session following the election there was perhaps some excuse for not bringing in a very heavy program to carry out the pledges of the Liberal party during the 1935 election. Then the second session was very brief in order that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) might be able to represent Canada at the coronation and at the imperial conference.
But, let me tell the government that the people of Canada expect some action during the present session. Almost three years have passed and nothing has been done to remedy conditions in this country.
Now let us look at this program of legislation and see if there is anything to relieve the serious economic condition that exists among the great masses of our people. It is true that we are to consider the amendment of the British North America Act, if the cooperation of the provinces is forthcoming. We are to deal with the elections and franchise acts. The government proposes to do something about the export of power. The authority of the board of railway commissioners is to be extended. It is hoped that negotiations may so progress as to render it possible to submit to parliament a new trade agreement with the United States.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the program, and I am afraid the Canadian people can take very little comfort from it. I believe they will be very much disappointed when they learn through the press that in the third session of this parliament this is the program brought before parliament by this government to deal with our problems. But we are told in this same speech, "Oh, everything is lovely. Canada has once more returned to prosperity. Look at our export trade." How many times we have heard that during this debate. The other night the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) told us that we are now in fourth place among the exporting nations. "Look at our revenues; they have reached a new high level. As a result more money has poured into the treasury than in any year in the history of this country."
Yes, not only has our export trade increased during the last twelve months, but there has been a steady increase in our export trade ever since the low dip of the depression in 1933. It is true that there was a change of government during that time, but it is some comfort to a few of us on this side of the house to know that the policy of the previous administration has been very closely adhered to. The Ottawa agreements, negotiated by a Conservative government and so vigorously opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, are mainly responsible for the progress Canada has made in selling her products abroad. Through those agreements the greatest market in the world was opened to Canadian producers. The opening of other channels of trade was bound to follow and added to that increase.
Yes, our statistics show that exports from Canada have increased to a considerable extent during the last twelve months. Natural
The Address-Mr. Barber

products and raw materials have been mainly responsible for that increase, raw materials to be consumed by the warring nations and the other great nations in their armament programs. I wonder what would happen to this great export trade of which we boast if this year the nations of the world should cease war and agree to disarm. What would we have in this country? We would present a very fine example of a nation that could not live by export trade alone. Let me put another question: How can this country ever expect to put its great army of unemployed to work if we continue to export our raw materials and buy back manufactured products, giving employment to people of other countries and denying employment to our own people?
Yes, our revenues have reached a new level. As has been pointed out in the debate, these revenues are raised entirely by taxation, so in other words the people of Canada have this year contributed more money in the way of taxes than in any other year in the history of Canada. The Prime Minister tells us this indicates that the country is prosperous; that the $401,000,000 of revenue derived by taxation this year supplies the answer to the amendment which has been moved by my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett). The Prime Minister also said that these increased revenues indicate the degree of relative prosperity in Canada compared with what it has been in the past. Prosperity! Has prosperity reached our people when at the present time about one-eleventh of our total population is on relief and the average income of the great mass of our people is not sufficient to maintain a decent standard of living? What about the farmers of our country? Are they prosperous? What about the labourers? Are they enjoying prosperity? What about the small business men who have been the backbone of many communities throughout this country? They have been forced on the streets in these last few years by combines and corporations. Is it any wonder that we have a demand from a large section of our people for a change in our system? Is it any wonder that some are looking to social credit and others to socialism as advocated by my friends to my left, or that some are even grasping communism and fascism as a way out? We talk about fighting these isms. Well, I would like to say to the government that the way to fight these isms that we dread so much to-day is not by padlock laws, militia or police forces or amendments to the criminal code. The way to fight these things is to remove the evils of our present system; then these isms will disappear.

The people of this country took the Prime Minister at his word during the election campaign. He said that unemployment was a national responsibility; that he would wage a great battle against the moneyed powers. Almost three years have passed. This government has not assumed responsibility for unemployment, and the battle against the moneyed powers has not commenced; not a single gun has been fired. I urge upon the Prime Minister, who has had long experience in public life, who possesses outstanding ability and who is surrounded by able advisers, to direct his efforts towards measures to be brought in during the present session for the purpose of correcting the evils of our economic system.
Dealing with taxation, Mr. Speaker, I want to give one example of how these taxes are applied and how unfair they are in many instances. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent we have several large industries, among them what we call the small fruit industry. Strawberries and raspberries are grown in large quantities and shipped both in the fresh state and in what is called the processed form. In some years we may have extra large crops or weather conditions may be such that we cannot ship in the fresh state. Those berries must be taken care of, and the result has been the erection of jam factories, expensive buildings equipped with expensive machinery. They produce a very fine product, the pure berry and the pure sugar, but lo and behold, that agricultural industry is taxed thirty-one per cent by the federal government, including the sugar taxes and the eight per cent sales tax! I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is not in his seat, because I wanted to bring this matter particularly to his attention. I believe there is no other manufactured or semi-manufactured commodity that pays such an exorbitant tax. The question is: Why should the berry industry be singled out from all other agricultural industries to carry this heavy and unjust burden? Why does not the sales tax apply on honey, maple sugar, maple syrup, cheese, butter, canned milk and similar agricultural products? Why does the total taxation on an imported product which is competitive with the jam-I refer to peanut butter-amount to only sixteen per cent, while the jam beans a tax of thirty-one per cent?
When these people sell fresh berries or berries processed in what is known as sulphur dioxide solution they do not pay any of these taxes. When a merchant or a wholesaler sells sugar in any quantity he does not pay a sales tax. But just as soon as a man goes to work and erects an expensive building, equips

The Address-Mr. Barber
it with expensive machinery and employs hundreds of people-yes, thousands are employed throughout Canada in the industry- to combine fresh berries with sugar to make jam, he is compelled to pay eight per cent sales tax. I shall leave the matter there, trusting that the Minister of Finance will correct this when it comes to his attention in preparing his budget.
A great deal has been said about the increased radio licence fee. X shall not spend much time upon it, simply to say, on behalf of radio owners and dealers in my constituency I protest against the increased licence fee. If we have an increase to $2.50 this year, we may expect that the corporation will make an effort to increase it to $4 or $5 next year. I believe the matter should be investigated and given a little more consideration, and the business of the corporation should be looked into before permission is given to increase the fee.
One further point I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A number of producers in British Columbia have been a great deal concerned over reports which have reached them to the effect that the preferences they now enjoy under the Ottawa agreements may be disturbed, and that in the negotiation of the Anglo-American trade arrangements Canada might agree to an extension to United States producers of the preference on such commodities as apples, lumber and fish. The Minister of Trade and Commerce has charged that the leader of the opposition has been responsible for the fear created. I do not think it is necessary to quote the minister's speech in that regard.


Mr. EULER:: He said he had helped.


Harry James Barber: Let me tell the minister that long before the statement was made by my leader the United States press carried a statement to the effect that under their trade arrangement with the United Kingdom their producers would receive preferences similar to those given Canada on lumber, fish and apples. Those reports originated in Washington. According to the press of the United Kingdom it will be necessary to .make some changes in the Ottawa agreements, but Canada and other countries will be consulted before those changes are made.
Let me refer to a statement of the minister when, in concluding his observations he said, as reported at page 300 of Hansard:
This government is not so inept, so unwise or so unpatriotic as to sacrifice the interests of the producers of Canada, whether they be agricultural or industrial, for any reason whatsoever.
Does that statement stand good with respect to concessions from Canada under the Anglo-American trade agreement? I wonder if the minister would make a statement on that point, or was he referring only to a trade agreement between Canada and the United States?


William Daum Euler: Does the hon. member wish me to answer?


Harry James Barber: Yes.


William Daum Euler: When I spoke yesterday I said that even if I had information or details with regard to negotiations between Canada and the United States, I could not give them. The same must hold true with regard to any possible negotiations going on in which Great Britain may be concerned. But I shall have to leave with my hon. friend my last statement, and that applies all around.


Harry James Barber: I fear there is little comfort to be taken from that statement. There is another matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the government.	I believe the matter I have in
mind, namely soldier settlement, comes under the Department of Mines and Resources. I notice on the order paper a resolution urging that the amendment which has been in force for the last two years be renewed for another period. I should not think it necessary to have a resolution on the order paper to urge upon the government the necessity of the amendment. As hon. members know, that amendment refers to the dollar-for-dollar bonus. May I say to the minister that that is the soldier's only hope of reducing his indebtedness. Eighty-three per cent have taken advantage of it. I should hope to see on the order paper one of these days an amendment continuing the provision for another two years.
Sometimes I think our greatest handicap in British Columbia is distance; we are far away from the centre of Canada, far removed from the seat of government. That great distance creates several problems, one of which the farmers in British Columbia have been trying for some time to get the government to solve. I refer to the cost of transporting grain and grain products from the prairie provinces to British Columbia. This problem is not new to the House of Commons, because to my knowledge we have had it before us for the last ten or twelve years. In connection with the cost of transporting grain a charge of discrimination arises. At this time I shall not go into details in the comparison of rates, because those rates have been placed on Hansard in previous sessions by members from British Columbia, irrespective of party.
Evidence has been submitted to show that not only are the consumers in British Colum-
The Address-Mr. Barber

bia called upon to pay a rate higher than that on similar mileage from prairie points to the east, but also more than double the rate applying to grain shipped from prairie points to Vancouver for export. For the information of new members may I be permitted to give an illustration of how this works out. Let us take, as an example, a train of sixty cars of grain moving from Edmonton to Vancouver. We shall suppose that fifty of those cars are for export and ten for domestic use. On the fifty cars the rate is twenty cents per hundred pounds but on the ten cars, drawn on the same train, the people of British Columbia are penalized to the extent of forty-one cents per hundred pounds. In other words, the freight charge is $4 per ton on the fifty cars for export and S8.30 per ton on similar grain to be used by the farmers in British Columbia.
My reason for bringing the matter to the attention of the government is this: The Liberal party is pledged to remove this differential. Between 1930 and 1935, when this matter was brought before parliament by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), he received the solid support of the Liberal party, then occupying the seats to your left, Mr. Speaker. During the election of 1935 the hon. member, quite in good faith, told the electors that if they would elect him and if the Liberal party were returned to power the reduction would take place. Well, the hon. member was elected; the Liberal party was returned with the largest majority ever given to a party in this country; this is the third session, and the differential still remains.


Mr. REID:: We shall need the hon. member's vote this year.


Harry James Barber: As the Liberal party is pledged to this reduction I wish to make a suggestion to the minister, because I know he does not favour the method by which the hon. member for New Westminster is undertaking to secure the removal of this differential. In 1933, when this matter was urged upon the government of the day, the minister's predecessor, the Hon. Dr. Manion. took action. He called in the heads of the two railways and asked them to have their officers sit in with representatives of the four western provinces and try to work out some reduction on feed grain for domestic use in British Columbia. This was done, and a rate of thirty cents per hundred pounds on certain grades of wheat, oats and barley went into effect on March 10, 1933. That rate is still in effect. Unfortunately mill feeds were not included. Who was to blame I do not know. The matter was decided at the con-
[Mr. Barber.J
ference. This reduction means $2.30 per ton to the farmers and poultrymen of our province, and they have received the full benefit of it. According to a statement I received from the railway companies, at the end of 1935 it meant savings to the farmers amounting to $121,209. Two years have passed since then; I have not the figures up to date; but I think it is safe to say that it has meant a saving to the farmers of three hundred to three hundred and fifty thousand dollars during that time. If the concession had included mill feeds, of which we use a great deal more than we use of these feed grains, the saving would have been just that much more. Today, when dairy products are very low in price, people in the lower mainland of British Columbia are paying $1.75 for a hundred pound sack of bran and $2.60 a sack for oil cake. I mention oil cake because, if we could get a reduction on oil cake we could displace that soya bean meal which is being sold there.
Let me tell the minister that dealers in the lower mainland of British Columbia are buying American wheat, No. 2, a better grade of wheat than they are getting in the feed grains from the prairies, and are selling it to poultry-men and farmers in the Fraser valley at fifty cents per ton less than the price of the Canadian product. My suggestion to the minister is that he follow the same course, talk it over with the heads of the two railways, and see if it would not be possible to have another conference, consisting of representatives of the two railroads and of the four western provinces, to ascertain whether something could not be done further to reduce this differential and to include mill feeds and oil cake in that list.


Mr. HOWE:: I suggest to my hon. friend that, as both parties have agreed on the present scale of rates, it is a little difficult to have a new conference and ask for lower rates.


Harry James Barber: This thirty cent rate was for only one year. It has been renewed from year to year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But, as I understand, both parties agreed to it.


Harry James Barber: They agreed, but they could have another meeting and change it. I do not see any reason why they could not meet again. The rate was not to be a permanent thing. I think it would be perfectly in order to review this, particularly now that United States grain is coming in and being sold in that part of the country.

The Address-Mr. Glen


Clarence Decatur Howe: The railways might not think it worth while to make another agreement if the last one they made is not to be permanent.


Harry James Barber: The consumers would think it worth while. It would certainly make a great difference to the dairymen and farmers of our district. Why should we continue to be discriminated against in the difference between twenty and forty-one cents a hundred on the same grain hauled by train to Vancouver? I think the railways should give us a cut on it, at any rate down to twenty-five cents.
In the matter of railway rates distance is certainly a handicap. This brings to mind another matter which I wish to bring up for the information of the house. I do not suppose the minister can do anything with this. But prior to the end of last October motor cars were shipped into our province at the flat rate of $120 a car, which we thought and I think hon. members generally would consider, a fairly high rate. Later on, behold like a shot out of the blue, on November 1 new rates went into effect-a rate of $4.87 per hundred pounds! That means that on the lighter type of car weighing 2,900 pounds the rate is increased from $120 to $141.23; on a car that weighs about 3,300 pounds the former charge of $120 has been increased to $160.71; on a car running about 3,500 pounds, a beautiful car which we should all like to own, the rate, which was $120, is now $170.45. On trucks the flat rate was the same, namely $120. A new rate of $4.12 per hundred pounds has been put into effect. Thus, a truck weighing 4,400 pounds, which was shipped into our province from the east for $120, now pays $18128, or a 50 per cent increase in freight rates. The charge on a truck weighing 3,700 pounds is increased from $120 to $152.44. These amounts do not include decking and loading charges, which are extra. The result is that a large number of people are coming east, buying or taking delivery of their cars here and driving them back, and some firms are negotiating to have their cars brought through the Panama canal to Vancouver.
In this, I hope not too lengthy a part I have taken in this debate, I have tried to bring some matters to the attention of the government. The Minister of Finance was out of the chamber when I referred to the tax, but I know he will look it up in Hansard and will give it serious consideration.


Mr. DUNNING:: I shall be glad to do so.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: I understand that I am the last speaker before the vote is to be taken. I do not intend, therefore, to exceed my time. I shall be as brief as I possibly can.
The speech from the throne provides, of course, an opportunity for the discussion of many items. I do not propose to deal in detail with any number of them, but I might remark at this point that I do not recall any similar debate wherein so many ministers spoke so early in the session in defence of the functions of their departments, and I must say that, listening to those speeches, I have enjoyed and have been gratified at the high level which they have attained. I believe their speeches influenced the quality of the contributions by other hon. members, in that they also attained a very high level. This debate will compare worthily with any previous debates of this kind and is in accordance with the best traditions of the house. I know that most of the ministers who took part in this debate were drawn into it by the highly provocative speech made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He gave some very hard knocks, and I think he also received some. But he seems to thrive upon them.
It is inevitable that in this house constituted as it is, with representatives from all over the dominion, representing differing and conflicting views, there must of necessity be some differences of opinion. But when the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) the other day referred in gleeful tones to the many protesting speeches that were made on this side of the house and also from some on the other side immediately to your left, Mr. Speaker, in what we affectionately and euphoniously call " the rump," I think he overlooked the fact that there is no Liberal party worthy of the name but must have in its ranks members, be the number large or small as it may happen, who appear to be somewhat rebellious and impenitent speakers. It would not be a Liberal party if there were not differences and distinctions of opinion. The life and health of any Liberal party depend upon helpful criticism to build up and construct Liberal policies. I have endeavoured many a time to convert my hon. friend from Winnipeg North, for he is one of my particular friends, but in a conflict between a Jew and a Scot I do not know who is likely to win. I am hoping that some day I may be able to give him knowledge of this fact, that the Liberal party does not prohibit free thought or free speech, nor yet does it eject by executive decree any of the rebellious and impenitent members of the party.
The Address-Mr. Glen

I am going to deal first with one or two matters that are more local than general, so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned. Last summer my constituency of Marquette, along with parts of Dauphin and Brandon, suffered from the drought, not perhaps to the same extent as Saskatchewan, but still considerably so, and these territories in Manitoba affected by the drought were all west of the Assiniboine river and extending up to the Saskatchewan boundary, and continuing for miles along that boundary. I would not have referred to it had it not been for the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) explained in his speech the other day why no federal assistance was given to these municipalities in Manitoba.
I took the position that we were suffering from the drought and that federal assistance should be given. I had had surveys made of these municipalities and of the conditions prevailing, and they were just as bad as conditions in many of the municipalities adjacent to the one hundred per cent drought area in Saskatchewan. I had officers of the minister's own department come into my constituency, and with them we travelled through it to see the conditions and discuss what the remedy should be. Unfortunately for me my summer was wasted because I was not able to convince the Minister of Agriculture that he should give assistance to my constituency.
The position taken by the federal government was that Manitoba had had the best crop in several years, and in consequence they thought that province was in a position to take care of its own relief. I cannot agree with that. In the adjoining municipalities in Saskatchewan, which are not one whit worse off in the way of crops than my constituency, I find that the farmers there are receiving from the federal government assistance in the way of feed and fodder, and they must in the future be also supplied with seed. They are in no worse condition than their more unfortunate neighbours on the Manitoba side of the boundary, and I think assistance should equally be given to Manitoba, particularly because, as I shall point out a little later, Manitoba is in no position to give the relief I have requested.
The reeve of one of these municipalities wrote telling me of conditions in his municipality, and of how they were able to look across the line and see the adjoining municipalities in Saskatchewan given free feed and fodder, and ultimately they will receive seed as well. He says that he does not begrudge these farmers that assistance and relief, and I agree wholly in what he says; they need that relief. But I must say that they are a

good deal more fortunate than their unfortunate brothers on the Manitoba side, who are receiving no assistance from this government. I felt it was my duty to bring these facts before the house-they have all been submitted already to the department-and if any of the facts I have given are not correct I am anxious that there should be an inspection of the territory, which I am sure will reveal conditions to be more grievous than I have described them in my statement here to-night.
Now I wish to deal with the other question, the inability of Manitoba to finance its own relief, and in that connection I propose to deal with the status of that province within confederation with respect to tariffs.
We had a visit of the Rowell commission in Winnipeg, and let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I deeply deplore the strictures that were passed by the leader of the opposition on the personnel of that commission. I think the right hon. gentleman did a disservice to Canada in making those strictures. I am quite sure that none of the members of that commission accepted their onerous and responsible posij tions except from the very highest patriotic motives. I could not understand any man being willing to assume an obligation so onerous and responsible as these gentlemen have done without being actuated wholly by a desire to help Canada and to conduct their investigation entirely devoid of any spirit of partisanship. I do not know any of the members of that commission personally except Doctor Dafoe, and for those who do not know him I am bound to say this, that not only is he the most distinguished journalist in Canada to-day, but his contributions to Canadian policy at home and abroad have been so outstanding, and his individuality and capacity for independent thinking so striking throughout his long life, that I believe no man in Canada is more preeminent than he to assume that obligation, which I am perfectly satisfied he assumed with great reluctance.
The leader of the opposition in his speech deplored the disunity in Canada at the present time. I am bound to say that in my opinion he has contributed to that disunity, for he has raised in the minds of people questions with regard to, I shall not say the integrity, because that is perhaps not the correct word, but at all events the usefulness of the commission which has been appointed. Statements have been made which it might have been better if they had never been made. We are now familiar in Canadian life with that sinister word "axis." We have forces being joined to-day in some parts for the

The Address-Mr. Glen
purpose of combating other parts of the country. The leader of the opposition is not wholly devoid of blame in the strictures he has made against that commission, who have a real job on their hands, and who, if they apply that partisan spirit of which they are accused, will jeopardize the long and distinguished record which each of these men has attained in the course of a long life in Canada.
Before the Rowell commission in Winnipeg the province of Manitoba submitted its case- a very remarkable one-and it has been attacked surreptitiously, subterraneously, if you will, for having set up the west as against the east. As a representative from Manitoba I say that there was no intention on the part of the province to raise issues as between different sections of the dominion. They were concerned only with the presentation of the case as Manitoba saw it, and perhaps I might use the words of Lincoln, the hundred and twenty-ninth anniversary of whose birth takes place on Saturday-"with malice towards none, with charity to all." That language, I believe, can well be applied to the case submitted by Manitoba. I should like to read from part VII, page 69, of Manitoba's case to show that the province is in no position to finance its own relief, and to justify the request I have made of the government that relief be given to my constituency. At page 69 the following statement is made in paragraph 8 of the summary:
That, other things being as they have been, if Manitoba had so financed its own share of unemployment relief, and those portions of the municipalities' shares which it has had to lend to municipalities, its accumulated deficit in current account for this item alone in the period from April 30, 1930 to April 30, 1937, would be $23,945,637.25. This total is made up, $23,736,570.51 due to the dominion and the public, plus moneys advanced to municipalities out of provincial trust funds to the amount of $209,066.74.
(9)	That Manitoba has, in effect, funded this deficit on current account and has been forced to borrow almost the whole of this from the dominion government because it could not borrow in the money markets.
(10)	That if the dominion government, during this interval, had not continued to lend to Manitoba, the province would have been unable to meet its liabilities.
And at page 71, paragraph 20:
That short of the dominion's taking over the whole administration and financing of unemployment relief, the only practical solution of the problem of financing relief is for the dominion government to distribute amongst the provinces upon a per capita basis of relief population, subject to such reasonable restrictions as to administration as the dominion may

impose, the entire cost of unemployment relief, either as a grant, or as the proceds of a special federal tax upon the whole nation earmarked for relief purposes.
21.	That the financing of relief is quite beyond:
(a)	The present revenue producing capacity of Manitoba.
(b)	The revenue producing capacity which it is possible or desirable for every province in Canada to acquire under a change in the Canadian constitution.
22.	That the present system of financing relief:
(a) Will cause the inevitable bankruptcy of many of the provinces and municipalities of Canada.
Then at page 72, paragraph 24:
That the administration and financing of relief by the dominion is the wisest solution to the relief problem because:
(a)	It would do away with all of the inequitable and subversive effects of the present system of relief administration;
(b)	It would provide a uniform national minimum standard of relief without casting an unfair and unsupportable burden upon any municipality, province or economic area.
In part VIII, page 13, the province makes this statement:
In the Manitoba budget this item appeared only very occasionally and in small amounts prior to the year 1930. From that year up to April 30, 1937, the total cost of relief and relief works in Manitoba was $53,278,775.98. The total cost was divided as follows:
The cost to the dominion	$19,602,697.64
The cost to the province	 18,550.572.12
The cost to the municipalities.. .. 15,125,506.22
It has already been shown elsewhere that
by far the greater part of these expenditures has been met by borrowing. The result is, at April 30, 1937, that the province owed on its relief debt $23,736,570.51, covering both its own costs and moneys borrowed for reloaning to municipalities; the municipalities owe considerable sums to other creditors on their relief debts and, at April 30, 1937, they owed to the provincial government on their account the sum of $4,608,255.74, practically all of which was borrowed by the province from the dominion.	.
In the light of these figures I do not think anyone can successfully contend that Manitoba is in a position to finance its own relief and, therefore, any demand which is made of the federal government should take into account that the 1937 crop in our province, grateful as we are for it, only begins to touch the volume of debt that has accrued in the province and there will have to be a continuation of these crops before Manitoba can be in a position to finance its own relief.
There were some other points brought out in the case submitted to the royal commission. I should like to read one or two state-

The Address-Mr. Glen

merits made by the provincial government with regard to tariffs. At page 18 of part VIII of the submission there appear these words:
At confederation the provinces gave up their jurisdiction over tariff matters to the dominion government. Since that time the tariff policies of the dominion, presumed to be in the interests of the nation as a whole, have worked out to the very great disadvantage of certain provinces.
We have presented to the commission evidence of the burden of this dominion policy on the people of this section of the dominion. The result of our investigation, stated in what we believe to be minimum figures, shows that the burden the dominion tariff places upon the three prairie provinces comes to the staggering total of 58 million dollars per year. This figure is twice as much as the total of all the annual taxes imposed by all three prairie governments combined. It is a heavy price to pay for the privilege of being in confederation.
in the case of Manitoba the tariff policy, as now in effect in Canada, has been found to impose a burden of 15 million dollars per year upon our people. This is an indirect tax of almost unbearable weight. It is seventy-five per cent more than the total of all our provincial taxes which are themselves too heavy. It is almost as much as the total taxes collected by all our municipalities combined. It has for many years imposed a burden exceeding $100 annually on the average farmer in Manitoba. While the tax in itself is burdensome it has the fundamental weakness that the greater part of it is not credited to the dominion government revenues. . . .
It goes on to say that the tariff has thus constituted a heavy load on the primary industries of our province and those of other western provinces.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have shown the burden which is imposed upon the western provinces as far as tariffs are concerned. It is a gloomy picture so far as I have described it. But I was delighted the other day when I heard the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). I can recall many times when hon. gentlemen opposite called him a protectionist and when the leader of the opposition used to take delight in using that term in order to embarrass him. I think after the minister's speech the other day even the leader of the opposition will have come to the conclusion that that epithet as applied to the minister is entirely a misnomer. In fact, if I were to use any word to describe him I would say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might be called a realist. He has gone abroad in the world and has seen the effect of trade treaties, and being a realist, he recognizes that after all some of those over here who are called free traders have not been so much out of line. It was also a real delight to find the minister not only grasping with both hands all the

treaties which other countries were willing to conclude with Canada, but indicating that he is still pursuing, and more eagerly than ever, other treaties, because he knows the beneficial effect of them. The increasing revenues of Canada during the past two years, about which so much was said by the last speaker, have demonstrated the value of these treaties. Could anything demonstrate better to the people of Canada that reciprocal trade treaties can have only beneficial results to the countries concerned? The minister indicated in no uncertain terms that even where trade agreements did not include certain items trade in them was also increasing and this country was getting the benefit. I say in the words of an Irishman. More power to the elbow of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
A parallel picture was given by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in his speech the other day. He told the story of employment conditions in Canada. It will seem most extraordinary to the mind of the protectionist, but, to the mind of a free trader, a natural consequence, that unemployment has decreased during those two years while foreign trade has been bounding upwards. Both results are linked together. I think the Minister of Labour said that in 1937 as compared with 1936 there was a reduction of 120,000 in the number of unemployed. If that is not an argument in favour of freedom of trade and the removal of restrictions and barriers to trade which some on this side have been advocating for years, then I do not know what an argument is.
I recall that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), either after or during the election campaign, asked the people of this country, whither are we going. Well, I know where we are going if we continue to pursue the path that has been blazed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the benefits of which are being shown by the -Minister of Labour. The government has blazed a trail which will convince the people of Canada that freedom from trade restrictions is bound to result in increasing prosperity. They have blazed the trail; all I want the government to do now is to make it a broad highway between us and every country in the world that is willing to trade with us, and I am satisfied that the Liberal party will demonstrate that only by freedom of trade and removal of trade barriers can Canada become one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
Had it not been for the disastrous drought in Saskatchewan; had Saskatchewan been in

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
the position, say of Manitoba, or had she produced even half of what she produced in past years, does the country realize that every province would to-day be prosperous, able to balance its budget, and the dominion as a whole would be among the most prosperous countries on the face of the earth? That is what the position would have been but for the drought in Saskatchewan, which caused these ills that we have to remove. Nothing I could say is more pregnant with meaning than the facts submitted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Labour. While it may be that some of us are more impatient than others, yet we all realize that in the Liberal party lies the only hope for the solution of these problems and the cure of these ills.
I am hoping fervently that the opportunity which is now knocking at the door of the Liberal party will be fully taken advantage of in the legislation to be brought down this session. The results of the government's policy as shown in ever increasing trade are such that the country will be satisfied with having returned in 1935 a government opposed to high protection, of which policy the people of Canada had had bitter experience. I am satisfied that the experience of the two years yet to come before an election will demonstrate to this dominion that through the removal of trade barriers and the promotion of freer trade by the methods adopted by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Canada will become what she should be, the brightest jewel in the British crown.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree with a great many previous speakers who have lauded the speech from the throne so highly. Personally I cannot see in that speech a great deal to be proud of. One thing is certain. As has been stated before in this chamber, one of the greatest problems confronting us is the economic condition of our country, and we are sent here for the purpose of endeavouring to the best of our ability to correct the chaotic conditions under which we live. That is my purpose in speaking to-night. It should be the endeavour of every hon. member not to let time become a factor in closing off any address that might be made in the house when a question so important as the livelihood and very existence of our citizens is under consideration.
We have heard a great deal of praise from the opposite side of the house on the wonderful benefits of the trade agreements. It is
51952-23 j
all very well for a supporter of the government to quote statistics to prove that conditions are improving, but one only has to look about to find with greater surety that conditions are no better than they were a year ago. One thing that makes me wonder is this: In 1935 the party now sitting on the opposite side of this chamber said they were going to remedy these conditions. It has been within their power to do so; they have had the largest majority ever given any party in the house, but I say in all sincerity that so far they have not done anything to any material extent to alleviate those conditions which now exist.
Hon. members speak of foreign trade as being a cure-all for the economic conditions with which we are faced. Well, I am not of that opinion. I agree with some other hon. members, that blasting our way into the markets of the world will never solve our problems. It is not a cure-all, by any manner of means. One of the most important factors we should consider in that connection is the trade within our own boundaries. I have said before in the house, and I have no hesitation in saying it again, that I am not concerned with the tariff. We have only to consider the evidence which has been brought forward in connection with farm machinery to see that the lower the tariff has gone the higher has been the cost of machinery. The tariff in itself is not a factor. I have no objection to the tariff 'being lowered if that will help in any way. Certainly I have no objection to the tariff being raised in order to protect the industries within the confines of this country. But be assured that I do not favour the protection of the profits of the industries of this dominion.
If we were as concerned with the welfare of our people as I believe we should be, we in Alberta would not be faced with the situation that we find to-day in our oil industry. We have one of the greatest potential oil fields in the British Empire, something that should be of great concern to this dominion because of the fact that at present we face one of the most critical times in the history of the empire. We have often thought that we could not be thrown into another world war; yet we are facing that very possibility today. In Alberta we have an oil field which would be of inestimable value to the British Empire if such a tragedy happened; yet what are we doing to assist that great industry? We in Alberta are endeavouring to place that product on the market in eastern Canada. The east has bled the west for many a year, to the extent of millions of dollars. The west has fed the east, but now when we ask for
356	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
reciprocation in that regard what do we get? We are not given the slightest bit of consideration. Take the large combines, such as the railways, if you like. When we ask for a reduction in rates they do not even know the cost of transporting a hundred pounds of crude oil for a distance of a hundred miles. When a large concern, such as Imperial Oil, asks them to lower the rate on crude oil to Regina, they do not know how much they can lower the rate without losing money. But when they are faced with the possibility of the construction of a pipe line from the Alberta field to Regina they say to Imperial Oil, "What do you estimate it will cost you to transport that oil?" It was estimated that the cost would be fourteen cents. Then the railways said, "Well, we will charge you nineteen cents. How is that?" They came down just enough to enable them to meet that probable competition. That is not cooperation. We must have something more constructive. If we are endeavouring to find markets for our produce, surely a different attitude might be taken.
Just on this question of trade as a cure-all for the economic ills of the dominion I should like to remind the house that one of the great factors in the improvement, if there has been any improvement, has been the war preparations that have been carried on, as other hon. gentlemen have mentioned already in this debate. I am reminded of a speech that was made here in 1935 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), as reprinted in Action for January, 1938. This is what the right hon. gentleman said:
I think this country ought to declare that any nation which could be shown to have threatened the peace of the world by violating a pact of collective security should be denied any assistance in the shape of men or muni; tions, should be denied any assistancifTh the nature of food, should be denied any assistance through credit. Our country, small as it is, might well lay down a definite policy in that regard as expressing Canada's attitude toward any country which, upon the facts being disclosed, was found to be guilty of attempting to destroy what otherwise might be collective security. If that example were followed by other parts of the British Empire, as I believe it would be, it would soon be followed by other parts of the world.
I want to repeat these words:
Our country, small as it is, might well lay down a definite policy

That is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament should lay down a definite policy in regard to the very matters dealt with by the leader of the government as recently as April 1, 1935. That was a declared policy. So far we have seen nothing done to implement it. I well remember that last year,

in reference to this question, the right hon. gentleman informed me that an investigation would be launched in this country to find out the exact amount of profiteering, if there were any, going on in connection with arms and munitions manufactured in Canada. So far I have heard nothing as to the results of that investigation, if indeed it was carried out. That should be one of the very first steps we should take, and I think, as the right hon. gentleman mentioned in the quotation I gave a moment ago, this country could well take the lead in laying down the policy that we would not supply other countries with nickel or other material that might be used in the manufacture of arms and munitions.
Those are matters of vital importance to us. Day after day I receive resolutions. Not later than to-day I received a telegram advocating the abolition of trade with Japan. That is all well and good; I am not against a policy of barring trade, in connection with either imports from or exports to Japan, if that would be a cure-all. I well remember that at Christmas time in the store windows in western Canada we saw large placards bearing the words, "Boycott Japanese oranges." That would not stop the war. Our refusal to buy Japanese oranges in western Canada would not make any difference. If we refused to trade in commodities not essential to war it would make no difference at all. What we should concern ourselves with is the very thing we are neglecting, namely the making of armaments and munitions in Canada. Yet, of those commodities we export to the extent of about $1,000,000 a week, $52,000,000 a year, to Japan, and no step is taken to curtail that trade.
It is essential that one of the first steps to be taken this session-we should not wait until the next one-is to see that the export of arms and munitions from Canada is stopped. We are sending armaments to Japan and, although we hope not, we are almost certain that within a short time we are going to be sending our young men over there to be killed with the very ammunition we supply. Could there be anything more barbaric than that? Why do we not do something about it? We do nothing because capitalism steps in. Huge profits are made from the manufacture and sale of armaments and munitions. We permit this condition to exist, and we do not see fit to challenge it.
May I read an extract from the Canadian Unionist of December 17, dealing with profits and patriotism:
How the profit motive, the mainspring of capitalist enterprise, mocks patriotism is indicated by an article in Labour, official organ of the British Trades Union Congress. British

The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
armament firms are allowed to sell their productions to any and every customer-except Spam for the time being. They may sell to potential enemies. "Why should British firms arm our enemies?" the writer in Labour asks. He points out that there are not only obvious humanitarian and patriotic objections. The indiscriminate selling of arms leads to rivalry in armaments, thus tending to make wars more and more destructive. If a British firm supplies a submarine tc a foreign government, another government win' want destroyers to offset the menace of the submarine. So it goes; the more armaments supplied the greater the demand.
But capitalists want profits, and workers need jobs, and the inhuman, unpatriotic potentialities of the armament industry are a minor consideration. Governments permit the sale of arms to possible enemies because they say it helps to develop the country's armament industry, and the bigger that industry is the better a country is prepared for war.
. In a sane society, with production for use, instead of profit, the capital and labour now applied to the production of means of destruction would be utilized to supply better homes, better education, and better quality goods and services of all sorts.
That is the point. We talk about patriotism. If another war were declared we would preach patriotism to our young men. We would say, " Go out and fight for your homeland." Yes, we would tell them that; but we would not tell them at the same time that we have supplied the arms and ammunition to the enemy country; no, we would omit that. Our churches will broadcast patriotism throughout the country, but they, too, will omit that. When capitalism comes into contact with patriotism, capitalism wins every time.
I was deeply interested a few days ago in the observations made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) with respect to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I do not criticize in every respect the actions of the corporation, because I believe in some respects they are commendable. I must say, too, that the type of program carried by the corporation is of a higher standard than those broadcast a while back. But while there are commendable features, there are features which should be criticized, and I can think of no better opportunity than the present to make the observations I have in mind.
Since announcing a fifty cent increase in the licence fees we have heard a great deal of criticism throughout Canada. True, there may be some wealthy men, like the Minister of Transport, who can afford three radios in their homes, or a radio for each member of their families. I wish them nothing but the best of success, and I trust they will be highly delighted with the entertainment they get. But unfortunately there are many people in this country who cannot afford three radios
in their homes. It is exceedingly difficult for people on relief or those about to be on relief to find that extra fifty cents. Not only is it an extra fifty cents in licence fee, but these people have to pay added costs in the form of maintenance charges and radio batteries. Those are charges which people in Ottawa do not have to bear, because the situation in eastern Canada is to some extent different from that in the west so far as electrical energy is concerned. In eastern Canada electricity costs about one and a half cents per kilowatt, whereas in the west it costs anywhere from eight cents to ten cents, with an extra meter charge of anywhere from ninety cents to a dollar and a half per month. Those are matters which have to be considered. The average set owner in the west cannot afford to have the extra burden placed upon him, and I think it is unfair to increase the fee at this time. I would have no objection to placing an extra fifty cent charge on a man who has a radio in his car. Further, I could see no objection to charging a man who has three radios in his house a fee for each set. That would be all right, because if a man can afford three radios he should be able to buy three licences for them.
On the other hand, to increase the fee on one set is entirely different. I find that the fifty cent increase per radio licence would bring in a total of about 8750,000. In view of the fact that not so long ago the broadcasting corporation advertised that they would have a surplus this year I would judge that with the increased revenue the total amount received would be about 82,780,000. I may be wrong in my figures, but I give them subject to correction. In view of the fact that they had a surplus last year and will have another S2,000.000 to spend this year, in the event of their doing as well in the coming year as they did in the last there would be no cause for complaint. But why is it necessary to raise the fee? That is something which has yet to be explained.
What was the reason for the increase? Was it pressure from somewhere? Probably the Department of Finance spoke again; probably an increased fee was demanded. Possibly political pressure was brought to bear, due to the loss of a few votes. However, that should not be a main consideration. May I point out that there is an interesting background to the announcement, one which was not revealed by the press. The announcement of the change was made following a closed meeting of newsnaper and
358	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
magazine publishers with Mr. Gladstone Murray, General Manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The meeting, convened in Toronto, was organized shortly after the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had imported a number of outstanding radio programs originating in the United States. Or, to make the matter clearer, let me put it in this way:	The	Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation imports some United States programs; the newspaper and magazine publishers call a meeting which is attended by Mr. Gladstone Murray and then the licence fees are boosted.
The trade magazine, Broadcasting, in its edition of January 15, reports-and this report did not appear in the press-that both the magazin^ and newspaper publishers wanted to know how far the importation of United States programs was going to go. They claimed they were losing big advertising appropriations thereby. " Broadcasting " says it is understood that one publisher suggested that parliament be asked to grant the Canadian Broadcasting Commission a subsidy over a period of years so that commercial programs would not have to be broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. In other words, the newspaper and magazine publishers want the government to bear the cost of broadcasting so that they will be able to get the money of the advertiser which now goes to pay for broadcasting. They want the cost of broadcasting to come out of the pockets of the people of Canada rather than out of the pockets of advertisers. Now, this is a significant paragraph, which appears in the January 15th edition of the weekly magazine Marketing, published in Toronto. Says the paragraph, referring to the Toronto meeting:
A constructive suggestion was made that if the Canadian Broadcasting Commission would seek to secure its needed additional revenue by increasing the licence fee on radio sets, the press would stand back of it and help the public realize that such increase was just and necessary; otherwise the press would have to consider the advisability of revealing what the Canadian Broadcasting Commission is doing in flooding Canada with United States programs.
Now, there you have not only a suggestion from the publishers to the Canadian Broadcasting Commission but a direct threat. The Canadian Broadcasting Commission must either boost radio licence fees or undergo a bombardment of newspaper criticism from coast to coast. But let the Canadian Broadcasting Commission boost the fee, and the press would use propaganda from coast to coast to prove to the people that the increase was necessary.

Well what happened? On January 19 an editorial on the subject appeared, for instance, in the Calgary Herald, and one paragraph read as follows:
The Herald is of the opinion that the radio corporation is on untenable ground in seeking to justify the importation of foreign advertising programs solely on the need of additional revenue. There is another obvious channel open to them which would not invite logical criticism now so freely voiced.
I pause to remark that we heard little criticism and much praise for the corporation when it imported the programs. However, to continue with the Herald's editorial:
The other obvious channel from which the corporation may obtain revenue is-by way of increasing the cost of each radio licence from $2 to $3. . . . By raising the fee one dollar, the net revenue on last year's basis would be increased to $2,780,000, a sum which should make the corporation independent of revenue from foreign advertising concerns.
That is the end of the quotation. It points to the attitude of the press-soak the people so that they, the publishers, can get their hands on the money of the advertisers.
The press, by its direct threat of criticism, placed the corporation in a most embarrassing position. By demanding that radio licence fees be increased, the publishers placed the corporation in the line of fire for criticism from every radio owner in Canada-the very people whom the corporation is called upon to serve; the people whose protests would do more than anything else to destroy the corporation. The publishers demanded an increase of $1. The corporation compromised and increased the licence fee by fifty cents.
There was a great deal of concern by the papers throughout Canada about the tremendous amount of United States broadcasting, but when one considers that only eight and a half hours, out of, I believe, ninety-eight hours, was thus being used, their protests are not impressive. Certainly there was not much complaint when it was first introduced; on the other hand everything in the line of praise was given to it; and when the corporation have selected, as I have said, some of the best types of United States programs, it seems curious that the press should take such great objection to this increased revenue. No, what they want is the money which was derived from that source. Here you have an example of the "freedom of the press" which was mentioned a moment ago. Who is controlling the country? The press. The only freedom they should have is the right to print the truth; that is as far as their freedom should go.
One other matter with regard to radio I do not think I can properly omit. In the west we have a different situation, perhaps, from

Privilege-Mr. Bennett
what prevails in the east, although the difference is not great. We are now asked to pay a fifty cent increase in the fee; but there is many a time out west, as well as in this city, when you turn on your radio and because of local interference you cannot hear anything. In fact the situation became so bad that a petition was sent to me from my constituency protesting against the interference, but no consideration is given as regards an adjustment of the fee. I had occasion to visit Calgary, where I was received very courteously by an official of the radio branch there-I believe it was Mr. Ainslie-with regard to this interference in radio. A trouble man was sent out to investigate the matter. He came out within a week after I visited the office, and made a thorough investigation of every radio concern in that town. He found that a great many machines were running without condensers, without means of eliminating this interference. He went around to each one of the firms, pointed out that this condition should be corrected, and told them how to do this. He then came around to my house and said he would return in one week. He did so, but things were just as bad. He made another round of the town and advised them again.
The point is this, that we are now paying fifty cents more for a licence; yet there is no regulation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or by this government which gives these trouble men authority to say to owners of machines which are interfering with reception, "You must change that or you will get into trouble", or "we will prosecute you." There is no regulation which directly covers this matter. These trouble men are much concerned about it, and I think properly so, and I should like to see the Minister of Transport provide by regulation that when they go to all the trouble and expense involved in checking up on interference they should be granted some authority whereby they can compel owners of machines which cause electrical interference to clear it up.
There is another question that I must mention. It has been referred to before, but it is of too great importance to be permitted to slip by as idly as has happened so far. I refer to the charges of political graft that were made not long ago in the house.
At 11.02 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 11, 1938