1938-02-02

FURNISHING OF LIST OF DRAMATICO-MUSICAL OR MUSICAL WORKS OWNED OR CONTROLLED- PUBLIC RADIO RECEPTION OR GRAMOPHONE REPRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to amend the Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. LORD'S DAY ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to amend the Lord's Day Act.
He said: The purpose of the proposed amendment is to provide for penalties against corporations or directors or officers thereof who either violate or cause their employees to violate the Lord's Day Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Corrupt Electoral Practices

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) during his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne raised a grave issue-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What is the question?
Mr. SPEAKER. Order. I must ask the hon. member to put his question immediately if he has one to direct to the government.


René-Antoine Pelletier: My question is: Is it the intention of the government to have the matter raised by the leader of the opposition concerning corrupt electoral practices referred to the committee on privileges and elections under standing order No. 63, or referred to some other committee of this house for investigation?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The hon. member for
Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) informed me before the house opened of his intention to ask a question with respect to corrupt election practices. As he apparently is not familiar with the law on the subject or the rules of the house with regard to procedure in such matters I have drafted a statement which I shall give in reply to his question.
Parliament has made statutory provision for the investigation of corrupt practices at elections. Under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, chapter 50, Revised Statutes of. Canada, 1927, any person who has the right to vote may present a petition to a judge of a supreme or superior court, setting out these practices, and, if a deposit of SI,000 is made, an investigation may be held. Under the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act, chapter 51, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, twenty-five or more electors may present a petition to the House of Commons charging the existence of such practices, and, if a deposit of $1,000 is made, the house may direct the government to appoint a commission for the purpose of making an inquiry. The commission in either case must submit a report to parliament, and under standing order No. 79 it is provided that if it appears that any person has been elected by corrupt practices the house will proceed with the utmost severity.
Since parliament passed the above legislation the committee on privileges and elections has never held any investigation with respect to the election of members. In the present instance no specific charges have been made
and no petition has been presented to the house.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I think the statement that the committee on privileges and elections has never held an investigation is not correct; in the case of Huron North there was an investigation.



&quot;CANADA. 1938&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) and through him to the government. The question is, whether it is not possible again this year as in previous years to have "Canada, 1938" delivered to schools, convents and colleges free, without the charge of ten or twenty-five cents.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I had no notice that my hon. friend was about to ask this question.
I am not sure that I can answer it at the moment, I do not know how many of these books have been printed, but I shall be glad to make investigation and let him know the outcome.



NIAGARA RIVER ICE JAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) directed two questions to the government, the first being:
Will the government take up with the government of the United States and the governments of Ontario and New York state the question of erecting joint regulation works in this river to prevent the recurrence of the abnormal conditions which have recently arisen?
In reply I may say that the situation arising from the recent ice jam is such an extremely unusual one, even for the Niagara river, that the possibility and warranty of effecting any measures to prevent or mitigate a recurrence would require careful study on the part of the interests which have been adversely affected. Regulation works which were proposed by the international board of engineers at the outlet of the Niagara river in connection with the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway scheme would not appear to be of any benefit to a situation such as has now arisen.
The second question was:
Has the minister any ice-breaking plants for use on lake Erie and the Niagara river

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
from lake Erie to Chippawa and Niagara to Queenston similar to that used in the St. Lawrence river?
The answer is that no such ice-breaking equipment is provided.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 1, 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. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne the government take a great deal of credit for improved economic conditions throughout the country. They point to mounting revenues and increased export trade. I should like to ask in what fields these increased revenues and export trade lie. They arise largely, I submit, through the exploitation of Canada's mineral wealth, often by foreign corporations. What accounts for the demand for these minerals? I submit again that it is war in the far east and in Europe and the vast rearmament programs that are seen everywhere throughout the world. Indiscriminately at the present time we sell to both aggressor and victim, although I might add that often only the aggressor can obtain the supplies that he needs. We refuse to supply a legitimate government in Spain with men and goods, yet we are exporting large quantities of goods to Japan for use against China. Our export figures to-day represent, in part, the price that is being paid by the mangled bodies of women and children in congested Chinese cities, and I say further that prosperity based upon such factors is deceptive and will not last. It is disease, not health, that enriches Canada, and wealth thus gained must bring its own nemesis eventually.
A Liberalism which boasts of such trade is not the Liberalism of Gladstone, who in a previous century thundered against the atrocities in Armenia and elsewhere. During Christmas time I saw a cartoon which illustrates what I mean. It showed a picture of Santa Claus, labelled Canada; below there was a country labelled China. Santa Claus was riding in a Japanese plane, showering Christmas gifts-bombs made in part from materials obtained from Canada-upon the Chinese. So I say that a government which boasts of such trade returns and at the same time allows present conditions to exist in the great stricken areas of western Canada without doing something effective to meet those conditions, should not boast.

I should like .to say something about conditions in the province from which I come. Men and women there have sown for years and have failed to reap. We know that. After recent trips over the prairie provinces I would say that conditions there are reaching the point where many of our people are in a state of despair. From year to year we have drifted along with relief costs mounting and nothing done on a wide scale to meet the situation. On another occasion, when a resolution standing on the order paper in my name proposing a comprehensive inquiry into the possibility of widespread irrigation and water conservation projects is before us, I want to go into that question rather more fully. It is sufficient to say now that I have been all over the area more than once this year and have been greatly depressed by what I have seen there.
Much more was I depressed last year to see that the government were not taking effective steps early enough-and may I emphasize those words "early enough"-to meet the situation that was upon us last summer. At the end of June in the town of Rosetown, in my own constituency, I addressed a meeting of farmers and business people at which resolutions were passed urging the government to take immediate and effective steps to retain in its present position the grain that was then in the elevators in that constituency, in order to protect the people of that area. A week later I attended a meeting of over a thousand farmers in the town of Perdue. I may say that it was not a partisan meeting. I did not know it was being called. I was invited to it, as were also the former Conservative member for the constituency and the Liberal candidate in the last election. There again resolutions were passed pointing out the situation and emphasizing the need for the conservation of the seed and feed then in that area. Those resolutions were forwarded to Ottawa, yet my observation was that in the weeks that followed the elevators were virtually emptied of the grain that was there.
I know I shall be told that one reason was that the cash price of wheat at that particular time was higher than the futures price and that the elevators could not be expected to retain that grain against future need. On the part of the elevator companies I say that was perfectly natural. I say further, however, that the government, if it had wished, could have closed the speculative market; it could have discontinued the trading in futures and indemnified the companies involved, if necessary, against subsequent loss due to that

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
governmental action. But it allowed that speculative market, about which I have complained from time to time, to continue to operate. The government, which had destroyed the effectiveness of the wheat board method of marketing, again remained inert in the face of the impending crisis. Can we wonder if the farmers believe the statement that the party now in office at least to some extent was a beneficiary in connection with campaign funds from members of the grain trade? That is a suggestion which is made from time to time. The other evening in the house we heard a more specific statement by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and, later, briefly mentioning the matter in his speech, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that he would like advice as to how the situation could be dealt with.
The time has come, in the interests of clean and decent government in Canada, when political parties should be compelled to publish the sources of all their campaign funds-all of them-in order that we may know the interests and influences behind the election of governments in this country. In any event the two things the farmers believe the grain trade desired have been accomplished, namely the virtual abandonment of the wheat board method of marketing, and the subsequent sale to grain brokers, on the speculative exchange, of the grain held.
The result of the condition to which I have referred means that the government has had to ship in grain for feed and, in the spring, will have to ship in grain for seed. This means that farmers unfortunate enough to have neither seed nor feed, or only one or the other, will be penalized both ways on that account. Then, had the government had the board in operation, it could have relieved the situation for the man who had a little crop to sell. Only yesterday I received a letter from a constituent at McGee, in my constituency, in which he complains to me that when grain is delivered in a wagonload lot farmers have to take the future, not the cash price. I believe I understand why that is so. Nevertheless, because of the unusual situation in connection with cash and future market prices, it means a loss of from twenty to thirty cents a bushel for those men who are delivering small quantities of grain at various times. Delivery to the wheat board could have protected these men who have a little grain to sell in a year when every cent counts.
Further, in June, July and even in August the government did not act quickly enough in regard to the matter of feed fodder. They failed to secure the necessary feed, and the result is that to-day herds of cattle and horses
have been disposed of or destroyed. Undoubtedly some will starve on our western plains this winter. So that the whole of our live stock industry in many parts of Saskatchewan, consisting of herds founded with a great deal of difficulty, expense and care, will be destroyed. The very basis of that part of our economic life will at least to some extent be destroyed.
Yet there was feed. I am told that hay remained uncut in Manitoba. I did not see it; but as I travelled through Manitoba during the first week in September, across the Portage plains where nature had been bountiful, I did see no less than fourteen large straw stacks burning at one time.


Mr. GARDINER:: Infested with sow thistle.


Major James William Coldwell: I wrote the Minister of Agriculture about it, and his reply now is that it had sow thistle in it.


James Garfield Gardiner: I saw it on the same day.


Major James William Coldwell: I know there is some sow thistle on the Portage plains, but, too, I have seen hay which had sow thistle in it, shipped from the northern to the southern part of my province. Of course, if the reason stated by the minister is the correct one it puts another complexion upon the story. I do know, however, that the government did not act quickly enough in obtaining the necessary straw and in providing the men and equipment to bale and ship it.
I have spoken about the cattle. Of the poverty, misery, despair and want in many Saskatchewan homes I do not wish to say much to-day. Later in the session there will be opportunity for such discussion. May I say just in passing that those of us interested in the condition of the Saskatchewan people are grateful for the efforts of the people in the other provinces who sent into Saskatchewan large quantities of foodstuffs for distribution through a voluntary committee. But when I hear boasting from the govem-[DOT] ment side about prosperity I think of those people on the prairie, and I realize that after all the boasting is pretty hollow.
May I repeat what I have said before, that the condition is not entirely due to drought. The brief on behalf of Saskatchewan filed only a few days ago before the Rowell commission clearly proves my point. I know that when both in and out of the house I have made that statement on previous occasions, it has been questioned. But in the presentation of an excellent brief the government of Saskatchewan has shown that, as is so often said, one or two good crops will not rehabilitate the condition of the people in that province.
The Address-Mr. Coldwell

The drought was but the last of a long series of economic disasters, including a long period of low prices when at times our farmers obtained only twenty cents a bushel for No. 1 wheat delivered at local elevators.
I would add that upon the rehabilitation of this region in no small measure depends the entire economic structure of Canada. In a country such as ours we cannot reduce hundreds of thousands of people to peasantry, and at the same time have the great industries in eastern Canada, and the great transportation systems, in a prosperous condition. That simply cannot be done. Yet there are those who would advise us to resign ourselves to a low standard of living and the virtual peasantry to which I have just referred.
For example, I notice that the report of a speech by the Minister of Agriculture before a group of prominent Quebec Liberals at the Reform club in Montreal on January 17, appears in the Montreal Gazette in these words:
There were one million people living in the drought affected areas, said Mr. Gardiner. Were they to be moved ? He did not think so, but they would have to become accustomed to conditions. After all there was nothing specially new in the western situation. Farmers many years ago had been "on relief." His own grandfather in Huron county, Ontario, had received governmental assistance.
If we accept that philosophy, we are in effect accepting a philosophy of despair. Our grandfathers were in poverty, our fathers were in poverty and, 'therefore, we must get used to the poverty with which we are surrounded. That is the interpretation I would place upon those words.


Mr. DUNNING:: It is not the correct one.


Major James William Coldwell: I shall be very glad to have the minister correct it when I am finished. That is the philosophy which is being put forth in certain parts of Canada. I regret very much that this statement should have been made in 'eastern Canada, in the city of Montreal. I have had an opportunity of speaking there and I know that many people in that city do not appreciate or understand our western situation.
I believe that much can be done to improve -the condition of agriculture. We could plan our production more wisely and guarantee a better standard of living to our farmers and to the great masses of people in the cities. From time to time we in this comer will be glad to contribute any ideas that we may have which may tend to bring about those improved standards.
If we got to work and grappled with the situation we would be able to find a solution
[Mr. Coldwall.J
for many of our economic and social difficulties. As our leader (Mr. Woodsworth) said yesterday, I believe that prosperity in this country is spotty, unsound and insecure. Because I believe that, I am going to support the amendment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I intend to take that action because I believe the present government is engaged in what amounts to a policy of social and economic drifting. To drift is to court disaster and endanger the foundations of our democratic institutions'.
Let us not forget that everywhere democracy is being attacked. A few years ago we might have said with Sinclair Lewis, "It Can't Happen Here," but today we know that it is being said by many that our democratic institutions are inefficient and unsatisfactory. The drifting of this parliament in the last two years lends colour to that accusation. When unemployment is rampant, when poverty and misery are widespread, when the legitimate aspirations of our young people are thwarted, then it would seem that the existing order, no matter what it may be, is threatened. I am in agreement with those who criticize this drift.
In common with the rest of the world we must move in the direction of a more equitable distribution of wealth. That would in my opinion ultimately involve the social ownership of the principal means of production and of our resources, but as a realist I know that at the moment possibly this and some other countries are not prepared to take a step of that kind. But there are other steps which could be taken and my criticism is that we are not taking those steps. Before the last election we heard hon. members who now sit on the government side say that national control of currency and credit must be utilized for the common good. Yet nothing has been done by this parliament although we in this comer have from time to time introduced resolutions dealing with this particular matter. There are steps we could take if we would, but we are doing nothing to alleviate the conditions with which we are surrounded.
If that alleviation is attempted we in this group are prepared to cooperate. Ever since I have been a member of the house I have appreciated that sitting around me on all sides were members who desired to do something for this country. Yet we do nothing. Again and again we talk in terms of our respective political parties when we ought to be talking and thinking in terms of this dominion and the citizens thereof. Because

The Address-Mr. Coldwell
year after year passes with parliament doing nothing people are lending ready ears to all kinds of subversive propaganda.
Who can say that a Canadian form of nazism is not raising its ugly head across the country? To refer again to the Montreal Gazette, that paper published recently a picture of Canadian nazis drilling under the direction of retired regular army officers. The inside pages contained photographs of the office of the organization with the swastika on the wall. There was also a photograph of the leader of the movement in the province of Quebec. We hear a great deal of the dangers of communistic propaganda, but to my mind Canada faces a grave danger to-day from nazi propaganda and the fascist forces which are being used by powerful interests. It is obvious that these organizations have large sums of money available for literature and uniforms. I shall not deal at any length with the padlock law in the province of Quebec, as that was gone into fully yesterday.
The same kind of thing can be found elsewhere in Canada. Looking back to last April we find the Liberal premier of Ontario saying to a group of people, " You shall not organize in the association of your choice." The institutions of this country are said to be British, and under British institutions we are said to be free to organize. Looking back into history I remember reading of an occurrence in 1834 near the place where I was bom. A group of agricultural labourers led by a local preacher, George Loveless, who was also a labourer, endeavoured to bring about some improvement in their lot. Six of them were arrested and cast into prison. They were tried and the judge in passing sentence used these words: "Not for anything that you have done nor, as I can prove, that you intended to do, do I sentence you to seven years' transportation across His Majesty's high seas." Not for anything you have done nor, as I can prove, for anything that you intend to do. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in effect those are the words that were used in this province last April in connection with an organization there.
But see what happened. History, may I remark, sometimes repeats itself. At that time, 103 or 104 years ago, the first Liberal government sat in power in England; to-day in Canada a Liberal government sits in power; and again, in effect, the same thing is being said in Ontario and Quebec-not for anything you have done nor, as I can prove, for anything you intend to do, do I stop you from doing these things. Yet out of that came one of the greatest social and economic movements that the world has ever seen-the
rise of the great British trades union movement, and the rise of the great cooperative movement. Democracy must be preserved, and if it is going to be preserved, these rights must be assured to our people, and pressing reforms must be made to alleviate their condition. Theories of many types we may hold, but the cry is for practical and immediate solutions of the problems that press the Canadian people at the present time. In the west the cry for an effective rehabilitation plan goes up, and may I say to my friends from constituencies in eastern Canada that no longer can the west be regarded as a sort of rich colonial possession to be exploited by other parts of Canada or by foreign lands, but if they will examine the matter they will find that that has been to a degree the history of the west. We have no secondary industries established there.
In connection with social reforms, the other day. the Prime Minister chided the leader of the opposition for his failure to enact constitutionally unemployment insurance and other social measures. I should like to remark that some of the difficulties that we are meeting today are because in those years when business was on an upswing, between 1921 and 1929, if you like to take the years of Liberal administration, social measures, and unemployment insurance in particular, formed planks in the Liberal platform, and yet none of these measures was enacted nor was any preparation made constitutionally to enact them.
Exploitation of the farmer and the worker everywhere has been carried on by industry and finance, and it must be stopped if our national unity and well-being are to be preserved. We saw what that exploitation was to some extent in the textile probe; we also had an illuminating inquiry into the high prices of agricultural implements, and one of the things I am anxious to know this session is what we are going to do about these matters. Are the two reports that were made on those subjects simply to be filed and be of record, and be forgotten, or is the government going to bring down legislation to deal effectively with the problems which those reports indicate do exist? If such action is forthcoming, the speech from the throne remains silent about it, and I must say that the inaction of the government in the past two years in the fields to which I have referred does not lead me to expect them to do very much. In fact, their record fills me with some misgiving.
There is, I know, a feeling of satisfaction on the government side of the house regarding

The Address-Mr. Caldwell
the recent by-elections, and I do not want to take away from hon. members opposite any of the glory they take to themselves from those results; but I will say this, that when ministers go into Montreal and say, "We will fill the hole on Dorchester street," when they say, in effect we will spend millions of dollars right alongside this constituency, or when their supporters go right across the country to British Columbia and say in Victoria, "It would be well at this time if this city were represented in the Liberal caucus because there are large defence appropriations to be considered,"-when these things are said, some at least of the glory of winning by-elections fades out of sight. The tragedy is that our Canadian electorate falls for that kind of campaigning.
But in spite of any victories the government may have won, there is grave unrest throughout this land, and that grave unrest is particularly apparent among our youth, who are denied the opportunities of life which we ourselves had when we were young. I meet a good many of them across the country, well equipped, but unable to find an outlet for their legitimate ambitions, their training and attainments. Thus far, I would say to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), our attempts to deal with that problem have been quite feeble. These young people cannot lead normal lives, cannot marry and settle down and make homes as we could do, and so the very fibre of our society is being destroyed; its very foundation, the home, is being undermined. People look to this parliament for a lead and for a solution, and if they are not given a lead and some hope of a solution, then democracy in this country will be in danger.
Last session parliament did very little because of the haste to bring the proceedings to a close in time for the coronation and the imperial conference. But this session is a challenge to us all. Surely there are enough members in the house who realize the situation-I know there are but very often party discipline prevents them from expressing themselves as they might otherwise do-who must wish to indicate their dissatisfaction, and I would say, let them do so by voting for the amendment rather than for the motion. In that way we can make our protest effective in the only manner in which protests by members of parliament can be made effective, and that is by our votes on the floor of the house. If a sufficient number did that, we might find ways and means of compelling the

government to consider taking effective steps; and, may I add, with the clouds of war and of recession or depression, whichever you like to call it, gathering in the distance, we dare not continue to drift along for another session. With the poverty and the misery, and the devastation even, that exists in large sections of this country, we must not let a false prosperity here and there deceive or blind us to the real issues.
I know, again, it will be pointed out that dividends have increased. Truly wealth is becoming accumulated; monopoly holds us ever in a firmer grip. On the other side, these piling dividends and wealth accumulations are paralleled by misery, by want, by despair, by the denial of opportunity, and all the rest of it. And we must, in this parliament, discover ways and means of increasing wealth for the great masses and of redistributing that wealth and purchasing power among the masses of the people. It seems to me that the problems before us fall under two heads: internal- thinking now of what the papers have published lately-and external peace; and, second, social security. These, it seems to me, cover the whole fields of foreign policy, rehabilitation, debt, purchasing power, housing, pensions for the aged, opportunity for youth, and the like; and parliament should not rise this session, even if we sit here for a whole year, until some solutions have been found. If the government fails, as it has so far failed, to formulate an effective policy, then let us, the members of the house, forget our party differences and our pet ideas-


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: -and cooperate with the Canadian people, as they would expect us to cooperate, to bring about a better condition. I hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) say "Hear, hear." I am glad to hear him say it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was welcoming your willingness to abandon your pet ideas.


Major James William Coldwell: I know the Minister of Finance has his pet ideas also, but I suggest that he, with the rest of us, forget those pet financial ideas which he holds so strongly.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend to the house support of the amendment rather than the resolution.


Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Cartier):: Before I present to this august assembly the few remarks which I have prepared for this afternoon, I wish to protest against the extremely bad lighting arrangements we who sit in the fifth row enjoy here. I am very well


The Address-Mr. Mallette
acquainted with the fact that the hon. members who sit here, and I suppose the same can be said of those who sit opposite in the same row, are men of such talent that they will eventually move to the second or even to the front row, but those who succeed us will have the same trouble. My vision has declined a good deal since I came here. I do not want any of my hon. friends to go blind for lack of a slight expenditure which this country can well afford, and I do hope, sir, that you in your official capacity as presiding officer of this chamber will draw the attention of the powers that be to this very bad condition and have it remedied as soon as possible.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, you will have the kindness to allow me to add my very sincere congratulations to those that have already been offered to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both of these gentlemen have acquitted themselves with great credit and fully in accordance with the best traditions of this parliament. Both have delivered eloquent and patriotic speeches which were duly appreciated by hon. members and which proved the sagacity of those who selected them for the discharge of this important task. Other speeches, all very interesting, followed. Hon. members will forgive me if I do not refer to every one of them; I shall limit myself to a very short reference to the speech made by the right hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), and the one made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). These two gentlemen occupy the highest places in Canadian public life, and what they say is always listened to with the greatest possible attention.
It was evident that the right hon. the leader of the opposition was not pleased with the speech from the throne. He found fault with it from beginning to end, with one sole exception, if I am not mistaken, and that exception was the reference to the coronation of their majesties. If this important event had not been referred to, the leader of the opposition apparently would have been willing to drop overboard the whole speech, lock, stock and barrel. Upon any stranger totally unacquainted with Canadian politics who might have been within hearing distance of the right hon. -gentleman the effect of such a clever attack would have been stupendous-that is, until that same stranger heard the reply of our revered leader, the Prime Minister. The leader of the opposition conjured up such a heavy smoke screen that the speech from the throne had become almost invisible behind it, but the Prime Minister in his eloquent reply completely disposed of
this smoke screen and rapidly chased it out of sight. This is most remarkable because the Prime Minister's reply apparently was based solely on notes which he took during the attack, while his worthy opponent must have had plenty of time to prepare his well planned assault.
An interesting revelation was made to this house by the right hon. gentleman who with such talent leads the opposition. Please see page 40 of Hansard and read what the right hon. gentleman has to say about the trade agreement with the United States. It is evident that -the government over which he presided-I am not quite sure that this is correct, but we will say, the government over which he presided-did discuss a trade agreement with the United States. And why should he not have discussed a trade agreement with our neighbours? It is not we of the Liberal party who will find fault with such a move. We have always favoured closer commercial relations with our southern neighbours of the great American republic. If the Tory party saw fit in the interests of Canada to borrow that plank of the Liberal party, well and good. But I could not help thinking, and surely other hon. members, and Canadians throughout the dominion, cannot help thinking that the Conservative party or its very able leader must have undergone a change of heart, because in the ears of those of my generation who cast their first vote at the general election of 1911 there still rings the battle cry of the Tory party in that election, a battle cry that rang throughout Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific-"No truck or trade with the Yankees!" I am glad to learn of that change of heart. Canada is on the American continent, c'est un pays d'Amerique, and we should have pleasant business relations with our neighbours to the south. Apparently the Conservative party shares our view of that part of the Liberal policy, and of course that makes it unanimous.
There is no doubt about the improvement in conditions generally. There is equally no doubt that we have not yet reached the goal which we are seeking, but we believe the Liberal party has the policy best suited to attain that result. Better trade relations with the rest of the world will permit us to dispose profitably of the production of Canadian farms and Canadian workmen. The efforts of the present government in -that direction are already bearing fruit, and the Canadian public notes with deep satisfaction that that same government is ever on the alert, constantly seeking ways and means of further improving conditions and of improving them for all. The Liberal policy is not designed for the specific benefit of any particular class,

The Address-Mr. Mallette
but has everyone in mind. The county of Jacques Cartier which I have the honour to represent has considerable farming area, and truck gardens and market gardens are numerous. There are also several important manufacturing establishments. It is in a small way a cross-section of Canada. If I am correctly informed, two-fifths of the population are of English descent, and therefore the county is bilingual. We all live happily together without friction concerning language or religion. Notwithstanding any political differences, my best efforts are directed to maintaining and improving this harmonious state of things.
We are glad to get a fair share of the benefits accruing to Canada, thanks to the wise administration of the present government. But, sir, material progress is not everything; it is not the sole thing to aim at. It is also necessary that peace and harmony reign in the country. It is indispensable that the different sections of Canada respect and esteem one another. It is essential that the rights of everyone be respected. In a word, all citizens of Canada should be good Canadians. That applies in public life as well as in private life. The ancestors of those of us who live in lower Canada entered confederation as partners, with all that word implies both as to obligations and privileges. No province in this confederation should be treated by the others as a poor relation; that would result in the destruction of our present national structure, and the beautiful dream of our forefathers of creating a great nation by the union of all the British territories lying north of the United States would be shattered forever. I repeat, our ancestors joined confederation as partners. And their descendants are willing, nay eager, to continue on that basis; only on such a basis of equity, justice and British fair play can confederation continue. Persons in positions of authority in either the national or provincial capitals who walk about with chips on their shoulders are not serving the cause of national unity. In politics one should be ready and willing to put water in his wine when occasion calls for it. Only in heeding and practising the words of the Master, "Peace on earth to men of good will," can Canada become a great nation.
Confederation became an accomplished fact through the acceptance of an act called the British North America Act. This act has been operative since July 1, 1867. It has been amended from time to time, chiefly I believe on account of territorial changes. At the present day there is a demand that it be

amended again, this time to give the dominion government the right to pass social legislation. It is quite possible that after seventy years the act may be in need of revision, although the average Canadian citizen must wonder as to the necessity for such revision. Be that as it may, the call for amendment has been strong enough to cause the federal government to resolve to investigate conditions. The government therefore appointed the Rowell commission, which is now at work touring the dominion to hear all and sundry who desire to offer suggestions, cures and panaceas for the correction of our economic and legislative ills, real and imaginary. Probably there will be another opportunity to speak on this subject later, so today I content myself with saying that the British North America Act should not be amended without the consent of all the participants to its creation; I mean all the provinces. No one in this parliament, I am sure, wants to impose anything upon the provinces; no one wants to violate provincial rights; no political party to my knowledge has any such plank in its platform. On the contrary, all hon. members of this house are very respectful of such rights. But after seventy years it is within the realm of possibility that improvements are desirable in that act-I prefer the word "improvements" to the word "amendments." Those who want unemployment insurance are citizens of their respective provinces, as well as of the dominion. No one can be a Canadian without being at the same time a citizen of one of the provinces. As a Canadian an individual is perhaps enabled to take a broader view of things in general than he would get from a purely provincial point of view, just as the man who has seldom left the locality in which he was bom gets a broader conception of things when he travels and visits other communities.
It is, I hope, unnecessary for me to state that I use the word "provincial" in no disparaging sense whatsoever. A lot of trouble would be avoided if we knew one another better within the boundaries of our well beloved country. And as it is generally Quebec that is considered different I think that occasion should be taken by those of our fellow citizens who live in other provinces to visit Quebec and get better acquainted; and the reverse should also take place, that those who live in Quebec should arrange to visit other parts of the country. Some universities in the great province of Ontario have already made a good move in that direction, by holding summer schools at different points in Quebec. This idea of citizens visiting different parts

The Address-Mr. Mallette
of their country is not a new one. Years ago I saw that Signor Mussolini had arranged to give free wedding trips to Rome to newly married couples. However, I am not suggesting that we should go that far yet.
The leader of the opposition spoke the other day of political corruption. I sincerely hope his party is with him in his opposition to political corruption, because again that would make it unanimous, because we have always been against corruption from the start. I hope the right hon. gentleman will transmit that conviction to his party managers in the county I have the honour to represent-they are badly in need of it.
May I state that there are different forms of corruption. One form is gerrymandering, and that has been practised by hon. gentlemen on my left with an art deserving of a better cause. They are past masters at it.


Mr. SPENCE:: That is old; we have had that before.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: Well, it has to be repeated so as to sink in, and I hope it will sink into the mind of the hon. member. If the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) is willing to correct it, I hope he will get the ear of his revered leader and ask him to support me in my efforts to change the boundaries of the county of Jacques Cartier to more nearly where they ought to be and would be if common sense had been the guide when the redistribution was made in 1931. My hon. friends are experts at that game. I know it is not new; the hon. member is very kind in reminding me of that. I remember reading about it years ago in the Remin-iseenses of Sir Richard Cartwright, who was no young chicken, and he said that in those days they did not call it gerrymandering, but "hiving the Grits." As far as Quebec is concerned, they are not hiving the Grits but hiving the Tories. But in hiving the Tories injustice is sometimes done. I have no objection to Quebec having some Tory members; it is a good thing, but I hope that in future redistributions common sense will prevail, as I am sorry to say it did not prevail in the last redistribution. If the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition wants to know about the corrupt practices of his organizers I have a suggestion to make to him. It is simply this, that one of these evenings when the house is not in session he call together in his office or in his rooms at the Chateau- or over in Hull-a caucus of Liberal members. Every one of us will be able to give him some very illuminating stories of the way some of the Tory organizers go about 51952-8
it. I dare say the right hon. gentleman is not acquainted with such things personally, because usually it is good practice for those leading political parties not to have such knowledge, but when the word "corruption" is brought up we have to get down to the bottom of the matter, and I hope, my suggestion will be followed.
In Quebec the clergy have been making a splendid fight against electoral corruption, but in my opinion corruption should be dealt with at other times as well as during elections. I think a start should be made in our churches, universities and schools. Of course it would take a generation or more to educate the people, but it would be well worth while, because after all such things as dishing out whisky to right and left at election time, so that in the end nobody gains anything, should be stopped, and the sooner that is done the better for the respectability of elections and the respectability of politics in Canada. I am quite willing to do my share, as far as that goes.
If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, some hon. member has raised an objection to the construction of a subway under the Lachine canal, which was very much discussed in the by-election in St. Henry on January 17, which resulted in another remarkable victory for the government now in office. It is easy to understand why that subway played such a prominent part in that by-election. The division of St. Henry is in the southwestern section of Montreal. It is cut almost in half by the Lachine canal. It is not the fault of the people who live south of the canal that the canal was constructed; it was the fault of the Lachine rapids and the canal was built because it is impossible for ships to pass through the rapids westward. The people living south of that canal have a great deal of trouble at times to cross over. They have a bridge at Cote St, Paul, a bridge about a mile away at Yille St. Pierre and a bridge about a half or three-quarters of a mile below at Atwater avenue, so it is only natural that the people in that section want a subway to be constructed under that canal. The canal is a federal undertaking, built, I presume, by the federal government or by its predecessor before confederation, and the people living in that district are simply the victims. It seems to me that we might better have spent our money in building that subway instead of giving it out in doles. This is a chance to correct that mistake. I mentioned that matter myself during the by-election, and I sincerely hope that work will be undertaken. This is no new suggestion. The former



The Address-Mr. Mallette
member for that constituency, Mr. Mercier, worked very hard in that connection also.
Reference has been made as well to the Canadian National terminal in Montreal. Well, that terminal was part of a scheme for the improvement of railway conditions in Montreal, begun by Sir Henry Thornton, involving a good many changes in the location of the tracks and the erection of a station worthy of the metropolis of Canada. Immediately after the election in 1930 work was stopped, we were informed under instructions from Ottawa. I hope the gentlemen who know all the facts in this connection some day will come out in the open and explain exactly what happened and why it happened. If that is done the political fortunes of some people in Montreal will suffer a good deal, but truth will be served. So I hope that some day either in this house or outside of it-it does not matter so long as we are told-we may hear exactly what happened at that time.
My views in connection with that station are simply these: Bonaventure station in Montreal is a sight. You know, the word "sight" may have two or three meanings, and in this case you may take the worst. The Canadian National, in addition to showing a deficit, is of some use to this country, and it should have a decent terminal in Montreal. I believe this matter should be looked at from the point of view of the interests of Canada rather than the selfish interests of Montreal or my constituency. There should be a station at Montreal adequate to take care of the needs of the travelling public. In December, 1936, just before the municipal elections in Montreal, a strong delegation from that city came to Ottawa and interviewed the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), if I am not mistaken. I was present, together with nearly all the members from the district of Montreal. I gave my views then, but I do not mind giving them again. I believe that station should be built, and moreover I believe it should be built for the Canadian people, not merely for the Canadian National Railways. I may shock some people both here and outside the august precincts of this house, but I believe the Canadian Pacific should have access to that terminal also. The Canadian Pacific is a very large contributor to the upbuilding of this country, and it should be so arranged that a traveller coming to Montreal by way of the Canadian Pacific and wishing to transfer to the Canadian National should be able to do so at the one station.

I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that the terminal should be within easy reach of the harbour and the aviation field. I am sorry that the Montreal airport is so far from the centre of the city. I know it was built by a Liberal administration, but I do not know why it was placed so far away when there are many suitable locations much closer at hand and much more convenient to the travelling public. I was of the opinion that the terminal should be made available also to the automobile bus lines that make Montreal their headquarters, but unfortunately that is impossible now because the Colonial Coach Lines and the Provincial Transport at last are erecting their own terminal opposite the Windsor hotel. We should not let any more opportunities of this kind escape us. Let us go ahead with this work, which is not antagonistic to anybody but is simply in the interests of Canada as a whole. In my humble opinion it is far better to give work to the people of Montreal than to give them the dole.
Yesterday the hon. gentleman who represents Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) presented his views in regard to a famous law in the province of Quebec known as the padlock law. I hold no brief for the government of Quebec; I do not believe they would trust me with a brief anyway, but I will say that it is quite possible that this law is capable of being amended, since it was passed in a hurry and may not be drafted quite properly. At the same time it represents, in a raw way, the point of view of the population of Quebec. Our people do not want communism. They will not have communism. They will fight communism. We believe in democracy; we are satisfied with Liberalism and Conservatism. There are some people who are talking about reorganizing the province along corporative lines, but most of us do not know much about that doctrine, and we are not scared. The matter is being studied by people who know what they are talking about, and when the time comes they will let us know the result of their studies.
The question of repealing the padlock law should be left to the people of Quebec; this government should not exercise its power of disallowance. If a demand comes from a strong section of the people of Quebec then the matter might be considered. However, one of these days the people of Quebec will have an opportunity to say at the polls whether or not they are satisfied with the government that passed that law, and it will be time enough to deal with the matter then. That is my point of view in that connection.

The Address-Mr. Mallette
In connection with our views on communism I want to quote from Le Devoir of November 2, 1937. This is an extract from an address given by His Eminence the Cardinal Archbishop of Quebec, speaking at the coliseum in Quebec city. The extract is as follows:
(Translation)
Freedom of speech
Under the mask of freedom of speech we are asked to listen to the most perverse doctors: Sophism and Hypocrisy. Freedom of speech, yes, but not freedom to outrage our social conceptions to insult our traditions, our principles and our religion.
Freedom of speech? Yes. indeed, but as it is practised among honourable people and not among imbeciles or brigands.
Freedom of speech! Are you in favour of freedom of the air? But do you extend that freedom to foreign appliances of war or strategical observation? Do you permit the plague-stricken, the germ-carriers to pollute, under pretext of equality, the pure air that surrounds us? Liberty, quite, but does liberty mean folly, connivance, unbridled licence?
We know very well that in a country like Canada, with such a sparse population, there are many things still to be accomplished. One of them is the abolition of slums in the large cities. The problem may not be a federal one, but sooner or later it may have to be linked up somehow with the Dominion Housing Act. By way of loans the dominion government helps to build houses; it also helps to repair them. Some day it may be called upon to help in some way towards the elimination of slums, and their replacement by decent buildings. In a country such as ours, one of such stupendous size, one in which there is so much unoccupied land, I believe every family should own its own home, and that our legislation should tend in that direction. A better distribution of wealth would do away with communism, and most of the other evils.
The employment commission has finished its work. May I say at this time that in my opinion it did good work, and it is to be hoped that some other agency will continue the good work which has been begun. I am pleased to be in a position to pay my tribute publicly to the men and women connected with the employment commission. In the constituency I have the honour to represent two of the schools for youth have been opened, one at Ste. Genevieve and the other at Macdonald college. We realize that this is just a trial but it is our sincere hope that great good will be the result. Those schools are operated under the Rogers-Bilodeau arrangement, and we hope that they will prove of the greatest possible benefit.
It is remarkable that the establishment of those schools coincides with the recommendations made by the Jeunesse Ouvriere Catholique, all of which can be read in a book entitled Un Moteur et des Ailes, which was written by M. Emile Benoist, at one time a member of the press gallery.
We have been subjected to propaganda from many sources in favour of immigration. I am thankful that in the speech from the throne there is no reference to any immigration program. It seems to me that the time is not yet ripe for it.
The last year and the present year mark the centenary of an important historical event in Canada, namely the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada. There may be some difference of opinion as to whether or not the men who took up arms should have done so. I for one am convinced that if they were alive today they could have settled a similar dispute without resort to arms. Unfortunately they chose to do otherwise. However, whether or not we share the opinions they held as to the advisability or otherwise of resorting to arms, I think there can be only one stand we can take with respect to men who have been willing to die for their political opinions. Some died and some were hanged. That is the way political offenders were punished in those days.
About this time of the year one hundred years ago my own grandfather was in gaol as a rebel. He was a rebel because he believed in representative institutions for this country. Like many others, he was fighting to obtain what we now enjoy and what we are now trying to retain. The fact that that old gentleman was put in gaol as a rebel because he held those views is something of which I am very proud. I am sorry it has been left to me to be the first to mention the matter in parliament; in my opinion it should have come from higher quarters. But I do not want the descendants of those men who lived in Upper and Lower Canada to think that the heroes of 1837 and 1838 are the forgotten men of 1937 and 1938.
Now, a word as to armaments. The results in by-elections since the session of 1937 have been interpreted, in many quarters, as an unqualified endorsation of the program of this government with respect to national defence. Undoubtedly the electorate has expressed its confidence in the King administration. But please do not think that expenditures for armaments are, of themselves, the first and foremost cause of the popularity of the government. Do not jump to that conclusion. Undoubtedly the people of Canada will con-

The Address-Mr. Mallette
sent to sacrifices required for the defence of their national soil. The guarantees given by the Prime Minister and his colleagues during the last session, and given again by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in Lot-biniere and by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) in St. Henry that these expenditures are to be made solely for Canadian defence, have been accepted, because our citizens do not wish to be at the mercy of a coup de main by international hoodlums. But they have been accepted solely on the ground that they are expenditures for the protection of Canadian interests in Canada. Let us make that very clear. There is no desire, as I said before, to join any expedition to acquire oil wells or minerals which may be found elsewhere, in territories which are not British Let us understand that.
Before taking my seat I wish to speak with respect to the budget. The people of Canada are hoping for a balanced national budget. While I am not attempting to give advice to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who I see smiling in his seat, I shall take this opportunity to place upon Hansard a quotation from one of the works of one of the best known authors. I do so because I believe the quotation, at least to a certain extent, deals with budgets. In the session of 1936 we were given quotations from Carlyle almost every day. In that session Carlyle was certainly the popular author; he was quoted right and left, every day. There were no such quotations in 1937. I shall not quote Carlyle, because I believe the quoting of Carlyle in this chamber should be left entirely to the intelligentsia who ornament the front seats on both sides of this house.
I shall quote from another author whose works are well known not only where English is spoken, but where it is read. We know there are many people who can read a language but who cannot speak it. In plain language this author has been a man of the masses, a man of the people. Had he been in Canada, undoubtedly he would have been a Liberal. The house will understand, of course, that I refer to the well beloved Charles Dickens, and I read a quotation from David Copperfield for the consideration of the house and the special consideration of the Minister of Finance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Waiting for something to turn up?


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: The quotation is this:
My other piece of advice, Copperfield, said Mr. Micawber, you know:	Annual income
twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the God of day goes down upon the dreary scene and-and in short you are forever floored.
I shall vote against the amendment.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my neighbour, the hon. member who sits beside me (Mr. Mallette) upon his remarks and reiterate what he said with regard to the lighting in this part of the chamber. I thank him for the kind remarks he has made about the fifth row. I have no doubt that he was referring to this part of the chamber when he made mention of the intelligentsia. I should like also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion for and address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the manner in which they have conducted themselves. They have shown themselves worthy of the honour conferred upon them.
It has been gratifying to note that a further recovery has taken place during the past year in the trade of Canada. However, this increased trade does not seem to have brought about an appreciable improvement in the standard of living of our people. Improved conditions were noticeable up to October of last year, but they did not continue for the last three months of the year. Evidently we are following in the footsteps of the United States. If that country cannot stop itself going into a business tailspin, I hope we in Canada will be able to do so.
There is no doubt that the depression in the United States caused the dumping of a great deal of surplus stock into Canada at Christmas time. There has been an increase of SI 12,000 in the imports into Toronto alone for the month of January this year. Increased imports have affected our domestic production by way of diminished sales. The speech from the throne states that there will be an extension and revision of the trade agreement with the United States. I think any further concessions that it is contemplated we should give, should be very carefully considered by the government, in view of the fact that the unemployment situation in the United States is much worse than it is in Canada, they having some 10,000,000 workers unemployed at the present time. We must also remember that the average rate of duty on all imports into Canada in 1937 was only 13-7

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
per cent. The average rate of duty on imports into the United States was 60 per cent. Even with the full reduction of 50 per cent which they are permitted to make, the average rate of duty would still be 30 per cent or 16 per cent higher than ours.
The population of my riding of St. Paul's is made up to a large extent of the finest type of industrial worker. They are dependent upon industry for their livelihood. At the present time considerable apprehension exists as to what action will be taken in respect to the lowering of our tariffs. This feeling of insecurity and uncertainty has had an adverse effect on business generally. If the government contemplates lowering tariffs it seems to me that it is only fair that the men in charge of our industries and the workers should be so advised and consulted. If not, they should have such knowledge. The heads of industries with extensive capital investment and payrolls of millions of dollars find themselves without knowledge of the negotiations with which to prepare a case for their industry against further tariff concessions to any outside country.	*
One class of industry in which some of my constituents are employed has a payroll of $25,000,000. A manufacturer of this class on which so many of my constituents depend for a livelihood has a well managed concern and pays highest wages. A reduction in the tariff might jeopardize this industry and the livelihood of many of my constituents. If there was a cessation or reduction in wages the wives and families of these workers would be seriously affected. This industry purchased 82,000,000 worth of raw materials from Australia and $3,000,000 worth from New Zealand. These purchases constituted 24 per cent of Canada's purchases from Australia and 58 per cent of the purchases from New Zealand. In addition this industry purchased manufactured products from other industries in Canada to the extent of many millions of dollars. Surely the heads of such an industry should have some intimation as to what is to be done with respect to tariffs. Profits have been too small to absorb the additional costs, due to a decreased output which would follow a tariff reduction.
The desire of labour is security based on a steady annual wage and continuous employment. A basis of factory production calculated to eliminate unsteady employment must of necessity be founded upon confidence in tariffs remaining established for a reasonable length of time. There are other classes of industries throughout the country, upon the continuous operation of which the industrial workers
depend for their living, they and their wives and families. It is only through continuous employment that a higher standard of living can be obtained-and it must be obtained. There should be more cooperation between governments and industry and business in general. This is absolutely necessary at least for the sake of the workers.
No mention has been made in the speech from the throne of any social legislation other than that with regard to unemployment insurance. When we consider the consequences, both economic and humanitarian, with respect to slums and the lack of low cost housing, as borne out by facts, and the experience of countries of the older lands in this respect,, we can understand it only as the laissez-faire-policy of the government. What is to become of those unfortunates who through n<3 fault of their own cannot earn enough with which to pay the rent of a decent home?
What about social legislation? The great social service of preventive medicine is functioning to try to keep them healthy and has kept thousands living, but no effort is indicated on the part of the government to help them, now that they are living, to make themselves happy and good citizens.
Something must be done. It is no wonder that we have communism and -many other "isms" in this country. The stability of a country arises out of the home. Our people must be made home-minded so that their children may be given the opportunity of becoming good Canadian citizens. I intend to say a word or two on this matter later on. I intend to do all I can to eliminate the conditions which one sees to-day.
On November 15, 1937, an order in council was passed making the outport of West Toronto a port. This order was to become effective on January 1, 1938. Up to the time of the passing of this order in council no public body or organization in the city of Toronto, so far as I know, had been consulted. Perhaps the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) thought that this radical change was of so little importance to the city of Toronto as to be not worth bothering much about.
I do not wish to decry the immediate estimated saving of some ten or twenty thousand dollars by the elimination of duplicate reporting or the like, for I think that is meritorious. But in passing I would ask, will there be a saving, when one considers the perquisites of a growing baby? And how, babies growl Are two head offices cheaper to maintain than a head office and a branch? I do not see how that is possible. I do not wish to discuss now the merits or demerits of
118	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
the case, but a principle is involved. The board of trade of Toronto had knowledge of the order in council some time after November 15, and they wrote the minister on December 3, setting out their case. The minister's reply was dated December 8.
The board again wrote on December 23, setting forth further arguments and requesting that until certain information in reply to questions asked of the minister had been made known to the public, the matter be left in abeyance. I shall take the opportunity at some future date of reading these questions. The minister replied on December 30. refusing that request. The board of control also wired the minister on December 29, making a similar request.
There are organizations of public-spirited citizens in Toronto, such as the mayor and board of control, the board of trade, and the Toronto industrial commission, who are only too glad to give the benefit of their counsel when asked. There are also members of parliament representing the city of Toronto.
The request made by the city council and the board of trade was, I think, a reasonable one, and it should not have been cast aside as of no value. I think they have a better opportunity to appreciate the effect of such a change as this. That is their job. I think that a city of the size and importance of Toronto has a right to more consideration, cooperation and confidence in a matter of such import.
Now a word about broadcasting. Is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation making itself an agency for encouraging the very thing which it was created to discourage, that is, the extension of radio advertising, and particularly of advertising which does not originate in Canada? To encourage such advertising has an adverse effect upon Canadian enterprise through making the corporation's facilities available to American advertisers at rates which a commercial enterprise could not begin to consider. If this is so, it seems to be a serious misuse of public revenues and credit.
Does not the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation take an entirely unjustified advantage of the daily press by promoting Sunday advertising? If a newspaper published a special Sunday edition, it would be promptly prosecuted. I understand that by the radio corporation's activities some $200,000 worth of newspaper and periodical advertising has been seriously affected. Has it been considered what effect this will have on labour, on employment?
Occasional features which have been introduced by the broadcasting corporation are satisfactory; but where does the $1,500,000

revenue from licence fees go? And where will the extra 3750,000 go?-and it may be 31,500,000 extra, when one takes into account the taxing of duplicate sets.
The reception is no better for the vast majority of listeners, and the programs are no better than they were.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that the money obtained in licence fees should go for the improvement of Canadian programs and Canadian information, and if necessary Canadian advertising, and to help develop Canadian talent-that is, if the licence fee is to be collected at all.
Our democracy has not failed, but it is not functioning properly. Corruption must be eliminated, or democracy will fail. I cannot let this opportunity pass without drawing attention to the danger. The democratic countries of the world to-day are the only countries in which freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and personal liberty remain.
We in Canada have the privilege of living in a democracy, but if we are to continue to enjoy -that privilege the people of this country must realize the obligations they have in return for that privilege.
The man who comes in smiling like a Cheshire cat on election day, after voting, and says, "Well, I have done my duty," has only exercised his privilege; but has he realized the obligation he has for the privileges he enjoys under our democracy? We are supposed to have government of the people, for the people, by the people.
One of the troubles to-day is the apathy of the public with respect to current politics in this country. People say: I don't take part in politics because it is such a dirty game. If this be true, who let it get that way? Apathy on the part of the public-no realization of their obligations. We have a great many problems which are more or less taken for granted by the public and are very little understood, but which we are told are to be solved by governments.
The public must take an active interest in politics, without remuneration, not for the sake of patronage, -but in defence of democratic principles, as a part of their obligations, if democracy is to survive.
What are governments for? Lord Baldwin has said that the consensus of opinion is that governments are for the attainment by the people of the highest degree of wellbeing and virtue.
How many people realize that for every dollar they spend in Canada they get less than sixty cents value, the balance being taken in taxes in some form or other? When

The Address-Mr. Pelletier
governments pay, it all comes out of the pockets of the people, either in taxes or in reduced wages. Why is it that people who are generally thrifty in the management of their own domestic affairs, when it comes to public matters seem to think that governments are Christmas trees for money to be picked from?
Governments are always influenced by votes, and votes come from people with varying degrees of intelligence. Some say that the franchise is too wide. Be that as it may, it is a fact, not a theory, and we cannot alter it. It is therefore necessary for those with a certain degree of intelligence to inform and influence those who are not so intelligent, and in turn to be influenced by those with greater intelligence. Votes should not be influenced in any way except by reason, if democracy is to survive. It is the public's obligation to inform themselves accurately upon the various aspects of the problems coming before them; in other words, to take an intelligent interest in public life. It is the duty of members of parliament, and of the press, to inform their public accurately and truthfully. If one reads the history of the decline of the Athenian democracy, one must realize that it was brought about by just the same conditions as exist today,-patronage, apathy, and leave-it-to-George. In the words of the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, now Lord Baldiwn of Bewdley:
The Greeks talked incessantly of equalities and butchered each other for it;
We are not quite as bad as that yet.
... of freedom, and lived on the labour of slaves. Freedom of speech was stifled and public men who refused to advocate pleasures for the multitude were banished. Politicians rivalled one another in bribing the electorate. There was an unemployment problem and a policy of public works, payment to jurymen, free seats at the theatres. Those who had triumphed over tyrants in turn became despotic. Those who had been oppressed became in turn oppressors. Those who had denounced luxury and idleness in individuals succumbed to the temptations of riches when shared out by the state and by and by Plutarch records that the Athenians from being a sober and thrifty and self supporting people, turned into lovers of expense, intemperance and license.
The attitude in this country taken by some institutions and businesses in frowning on the activities of their employees in politics for fear of the effect it might have with respect to themselves on the party in power, the unconscious coercion they feel, is to say the least bad for democracy; it is not democracy functioning. Our democracy is worth fighting for. The peace of the world is not attacked by democracy. Another of the difficulties
encountered in attempting a solution of our problems is the lack of confidence and the suspicion existing between institutions, labour, industry and departments of government. I am sure that a closer cooperation and frankness is necessary for a better feeling of security throughout the country. I plead that every effort be put forth to preserve our democracy and make Canada the best place in the world in which to live. A real effort is necessary and a lot of hard work and effort by us all.
I support the amendment.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It was not my intention to participate in this debate, but having listened to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) I felt I could not remain silent, in .the face of the charges he has brought into this house. The words of the hon. gentleman indicate that there has come into his possession evidence of irregularities and corruption in the matter of government contracts. He contended that certain amounts of money were being levied on contractors. He said that he could produce evidence in so far as Canadian National Railway contracts were concerned. Apparently many people in this country are being compelled by means of such levies to contribute to funds for political purposes, resulting in corrupt practices.
Today I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I regret to say that I cannot believe the answer is satisfactory to members of this house. It seems to me that there are other ways and means of getting at the truth of this matter than those enumerated by the leader of the government, and I suggest to him that a committee of this house should be instructed to investigate the matter. It is not necessary to appoint a new committee. Under the rules of the house we have a standing committee on privileges and elections, and a reference by the government to that committee would compel the leader of the opposition to make good the charges he has made in this house. In my belief it is absolutely necessary that we should do that. If the matter is allowed to remain in its present position a stigma will be left on this house, a stigma that should be removed, and I feel sure that all hon. members will join me in demanding that a proper investigation of these charges be made.
So far as we in the province of Alberta are concerned, our people pay for our election; they elect us themselves, and we are responsible to them. We were under the impression that the old ward politicians' tactics of the past had more or less disappeared. It seems to
The Address-Mr. Pelletier

me we have no other course than to see that these charges are thoroughly investigated. We do not believe for one moment that any leader of a political party in this country would knowingly permit such a thing to go on; rather it is done by supporters of political parties without the knowledge of the leaders of those parties, and undoubtedly it will be the desire of the leaders concerned to have this matter threshed out. I noticed that when, the other day, the charges were made by the leader of the opposition, hon. members, and particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) were quick to resent the accusations. It was said that Canadian National Railway contracts had been tampered with. The Minister of Transport would certainly be the first to wish to know whether such things have been going on. I do not believe any cabinet minister, past or present, would knowingly permit such practices; therefore the matter should certainly be looked into.
I might add that our young people can have no faith in our institutions if matters of this kind are to be hushed up and passed over. It is our duty to act in such a way as to build up their faith in our institutions. Is it possible to do so if, knowing that a member of this house is in possession of documents which prove political or electoral corruption, we allow those documents to remain unseen and unknown? It is quite true that it is possible for an individual to put up a deposit of a thousand dollars or some such sum in order to have charges of corruption brought before the proper authority. It seems to me that, of all people in this country, the man who made the charges is best able to produce the thousand dollars. But whether that is so or not, there is no reason why the thing should be done in that manner. The house possesses the necessary facilities to investigate this matter, and in my opinion an investigation should be made.
There will be an occasion later on, I am sure, to touch upon the various subjects mentioned in the speech from the throne. When those subjects are brought down will be the time, in my opinion, to express approval or disapproval of what the measures contemplate. My sole purpose in rising is to say that if we remain silent with respect to the charges to which I have alluded we shall be guilty of connivance in regard to the things which are said to have taken place. I do not believe it is the desire of any hon. member that such a condition should prevail.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I had not intended to take part in this debate, and I am simply filling in on behalf of the 
opposition. I wish to say a few words, as representing the man on the street, to the man in the cabinet. I looked over the speech from the throne and I am very much disappointed that nothing more satisfactory has been presented to parliament, at a time when we have so many roving commissions, travelling like minstrel shows all over Canada. Provided they could sing a bit and blacken their faces they would be more successful as minstrels than they are as political commissions, which get nowhere and are appointed for no other reason than to postpone action by the government of the day on questions with which they will not deal.
I realize that it is the function and duty of the opposition often to criticize the government of the day. We as an opposition are disappointed. I realize that the cabinet consists of some very able men, and that we have a government of Canadians. But realizing this I regret to say that in the speech from the throne the man on the street, the large number of people on relief, and the municipalities that are finding the burden of taxation on real estate becoming intolerable, are very much disappointed that something of a practical nature has not been done. In this country with its vast resources, if we solved the problem of distribution, there should be no one starving. But there is not a word in the speech from the throne about this great problem of distribution. In fact I am surprised that the speech from the throne was not delivered in the debating society of the university of Toronto or the mock parliament at McGill.
In passing I wish to congratulate the Commonwealth of Australia on its 150th anniversary. I should like to see a delegation from Canada visit our sister dominion on this occasion. They have decided that Australia for all time shall be a white man's country. They do not believe in separatism. They realize that an armed Britain is the greatest defence of the peace of the world, that Britain stands as trustee for the peace of the civilized world.
Lord Milner once said that money-bags are proverbially short-sighted. Our moneybags were short-sighted when they called for the appointment of the Rowell commission. I have a high regard for Chief Justice Rowell. I believe if he were a one-man commission the results would be better. But I do not believe in these commissions at all. It seems that this government believes that a commission a day keeps the unemployed away; that appears to be the principle on which all these

The Address-Mr. Church
roving commissions are appointed. The members of this parliament might as well all go home; owing to these commissions we have no powers, we cannot force anything to a vote. Our powers are taken away and handed over to the house of Rowell and Dafoe, of whom the latter, from what I have known of him as a free trader and his stand on the grain trade and other matters has been one of the chief foes, on some questions of the prairie provinces. Last session and the session before I brought to the attention of the house my submission that constitutional and parliamentary and law reform was one of the most important matters before parliament. The government said they were going to appoint a commission. 1 wish to take issue with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in regard to his statement that the chairman of that commission is a judicial officer. That point was raised in the Gamey-Stratton case. Sitting in the city halLjn Toronto were Chancellor Boyd and Chief Justice Falconbridge, and it was decided that as members of that commission those gentlemen were no longer judges, they were not entitled to the title given them in the law courts, they were just commissioners, and were called Mr. Chairman or Mr. Commissioner.
There are too many of these judges leaving the bench. Hon. members will remember the customs scandal some years ago when three judges, Mr. Justice Roy of Quebec, Mr. Justice Brown of Regina and Mr. Justice Wright of Toronto went up and down this country for a year and nine months, leaving their judicial duties. The work of the courts in Ontario is becoming congested today; several judges have died and others are out on these roving commissions.
The time has come when parliament should regain its powers. I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in what he said about this matter, that the government of the day, with so many Liberal governments in power in the provinces, should have settled these matters sitting around a table with them. I do not agree with what has been said in .praise of the work of the fathers of confederation in the British North America Act, far from it. I believe they were the most short-sighted body of .men that ever got together in a room at any time anywhere. Look at the resulting provincial situation. There never should have been any provincial legislatures. I wish to speak of the fathers of confederation with respect, but when we see the way they launched these provincial legislatures on the country it is difficult to admire them. They do not have all these
governments in Great Britain. The result of having them here is that we have overtaxation and overgovernment. We have 10,000,000 people; Great Britain has 47,000,000, but they get along with one government there. They did not have state legislatures in Australia until recently. The confederation act should be recast. That is what I understood this Rowell commission was appointed for, but now we find that it is a roving omnibus commission on everything. I noticed the members of the commission around Ottawa for some time and now I read that they have gone east. But wise men come from the east. The star of this commission is in its decline. The municipalities have simply been humbugged in submitting briefs to it. The commission had the former German chancellor here to advise them, probably Gandhi will be the next witness called by them.
Royal commissions are a favourite resort of the present federal government for postponing action when action is imperatively required. Take the burden of taxation on real estate; are we to wait three or four years before getting relief from that? There is the prison commission, the textile commission. the commission about automobiles, the tariff commission; it seems to go around in a circle, but no relief comes to the unemployed. Now it is proposed we should have a new flag. Let us get rid of the black flag first. The unemployed and the farmers on relief do not want reports of a commission when they see the black flag flying in front of their houses and are put out on the street; they have the facts. So have the returned men who fought for men in and out of this house. This commission will achieve nothing. I had a big pile of books that I threw away the other day, reports of various commissions made since I have been a member of the house. They will achieve nothing-that is why they are appointed- except a boost from the corporation press. They are only advisory in any event, and as soon as the advice is given it will be discarded and the report pigeonholed. The Prime Minister said they were appointed to get the facts, but they will find out nothing that the country does not know already. They may well be described as a minstrel troupe. Some of the briefs that have been handed in are made up from pamphlets and booklets and government reports as old as this country. They are a commission in a Pickwickian sense-with apologies to Pickwick.
In all common sense, if we view the situation, everything depends upon the instructions which have been given by the government of the day. The personnel of these
The Address-Mr. Church

commissions has been chosen for political purposes and political expediency; the interests of the people are being overlooked, just at a time when action is needed on many important matters. For instance, to-morrow a deputation of mayors is coming to Ottawa to interview the government.
Ten years ago the leader of the Progressive party and I proposed that one-third of the cost of relief should be borne by the dominion, one-third by the province and one-third by the municipality. That system was tried out and found to be practical. I think we were right then; I still think so. As my leader has said, if the Liberal premiers had sat around a table for stocktaking they would have obtained far better results. Sickness and unemployment insurance was part of the Liberal platform of 1921. If there had been a round table conference that question could have been dealt with satisfactorily, instead of having these commissions act according to the expediency of the moment.
In England today, Mr. Speaker, they have a radical government, although it is called Conservative. They have had a survey made and they are going to nationalize the coal mines. Not very long ago we appointed the Tory commission to investigate our coal question. The chairman, I always thought, was Tory in name only, and I was sure of that when I read his report, which deals with everything except the spread in price from S5.25 a ton in 1905 to $14.50 last year. The report says nothing about a national coal supply. With the cold weather we have in Canada and the way our resources are being squandered the next generation is going to face a scarcity of coal. Conservation is one of the most important things in this country. I should like to see not a report issued by a royal commission but a survey made by the government towards the end of nationalizing the coal mines of this country. It is only during the last seventy-five years that science has discovered the power inherent in coal, oil and falling water. We have nationalized the falling water, from which we obtain light, power and transportation. This country is the richest in the world in power, possessing 42,000,000 horse-power, of which only one-sixth or 7,000,000 horse-power have been developed. The water supply in our municipalities has been nationalized, but that is as far as we have gone. When I first came into the house I suggested that our oil should be nationalized so that a pipe line might bring Alberta oil to the people of the country. The nationalization of the coal mines in [Mr. Church.)
England, which is expected to be consummated by the summer of 1942, will cost the mother country $332,250,000. The commission we appointed, with all its experts, did nothing.
Back in 1922 and 1923, when I proposed a national coal policy for this country so that the fuel consumed in Canada would be mined under the British flag, whether in Wales or Alberta or the maritime provinces, I was laughed at. I proposed a system of bonuses, subventions and subsidies. There was laughter and ridicule in the house, but at last that suggestion was adopted, and today two million tons of coal are being moved economically from the maritime provinces to the head of the lakes. We can thank the leader of the opposition for supporting that nolic3r and putting it into practical effect. Now I want to see a report made along the lines I have suggested.
I do not see the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) in the house. A few years ago I called his attention to the question of income tax. After it was discovered in Washington that Mr. Pierpont Morgan, the Van Sweringens of Cleveland, and other wealthy people paid no income tax, I asked the minister if he would not consider having an inquiry into the matter of income tax here, but he never even answered my question. Now, if you ask me, again he has been weighed in the balance and found wanting as a minister in his treatment of customs matters in Toronto. Over the protests of the mayor, the city council, the board of trade and other civic bodies, and over the heads of government supporters from Toronto, his department has gone to work and divided the port of Toronto, causing great chaos in that city. I believe it is the duty of a minister of the crown to consult local people in connection with a public utility of this kind. I am not saying anything about the ability of the minister, far from it. I have no personal quarrel with him. I believe he has a hard department to handle, but I was sorry to see him take that action without consulting the people interested.
On more than one occasion, Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a bill with regard to newspapers. I am surprised at the way this parliament is treated by the Canadian press. Turn to any of our leading newspapers and you will find four or five pages about some prize fighter; there will be great ballyhoo about professional athletes of all kinds, but you will see only about a column or so devoted to the House of Commons and the problems that concern this country. I am

The Address-Mr. Church
afraid the press of Canada are following the press of England. The only independent newspaper they had over there that would speak out for the empire was the Morning Post, and now it has lost its identity, having been sold to the Telegraph. I am free to admit, as I said in speaking to my newspaper bill, that in peace and war alike the press do fine work, but in the present condition of affairs in Canada I believe it is the duty of the press to support the government when right as far as possible and do what they can to educate the people in connection with public affairs. I think that is a duty the newspapers owe to the people of this country, in these days of stress through which we are passing.
I have referred to the question of direct relief and the high tax rate that it has brought about. To-day no one wants to own real estate. Millions of dollars of additional taxes for relief have been placed on Toronto real estate, and I do not know how the people are going to carry on. Of the Toronto tax rate four or five mills are devoted to the care of the unemployed, the ill and the suffering, although a federal burden. Speaking of the sick, parliament spends about three and a half million dollars on the health of animals, but what about human health? We have had epidemics of infantile paralysis; we have many other diseases that are widespread; yet all we spend on public health is $442,000 out of $600,000,000. The other day we read in the press about a poor woman in Nova Scotia who was very ill during childbirth. A doctor tried to reach her but, through no fault of his own, was unable to save her life. When we read such things in the newspapers, and see the very high death rate from different diseases we should realize that the time has come when, instead of having a national skeleton health department, we should have one that will be adequate to take care of this most important work. I hope parliament will take a forward step in this connection.
I hope the Department of Labour will bring forward within the very near future some plan which will provide index figures for families with incomes under $1,200, with the cost of food, rent and other expenses. The minister is continually tinkering with his relief bill, so that the municipalities do not know where they stand. I am asking for a stable policy. The people do not want relief; they want work.
There has been mention of the government's policy of defence. I hope that some day in Canada we may have a generation of Canadians who will think far enough ahead to save Canada by careful preparation rather
than by wasteful and bloody sacrifice such as we have known before. In its defence policy the present government has done everything by fits and starts, and has done nothing right. An armed Britain is the greatest security we can have for the peace of the world. We are not dependent upon the Monroe doctrine or upon a pan-American doctrine. If we were we would have cause to be sorry some day.
We must depend upon an armed Britain because we have practically no air force, no fleet and only a very small armament. In many ways Canada is in grave danger to-day. On the other hand many of the proposed expenditures are wasteful. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) is not in his seat, but speaking at the St. Henry by-election on January 12, he said, according to reports in the Quebec and Ontario press:
Our outlay for armaments is only seven per cent of our national budget, a modest expenditure. Some of our cannons are very venerable; much of our artillery is still drawn by horses. We must modernize, and that is just what we are doing.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) proposed to complete the building of the Canadian National station. Further, he agreed to take away level crossings. I do not blame him for making those promises, when speaking in a by-election contest. At the same time, speaking as the acting-Minister of Public Works to-day, he should have realized that from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Queenston and Lewiston and lake Erie to Chippawa the Niagara river is a navigable stream, and it is the duty of the government to have ice-breakers to keep it in proper condition. The ice could have been regulated, just as it is regulated on the St. Lawrence river. However, I sometimes think the minister does not want to do anything for Ontario. It is all right to spend huge sums, millions of dollars, for development in the Richelieu river canal, but when it comes to protecting power companies on the Niagara river in Ontario, which are owned by the municipalities or by the province, from this great danger, he has not a cent to offer.
In my view one of the results of the rise of dictatorships has been the silencing of pacifists the world over. If any people could be held responsible for bringing the British Empire almost to the verge of destruction, they are the ones. However for the last while we have not heard much from them. I hope some steps may now be taken to tell the country something about Canada's defence policy. What is Canada's defence policy? Does anybody know what it is? No, nobody knows. I have been trying to find out what
The Address-Mr. Church

member of the government is in charge of Canada's external affairs and foreign policy. The present government appears to object to the constitutional, traditional principle whereby all questions of Canada's foreign policy and the administration of its external affairs and of this great trust must be put before the House of Commons by the government in power. Will we have opportunity to challenge some of the actions of our government?
It is all very well to be dependent upon the United States, but may I point out that in the August, 1937, issue of the English Review there has been a criticism of that policy:
We have recently seen a great push in favour of the American trade agreement. " What is our trade with the dominions compared to what our trade with the United States might be?" is the slogan, and we are adjured in many quarters to drop the substance of preference for' the shadow of American goodwill. It is just as well for us to remember the occasions since the war when we have altered our policy in the hope of pleasing Americans of the United States. The first of these was the establishment of the league of nations as part of the Treaty of Versailles. We agreed to this at the behest of President Wilson; France only consented on condition that Great Britain and the United States of America gave her a joint guarantee of security. The ink was hardly dry upon the parchments when the United States of America refused to honour President Wilson's signature, and alike repudiated the Versailles Treaty, the guarantee of security, and the league of nations. The next great change in our policy "to please the Americans" was at Washington in 1922, when we abandoned our alliance with the Japanese, who had been our invaluable and faithful allies for nearly twenty years. The result is the loss of Japanese support and friendship, but no gain in America of either. One more notable instance of the pursuit of American goodwill and failure to attain it was seen in the Irish Treaty. We were told by the promoters of this affair that "if only we would give way in Ireland" to the gunmen who had been murdering the British "the last resentment of America against us would die away." We gave way to the gunmen. Ireland is more embittered than ever and the United States of America just as unfriendly. This new proposal comes from a set of people who will join with any project likely to damage this country. In this case the motive force is Gold. America buys gold, South Africa produces large quantities yearly, Canada and Russia are also gold producers. The power behind the movement to get us into an American treaty is the power of the gold producers, backed by the gold manipulators of the world. They want us to buy American goods in order that she may buy their gold.
That is from a leading review in England, and is written by a great man.

With respect to the Anglo-American pact may I say that, I am not one of those Conservatives who on all occasions wishes to apologize for this party's action in defeating reciprocity in 1911. Reciprocity in those days would have made a Lazarus out of every man in Canada, and of a country that Laurier had said he made a nation, just as it would have made a Lazarus out of every returned man who fought at Amiens, Vimy Ridge or any other field of Canadian glory.
I am not in favour of handing over our own market to the Americans or to any other people. I believe in the policy of Joseph Chamberlain, that great man who introduced in 1906 the policy of imperial preference. Had those policies been carried out thirty years ago we would not have had the war which broke out in 1914.
The British trade agreement was ably secured by the present leader of the opposition in 1932, which gives him the leading place in history. By bringing about the Ottawa agreements the present leader of the opposition in that year made the dream of Joseph Chamberlain come true. What did the present Prime Minister in England have to say about it at the Conservative convention there. He said that as a result of that treaty the trade from the dominions to the motherland had increased by 41 per cent, and the trade from the motherland to the dominions had increased by 46 per cent. There had been a corresponding increase in international trade. That was the result of the treaty which was made by my right hon. leader, and which was thus twice blest. Are we going to give up the advantages we gained from it over to the United States? Certainly we are not going to give it up for something that is uncertain.
The Anglo-American treaty is not commercial. Rather it is a political treaty brought forward in an effort to gain support for the government. A very fine gesture has been made by President Roosevelt. It was a gesture to try to get out of the supreme court difficulty. It is well known that he is in wrong with the cotton growers of the south and the farmers of the middle west, with respect to his new deal policy. It will be just a political treaty and will last only three years as the Republicans have announced that they will abrogate it if they are returned to power. Australia and New Zealand are looking at this proposed treaty with a great deal of doubt.

The Address-Mr. Church
When I look at the counters in the departmental stores in Toronto I can see why our home market is ruined with goods there from foreign countries. Canada is being made a dumping ground for cheap and shoddy goods from about thirty countries of the world to the loss of our steady home market. The result is that no home market exists. I stand where I stood thirty years ago on the Conservative platform, our own work for our own workmen and our own markets for our own products. That is as true today as it was then.
This Anglo-American treaty is not a commercial treaty; it is political in all its aspects. We should make every effort to see that its terms are not carried out. Are we going to make a similar mistake and enter into the same sort of haphazard treaty? Are we going to enter into a treaty which will do more harm than good? If we do we will soon see the mistake we have made on the war debt policy. Canada is a commercial country; England is a commercial country, and the British Empire is a commercial empire. Our problems are commercial and it is the duty of our statesmen to draw closer the commercial ties between the various parts of the empire. That is what our statesmen should be doing instead of giving away their markets to the United States or clamouring over the strife in Europe.
This government must decide its attitude toward industry. Is industry in this country to be fettered and bound? Industry should be run by those who understand it, not by a lot of amateurs and university professors who sit on the different commissions. I object to too much interference by the state in the conduct of business. At the same time, I believe that labour should be given a larger share of the profits and rewards of industry.
To go back to this Anglo-American treaty. The senate of the United States may take away from the president the power he possesses now to make these agreements.
I am glad the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is in the chamber as I have something I should like to draw to his attention. I am much concerned over the great loss of life in motor accidents. A committee of the House of Lords was appointed to look into this question and after it had made its report it was found that the number of accidents in Great Britain decreased considerably. The time has come when we should make an effort to stop this loss of life. A committee of this house should be appointed to inquire
into this matter. If we were to put up wooden crosses for those who have lost their lives and those who have been injured in Canada during the past five years we would not have room to place them outside the parliament buildings even though they were put only two inches apart.
The time has come when the people of this country expect results from the party system. Unless we get busy, no one knows what will happen in 1940. I have been told by some that there will be an election this year, while others have said there will not. Who will win then? That reminds me of the battle of Dundee where some said, "we ran," others said, "they ran" and others said, "nobody ran." Unless the government get busy they will hear from the working people of this country.
The British dominions are being threatened by this proposed agreement. This Anglo-American treaty is more political than commercial. It is one of the results of the European situation and the race in rearming. We have lost two of our best allies in Italy and Japan and this is one of the results of our diplomatic reverses. This gesture is being made toward the United States as the result of the foreign policy of Great Britain. For generations the policy has been that trade should follow the flag, but that seems to have been thrown overboard. This treaty will destroy empire preference and empire cooperation and union. We are taking a backward step in the matter of preference from the steps taken in the days of Joseph Chamberlain, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This is a heading that appeared in the Washington Post of November 17, 1937:
Trade Treaty Between U.S. and Britain is Imminent
Call to Negotiations Due Momentarily in Reply to Fascist Moves Political Meaning to Rival Economic
This agreement will destroy the structure of the Ottawa agreements. It means a breaking of faith with India and the other members of the empire.


Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, upon perusing very carefully the speech from the throne the one thing that struck me was its vagueness. It would appear that the Liberal party, now that they have attained power, have lost many of those fine qualities of which they spoke so glibly in their days of opposition. I have made a point in the last few days of going through some old Hansards, and I find that in the Liberal party there are
The Address-Mr. Poole

many extremists; but that was when they were in opposition. That was when they were appealing to the electorate. But not now- that is all forgotten.
The question of trade has been dealt with, and some indication given of new agreements to be made. It was said in this house the other day, or at least implied, that the social credit people do not value trade. Let me say here and now that we have never minimized the value of trade. We recognize its value, but we also recognize the unnatural restrictions on trade because of the shortage of purchasing power in the hands of consumers in every part of the world. We do not, however, look upon trade as a solution of our economic ills. We do not believe that a market in Japan for Canadian goods is of greater value than a market in Canada. It is our belief that the people of Canada should be fed first, that they should have access to the goods that can be produced in such abundance in this country.
Living conditions in this country have not improved since this government came into power to the extent they would have us believe by their jubilant speeches made across this country in the recent by-elections. We would probably have more sympathy with the government if it was through their efforts that trade had been increased, and if commodities which have been	sold in	greatervolume had been natural commodities, commodities that	were going	to add	to	thehappiness and	health and	wealth	of	thepeoples of the world. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that the goods which have been shipped out of this country, and which are responsible for the slight	increase in	production	and
some semblance of prosperity, have been metals to be used for armament purposes. I think it is a terrible price for the Canadian consumer to pay, in order that he may have a job to-day and perhaps one to-morrow, that we should better our conditions by supplying Japan with war materials which to-morrow may be used to shoot down and destroy Canadian youth. If that is the only kind of trade we can depend upon, if that is the only way we can have brief prosperity, then I say the price is too great.
There is one subject I want to discuss in the short time at my disposal, and that is the attitude of this government with regard to the province of Alberta. What we have endeavoured and are endeavouring to accomplish there at the present time is exactly what was advocated by the present Prime Minister when he was appealing to the electorate in 1935-to issue credit in terms of

public need. The difference, however, is that we meant what we said but the Prime Minister did not, or probably the Prime Minister did not have the same public in mind. I know that the people of western Canada, and I have travelled over it extensively in the past year, have not been the beneficiaries of any new financial policy. I have seen no credit in their hands. The only credit they have is real credit; that is, the ability to work, the ability to construct; but they have never had the opportunity of applying that all-important financial credit to their real credit in order that they may enjoy the wealth of the Dominion of Canada.
The province of Alberta brought down to the legislature three measures that were passed by the house but were disallowed by this government. I wonder what this Liberal government is going to do about the padlock law of Quebec. Is there one rule for the west and another for the east? Is Quebec privileged? The difference, Mr. Speaker, is that the padlock law was going to close up and destroy those organizations which had banded themselves together for the express purpose of making their way out of their terrible conditions.
It struck me as rather strange the other day when I read in the press of a minister speaking in Quebec about communism. Last year I attended a public meeting in this city where again they expressed their horror of communism. I fear communism far less than I fear the laissez-faire policies of the Liberal government, because communism is the cause of nothing; it is an effect. I am not defending it. I am not a communist, but I believe that in a democracy every section of society has the right to express its opinion and the right to enjoy the same privileges as anybody else. They have the right to be wrong. I look upon the padlock law of Quebec as the first step towards a fascist state. There has been no effort made on the part of this government to disallow that law, but it moved with great rapidity to disallow the Alberta legislation. Of course, the difference was that the measures we proposed were against that all-powerful organization, the money organization.
May I, Mr. Speaker, ask the Liberal government to give us at least some indication of when they are going to bring down some measure of monetary reform and tell us when they are going to issue credit in terms of public need? We still have thousands of unemployed people in this country; we still have thousands of our fellow-citizens living under deplorable conditions while at the same

The Address-Mr. Poole
time we have available all kinds of building material, all kinds of human labour and all kinds of machines, and at a time when, there is no question about the need for better conditions. Unfortunately the Liberal government has not yet issued credit in terms of public need. I say again this year, as I did last year, that if you are depending upon trade agreements and expanding markets to bring about prosperity, God help the people of Canada. I question the sincerity of the Liberal government. When I saw the Prime Minister come into this chamber on the first day leading with pride the new Liberal members, I thought it might have been more appropriate if the leader of the opposition had led them in, because I have always contended that the present leader of the opposition was the leader of the Liberal party, since it was through his failures that they got where they are. On the other hand it is just as true,
I think that the Prime Minister is the leader of the Conservative party, because it is through the failures of this government that the Conservative party will go back again.


Mr. STEWART:: Fifty-fifty.


Eric Joseph Poole: The other day the leader of the opposition, turning in the direction of the Prime Minister, said something to this effect, "I do not see any great difference between your policy and the policy which I pursued." I agree. The only difference between them is the height of the tariff wall. They have never yet dealt with a real issue; and if this speech from the throne is any indication of their activities this coming year, the Canadian people can expect no great measure of reform from the Liberal government.
At the beginning of my address I said that in the Liberal party there were extremists. I find in Hansard of February 1, 1934, at a time when the Liberal party sat to the left of the Speaker, the following extract from one of the platform addresses of Mr. J. A. MacMillan:
I am not an extremist, but I believe that the same authority that came into our homes during the war and took our sons from the knees of their mothers, because there was a national emergency, should not be afraid to take similar steps to bring to the aid of the nation all surplus wealth. We conscripted men, why not money? There is now another national emergency that will have to be faced resolutely and squarely, if the country is to weather the storm. One of the ways out of the difficulty would be to get rid of the terrible burden of interest by paying off a substantial portion of the national debt, and this can only be done by conscription of wealth.
The speaker was not a social crediter or a member representing the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation; he was a Liberal who now sits on the government benches. What has happened since that platform address was delivered? Just one thing. The Liberals have come into power, and now, I suggest, they are afraid to tackle this problem, afraid to deal with the cause of depression. That cause is definitely money, purchasing power. There is no such thing as a depression. A "depression" would suggest that we are short of goods. If we were short of goods there would be no unemployed. We have plenty of goods; we have also plenty of people who cannot get the goods; and the only purpose of our productive machine, our whole economic machine, is to enrich life by making available to the people all those things that can be produced by the knowledge of men.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 3, 1938