1939-01-17

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Has the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) received reports on the situation of Cultus Lake forestry project camp in British Columbia? If so, are any steps contemplated to prevent undue hardship if any number of single unemployed transients are now compelled to accept transportation to points in eastern Canada?
Hon. NORMAN MeL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): The hon. member gave me notice of the question. I have received a report with respect to the matter to which he has referred. Disciplinary action was taken in this forestry camp against two men who had broken regulations. As a result of that disciplinary action forty-seven men went on strike. They were subsequently discharged from the camp and offered transportation to their homes. No steps have been taken or will be taken to cause unnecessary hardship to anybody.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: 

BREN MACHINE GUN CONTRACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: In the absence of the Prime Minister I desire to lay on the table the documents asked for by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) in connection with the Bren machine gun inquiry.



RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO SECURE INFORMATION FROM DEPARTMENTS AND PROCEDURE RELATING THERETO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East) :: May I ask a question of the right hon. gentleman who for the moment is leading the government? In view of the uncertainty of some of the figures and data used in the debate yesterday, is it permissible for members of the House of Commons to ask the various departments for information in order to be assured of the accuracy of that information, or to what extent is a limitation placed upon giving to hon. members information which they may desire?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Perhaps I might be allowed to answer the question. The question, I take it, relates to the figures with regard to unemployment or more particularly the unemployed on relief. If I may say so, the figures given by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion)
68	COMMONS
European Situation-Publishing Correspondence
with respect to unemployment in Canada are from the bureau of statistics and they do not pretend to be a registration. They are, I believe, accurately described as an estimate based upon various indices of unemployment in different parts of Canada. So far as the unemployed on relief are concerned, we have had for the past two years a national registration and each month a summary of the registration is released to the press. I believe that for some months past a copy has gone to the leader of the opposition. Certainly the desire of the Department of Labour is that the figures of registration, which are the most accurate we have, should be made available at all times. There is, of course, in the publication of these figures, a time lag sometimes of two months. For instance, the figures for October cover the entire month of October up to the first of November and they might not be available until the middle of January, let us say. But these figures are the most accurate that we have and they are available to all members of this house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not my question. I was not referring to any particular department. The Prime Minister is now in his seat, perhaps I might put the question again. It concerns the extent of the right of members of the House of Commons to secure access to accurate information. My question was: What rights have members in the matter of requesting information from departments where they know it to be, and what limitation is placed upon officers of the government in giving information to members?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I understand that the procedure in respect to information which is not available in public documents is that any hon. member may ask for it by way of resolution. I think that answers the main point of my hon. friend's question. Certainly as far as the government is concerned, in supplying information the wish would be to give to hon. members at any time the fullest information that it is possible to let them have. There are of course documents that are confidential, and they must be so treated. But with regard to general information I see no reason why any hon. member should not inquire of the minister of any department with respect to any data that he may wish to have. But there is always the method of proceeding by resolution with respect to information that is not available in public documents.


Henry Herbert Stevens: One question further. Am I to gather from the Prime Minister's reply

that it is not possible for a member of the House of Commons to go to a department where he knows certain public information is to be found, and discuss the matter with the deputy or any other officer of the department who understands the matter and to whom he can explain what he desires to secure in the way of information?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend knows as well as I do that under the system of responsible government a minister must be responsible for everything that relates to his department. I should think that the proper procedure in respect to what my hon. friend has just mentioned would be for the member wishing to get certain information from a department to go to the minister of the department and inform him of what he desires. The minister would then give instructions to those in his department to accord the facilities, or not to do so. If an hon. member were not treated with the courtesy with which he should be treated, the minister would be responsible. But I do not think it has ever been the practice, nor do I think the practice would be a right one, to have officials in departments interviewed by hon. members without the knowledge of the minister responsible, or be obliged to give out information without the minister being consulted in reference thereto.



EUROPEAN SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR PUBLISHING OF CORRESPONnENCE RELATING TO CRISIS OF SEPTEMBER, 1938
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that yesterday, both in his speech and in mine, and perhaps in the speeches of other hon. members, the international situation of last September was referred to a number of times, would it not be wise to have, either laid on the table or published in some form, the correspondence, so far as it is not of a confidential nature, between this government and the British government relating thereto? After all, no one knows much about the situation except the government, and I am wondering whether the correspondence could be published-say in a white book, or a blue book, or even a red book, but published in some form for the information of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows, correspondence between governments, particularly where it relates to the possibility of war,

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
is necessarily highly confidential. To make it public would require the consent of the governments concerned. I shall be glad to communicate at once with the British government to ascertain to what extent, if at all, they think the correspondence which passed between the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs and the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Canada should be made public, and I shall be glad to inform my hon. friend and the house of the result of the communication.
May I add that I am sure my hon. friend and the house will realize at once that the correspondence referred to contains many references to other countries as well as to Great Britain and Canada; and I believe it is the practice where other countries are referred to in confidential correspondence not to have any such correspondence produced. I make that statement at once so that the house will understand the limitations on the government.


Robert James Manion: I fully understand that, and I excluded confidential information when I put the question. I am speaking in entire good faith, but I do feel that in view of the references to the subject by the Prime Minister himself in his speech yesterday and the probability that the matter may again be discussed during the session, hon. members should be familiar with the situation. There are of course certain matters which should not be made public, but I accept the right hon. gentleman's assurance that so far as the correspondence can be brought down it will be made available to hon. members.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. E. Matthews 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. Manion.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, as I have moved about from place to place in Canada this year I find that the underlying thought expressed by men in the cities and in the country is this: "democracy is a failure. And the democracies supposed to be the greatest are the greatest failures." Now I submit, without committing myself either for or against that statement, that the prime task of this parliament is to see that democracy shall not be a failure, that it shall succeed.
Why do men feel that democracy in Canada has failed? The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) yesterday gave some information, as reported on page 23 of Hansard, which I believe should be a challenge to every hon. member of this house. He said he found that Germany, Italy and Japan, taken all together, were only just a little greater in area than the province of Ontario, and that in those three countries there are cooped up, so to speak. 200.000.000 people, while in Ontario there are only 4,000,000 people. Now if the province of Ontario under the guidance of this government and the government at Toronto cannot support 4.000.000 people with a reasonable standard of well-being, while those distressed nations to which we have referred are struggling to keep 200,000,000 people, the evidence seems conclusive that something is radically wrong with the type of democracy we are trying to apply in this dominion.
As evidence of the extent to which we are succeeding in Ontario and in Canada, let me refer to a Canadian Press dispatch from Toronto dated January 11, containing the following statement of Hon. Mr. Cross, minister of public welfare for Ontario:
Mr. Cross said he believed that unless there is a pronounced improvement in business conditions during the current year, Ontario's relief bill for 1939 will be well above the 1938 figure.
He estimated that by the end of this month approximately 283.000 Ontario citizens will be receiving direct aid as against 253,430 during the same month last year. Expenditures during the fiscal year 1938-39. which ends March 31, are expected to exceed the 1937-38 year by at least $1,000,000.
The astonishing thing to me, Mr. Speaker, is that so many people who are placed in high positions in this country, who are reasonably well to do, seem not to find anything very seriously alarming in a situation of that sort, and seem not to feel that there is any particular responsibility resting upon them because those conditions exist. The truth, I think, is quite the opposite. The simple fact remains that when in a country as rich as Canada, with such a small population, conditions are so contemptibly and shamefully bad, the people will realize that certainly there must be something wrong somewhere.
Another bit of knowledge which fires a man's blood as soon as he acquires it, is conveyed by Harold Loeb in his book called The Chart of Plenty, published in 1935, concerning conditions in the United States. He points out that without any change whatever in the industrial equipment of the United States, that country could produce enough goods and services to supply every family in the country with $4,400 a year. Any person with a disposition to face things as they are naturally asks, "Well, why don't they do it?" That is common sense. Why don't they do it? Where is the fault?
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

There is an astonishing thing that hon. members will discover if they will just refer to their knowledge of geography. The hand that has guided the English-speaking people of this world has given them control over virtually all the valuable areas on this earth. There is hardly a section of the globe in which British people are settled that does not abound with wealth to a greater extent than the people, up to the present, have been able to use. Yet in every single state, and perhaps in Canada most of all, there exists this tragic suffering, this failure to register somehow or other and enable the people to use that wealth.
I do not wish to spend any time in recriminations; I believe we saw enough of that yesterday, and too much of it becomes a weariness to the flesh. I do wish to point out, however, that as I see it, as a representative of one considerable section of this country, about all the two old line parties ever do when they get into this house is argue over tariff and trade. If we say anything regarding trade, immediately some thoughtless enthusiast leaps to his feet with the idea that social credit people do not believe in trade, and a lot of kindred nonsense. It is dishonest to make any such statement. I will say, however, that if trade would solve the problems of this country and of the world, is it not high time we discovered how that can be done? After all the generations during which we have been struggling along in this country with respect to tariff and trade, to an ordinary person who tries to face realities it would seem that we should be somewhere near the right way of managing tariff and trade. And if, at the present time, there exists such violent disagreement between two sections of the Canadian people with regard to these two important matters, that again seems to indicate something radically wrong somewhere. Both these conditions, I maintain, tend to make the ordinary person in the street say, "Well, what is the use? What a contemptible, despairing mess it all is. It matters not whom we put in or what he tells us he will do when we put him in. We have the same old fare dished out to us from generation to generation."
What do Canadians want? If democracy is a government of the people for the people, it should give the people what they want. Everyone knows what they want. First of all this country wants plenty of jobs for everybody, and if jobs cannot be found for all our people something must be radically wrong. As soon as people get jobs they will want higher wages. Why? For the simple reason that when you are living in a country in which you can easily produce at least 
S3,000	worth of goods and services yearly for every person, or at least every family, it is disgusting in the extreme to think that men are working in Canada in such large numbers for less than 1800 a year.
The next thing they want is equitable prices, and I think this applies to everybody. Last year the government did one commendable thing, among others. I am not disposed to criticize harshly or unreasonably, and I wish to commend the government for setting the 80 cent price for wheat. Probably they knew, as I knew, that 80 cents was not enough. There must be more money than that for a bushel of wheat or the farmers simply cannot carry on; and that statement is not the result of imagination. I should like to refer to a letter dated November 16, issued by the Searle Grain Company, to support what I have just said:
The Searle index of the prices of Things Western Farmers Buy (147 items) now stands at 136-6, 1913-14 = 100, which means that these things cost farmers in the west at the present time 36-6 per cent more than they did before the war. The price of wheat-No. i Northern- as _ of November 15th, basis the open market price, is 38 per cent lower than it was in 1913-14, and basis the board price is 10 per cent lower. This means, therefore, that a bushel of wheat in western Canada has a purchasing power in relation to the Things Farmers Buy, on the open market, of 45 per cent in comparison with the purchasing power of 100 that it had before the war. Basis the board price its purchasing power is 06 per cent of what it was.
If one is disposed to be fair and has any business judgment at all it is only necessary to look at that statement to see immediately that the farmers are faced with an impossible situation. The government has given 80 cent wheat. Let us suppose that thereby twenty cents is lost to the government. That twenty cents has to be collected from somebody by means of taxes or must be borrowed from somebody, which means that the government will incur a debt. I do not think anyone in this dominion will fail to agree that this is an unsound condition. There should be some way of paying that twenty cents without taxing it out of somebody else, because if we can depend upon these figures with regard to Ontario it is abundantly clear that the people of this province cannot stand any more taxes, and no more can the people of Quebec. Then where is the money to come from? Yet not only does the farmer need a just price for wheat; he needs the same sort of consideration for oats, barley and rye, for all kinds of meat, for eggs, milk, cream, butter and wool. How are we going to give that to him? It must be done, or the farmer will simply go out of business and any province

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
which is made up largely of farmers will go out of business too. That is the thing which I believe a good many of us fail to notice. The provinces of western Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, whose citizens are largely employed in primary production, will simply find it utterly impossible to carry on unless something is done to adjust that inequality. So that whether you are talking about agricultural machinery or shoes, the products of the farmers or the fishermen, you must have equitable prices. Therefore I say the third thing Canadians want right now is equitable prices, and if this government cannot give equitable prices, then it cannot govern the people. That is abundantly clear.
We need an increase of purchasing power all the way round; there need be no comment on that. We need more and better markets, not only externally but internally. We need reduced taxation and reduced debt. How are these changes to be effected? I ask in all simplicity and honesty: did any hon. member notice in anything said yesterday by either of the leaders of the two main parties any inkling or even a suspicion of a suggestion of any way in which these improvements can be brought about? I did not. and I think every hon. member who followed the debate carefully, as no doubt all hon. members did, will agree that nothing was said along those lines.
I now turn to the speech from the throne, although I have not time to consider the whole thing with care. I am glad I have not. There is this one part of it which vitally concerns all of us:
My ministers recognize that the plight of those who are still unemployed canot await necessary constitutional amendments, nor the summoning of any conference. They are prepared therefore, notwithstanding constitutional impediments to effectual action, to join with the provinces in a further determined effort to meet the immediate situation.
What is that determined effort going to be? One idea which seems to be spreading throughout the country, especially in the west-and I do not know whether or not the government is to blame for it-is that as a result of little remarks such as those to which I shall refer in a few minutes the government is attempting to create among people the idea that something has got to happen to the British North America Act, is attempting to get the people into a state of mind favourable to changing it, and, that in the course of that change they will steal away from the provinces some of the powers they now have. If that idea exists, do not blame
me. I merely tell the house the idea that is developing-and there can be no doubt about it.
Hon. members will notice at least three places in the speech from the throne where there is a sort of whine, if I may use that word-probably I should say "complaint"- about constitutional difficulties in the way of the government doing its duty towards the people. For instance we find this:
Having regard to the existing division of powers and obligations under the British North America Act, responsibility for unemployment and the solution of its problems is necessarily divided. There has been an increasing assumption of obligations on the part of the federal government.
It is well that there has been. But that is just one hint; here is another:
The intensification of the problem has set forth in bold relief the obstacles which the existing division of constitutional authority places in the way of a solution.
Altogether the paragraphs I have read constitute three attempts to impress upon the people of Canada the idea that the government cannot do what it wants to do unless the British North America Act is changed.
It would be interesting to spend a few moments in a discussion of certain passages of the Prime Minister's speech delivered last night in which I believe he indicated the kind of change he thought ought to be effected. May I say that so far as my native province is concerned, and I believe so far as all the provinces with which I am familiar are concerned, they certainly are not prepared to grant those changes. Whether or not the Prime Minister meant those expressions as I have interpreted them, I do not know. However, we will talk about that matter later, and shall not take further time in the discussion of it to-day. Is the government trying to filch from the provinces some of their provincial rights? Are the provinces too powerful? That is the question being asked by men throughout the country.
Then, in the speech from the throne there are references to proposed expenditures which, apparently, indicate another thing the government is going to do in order to make their determined effort. At page 3 of Hansard we find reference to the home improvement plan, the National Housing Act, and the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. Aid has been given to the mining industry by subventions, and there is reference to federal public works, the construction of highways, land settlement, special projects for farm employment, forest conservation, and grants in aid to the provinces to assist in
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

the care of those suffering from unemployment and agricultural distress. Then on the next page we find reference to a long-range program of public undertakings. It is proposed to undertake, with provincial cooperation, to provide assistance to municipalities. It is stated that the assistance given to forest conservation will be extended to include other work of national importance. The youth training program is to be extended to increase its efficiency. In addition to that we are to have a development of the wheat board's activities, and a further development of prairie farm rehabilitation.
Every one of those things is good; there can be no debate about that. Everyone must realize the wisdom of these proposals; but the question is, where will the money come from? Is it to come from taxation? If so, who is to be taxed, and by what means? Is it to come from borrowing, and, if so, who is to pay it back? When we find the burden of taxation now resting upon us so utterly insupportable, how are our children to survive under the burden of taxation which will be thrust upon them by us? Is the money to be raised by tariffs-only another form of taxation? According to the tenets of orthodox finance the money must be raised in one of those several ways. That fact alone so completely limits the extent of the possible efforts that they will be simply not adequate to meet the situation.
There is a tendency for the leaders of the two parties to promise practically everything under the sun; in fact they will promise the sun, the moon, the fixed stars, and paradise and the millennium into the bargain. But they never take the trouble to tell the people how they are going to pay for it. The people vote them into office because they tell what they are going to try to do. I do not wish to be critical, but on several occasions I have noticed statements purporting to have come from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) in which he has told the people what he is going to do. He will put everybody to work, and all sorts of things. What is the sense of telling people what you are going to do before you tell them where you are going to get the money with which to do it?
I fail to find in the words of either of the leaders who spoke yesterday any indication as to where they can get any more money. If I remember correctly, the leader of the opposition said there must be a basic change, but he did not indicate along what lines that basic change was to come. Where is this basic change? Ever since the right hon. gentleman who preceded the present leader of the oppo-

sition, in his famous first radio broadcast in 1935 said, "The old order is gone; it will not return; you are living among conditions which are new and strange to you" the people have been wondering what the new order is. They are still looking for it.
One word from the leader of either of those parties would comfort us tremendously, because we would see some hope. Does this government know what to do? That is the first question. If it knows what to do, does it lack courage?


Mr. MacNICOL:: It lacks everything.


John Horne Blackmore: If the government does know what to do and it has the courage to do it, has it the power? If there is some power controlling the activities of the sovereign people of Canada, if there is some power that prevents this government from doing what the people sent it here to do, then we should know what that power is. If there is no such power, then we are entitled to demand of this government to the fullest degree.
What is the fundamental change? I shall use an illustration which I hope hon. members will pardon, since it is rather crude. The present government, as it were, is trying to put out a great conflagration with streams of coal oil. All. they argue about is how large the stream of coal oil should be, or whether it should be played on the top, on the bottom, or on the middle of the fire. They argue whether we should have three, four or five fire engines. The question whether the coal oil will put out the fire never seems to enter their minds.
Of what are the flames of this fire composed? They are made up of discontent, of bitterness, of hostility caused by misery and poverty and resentment. The people see that they could have good things, but for some unaccountable reason these are denied them. The result is that bitterness is rising, not only in our own country but in far countries. If you want to find the cause of war, I think it will be found right in that neighbourhood.
What are the causes of poverty? There are four. The first is debt; the second is taxation; the third is our faulty financial system-faulty either in its essential aspects or in the manner in which it is applied; and the fourth is our faulty method of distribution. Both our faulty financial system and our method of distribution are completely outmoded. They ought to have been put on the scrap heap a generation ago.
Frankly, we must have some money. The problem for this house to solve is where we are

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
going to get that money. Is there any other way of getting it than the three ways which have been mentioned? Every proposal of the government and every desire of every Canadian requires more money. That money should be provided without increased debt and without added taxation. Trade helps. Of course trade is good, but it is not good enough.
In our economic system, money can be likei ;d to water in an irrigation system. There are people throughout this country who because of their dishonesty or ignorance are contending that the social credit people say that money is the only solution. Nothing of the kind. You might as well say that water is the only thing in an irrigation system. You could have no irrigation system without water. In the economic life of a country money is as water in an irrigation system. Water is not everything in such a system, but it is indispensable. You may spend considerable money on elaborate ditches, laterals, head-gates and the like, but what good will they be without water? So it is of industry without money.
Money consists of currency and credit. Social credit maintains that currency should be state created. There are a good many who smile when that statement is made. Those who say that it cannot be done will have their attention arrested if they turn to the report of the royal commission on banking and currency in Canada, published in 1933. On page 22, paragraph 47 of that report they will find these words:
In the wrar session of August, 1914, parliament raised the partially covered issue of $50,000,000. Subsequently an issue of $16,000,000_ was made against a deposit of railway securities guaranteed by the dominion government, as well as an uncovered issue of $10,000,000 for governmental purposes.
Twenty-six millions were created-there is no laughing that off. They did not cause inflation, although there was no gold behind them. The new money did not cause a rise in prices. It was sound money. If you had
51.000.	000 of that money to-day it would buy
51.000.	000 worth of any commodity in the Dominion of Canada, and perhaps anywhere on the face of the earth. That was good money. But the government created it. Some men will say, " Oh, you cannot trust the government with the creation of money." The government handled that money, did it not? It stopped at $26,000,000. Why did it stop there?
Now if the government could create $26,000,000, will any man who knows tell me that they could not have created $27,000,000? That is an important consideration.
Apparently here is what we are doing. We have turned over the power to create money, the power to create almost a limitless supply of water, to use the irrigation illustration, to the Bank of Canada. Every dollar we get, we have to borrow. Will anyone tell me how we are any better off than we would be if the Bank of Canada was owned by the greatest financier in the world? If this is to be the case, if this is the way we propose to handle the Bank of Canada, if this is the way we are to get money from the Bank of Canada, then for the last ten or fifteen years the people of Canada have been deceived by one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of the dominion The man on the street had the idea that when the dominion got control of the Bank of Canada, it would have control over the money created by that bank. We have given away the power to create money. The question now is: can we get it back? The question is: will we get it back?
There is the currency. How much could Canada in 1916 have created? Might it have been $200,000,000? I asked an eminent banker in my neighbourhood a series of questions about this matter. I asked him if it could have been $30,000,000, and he said, " I believe it could." I asked if it could have been $35,000,000, and he replied, " I believe it could." "Forty-six million"? "Yes." Then I asked him if it could have been $50,000,000, and he replied, " There is a place where you have to stop." I asked him to tell me where that place was, but he did not know.
We have never taken the pains to teach our members of parliament, the heads of our banks or anyone else in this dominion upon what the amount of money that a nation can create depends. The result is that we are all helpless. We are just as helpless as our ancestors of three hundred years ago would be if they were placed in a modern power plant. They would not dare to move for fear that they would touch the wrong button and blow themselves up. That is the position in which we find ourselves with respect to our monetary system. We just do not know.
We now come to the matter of credit. Where can we get credit for money? If hon. members will turn to the findings of the Macmillan committee on finance and industry, they will find where credit can come from. The first fifteen or sixteen lines on page 34 of that report are quite enlightening, but I shall not take the time to read them. Next let us turn to a passage which was read into Hansard last year; it will be found in a book entitled The Canadian Banking System, published in 1938 by James Holladay, Ph.D., professor of economics at the university of Alabama.



The Address-Mr. Blackmore
He tells us that to-day the Canadian banking systems can take one dollar of gold and by the time they are finished with it it has grown into four one dollar bills and $80 of credit. That is how money grows in Canada to-day.
If banks can thus create money, why not do it for the government? That is the point. Why should we have to borrow the money when it is so easily produced? Of course I know the answers which are commonly given, that bank money has to be backed, and all this. We will grant that that is true. But there is a way of managing these matters for the public good, that is for the people's good. The question is have we the courage; have we the vision?
How much money can we have in the Dominion of Canada? A little experiment was conducted by the island of Guernsey between 1815 and 1829. The island of Guernsey through its government created three thousand one-pound notes, and with that money constructed a market house. They proposed to tax the one-pound notes back again by means of a yearly rental of three hundred pounds, and thus have all the money back within ten years. Long before they had the money all withdrawn they discovered that the economic conditions within that island had greatly improved, with no apparently disadvantageous results, so they issued more, and they continued to issue more-as hon. members may read in the book to which I will refer in a minute-until in 1829 they had in circulation 48,183 one-pound notes, and apparently there was no inflation, and there was no ill effect. The experience there is a challenge to men to-day. It occurred; it is of record. You will read of it in the Story of Money, by Sir Norman Angell, published in 1929, between pages 266 and 271; and on page 271 you will find a statement of Sir Norman Angell, that great monetary authority. that the Guernsey island experiment was a success.
How big was this island of Guernsey? What was there about Guernsey island which enabled it to support such a tremendous amount of money? Guernsey island is a little piece of country roughly triangular in shape-you will find this in the Encyclopaedia Britannica -nine and a quarter miles long at its greatest length, five and a quarter miles wide at its greatest width. What are its industries? Has it gold mines or something else to give its money backing? No, it has not. ' It is engaged in gardening; it is engaged also in dairying, using the famous Guernsey island cow; it probably had at that time a stone quarry, as well as several minor industries which we would consider of hardly any im-

portance at all. If an island nine and a quarter miles long and five and a quarter miles wide, not more than twenty-four square miles in area, could support that amount of money, how much could a province like Ontario support?
"Oh, but", people will say, "it will cause inflation." Well, what is inflation? I think there is no word used by the English people to-day which is as little understood as the word "inflation". Last year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) after I gave a talk on March 8 rose and spent a considerable amount of time talking about the proposal of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) that a certain number of Canadian bills should be created and used for public works. The minister pointed out that if bills were created and so used they would get into the hands of the banks and the banks would be able to multiply them ten times, and that would cause inflation. I am not going to say very much about it, but I will raise this question. Take any bank of which hon. members know; would you be able to increase the amount of money it would lend merely by putting twice as much money in it? Not by any means. The banks to-day have loaned all the money they will loan. As far as their present loans are concerned it would not matter if they had fifty times as much money. All one needs is that one fact to be able to say that the Minister of Finance might possibly have thought the thing through a little more carefully.
I am going to read a statement wrhich will probably impress hon. members. This struggle about money is going on all over the Anglo-Saxon world, and it is high time that it should. We have been enslaved long enough. This quotation comes from Senator Owen's testimony before a special committee of the United States Senate, on June 9, 1937. His words are as follows:
Inflation does not occur until maximum employment and production is achieved.
In other words you cannot have inflation as long as you have unemployed men and unemployed resources. You see what a widely different interpretation that puts upon inflation from anything which has been used in this house by, at any rate, members of the government.
I have not time to deduce other evidence backing this up, but there is plenty of it. The testimony continues:
If it should occur, the volume of money could be immediately reduced by selling bonds, by sales tax and other taxes, and retiring such excess money from circulation.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
The whole of the evidence before that committee is of great value.
I contend that there is simply no solution under the sun to be found except by using a monetary technique. I am not contending that money will solve it all, but you can. go no further to-day until you do attack your monetary problem. People will say, "You will cause the exchanges to be set against you." Just a word concerning the exchanges. They are set against you because you are buying more goods than you are selling, making it so that there is a greater demand for foreign dollars than for yours. You will overcome a condition like that first by having plenty of production of all kinds, for the more honey j'ou produce in your country, for example, the less you will import from the United States; the more sugar you produce in your country the less you will buy from the United States, and the more coal you produce and use in your country the less you will bring in from the United States. All these things will help your exchange situation. The prime task for you is to see that you are producing all you need of as many products as you can produce. That is the first point.
The second question is, are your prices down low enough so that the other man will come and buy? You can reduce those prices, as apparently Japan has reduced her prices, by using the power to create credit, as I have already explained with respect to wheat. If you set the price of wheat at a given price, created national money and paid the difference, how far could you go with the process? You could go far enough to put your wheat on any market in the world. There is the answer to the contention that new money would cause an adverse exchange.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I do not wish to interrupt, the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


John Horne Blackmore: May I just finish the sentence? Now, Mr. Speaker, I have laid before you a solution. It is a possibility. It is a way by which the problem can be worked out.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, private members have some advantages in living outside the capital for six or seven months in the year. Perhaps they come to realize that Ottawa is not Canada. The opening ceremonies are very far from being representative of the life of Canada. In my judgment there is altogether too much gold braid and too many social functions in evidence. I have sometimes played with the fancy that it might be good if 71492-6J
parliament should be held in a different part of Canada each year,-among the lumbermen of British Columbia, or the farmers of the prairies, or the miners of northern Ontario, or the steel workers and coal miners of Cape Breton. I suppose that is not practicable, but I fancy it would help to give the cabinet ministers and the large mass of civil servants rather a different idea of what Canada really is.


Mr. FINN:: What about the fishermen?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The fishermen I gladly include, and I intend to speak of them later. Here in Ottawa we are apt to become too comfortable and we are also apt to adopt a false set of values. In fact, I am afraid Canada is becoming top-heavy. As I come back to the capital I notice that work is being started on the new building for the Supreme Court of Canada. It is said that it will cost two and a half millions. We can discuss it in the estimates, but I could not help contrasting that with a letter that I received not long ago from a woman in Saskatchewan. It is written on sheets torn from a school exercise book, the only paper she had. She says:
I am a teacher, a married woman, a mother and housekeeper all in one. I took over the home school a year ago March at a cash salary of $18. Immediately the relief agent cut me off relief. We had no crop, not even a green spear on over 400 acres of wheat. My husband sold a few cattle, I believe ten head, getting around $180. Then he and our three children were cut off. We got no relief groceries, no clothing order, no coal or wood order.
I do not give that isolated example as typifying the whole of the west, but I would say that there are thousands upon thousands of people in Canada, just as good Canadians as there are in this house, who are in some such position as that to-day.
I notice a new monument is being erected. It may be very artistic; I am not discussing that. But there are some 50,000 unemployed veterans on relief, as the Winnipeg Free Press in a recent editorial reminds us, the equivalent of more than two army divisions. I have wondered what it would look like if we had a long procession of these veterans passing through the archway of that monument. This would really represent conditions such as we have them in Canada to-day. It is only a few weeks ago that I saw a number of these returned men having dinner at the soup kitchen, as we call it, in my own city of Winnipeg. There daily, three thousand men, transients, are being fed. That is going on from day to day, from week to week, from month to month. Many of these men are

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
becoming unemployable. A number of them are still young men, although an attempt is being made to force them out on the farms. That is a situation that should be brought to the attention of the government.
Since coming to this city I have noticed that most elaborate arrangements are being made for the visit of their majesties. It would seem as if every department has been pressed into service. I recognize that the king of Great Britain is king of Canada. I recognize that he is the outward and visible symbol of the tie that unites us to Great Britain, and I think he and his consort should be given a dignified, though I would say a simple, reception. As a representative of one constituency and one who knows something of Canada, I would urge that lavish display need not be an indication of loyalty, and that the lack of such display is no indication of disloyalty. Lavish display may merely minister to the vanity of a comparatively small group of people in Canada.
I was a little perturbed in the last day or two upon reading an account in the Montreal Gazette of one of the functions here in Ottawa. I read:
Prologue to court functions anticipated during the royal visit to Canada in the late spring, this year's drawing-room assumed a more regal tone than those of former years.
Royal purples and blues, glistening diamante trimmings, and gold and silver metallic gowns in full-skirted styles were favoured by women attending. Bouquets gave way to feather fans, but dainty nosegays were carried by hoop-skirted debutantes who made their formal bows to society on this occasion. Conventional court weathers-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know it should be "feathers" but I am reading it as it appears in the Gazette.
Conventional court weathers were worn over piled-high coiffures.
I should like to compare that with a front page story from the Winnipeg Free Press under date December 20:
Meagre savings have dwindled away; clothes ire becoming shabby and threadbare; house-lold furnishings are in tatters; the bare minimum of food is all they have to offer.
There are literally hundreds of such homes scattered across Manitoba. Homes where, through no fault of their own, families are facing destitution. Perhaps the crops have failed or father lost his job; it may have been sickness or some other cause. But whatever it is, they have been left with nothing, not even hope.
Children in such homes-the future men and women of Canada-are undernourished and underclothed. They face wasting sickness every moment of their lives and there is nothing the

parents can do about it. They are helpless- entirely dependent upon the good will and generosity of those others who are enjoying better circumstances.
Or take another description of life as it is in Canada. I should like to quote from the introduction to Harold Dingman's articles. He is a staff writer on the Globe and Mail. Here are the headlines:
Life of Grim Squalor Lot of Fishermen on Atlantic Coast-Parents Helpless as They Watch Scurvy-Stricken Children Grow Weaker Day by Day.
No Relief Given Because Taxes Unpaid.
And then this paragraph follows:
This is a story of human degradation, and misery, and poverty, and despair, and starvation.
Here on the shores of the blue Atlantic, here in the garden of Canada, here in this tourists' paradise with all its rugged beauty, ten thousand people who live in tiny fishing villages along the Atlantic seaboard are on the verge of starvation.
Yes, starvation. This is a true story-a story of the inshore fishermen who are a forgotten group of men and women and children. They are hungry to-day, and they will be hungry to-morrow. They will be hungry in the coming winter months, when the icy winds whistle out of the North Atlantic and batter their wooden shacks on Cape Breton Island and along the barren shores of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Whether the Prime Minister's grandparents were poor is no great concern of this house, but we are concerned with the condition of the people I have spoken of. In view of such an appalling contrast as I have given in these different stories, some of the ministers of the gospel may well be asking whether the church has failed, and we may well be asking the other question, whether democracy has failed. I suggest that either democracy must solve these problems or democratic institutions as we know them must pass. In his well-known definition Abraham Lincoln said that democracy was government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Will anyone claim that we should have these social functions and elaborate displays, for any purpose whatever, while we allow these conditions to prevail year after year?
Several important events have taken place since parliament prorogued, and I should like briefly to call attention to them. The government have refused either to disallow the "padlock law" or to refer it to the courts. In my judgment the Minister of Justice sidestepped the issue. He speaks of the fundamental principle of local autonomy, but the Minister of Justice knows that the provinces have local autonomy only within a very clearly defined jurisdiction. In my judgment the decision was clearly a political decision.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
The Minister of Justice may represent a Quebec constituency, but surely he is minister of justice for Canada. And he is minister of justice in a so-called Liberal government. Suppose that the organization which I represent is what the leader of the opposition represented it to be to the people of London, and assuming that to be communicated to Premier Djplessis, how would the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation stand in the province of Quebec? Are our public assemblies to be banned because our organization does not please the premier of Quebec province? Is that a matter of local autonomy? Is that political freedom? After the election the Prime Minister promised that we should now have political freedom in Canada, yet this government has permitted this kind of infringement of liberty to continue. In practice it is extremely difficult for private individuals successfully to bring this question before the courts.
Another matter not mentioned in the speech from the throne is the recognition of Ethiopia. From my standpoint the conquest of Ethiopia was one of the most shameful chapters in recent history. I have only to read-though it is hardly necessary-certain clauses from the covenant of the League of Nations to which Canada was a signatory. Article 10 states:
The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league. In case of any such aggression, or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
And again, in article 16:
Should any member of the league resort to war in disregard of its covenants under articles 12, 13 or 15, it shall tpso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the league. . . .
And so on. And again:
The members of the league agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this article. . . .
Has anything of that kind been done by the signatories of the treaty? Canada is one of those signatories. I cannot feel proud of my country when I realize that she is weakly following the lead of other nations and acquiescing in such an arrangement as this.
The speech from the throne further tells us that the government is giving "anxious and continuous consideration" to the international situation. I am not going to discuss that to-day; the Prime Minister has given us assurance that we shall have ample opportunity to discuss it later. But I should like to ask what happened at the time of the Munich crisis. Was Canada in effect committed to war? From the papers one would judge that to be so; is it true? Parliament should know. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to tell us that parliament would be called, but what is the use of calling parliament if there are certain commitments already made? It is like the calling of parliament two years ago to decide on the abdication of the king and the coronation of the new king; but before we were allowed to consider the matter in this chamber we all ' had to swear allegiance to the new king. What is the use of going through a pro forma affair of that kind? I ask then, what happened at the time of the Munich crisis? Is Canada in effect committed to the Chamberlain policies? Sometimes I think that Mr. Chamberlain is to all intents and purposes Canada's foreign minister. This country should know. Can we maintain our neutrality? I have introduced a resolution, and hope to have it discussed later in the session, which asserts that we in Canada ought to be free to enter upon a war or free to keep out of it. We shall see where the government stands on that matter.
We are told that Canada's defences are to be materially strengthened. So Canada enters upon the same old armament race, a bloody pathway which all through history has led to disaster. We are told now that force is the final arbiter. To me this is the supreme apostasy. Is force the final arbiter? Then it would be just as well for our Christian churches to go out of business.
Against whom are we to be prepared to defend ourselves? Germany and Japan are mentioned as possible aggressors. Well-informed people tell us that shipments of chromium are being sent to Hamburg. We all know that shipments of scrap iron and nickel are steadily going to Japan. During the last year our exports of metal to Japan nearly doubled. Is that to go on and are profits to be made out of shipments to nations which might possibly in the near future be enemy nations, or who are invading nations which under the covenant of the league we are pledged to protect? In 1937 the government took power to prevent individual Canadians from involving this country in foreign wars. We had the Foreign Enlistment Act and an amendment to the Customs Act, giving the government discretionary power in peace or war to-
-prohibit, restrict or control the exportation, generally or to any destination, directly or indirectly, or the carrying coastwise or by inland
The Address-Mr. Woodsworth

navigation, of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war, military, naval or air stores, or any articles deemed capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof, or provisions or any sort of victual which may be used as food by man or beast.
The dominion government exercised its powers under this legislation in the summer of 1937, when the act was made applicable to Spain. Why should not this act be made applicable to Japan? I hope the government will take an early opportunity to inform us of the reason.
This year the United States took a leading part in the summoning of a pan-American conference at Lima. I ventured to write to the Prime Minister urging that Canada should be represented. He was good enough to reply; let me read the last paragraph of his letter, dated December 3, 193S:
As regards the specific suggestion that Canada should take part in the present conference, I should perhaps point out that Canada is not a member of the conference and, under the present wording of its constitution, is not eligible for membership.
Now Canada is situated on the north American continent. Why should we not participate in such a conference with regard to matters that pertain particularly to American affairs? It seems to me that anything which can be done to promote better feeling on this side of the Atlantic should be done. 1 should like the government to take an early opportunity to inform us why we should not cooperate with other countries here in the western hemisphere. It may be said that the present constitution of the pan-American conference forbids it, but I think it has been generally understood that a chair awaits Canada as soon as she cares to occupy it.
The speech indicates that the government proposes to continue its present inadequate relief policy. The other day the Prime Minister once more trotted out the British North America Act. It seems to me that act can be classified as an ever-present help in time of trouble. I admit the difficulties under the British North America Act; I recognize that we have been giving grants in aid; but means were found a few years ago to bring in old age pensions, though for years the British North America Act had been quoted as a reason why it was impossible to enact such legislation. That legislation is on the statute book to-day. Why not other legislation? It may be that the Prime Minister will tell us that if we had unemployment insurance it would have to be contributory. At the present time contributory unemployment insurance is out of the question so far as the great mass

of the unemployed are concerned. Why should not the federal government act in a matter of this kind? As I heard the Prime Minister's speech I could not but turn to a pamphlet issued immediately after the general election of October 14, 1935, entitled The Voice of the People. Here is the message the Prime Minister gave the people of Canada:
In the new era which dawns to-day, the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery, are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land. They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls, as well as the minds and bodies, of an ever-increasing number of men, women and children in our land. We take up at once, as our supreme task-
Not the arranging of elaborate functions for their majesties.
-the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
Brave words; but now all we have is a recital of the difficulties inherent in the British North America Act and more talk about the objection to grants in aid. We had a royal commission appointed, and now we are told that after the commission reports we are to have a dominion conference. I am not sure but that the provincial people must come in on that also. I should like to know whether any province has definitely objected to the government assuming a much larger proportion of the cost of unemployment.
What is the situation to-day? I should like to quote again what was quoted yesterday by the leader of the opposition, from the report of the Canadian Welfare Council:
All in all, since 1930, Canada will have spent by March 31st, 1939, about 900 million dollars on "direct" relief, relief works and projects, -and she has more people dependent on such relief than when she started. She has neither legislation nor comprehensive planning to deal with the problem beyond the jurisdiction of each current fiscal year, and she has a population, in large part dispirited, on the whole uncertain, and yet natural resources, whose per capita ratio is perhaps unsurpassed in any state to-day.
And again:
As to the actual totals with which December opened, it would appear that, when all the facts are totted up, we are not going to be any very encouraging distance from the totals for the same date last year, which the Canadian Welfare Council estimated at 925,000 and which official figures later set at 948,000.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
And again:
General dependency, itself, is on the "up and up" in Canada.
That is the situation. I should like to quote and endorse a brief paragraph, together with the headline, which appeared in the Halifax Herald of October 3:
Canada Marshalled Resources for War Why Not For Peace?
Let it once be realized that the perils of a reactionary peace which dooms men to idleness are as great as those of destructive war, that internal economic tyranny breeds no less dangers and is no less intolerable than the rule of a foreign tyrant, and there will be in this country such a forward march that an orderly and prosperous future will be assured.
This government has enjoyed office for four years. Where is its constructive program?
Industrial profits may be satisfactory. I would refer hon. members to the Monetary Times of December 10. I think the situation is fairly well summarized by Angus and Company, members of the Toronto Stock Exchange, in dealing with December dividends:
Dividend payments by Canadian corporations for 1938 and for the month of December established new high records. The total for the year of $313,108,335 as reported to us, compares with $305,759,403 in 1937 and $256,475,084 in 1936, while that of $92,622,238 for December contrasts with $90,072,908 for December, 1937, and $72,849,846 for December, 1936.
Or, to present evidence from another quarter, I quote from the statement of Sir Charles Gordon in bis review of business at the one hundred and twenty-first annual meeting of the Bank of Montreal. In discussing business in Canada he-
-characterized the past year as "not unsatisfactory" having in view the conditions which have prevailed in other countries.
As to his own bank-
-the financial statement was equal in strength to any that had been issued during his eleven-year tenure of the position of president.
Not so bad for the banks; not so bad for the great corporations, but I have already shown what it meant for the ordinary people of this country. Then the president of the bank suggested a policy for the government, which they would seem likely to adopt:
Among the more immediate factors which he felt would have a stimulating effect on business was the prospect of Canada contributing to the armament requirements of Great Britain.
There we have the cold-blooded calculation as to how we in Canada can make money out of the distress of others!
Whatever may be true of eastern Canada, let me say that the conditions in the west are decidedly unsatisfactory. In the old days people generally believed there was almost
unlimited good land and, secondly, that there were almost unlimited markets. Both assumptions have proved to be false. This was openly acknowledged a few weeks ago at the wheat conference called by Mr. Bracken.
The fact is that Canada, and especially western Canada, has been passing through a period of rapid expansion, with over-expansion of many facilities. Now the bills are coming in, and there is a very limited income with which to meet them. I believe the general attitude of the west is fairly well indicated in a satirical article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press six months ago. The article, urging the formation of a national government, is in part as follows:
Prime Minister: Mitchell F. Hepburn, whose views on assistance to the west and the C.I.O. are so well known as to need no further explanation. . . .
Minister of Justice: Maurice Duplessis, whose padlock bill has destroyed free speech in Quebec, and whose views on the C.I.O. coincide with Mr. Hepburn's.
Minister of Finance: Sir Herbert Holt, whose ability as a director of a hundred companies and as a banker fit him admirably for the task of maintaining a fiscal system designed to promote the policy of a sound business administration.	.
Slogan: "Desoak the Rich."
Minister of Transport: Sir Edward Beatty, whose views on the railway problem should place him in a position to render a great service to the C.N.R., which would be, of course, his primary responsibility.
Minister of National Revenue: Sir Charles Gordon, whose intimate and profitable connection with the textile business has proved he knows how to keep goods out of the country.
Minister of Agriculture: Mr. John I. McFarland, who can hold wheat longer and sell less of it than any man in the country
Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment: C. George MeCullagh. The publisher of the Globe and Mail has already declared his position on certain issues which render him competent to fill this post with complete success.
I would suggest there is a great deal more truth than fiction in a satire of that kind, because. these individuals or the classes they represent have largely dominated the policies of Canada.
I suggested a little while ago that the question was being asked in our local papers: has the church failed? I believe it has failed to apply the teachings of Jesus to modern economic and international problems. We are asked, "Has the league of nations failed?"- It has-not the underlying principle of collectivism, but the organization through the refusal of the great nations to give up power politics and their own imperialistic claims. The predominance which was enjoyed for a long time by Great Britain is now being challenged,

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
and challenged by methods which resemble closely the very methods by which that predominance was attained.
Has democracy failed? I suggest it has never really been tried. The system which gives wealth and power into the hands of the few and reduces the vast majority to insecurity and poverty cannot long endure. The leader of the opposition thinks some of us would like to do away with private property. We would like to see corporation property controlled so as to permit the acquisition of a little private property. He fears that private initiative would be lost. As a matter of fact there is precious little opportunity for a development of initiative by the majority under the present system in Canada. This is possible under a properly organized cooperative or collective system.
Our people would welcome arrangements under which the older Canadian ideals of personal independence and security and good neighbourliness could find their chance to express themselves.
I move the following amendment to the amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Rowe):
That the amendment be amended by adding the following thereto: "We are of the opinion that these conditions can be remedied only by the effective control of financial institutions and monopolistic enterprises which are exploiting the Canadian people."
I believe the amendment to the amendment is in such simple terms that it is unnecessary, even if I had the time, to enter into any detailed exposition of it. It puts in a few words the point of view which we in this corner for many years have been trying to bring to the attention of the house, and which calls for changes which are more essential to-day than they ever were before.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, let my first words be these, that the announcement that Their Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth have graciously decided to visit Canada in the months of May and June has been received with rejoicing by all people in my constituency. In like manner it has been received with rejoicing by a great number of the people with whom it has been my pleasure to come in contact since the announcement was made.
I cannot help placing first in that category an experience I had on Christmas day when visiting over one hundred patients who were left in hospital while others were home for Christmastide enjoying themselves. Some of these patients were deserted by their
[Mr. Woodsworth.)
people, all were on the sick list, and in discussing the affairs of Canada one could see their faces radiate when they were told that the king and queen were coming to see them in the months of May and June. I hoped and they hoped that they would be able at that time to witness the occasion of the first visit to Canada of their majesties.
During the same week it was my pleasure to go through the basement of the institution to which I have referred. Here was an Irish lady over seventy years of age, a seamstress, who does not receive an old age pension, and who was applying all the art of sewing she had learned in Belfast, Ireland, in repairing the linen of the institution. Her first words were to indicate how glad she was that their majesties were visiting1 Canada. Working outside the buildings was the gardener, an old gentleman from Devon, who had learned his art in beautiful England and who in the summer months looks after the flower beds and during the winter removes the snow and carries out the ashes for a mere pittance. "Thank God," he said, "I have lived to see the day when their majesties will visit Canada. How fine it will be for my children and grandchildren!" How thrilled is the Scottish maid at home who can tell you all about the family tree of her gracious majesty the queen, all about her forebears and her charming characteristics mentioned yesterday by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). How thrilled are the Scottish people that their majesties are coming here. How thrilled are the carpenters, the bricklayers, the plumbers and other artisans who through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed. Hungry and jobless they may be, but they wall show some of our Canadians the real meaning of the word "loyalty."
A lady in my constituency whose grandmother was a cousin of Laura Secord was kind enough to write me a note two days ago expressing her feelings about this. She is a second cousin of Alexander Muir, who wrote The Maple Leaf. Her greatgrandmother was one of the first white settlers in her part of the country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will remember the Thomsons of Scarborough and East York. Some of them were up in North York in the days when he tried to be elected to represent that constituency. I cannot say that the members of this family followed the grandfather of the Prime Minister in the carryings on at that time, but one of the descendants of that family, Mrs. Edith Thomson Trudell, of 19

The Address-Mr. Harris
Walter street, Toronto, has dedicated the following words to His Gracious Majesty the King:
God save our gracious king,
Triumphantly we sing,
God save the king,
With flag unfurled o'er land and sea,
The union jack of Liberty,
Our emblem bold, that knows no fear,
By loyal subjects held so dear,
God save the king.
Then join with voices loud and long,
The air waves fill with joyous song And let us make the welkin ring,
God bless our empire and our king.
Our fathers held the torch,
Of courage-all mankind to see In sacred honour bound For our democracy.
"Long live the king" Oh God, we pray- To guide and lead us day by day,
And may His efforts never cease,
To bring this world a lasting peace.
Then join with voices loud and long,
The air waves fill with joyous song,
And let us make the welkin ring,
God bless our empire and our king.
This is a tribute by a Canadian of the fourth generation.
Their majesties are going to tour Canada. When they do I say to leaders of industry, to manufacturers and to merchants: Give your employees a half holiday and pay them for it, the same as is done on Christmas day; give them an opportunity to witness this ceremony. I say to the mayors and reeves of the cities and towns throughout Canada: declare a holiday. I say to those in charge of our schools: let the children have a holiday; let them turn out en masse to pay homage.
One word now to some others. Let no politician use this event in any way to further his own political advantage. Brass hats, top hats, and even prime ministers and members of parliament should stand aside to let the people of Canada see their sovereigns. They are the head of. the greatest democracy the world has ever known. More than that, they are the head of the greatest civilization the world has ever known. It has stood the test of time for a thousand years, and may it do so for another thousand.
Yesterday the Prime Minister said that he would follow the speech from the throne. I shall try to do the same and I hope I do not wander as far as he did last night.
The President of the United States visited Canada. Our Prime Minister has visited the United States many, many times. Let us just close our eyes and think calmly of these two events. Do they have the same significance? Not to my mind. Nor do I think they would have the same significance to the mind of
Laurier when he said that when Britain is in trouble, we in Canada are in trouble. We are part and parcel of Great Britain, and we will not submit to becoming an adjunct of the United States.
According to the speech from the throne, our ministers find it necessary to consider the international situation. That statement sounds rather humorous to me. Ten million of us are to consider the international situation. Last night the Prime Minister opened his arms and said that the United States and Great Britain are in one great circle. Is there room in those arms for Great Britain and the United States? I could not help but think of something I heard when I was a boy; it reminds me of the tail trying to wag the dog.
Since we met last we have lost from this chamber a very eminent statesman, the right hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett). Tributes were paid to him last night in the city of Toronto and have been paid to him all across the continent. I think we all agree that he is worthy of what has been said. We of the National Conservative party are blessed greatly in having another privy councillor as our leader, (Mr. Manion). He is an excellent parliamentarian, he is a lovable character, and I was going to say that he is filled with the milk of human kindness. The leader of the opposition is a man whom we will love to serve, a man with whom we will love to work. Understanding radiates from his countenance, and he will do a great job for Canada. He was a soldier, he was the author of a little red book, and now he is a statesman. May he live long to serve Canada. What great opportunities we all have to serve Canada.
I do not intend to go back to the days of our grandfathers as did the Prime Minister. I shall go back just for two or three years. I ask the people of Canada this question: what has this administration done on your behalf during the last four years; what of real value has been done for you? When I refer to the administration, I absolve at once the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), first, because of his serious illness, and, second, because of the great amount of work he has done. Uon. members will remember that a year ago I said that the hon. gentleman was saddled with too much work. I repeat those words. I think the time has come when perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) or some other minister might prepare a large part of the budget. He would be in the house to answer questions and thus relieve the Minister of Finance of much of his burden. The Minister of Finance has found it almost impossible to carry on and
The Address-Mr. Harris

he has broken down partly under the task. He has been recovering his health and I hope he will regain it completely and that he may live long to serve this country in many capacities.
I excuse also in part the Prime Minister. We were all sorry to hear of his illness, but he seemed to be in robust health last night. His mind seemed to be running quite clearly; nevertheless I want to say that I am sorry he was laid aside for a month during the summer because of illness. For the rest of the ministry I have not much of commendation. Most of them sat on the platform in Maple Leaf Gardens or were listening to the radio when certain promises were made to the people of Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite promised action. They promised unity. They promised leadership. The people took them at their word. They got power Then they introduced the 1936 speech from the throne and made some more promises:
1.	To cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed; to increase the opportunities for gainful employment.
2.	They would immediately amend the British North America Act.
3.	They would restore parliamentary control over taxation.
4.	They would substitute stability for uncertainty in the administration of customs 1 * s.
I note that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) is in his seat, and I hope he remains in the chamber until I deal with the last item.
5.	They would amend the Canadian National Railways legislation to give a greater measure of governmental authority and responsibility to parliament and cut out some of the losses.
6.	Radio broadcasting would be the subject of inquiry by a special committee.
7.	Parliamentary secretaryships would be submitted for consideration.
8.	Parliamentary responsibility would be restored.
9.	A trade treaty would build up rather than undermine living standards.
So the government said in 1936. Those are the general headings. I will read in a little more detail the reference to unemployment:
In 1936 unemployment continues to be Canada's most urgent national problem. While there is an increase in the number of persons employed, the number of those on relief shows no abatement.
As a means of dealing with present emergency conditions, you will be asked, with the approval of the governments of all the provinces of Canada, to make provision for the establishment

of a representative national commission, which will cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed, and the supervision of unemployment relief. The commission, which will be assisted by a representative advisory committee, will aim at effecting nation-wide cooperative effort toward increasing opportunities of gainful employment.
Where is that representative advisory committee to-day? In fact, where is the commission itself to-day? And what did that commission do? And what did the government do with the recommendations of that commission? Practically nothing. The commission started work and gathered some statistics, most of which we already had; and then in the night they folded their tents and silently stole away. That is all they have done, and to-day the morning paper tells us that some hon. members are annoyed because young men are begging from them on the streets. There are more young men begging on the streets than at any previous time that I can remember. At the hour of twilight more men come to my door and to the doors of others asking for a hand-out than at any other time that I am able to recall. Panhandlers are on the increase. The government has had four years to deal with this matter, and what has it done? Practically nothing. "Oh," they say, "we have passed some trade treaties." I shall deal with that in a moment, but I should like at this time to make a general observation based on the Purvis report which was placed before us some months ago. When the government entered into these trade agreements it forgot the very important fact that nine hundred thousand of our employable people find their place of work in secondary industry' whereas only one hundred thousand find a place in primary industry. That is shown in the government's own report; yet little by little they are paralyzing secondary industry and taking away the opportunity of gainful employment which is provided by that type of industry, hoping that they may absorb some of the men who wish to go to work in the primary industries.
The speech from the throne in 1936 also states:
A conference between the dominion government and the governments of the provinces of Canada was held at Ottawa during the month of December. Continuing committees have since carried on consideration of the more important subjects discussed.
What have these "continuing committees" accomplished? Nothing. The government is directly responsible for the charge which the man in the street is making, namely that it

The Address-Mr. Harris
is a do-nothing administration. What has it tried to do? It established what is known as the Rowell commission, and the statements which have been made before that commission have rent this dominion asunder. It has put Canada back into the position of nine independent, separate colonies as far as the thinking people of Canada are concerned. It certainly has done nothing to foster unity in the broad sense of the word. Nothing which has come out of its proceedings so far has helped the general situation. Last night hon. members heard a very carefully worded sentence from the Prime Minister to the effect that in two or three months we shall have a report from that commission. After that, I suppose, we shall have a general election, and I imagine I can see in that report some phrases which, although they may not be of a kind that will make for unity in the country, may help the Liberal administration to save a few seats. The expression, "discord and confusion," describes the situation. The government is now having a little holiday, a little respite from this discord and confusion, because one of the main factors in this situation, the Hon. Mr. Hepburn, has gone off to Australia to find out how to run a country. I thought that last night we were hearing the swan song of the Prime Minister. In certain sections the swan seemed to die; then suddenly it would come to life again. By the time the Prime Minister had .[DOT]oncluded his speech I did not know whether ;he swan was alive or dead. If last night's speech was the swan song of the Prime Minister, perhaps the young man (Mr. Hepburn) who is visiting Australia will be back to tell Canada, after he has looked over the situation in the antipodes, how this country should be run.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who is not at present in his seat, said a few minutes ago that the government was able to do something about old age pensions and about this, that and the other thing, but that it could not do anything about the unemployed. I agree with him that the government has not done anything for expansion of employment. He asked the question whether any province has refused to accept assistance from the dominion government in looking after any aspect of employment. Could the government not at least have given the Canadian people some confidence in this parliament of ours by taking over the unemployed employables? That at least would have been a move in the right direction, instead of the many excuses which the government have put forward for not dealing with the situation.
Let them cut across some of the red tape and give us some of that action which they were talking about in Maple Leaf Gardens prior to the last election.
Then it was said that parliament would . have its control over taxation restored; that the cost of living would come down, and that the people would have an opportunity to spread their income over some of the amenities of life which they required. What have the government done in that regard? To-day the iniquitous sales tax is in the first category of tax producers, when in my opinion it should be in the third.	Why should
8138,000,000 be taken from the masses of our people on everything they want and everything they use, when there are other methods of indirect taxation? As I said last year, with this eight per cent sales tax we take from the babe in the cradle and from the octogenarian in his casket. We catch them all. I may be asked, What would you put in the place of it? I would put in the place of it those forms of taxation which bear a little heavily on countries other than Canada as well as on Canada. Customs and excise are not all paid by the Canadian people, no matter how hon. members opposite try to make themselves believe the contrary. They know and I know that foreign countries which want to dump their surplus wares in Canada absorb the customs and excise taxes. That indirect tax is the one which bears the least heavily upon our Canadian people. It is one which should not be lessened; it should at the least be maintained where it is.
All this administration has to its credit is that it has lessened the possibility of revenue from sources other than within Canada, and at the same time it has taken away from the Canadian citizen the opportunity to apply his artisanship in the secondary industries. I shall give the figures to back up my assertion. Last year the government extracted by taxation from the Canadian people $516r 000,000, whereas in 1936 it took only $372,000,000. That is an increase of forty per cent. In other words, whereas three short years ago the government took one dollar, now they are taking S1.40; yet they say that they are interested in keeping down the cost of living and controlling taxation. The fact is that taxation has been running wild, and it will be wilder still, because if you lower the barriers and let in more and more goods, even if the rates are lower and revenue comes into the country, the important point is that the jobs are gone.
We are told that customs administration will be stabilized. Well, perhaps the Minister of National Revenue is getting a little bit
The Address-Mr. Harris

tired of trying to stabilize things. Every day there come new rulings from his department. He is blessed in having close to him a very efficient tariff board which is doing a good job if only he would pay some attention to its recommendations. I see the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) looking inquiringly at me. I say to him, let the tariff board function freely and put its recommendations into effect, and the government will get some use out of the board. It helps very much in the administration of the customs laws, but there are so many rulings every day that people are confused. The most favoured nation treatment is extended to twenty nations. In 1936 it was extended to the United States, as well as eighteen new articles of agreement, and altogether there are so many new regulations that the ordinary business man in Canada is bewildered. We are in the midst of an excise tax muddle, and in the next three weeks the situation will be worse. We do not know what we are going to do about it. Instead of stability we have instability in the conduct of the Department of National Revenue. The regulations all make it harder for the business man to carry on. That top profit of one, two or three per cent which he counts on is skimmed off by the rulings, and it is more difficult for him to do business.
I am glad to note that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) has entered the chamber. I wanted to say something about clause 5 of the 1936 promises. In regard to the Canadian National Railways parliamentary responsibility was promised, and the hope was held out that railway losses would be reduced and capital expenditures curtailed wherever possible. I ask the minister this question: Will he spend twelve and a half or twenty-five millions in Montreal on the Canadian National Railways? Can he say that the government has restored to parliament the responsibility for the conduct of that road and that it has reduced losses? Are the assets in better shape than they were three or four years ago? The government may reply in the affirmative, but what about the cost? Will the cost of operating that system be less this year than it was last year? Will it be reduced in accordance with the promises made four short years ago?
The radio system is operated under my hon. friend's department. According to clause 6 of the 1936 promises, a radio inquiry was promised, and it was said that an independent corporation would be set up. What have we had? The conduct of radio in Canada has been vexatious to the Canadian people. Last year, as the minister will remember, he proposed to increase the fee, but after some consideration he rose in his place in the house

and said that the fee would not be increased. In my opinion the fee system is wrong. It is excessive and unnecessary, and you cannot make the ordinary man in the street understand why he should pay for the use of the air. The fee should be abolished. Now the government is faced with a greater difficulty. In the old days before the introduction of radio, men could stand on boxes at the street comers or in the parks and exercise the right of free speech to their hearts' content, and the then government instituted section 98 of the criminal code. This government wiped out section 98 and substituted censorship by the radio corporation. That body censors whatever goes over the air to the Canadian people. In my opinion the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be told in plain language that we have made enough capital expenditure for the time being and that they should slow down and be more responsible to parliament.
Last night the Prime Minister seemed to be a little weary. Although he was master of the ship he could not leave the helm but had to stay there all the time in order to guide the ship of state. He has guided it through stormy waters, he says; but "around and around in a circle it goes, and where it is going nobody knows." In his younger days, as I remember him when I first came to this house in 1922. he must have been a midshipman or cabin boy, because he said that the 1919 platform of the Liberal party was merely a compass or a chart to go by. He had his eyes glued to the compass. Now that he is entrenched in the leadership of his party he has moved up to captain. He is now captain of the ship and he stays at the helm-doing what? Is he carrying out the pledges of 1936? Most of them we have heard nothing about.
For instance, take the parliamentary secretaryships. They have been put down the hatch, away down below the water-line, and have been covered over with excess baggage. We have heard nothing about that subject. I am rather in accord with the idea of parliamentary secretaryships. When I see some of the ministers unable to do all the work that comes to their desks, I think parliamentary secretaryships should be established. Some of the men I see here who are not doing a real day's work when in Ottawa, in the House of Commons, could be put to work as secretaries under ministers to help them in the discharge of their duties. When municipal bodies or the public generally come to Ottawa to see a minister of the crown, whom do they see? You cannot get close to the minister. The efficient secretaries-and they are good secretaries and do work hard, being

The Address-Mr. Harris
quite tactful in their positions-serve as so many buffers to hold you off. You cannot find what you want. How happy one would feel if, instead of having to disturb, say the Minister of Finance, one could talk to a parliamentary secretary. He would be one of our fraternity. A previous occupant of the chair once declared that this house was the greatest club in Canada, and it is. When I come to Ottawa to discuss something with a minister, I do not necessarily wish to disturb the minister, and if I could talk to a secretary who was one of our own fraternity, that would be perfectly satisfactory. He would honour my given word and I would honour his. But the Prime Minister has failed to introduce legislation to make this possible. Nothing has been done about it-another example of the do-nothing policy of this government.
Restore parliamentary responsibility! My time is going too fast to permit me to do more than refer to the twenty commissions, which cost the country nearly $2,000,000 and created a few jobs, as my leader said yesterday. When his party was sitting here and we were sitting there, how the present Prime Minister railed about the commissions that we appointed! But did .the right hon. gentleman restore parliamentary responsibility? I do not think he did. It is another broken promise. These commissions are set to work while I and other hon. members, sent here by our people for that purpose, could do a great deal of it.
The government did put through some trade agreements, and are probably going to put through another. In 1936 the following words were put into the mouth of the governor general:
My ministers believe that the Canada-United States agreement will mark a great improvement in Canada's international economic relations; also, that the principles embodied in this agreement, extended and applied with vigour and determination, will contribute to the reversal of the trend toward extreme economic nationalism, which has been undermining standards of living. . . .
This is 1936, mind you. There is no such reference to "vigour and determination" in the 1939 recital.
I think that when the Prime Minister is really tired, a good position for him would be at the league of nations, giving lectures on economic nationalism. Perhaps he could tell dear old Britain that she should not have an import advisory board advising the board of trade, or have the board of trade represented in the cabinet. Perhaps he could lecture on civilization. But of all the countries to be lectured on economic nationalism this country is the last, for a few reasons
which I shall recite. And when I recite them I ask hon. members and the country to visualize what I bring to their attention. When under the old agreement imports into Canada were permitted to jump from $300,000,000 in 1934 to $430,000,000 in 1937, an increase of 42 per cent, hon. gentlemen may have thought they tore down some economic nationalism, but in fact they tore away from thousands of people the possibility of applying their workmanship to the manufacture and production in Canada of required goods. In secondary industry alone, imports jumped from $120,000,000 in 1935 to $215,000,000 in 1937, an increase of 80 per cent. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) knows, I know and the house knows that the maximum amount of work is provided in these secondary industries. To put it in figures, look at a dozen balance sheets; you will find that raw material costs, say 50 per cent; labour, 20 per cent; cost of production, another 20 per cent, and interest and so on, 5 per cent; and if there is 5 per cent left he is fortunate. Take the 20 per cent which is straight labour; on that basis the trade agreement of 1936 took away the opportunity of work from 50,000 Canadian people. Thai is the fact with regard to that agreement I have not time to go into details.
In the speech from the throne this year we are told that we are to approve another trade agreement, fulfilling the hope expressed in the speech from the throne last year that an agreement would be reached which would confirm and enlarge the advantages of the 1935 agreement with the United States. And we are told that, taken with the United Kingdom-United States agreement, it constitutes a constructive contribution toward a betterment of world conditions. When were we in Canada put in charge of world conditions? Is it not about time we looked after the condition of our own people a little more? That is the way I feel about the situation; when we have distress at home, let the world look after itself and let us look after ourselves. Are the nations to be saved by making us hewers of wood and drawers of water for the United States? That world appeasement, in my opinion, is all humbug and eye-wash. I do not see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his seat; I do not know whether he is feeling too friendly towards this agreement. Speaking to the Halton County Liberal-Progressive association at Milton, Ontario, on November 18, he is reported in the Toronto Telegram as follows:
He pointed out that he had reason to believe that the concessions Canada was compelled to give would not do the dominion any harm.
The Address-Mr. Harris

My question is, Who compelled Canada to give those concessions? Have we been in the hands of a dictatorship? Canada demands that the Minister of Agriculture rise in his place and defend his position, tell us who compelled us. Empire democracy is not built on force or dictatorship.
Nor do I see the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) in his seat. In the days of my youth someone asked me to make a noise like a fish. I asked him what he meant, and he said, in order to make a noise like a fish you do not make a noise at all. The Minister of Fisheries does not make any noise at all. Let him rise in his place and defend this agreement from the viewpoint of the maritime provinces. Perhaps he and the Minister of National Revenue should go into a huddle and decide how they are going to vote on the apple concession. The Minister of National Revenue, if he holds to the convictions of his youth, will vote against this agreement, as he was brave enough to vote on another occasion a few years ago. Do the coal miners of the maritime provinces give thanks for the removal of the three per cent excise tax on coal? Will the port authorities of Saint John and Halifax give support when they find millions of bushels of wheat which should be flowing through Canadian ports going through ports of the United States and making work for citizens of that country instead of Canadians? Will those engaged in secondary industry thank the Minister of National Revenue when they find themselves compelled to become importers rather than manufacturers employing men and women in this country? Will they thank the Minister of National Revenue and this government for turning them from one class of trade to another? No one can turn around as quickly as the manufacturer; if they will not let us manufacture we can import; but on behalf of those men and women who work in secondary industry, I ask this government to let us manufacture and produce in Canada; do not make us traders, do not make us importers. We shall become importers if we are forced to do so in order to save ourselves; but in saving ourselves we do not save the job for the work-people of Canada, and they are the people who need saving at this time.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to make an oration, but I have something to say, which I shall say in a few well chosen words. First, permit me to congratulate the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) on the honour that has been done him by the party which has called him to its leadership. I have known him for some time. The first reports

I got on Doctor Manion in Fort William related to him as an athlete, and I should like to say that any man who has proved himself a clean athlete will make a worthy opponent for anyone to stack up against. I notice that he played the game of hockey and did considerable sprinting on the track, and swimming, but chiefly did he shine in the game of lacrosse. I would suggest to the government, in connection with the arrangements for the entertainment of the king and queen on their visit to Canada, that the leader of the opposition get a place on the lacrosse team. I also should like to have some consideration there, to get into training for a couple of months and back him up.
Because of the love of the leader of the opposition for athletics, I should like to refer to something reported in the Times-Journal of Fort William. I do this to show the hopefulness of the youth of Fort William. There was a dog called Prince that got into trouble, and the boy who owned that dog went to the pound-keeper, who was a kind man to both dog and boy. This dog was let out; the bo' trained him and entered him in the dog derby in Westport for a three mile race, and he came off with a cup. This dog derby was run off as all sports should be run; there was no bet or any sweepstake in connection with the race. This shows what a boy can do, and if that lad's father can help him to become a winner he may some day sit in this house and give leadership to others.
I should like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) personally for advising that the leader of the opposition should not be opposed in the recent byelection. This is a courtesy which should be extended regularly, and if I dared make a suggestion I would say this: When a member of parliament has been called to the great, beyond, it always hurts my feelings that there should be a by-election. I would far rather see some member of his household, if any were available, take his place. I do not think the government, the opposition or any other party would lose anything under that arrangement.
I am not forgetting the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address; I congratulate them on their efforts. When a man is capable of doing what I am not able to do, I can congratulate and thank him. It happens that I was guilty of making a short speech in the town of Souris in the constituency of Brandon. I always like to return to a place where I am known to make a speech, because the people know whether or not I am practising what I preach.

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
I should like to congratulate the government on the set-up of the radio corporation. I was very much touched when I saw the report of what occurred when the use of the radio was denied one of our great editors. The Prime Minister told us something of the set-up of the corporation. T have nothing but respect for our great editors or, for that matter, for the editors of our local papers, but I am thankful that no editor or millionaire can buy a place on the CBC. If the editor of the Globe could buy a place because he happened to be backed by a millionaire, what would happen to a trade unionist, a member of an executive playing an important part in the life of this country, if he had not millions behind him? He would have to take some other means than that which might be open to a man who had money. So I say thank heaven for a corporation that cannot be bought. Some of us are in the house today because there are some things that cannot be bought with money. One of our greatest struggles in Canada is between capital and labour. We want fair play; fair play to the man who invests his money; fair play to the man who manages a corporation, whether he be an editor or a manager; fair play to the toilers that their work may be secure and they may obtain a living wage, and fair play to those who buy the finished products.
I should like to congratulate the government upon its housing scheme. In Fort William this summer we felt some of the effects of that scheme. It was very difficult to find a first class carpenter who was not working, and one could not find an idle bricklayer. We had to send for them, east, west or wherever we could get them, because, thanks to the housing scheme, there was more work than the bricklayers could do.
I should like to thank the government also for the fact that its ministers have spoken in no uncertain terms against the amalgamation of our two railways. I make no apology for opposing the amalgamation of these roads, because I believe such amalgamation would bring about far more unemployment. The cure for the difficulty is, in my opinion, more trade; if we get more trade we shall need both our railways.
I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister upon preparing the way for the Prime Minister of England to visit that great German leader, Mr. Hitler. It has been said that in times of peace we should prepare for peace. When the Prime Minister of Canada was in Europe he did not hesitate to take the risk of visiting the national leader of Germany, and there is no doubt that he sowed seeds of truth
in the mind of Mr. Hitler so that when Mr. Chamberlain came to visit him the way had been prepared, and I think the right hon. gentleman did a great piece of work.
Later on we shall have something more to say about peace and rearmament, but in my opinion we have greater cause to fear the enemies within our country than the enemies from without. The old book says that our foes are those of our own households. It has been well said by one of our leaders that we have enough for the world's need but we have not enough for the world's greed. Selfishness is the great curse of mankind, so that we need the help that comes to our country from the Christian church. I greatly admired the work in this house of the former right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), but I do not agree with him when he says, nor do I agree when any bishop or moderator says, that the church has failed. I do not believe they can say that unless they can estimate the value of a Christian mother or a Christian dad, or of unselfish servants from the Salvation Army lassie right up to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Who can estimate the value of Christianity, of unselfishness, throughout the length and breadth of our country and say the church has failed? Such a statement is in line with that of those who always say the government has failed when it may not have been able to do anything.
I should like to offer a suggestion to the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), who is an old friend and who will know whereof I speak. In Fort William we have suffered in connection with the shipping of coal from the west under the coal subvention. As I said last year there is a three and a half million dollar plant which is practically idle. In the national school of Ireland I was taught that there is a law of compensation. The teacher said, "If you lose your eyes your hearing becomes keener. If you lose your hearing your observation becomes better." One kid said, "Begorra, that's right; if one leg is short the other is longer." I should like the Minister of Mines and Resources to realize that there ought to be a law of compensation, because forty-five or fifty miles west of Fort William we have iron ore in abundance. I am sure that in dealing with that deposit he will measure up to his task just as he is helping in connection with coal subventions. One may pick-and-shovel this iron ore out of the rock, and it is there in an abundance which is probably not known to the speculators. When I think of the first class haematite ore in the Atikokan district, and the efforts we have made in Canada to develop our iron and
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

steel industry, I realize that if war came upon us we would have within our grasp that which we need.
The conditions around the head of the lakes is known well by men such as ex-judge McKay, and I believe it is the duty of the government to give us a bounty on iron ore -I refrain from using the word "protection." "Bounty" is the better word for those who believe in free trade. However, I shall have more to say on this subject at a later time.
So far as unemployment insurance is concerned, I believe the time has come when we must go ahead or, to use the word of another, blast our way through. Unemployment insurance is a necessity, and I have confidence the government will see a way to put it into effect.
I would suggest to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) that our highways be patrolled by returned men who have served their country well. United States tourists would be drawn to Canada if they knew that while here they would be protected by men who stood shot and shell, but who were spared to come back and have shown a willingness to keep our highways open.
As I began with some observations respecting athletics, I should like to close by saying that in Fort William we have the second greatest ski jump in Canada. In that city in February we are holding the Canadian championship ski contests. The skiing officials have constructed a trail extending 130 miles. Most of it has been constructed this year, and it is paid for. I would suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Manion) would do well to take three days off and visit Fort William while the ski jumping contests are in progress. Both gentlemen enjoy thrills and spills, and they would have their fill if they attended the contests. However, if they cannot come, it might be possible for them in some other worthy way to indicate to the executive of the ski club that the efforts of that organization for the benefit of the youth in Canada are appreciated.
Again I express my good wishes to the leader of the opposition. I know he will play fair. He will play hard; he will be honest and he will be true, because any man who has been educated and has practised in Fort William has the ability to fight a good fight and do it fairly.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the
[Mr. Mclvor.J
throne. I am sure it is the sense of the whole house that those hon. members acquitted themselves very satisfactorily and in a manner which reflected credit upon them.
May I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon arranging for the visit of the- king and queen during the coming summer. It has been borne in upon even those of us who are the strongest of democrats that our sovereign represents a useful institution in our system of government. He is a living symbol of a living empire, and I believe the British commonwealth of nations is destined to uphold and make a greater contribution to the cause of world peace than any other organization in existence. Anything which may serve further to symbolize and to cement that unity, and in that must be included the visit of our reigning sovereign, must be welcomed with all our hearts. I am sure our people are also pleased to learn of the proposed visit of the king and queen to the United States. It will be a most historic occasion when a British sovereign sets foot on soil which was once British, over which the British flag once waved, and when he goes there as a friend to welcome them into closer collaboration with our commonwealth, all pledged to the cause of world peace, the ideal for which English-speaking peoples stand the world over. I am sure the king will carry a message of good will from all parts of the British commonwealth, and it would be our wish that his visit in the cause of world peace may be blessed.
I cannot help recalling, when I think of that visit, that were it not for the Tories of an earlier day crying out for what they believed to be right, the British sovereign might be visiting the most important country in the commonwealth instead of a foreign but friendly nation. The whole course of history might have been different had Liberalism instead of Conservatism prevailed at that time.
I should not let this occasion pass without referring to the signal service done for the cause of mankind by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. As one who did some service in the front area and saw something of the horrors of war, I was amazed when I learned that a man who had not seen it seemed fully to sense its horror and was prepared to do almost anything to spare mankind from once more going through those horrors. I do not say that I approve everything done by the British government under its present or previous leaderships in not tending at all times to bring the whole force of the British nation to the support of the League of

The Address-Mr. Tucker
Nations. Faced with the crisis last September, however. I do submit that Mr. Chamberlain did everything he could and is deserving of the thanks of mankind.
May I point out further that the attitude of our own Prime Minister, in those days when all of us were filled with worry and the thought that we were possibly faced with a condition parallel to that of 1914, was most commendable. His statesmanship on that occasion was worthy of the highest traditions of all past great prime ministers in British countries. His efforts followed closely the high example set by former great Canadian leaders such as Sir John A. Macdonald. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden. Canada was well represented in the crisis. I would not be fair did I not say that by his attitude at that time the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) showed himself to be a worthy successor in the leadership of the Conservative party of the great leaders who have preceded him.
I must admit that when I listened to the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) giving expression to some of the hoary theories which have been served up to the country election after election and time after time, theories which have not and never will solve our problems, I was tempted to answer him. I believe, however, that the people and particularly the youth of Canada expect more from parliament than the threshing of old straw, such as we have witnessed to a certain extent in the past. They expect from this parliament proposals which will solve in a definite and sweeping way the problems that face the Canadian people. Does the hon. member for Danforth suggest that the people of Canada should believe that the policies which he espouses, the policies which were tried for the five years before this administration came into office and failed, are going to solve these problems? Does he expect the people of Canada or anyone else to believe that?
During the dark days of the war it was found that the only possible way of winning the war was by the mind of man applying itself to the situation and working out innovations which would help to win the war. But it was necessary to fight against the Tory minds in the high command of the army. The establishment of unified command, without which I am satisfied the war would have been lost, was opposed to the last ditch by the Tories in the high command of the British army. The preponderance of artillery, the use of tanks and many other definite innovations which were conceived by the mind
of man as being necessary to win the war in the interests of civilization were opposed or accepted with hesitating reluctance.
I put it to you that faced with the crisis with which we in Canada are faced to-day, the mind of man in Canada is quite capable of evolving the innovation in policies necessary to solve the situation. It is with that that I wish to deal to-day. I desire to suggest an innovation to this house and to this country, not with any idea of its being perfect but simply as a contribution towards the solution of the problem that faces us. No one pretends that the situation to-day is satisfactory when hundreds of thousands of people, particularly young people, find themselves unable to devote their lives to the service of their country and to earn a living for themselves and their families. Unemployment has two definite aspects, both of which are undesirable.
First, there is the effect on the individual There is the loss of morale. If any one ol us had been unable to obtain work when we first left school; if we had been unable to set ourselves up in an independent way; if we had been condemned, as thousands of young people in Canada to-day are condemned, to live at home and to accept money from our parents, probably we would have lost our selfconfidence and never would have managed to make anything of our lives. Many of the present generation are having their morale and self-confidence thus destroyed. If this parliament is to be true to the great traditions of parliamentary government it should make a contribution toward the solving of this problem. Instead of condemning one another for the things that are past, we should be looking to the future and trying to evolve something to meet this situation.
The other aspect of the situation is the effect of unemployment upon the nation. Unemployment leads to stress and strain between different sections. A daily newspaper in western Canada took a poll of its readers on the question of secession, and to the amazement of everyone it carried by a small majority. Something else which I deplore is the outbreak of racial feeling in Canada. Who ever would have thought that that could happen in our country? In other words, we have this dominion being shaken to its very foundations because so many people are unemployed and are unable to establish homes for themselves and support those whom they love.
No nation ever grew wealthy by keeping thousands of its young people unemployed, by leaving them on the dole when great natural
The Address-Mr. Tucker

resources are unexploited. Some hon. members may have had occasion to read the primer which is used in the schools of Germany and in which reference is made to the unused natural resources of Canada. Are we not going to put our unemployed to work to exploit our great natural resources and produce wealth? This country is largely underpopulated and is a standing temptation to the overpopulated countries of the rest of the globe. I submit we owe a sacred duty to our forefathers to devote ourselves to using our natural resources to the fullest possible extent and to populating our country with our own people as quickly as possible in order that we may be able to hand on unimpaired the great heritage that we have received from their hands.
Do we lack natural resources? Does anyone suggest that Canada is not well endowed with natural resources? Do we lack labour? There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed who are anxious and willing to work. Do we lack capital? Our banks have plenty of capital or potential credit, but they say they cannot make loans. Everyone knows that all that is necessary is labour, capital, and natural resources. What is the trouble? Some people I know seem to believe that there is a lack of capital. I should like to read a short report which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 11, dealing with a speech by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who said:
If peace were assured, Britain would be using some of her great financial resources tu develop Canada's great natural resources. In western Canada there is a great potential for industrial growth. Half the mineral wealth, half the coal of the country are enclosed in an area close to the Rocky mountains. There are no industries there. Development would create great wealth.
With the latter part of that I am in hearty accord. We have great mineral resources in western Canada, but I suggest that we do not need capital from abroad to develop them. Under our present Bank of Canada set-up the only reason for wanting foreign capital would be the necessity of buying things abroad that cannot be produced at home or which could not be procured with goods produced at home. During the war Great Britain found it necessary to get foreign credits in the United States for this reason. But are we in Canada in that position? We have the man power and we have skilled leaders. As I say, we have great natural resources. What about the necessity of foreign capital? There is one thing about foreign capital. If you do not need it, it is a bad thing to import. You must go on paying interest on it until you

repay it, and sometimes you have to repay it two or three times. This constitutes a continual drain on the resources of the country. Anyone who knows anything about the capital invested by the United States in Canada knows that it has been paid time and time again, and still we must go on paying interest on it. That is a drain upon a young country. If you do not need foreign capital, you should not import it.
I suggest that we do not need foreign capital. I suggest that our present financial set-up makes plenty of capital available. I should like to refer to some figures in this connection. According to the January 4, 1939. report of the Bank of Canada, gold coin and bullion in the hands of the bank amounted, in round figures, to $186,957,000. Under the Bank of Canada Act the Bank of Canada has the right to print against that gold four dollars for every dollar in gold that it holds. On that four dollars to one ratio it could print or make available to the bankers as deposits with the Bank of Canada a total of $747,831,000 of money. On the basis of our financial set-up as it was described by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) last session, the banking system of this country can and does tend to make loans and investments to the extent of ten dollars for every dollar that they have by way of such liquid reserves in the form of Bank of Canada notes or deposits in the Bank of Canada. So that on the basis of the present gold holdings of the Bank of Canada, the banks of this country could make loans and investments to the extent of $7,478,000,000. They have the financial power to do it. The banks do not deny they have that right and that power. Well, then, I suggest, we do not need capital from abroad; we have the situation well in hand at home.
But somebody may say, regardless of the legal power to do it, it is not wise to issue Bank of Canada currency on the basis of printing four dollars' worth of money against one dollar's worth of gold. It was suggested last session by the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that the 25 per cent gold basis was an absolute minimum. Very well let us be sure, and give twice the coverage which is provided by law. The value of our gold production last year was, in round figures, $141,000,000. If we kept that in our hands for one year and added it to the gold already on hand, we would have a total gold supply, in round figures, of $328,875,000. On a two to one basis, that would enable us to issue $657,000,000 worth of Bank of Canada notes, and on that issue the banks of this country would have the right, in a perfectly sound way,

The Address-Mr. Tucker
carrying out their present policies, to issue loans or make investments to the extent of $6,577,000,000. I cannot go into the details in the time at my disposal, but to-day the banks have loans within Canada to individuals and corporations and investments in Canadian securities to the extent of $2,470,000,000, which means that if we kept one year's production of gold in Canada and issued Bank of Canada notes on a two to one basis instead of the four to one permitted by law, the banks could issue almost twice as much credit again as they have issued to date.
The suggestion may be made. If that capital is available, why the difficulty? As a Liberal I am particularly interested in this because I believe our policy was that we regarded credit as a public matter, not of interest to banks alone but of direct concern to the average citizen: we believed that credit should be controlled in the interests of the people and not solely in that of private bankers' p.ofits. As the trouble to-day is lack of capital or credit to those wishing to develop our resources, and the banks to-day have the power to provide capital to the extent of a further four billions of dollars, are we controlling it in the interests of the country, or are we allowing the banks to continue to control credit in the interests of their own private profit? I ask that question, and I do not attempt to answer it but leave it to hon. members. But I do say this, that at the time the Bank of Canada was set up, it was believed that the powers given to the Bank of Canada, viz: power to re-discount and to conduct open market operations would enable it to control credit. I am satisfied all honestly believed that we were taking full control over the credit policy of this country when we gave the Bank of Canada those powers when setting it up. If it has not worked that way, I submit it is the duty of our party, pledged to control credit, to study the problem and take further powers of control so that we do control the credit of this country.
Our government has been trying to follow a policy of credit expansion. I just wish to give the figures to indicate that this policy has not succeeded in controlling the credit of the country by causing that credit to expand. We followed an easy money policy designed to increase the amount of credit available for the development of the dominion. We increased our Bank of Canada notes and deposits of chartered banks with the Bank of Canada, taking the daily average for September, 1935. and for September 1938, to this extent: The average amount of bank deposits in the Bank of Canada and Bank of
Canada notes held by the chartered banks which were the liquid reserves of the banking system in September, 1935, was $219,971,000. By our easy money policy, trying to force credit out to develop this country, we increased that to an average, in September, 1938, of $262,766,000, an increase of $42,795,000 in the liquid cash reserves of the banking system of this country. Was that reflected in an increase in loans to business institutions and the public, as it was designed to be and as it should have been if we had control over the credit of this dominion? It was not. In loans to corporations and individuals iD Canada there was an actual decrease ol $26,784,000 in those three yearn, although the population was increasing and the need foi expansion existed. The banks did not increase their loans to the public, although we did our best by means of the Bank of Canada, operating in the way provided, to force them to do so. After the recess I intend to indicate why that was so.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Walter Adam Tucker: When the house rose I had just been endeavouring to show that although the policy of the present administration, operating through the Bank of Canada, was an easy money policy designed to increase the amount of credit available to the business institutions and generally the enterprise of the country, by increasing the cash reserves available to the chartered banks of Canada, upon which reserves they might create a larger amount of credit to lend to our business institutions, the result had not been an increase but rather a decrease in the amount of money lent by the chartered banks to our business institutions. I sought to indicate that the policy of stimulating the amount of credit available for our business institutions, through the operations of the Bank of Canada, had not worked during the past three years, and I said that I would show why that was so. Of course, the basic reason is that the only way by which credit can reach the people who need it is through the chartered banks, and the mere fact of giving them adequate reserves is no assurance that they will use those reserves in making loans to the country's business enterprises.
On that point I wish to read from the Winnipeg Free Press of January 14, 1939, a statement by Mr. S. G. Dobson, managing director of one of the chartered banks of
The Address-Mr. Tucker

Canada, indicating the attitude of the banks in that regard. Discussing commercial loans and credits, he says:
We hear from time to time the criticism that banks are investing too large a portion of their funds in government bonds and too little in assisting business enterprises. Thinking people will realize at once that such a charge is illogical and unjustified. Our primary business is commercial banking, but as has been pointed out on numerous occasions, we cannot compel unwilling borrowers to use our surplus funds if, because of lack of confidence or for other reasons, they are not prepared to expand their business; and prudent bankers must of necessity guard against taking unwarranted risks. Consequently, the only way in which surplus funds can be put to work is to invest them in government bonds, and in order that these funds may be made available for commercial purposes if the demand arises, only short-date securities are purchased.
It may interest you to know that this bank's portfolio of dominion government securities only nets approximately two per cent per annum and this fact should in itself be an effective answer to the charge that we accumulate these securities from choice rather than increase commercial loans. It would be a strange type of banker who would prefer this small return to the more remunerative commercial rate.
The interest return on government securities is low, largely because of the "easy" credit policy of the Bank of Canada and the resultant surplus of funds seeking profitable employment.
Many people become confused in their minds regarding the term "credit" and the statement has been loosely made that the right of issuing credit has been passed on by the government to the banks. This is untrue. Control of credit is one of the prerogatives of the Bank of Canada. They alone can decide whether a policy of "easy" or "tight" money is to be pursued. Their facility for doing this is to purchase securities if they wish the banks to he supplied with additional funds, or to sell securities if they wish cash in the hands of the banks reduced. As far as the chartered banks are concerned, their supply of funds is regulated and they have available such surpluses as the Bank of Canada wishes them to have. Most people, when talking or thinking of the term "credit" look upon it in terms of the amount they individually can borrow from a bank, but in the broader sense-as applied to the country as a whole-whether credit is "easy" or otherwise is a matter within the control of the Bank of Canada. This volume of credit they regulate according to the needs and requirements of the country as a whole.
What I wish to emphasize is that, as the general manager of this bank points out, although the policy of this administration has been an easy money policy, the banks declare that fundamentally because of their reluctance to take chances they have been unwilling to make loans to business enterprises and have been investing in government bonds and securities. In other words, the last word is with the chartered banks.

Now then, what are we faced with as a Liberal party? The whole situation comes down to this: We have ample man power; we have skilled engineers who could give leadership in taking charge of the industrial enterprise of the country, the opening up of mines and so on; we have the natural resources; and, on the admission of the banks and according to the figures that I have put before the house, we have ample credit. But the banks, for what appear to them to be good reasons, do not choose to put that credit in the hands of business enterprise. What is to be done?
In the short time still at my disposal I intend to lay before the house a suggestion which I believe would be at once fair to the banks and a means of solving the problem. But before I offer that suggestion I should like to say a word to those who take the attitude that there is nothing in any such ideas as these that are being put forward. To such people I say: Have you any idea which will solve the problems that face this country, and solve those problems adequately? If you have not, then I suggest that you should get busy-every member of this house should get busy-and try to figure out something that will. I do not suggest that the idea I submit is the only one or that it is necessarily the best. I offer it simply in the hope that it will give rise to some comment, and that if there is some virtue in it, some effect may be given to it. At any rate it will lead to a study of the great difficulty to-day, namely, the fear of capital of investing in enterprise for the purpose of putting our people to work and developing our natural resources.
It was my privilege last summer to spend four days flying over the northern part of Saskatchewan. I visited Goldfields where the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company operates. That company, before taking one cent out of the ground by way of profits, will probably spend ten millions by way of developmental work. You cannot put, labour to work on mineral resources in our north country to any great extent unless you have great resources of capital behind you; but there are not many large companies who are able to go to the banks with the necessary security in order to get such large supplies of credit with which to develop our natural resources. You have, therefore, the suggestion that credit should be sought abroad. I say, however, that if these enterprises are worth developing at all; if they would justify our seeking credit from abroad, then we have the right to say to the banks: "You must make available the necessary capital to develop the resources of this country." Someone

The Address-Mr. Hansell
may say that this is unfair to the banks. Well, let me suggest how it could be worked out. A board of bank commissioners could be set up and if anyone had a worthwhile mining scheme-something similar to the Consolidated Mining and Smelting proposition at Goldfields, Saskatchewan-and engineers reported favourably upon it, the only difficulty being lack of capital because the would-be borrowers had no collateral security to enable them to borrow from the banks, such board would engage geologists to investigate the proposal and, if the report were favourable, they would order the banks to furnish the necessary credit, each one sharing pro rata in the risk. This, I may be told, would be unfair to the depositors and shareholders. To meet this, I would then say to them: "On these risks which you are ordered to take we will guarantee you an aggregate return of not more than two per cent. In individual instances that return may be seven, or six, or five per cent, but we will guarantee you, on all the risks we order you to take, an aggregate return of two per cent, so that you cannot lose." To the persons sponsoring the undertaking I would say: "In the case of private capital you would have lo give a share in the enterprise to the people furnishing that capital. And where you have to apply to the government for the necessary capital, through the chartered banks, I would say that a half interest in the enterprise when developed should accrue to the government."
I am satisfied that in that way, if our natural resources are as good as they are supposed to be, and I believe they are, there would be not a loss but a profit to the government even after paying the two per cent in eases where the proposition did not turn out well. There would be ample capital for the development of our natural resources, and enterprise could proceed, because there is ample man power. That would be taking control of the credit of the country in the interests of the people.
After all, the whole trouble to-day is lack of credit to develop the natural resources of Canada. If we did something of this sort-say in connection with mining to start with-the principle could ultimately be extended to other industries. But we might confine ourselves for the moment and at the start to mining. If, for example, in western Canada we could have half a dozen enterprises being developed like the one at Goldfields-and there are the mineral fields discovered to da so-instead of one, giving employment to our people, there would be no need to force young people on to farms to try to earn their living with consequent overproduction of farm products. There would be a great demand from the mining industry for the things the farmers produce. This development would contribute to the solution of the railway problem and at the same time to the upbuilding of the manufacturing industry. In other words, a good many of our problems for which we seem to have at present no solution would be taken care of.
I offer that suggestion in all seriousness as providing a means of carrying out our policy of securing control of the credit of the country. If we did put the credit power of the country behind the youth of Canada for the development of our resources, the present bad feeling between one section of the dominion and another, the racial feeling that I fear is beginning to show itself between people of different origins, would suddenly and rapidly recede into the background. I suggest that if we were to take hold of the situation in that fashion, we could, east and west, regardless of racial origin or religious creed, work together in the interest of the future of Canada; we could once more do our part to justify democracy in the eyes of the world and our own people, and we could establish on the northern half of this continent a people working together in harmony, serving their country, making homes for themselves and able to earn a reasonable living. And by such an innovation of policy much as in the war we would win the peace. We in our turn would do our part to build up and hand on to posterity the great country foreseen by the fathers of this nation, a country which we would be proud of and which would not suffer from the difficulties and sense of frustration that we have to face to-day.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the speech from the throne and had opportunity to digest it somewhat, we notice several things in it that might be debated. I am not going to take time to go through the speech from beginning to end, but coming to those parts which refer to the wheat board and the royal commission on grain marketing and its effect upon the grain exchanges, also the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, I was immediately reminded of what happened at the last session of parliament with regard to some of these matters. I suppose that on account of the prospective visit of their majesties to Canada this year it will be the desire of the house to hasten its business as much as possible in order that prorogation may be reached before the time of their majesties' visit. Last session there was ample time to
The Address-Mr. Hansell

conclude in good time for his excellency to have prorogued parliament himself. I have referred to one or two items in the speech from the throne because some of these items were left until the dying days of the last session.
I might take a moment to review the business of this house at the last session. It will be recalled that the budget was considerably delayed, the reason given, and perhaps it was a legitimate one, being that the Canada-United States trade agreement was expected to be brought down at any time. Day after day, week after week it was about to come, but at last budget day was announced and the trade agreement did not come down. We all know what happened. I am certain that if we had waited for the trade agreement to be consummated, we would have had to stay here several months later than wc did. However that is past and gone.
The report of the grain commission was brought down in this house on May 9. The appropriate item under which the report could be discussed was not brought down by the minister until June 30, the day on which it was expected parliament would prorogue. His excellency had arranged passage and was to sail on July 1. Many of us wanted to speak on the grain commission report, but it would have been very unpopular for us to have taken time to make our speeches when the whole house was expecting parliament to prorogue perhaps within a few hours. We all know the result. One hon. member from the government side spoke upon the report at length, and one hon. member from the Conservative party spoke on it; those two men were quite capable of speaking on it, and the rest of us felt that in order to facilitate the business of the house we should refrain from speaking. But some of us felt that it was rather unfair for this particular item to be brought down on the last day of parliament, when it could have been brought down several weeks before.
That day, June 30, wore on. and it was almost midnight when the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) brought down some of his estimates. I have particular reference now to the estimate for subventions on coal, some $2,250,000. That estimate *was brought down toward midnight of June 30. The subject of coal mining is of great interest to many hon. members, those from Nova Scotia and Alberta perhaps in particular. It was going on to midnight; parliament was expected to prorogue at any minute, maybe at one or two or three o'clock in the

morning, and the whole house was continually crying. "Carried", "Carried", "Carried", when an item of this kind was still to be discussed. Such items as this are of tremendous importance. Nova Scotia has a coal mining industry which is very important to that province, and the same is true of Alberta. Ample time should be given for discussion of these matters. Of course I know it will be said that there is no desire to shut off discussion, but we all know how unpopular it is for one to take time to speak in those dying hours of the session when everyone wants to get away. Subsequently to that, along towards midnight the Minister of Alines and Resources brought down his estimates for highways. Some hon. members no doubt recall those particular estimates, and it is a singular fact that the appropriations to the provinces involved amounts from $100,000 to $500,000, except that the amount for Alberta was $75,000. The former leader of the opposition characterised that as being a punishment for Alberta rather than a reward. It is singular that such an estimate should be left until the very dying hours of the session.
I go a little further. That night we adjourned at twenty minutes after midnight, at which time there were still important estimates to be dealt with; estimates of the defence department; an amount of three and a half million dollars for rehabilitation; the estimates for the youth training program, and estimates concerning unemployment relief. On July 1 we assembled at 10.30 o'clock in the morning, and a message was read by you, Mr. Speaker, from his excellency's secretary, saying that the deputy of his excellency would proceed to the senate chamber at one o'clock to prorogue parliament. Still we had those very, very important items to consider. At 12.30 o'clock, about half an hour before the time set for prorogation, the estimate providing 83,-
500.000	for rehabilitation was brought before the committee. As we all know, one does not become very popular if one speaks at length when everyone is anxious to get away, but the item respecting rehabilitation was an important matter, concerning the drought area of the west, most of which lies in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The peculiar thing about the matter, as far as some of us are concerned, is that there is no reason why such an estimate could not have been brought down very early in the session in order to provide ample opportunity for discussion. However, to resume, we adjourned at one o'clock and came back at three o'clock in the afternoon to continue the discussion on the rehabilitation estimate. The estimate for the

The Address-Mrs. Black
youth training program, amounting to more than a million dollars, still had to be discussed.
I am pointing out these matters because some of us felt that it was not altogether fair to us to have these estimates left until the last hours of the session. We do not wish to imply that this was done on purpose, but it is certain that these particular items were of tremendous importance to this country and should have been far more generally discussed. We want to facilitate the business of parliament; but no one can further the business of this house better than those who sit on the treasury benches, and we would ask that during this session some of these important items be brought forward in the not too far distant future in order that they may be adequately discussed. We feel that, without becoming too unpopular, we should have an opportunity to discuss these matters. We do not want to put our request in the form of a warning, but we do want to urge that these estimates be brought down early.
There are other points that we might mention in connection with the speech from the throne. I might recall that the Liberal party went into power on that glorious promise of reforming the money policy of this country, based on the theory of issuing currency and credit in terms of public need. By this time that statement has been worn almost threadbare. It is to be noticed that in the speech from the throne this year such policies are conspicuous by their absence. This year nothing is said about doing anything in the way of monetary reform. Well, perhaps it has all been done; perhaps the battle that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) promised to fight has been finished. We did not notice any smoke in the air; but perhaps if there was any it has been all cleared away, and the country cannot expect any more. However, I would not place too much reliance upon the fact that this subject is not mentioned in the speech from the throne, because it will be recalled that last year the speech from the throne contained nothing with regard to monetary reform; yet some time around the middle or towards the latter part of the session the Prime Minister was pleased to bring down a bill providing for the purchase of all the stock of the Bank of Canada. So perhaps a good deal of our legislation depends upon the political pulse of the country. I do not know, but last year's experience would seem to indicate that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we in this corner of the house are somewhat disappointed that there is no reference in the speech from the throne
to money reform. We have continually urged upon the government that the only solution to the problems of this country is a positive readjustment of our money policy. Nothing is being done. How much longer must we urge that action be taken? Perhaps the best we can expect is that the next time the people have an opportunity to speak they will speak in a voice that can be understood.


Mrs. MARTHA LOUISE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my word of congratulation to the mover and the seponder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Especially do I wish to congratulate that younger member, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier). It has been my good fortune to know the hon. gentleman rather well, and when I see a young man speaking with equal facility in both French and English I am really consumed with envy. Ever since I have lived in this country, which has been for forty years now, and have known it as a bilingual country, I have felt it a shame that the young people of this day and age, as of forty years ago, have not been taught to speak both French and English. We have in the hon. member for Stormont a shining example of what the young people of to-day should know.
Perhaps it is unnecessary for me to touch upon the trade agreement. More and more as I come here each session I have a feeling of isolation; I feel more and more that I am alone. It is not that every individual member is not exceedingly kind and courteous; it is because of the fact that my constituency is so isolated and so far away from the rest of Canada. The trade agreement affects us not at all. In that north land we produce only the mediums of exchange, namely, gold and silver. When times are prosperous in Canada-or, as we in the north call it, on the outside-we pay higher prices for the goods we purchase. When depression is rampant throughout the country we are able to get our goods for less. So I think hon. members will understand when I say that from a selfish standpoint the trade agreement affects us not at all.
It seems to me that we on this continent are singularly blessed in the peace that we have, outwardly at least, throughout the country. We are free to use our own language. We are free to worship in whatever church we choose. We are free to move about whither we will. There is no one to say us nay, no one to regiment us as the peoples of Europe are regimented. I have been both shocked and surprised in reading papers throughout Canada
The Address-Mrs. Black

to see that other people are demanding the rights of -their languages. I have not been afraid that either this government or any future government will listen to those demands, because any government must have before it the horrible example of the continent of Europe, with its multiplicity of languages, which has become a modern tower of Babel. That factor must account for much of the trouble taking place in Europe at the present time.
During the September crisis we in the Yukon heard the voice of the world over the radio. We were thousands of miles from London, the heart of empire; yet there was not a heart in the Yukon but beat in unison with the tragedy which was taking place overseas. There was no one who did not feel the greatest amount of sympathy for that Prime Minister, Mr. Chamberlain. Not only did he turn the other cheek to the enemy but he turned it several times. Certainly he must have suffered the greatest agony of humiliation when undergoing what he did. But in undergoing that, while thoughtlessly many people have said -that he gave away much that he should not have given away, for the time being at least he saved the world from a horrible slaughter.
Yesterday afternoon when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke, I heard him say that the danger was not past, a fact which I believe we all realize. Only the cool heads will be able to stave off the danger a little longer, and yet a little longer, until possibly the world may realize the utter madness of another holocaust such as those of us who are older went through between 1914 and 1918. There is nothing for a government to do but to do the best it can in times of such anxiety. Those of us who are not responsible can sit on the side lines and criticize. It is very easy to find fault; it is easy to criticize. But I sometimes wonder how much better we could have done ourselves. I doubt if there are many of us who would have done even as well. During the crisis the Yukon was deeply interested, dreading the thought of war. Yet at the same time every heart beat in unison with the empire and every person was willing to do as was done in the days of 1914, 1915 and 1916. If needs be, they were ready to answer the call of king and country.
Changing the subject very quickly, we come to the pleasant thought of the visit of Their Majesties, the King and Queen. In 1937 I had the privilege of suggesting to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that silver coinage be issued by the government to

commemorate the coronation. Not for one moment do I intimate that the minister followed my suggestion. But the fact remains that silver coinage was issued, and among my few souvenirs I cherish the coin issued at that time, as well as the silver dollar issued at the time of the silver jubilee.
We see by the papers the government will again issue souvenirs by way of silver coinage and stamps. I am particularly interested in the issue of silver because in the Yukon there is a large territory in the Mayo district devoted to silver lead mining. As hon. members from British Columbia will no doubt point out, that province also is interested in silver mining, and anything that can be done to encourage our miners will surely be of infinite help to that class of people, upon whom many governments depend.
In the royal couple about to visit this country we have a fine example of manhood and womanhood in the British Empire. Suddenly these two people were called upon to fill a staggeringly difficult position. Neither one of them had trained deliberately to occupy a throne. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is a commoner, though of royal descent through the female line. The king was a prince occupying a secondary position. Yet in the twinkling of an eye those young people accepted a huge responsibility. No one in the world can say they have not filled the position thus far with grace and dignity not only to themselves but to the empire at large. Courageously and prayerfully they are carrying on. We owe them a great debt and our best efforts to make their lives happier and easier. They are coming to Canada and from one end of the country to the other every respect is to be shown them.
Unfortunately the Yukon is not to be visited by the royal couple, but I am free to say that Yukoners one and all feel a steadfast loyalty and fealty to- those young people who are carrying on so bravely and so well. Possibly they are fortunate in the example which has been set them by the late King George Y and his royal consort Queen- Mary for whom the world has the greatest affection. Although I was born and brought- up in the republic to the south of us, from girlhood I was trained by a grandmother who had strict old country ideas, and later by the sisters of the Holy Cross I was taught to look on England as-a shining example of what royalty could show to the rest of the world. That was taught, despite that conduct of England towards the colonies which made them rebel. Queen Victoria, later her son, then her grandson and then her great grandson have all been

The Address-Mrs. Black
familiar figures to me, both from reading and through conversation at home and at school. I have lived here now for forty years and have grown to realize what this country can be, what it has been and, pray God, what it will be for many years to come.
It is possible that the most interesting thing to us in the Yukon at the present time is the Alaska-Yukon highway. Many years ago the building of the road was advocated, and I well remember when Mr. Tolmie, the then premier of British Columbia, in the company of his ministers, took a trip as far as he could in northern British Columbia. My husband was appointed a member of the Canadian commission, and he now has in his office hundreds of photographs, surveys, letters and reports dealing with that road. I could give to the house a hundred reasons why the road should be built, and possibly I could give as many why it should not. If the road is built, I trust that men who know that northern country will be put in charge. It will be an enormously expensive work. The government of Canada cannot afford it, and certainly the government of British Columbia, debt-ridden as it is, cannot afford it.
We are told by the public men of the United States that that country wants this road for defence purposes. We have to face the fact that should- the United States be at war, Canada would be at war. We have to face the fact that if any untoward incident brings Canada into a war, the United States will be at war. That country could not stand by and see Canada fall. That would be impossible. She would not allow foreigners to touch Canadian territory any more than we would feel that we could allow foreigners to touch United States territory. The United States wants the road, and if the government is going to allow it to be built, I would urge that the United States be asked to pay every cent of the cost of building the road through Canadian territory, employing only Canadian labour and giving to Canada a free port of entry at Skagway. Some hon. members may smile at the mention of a free port of entry at Skagway, but we have a precedent. A free port of entry was allowed during the reign of Queen Victoria at Sault Ste. Marie and in the Gaspe.


Robert Emmett Finn: I am in favour of a free port.


Martha Louise Black: I believe that was done in I860, but the permission was revoked after six years. At one time there was a Canadian customs office in Skagway. The stars and stripes and the union jack flew side by side. That was a great convenience, but unfortunately some one with more of what he thought was patriotism than brains objected to " that rag," as he called the union jack, flying in God's country. I was not a British subject at the time, but I stepped up to him and I said, " Another fool " 1 He looked at me and said, " That is like all you English women." I said, "As it happens I am the eighth generation bom and brought up in the United States." I told him that that had been done for the convenience of Yukoners going through United States territory. I told him that the United States would have to apologize, that Canada would have to accept the apology, but that the Yukoners would have to have their baggage and other possessions examined at the summit. So I suggest that if the road is built, it should be understood that we have a free port of entry at Skagway.
It is difficult for Alaskans and Yukoners to put up with the tariffs between the two countries when they pass from one country to the other. Perhaps this trade agreement of which we have heard so much will change conditions, but at any rate if the road comes to pass, as it probably will-the Hudson Bay railway came to pass-we should try to get the best bargain we possibly can. My confreres in the United States are good bargainers. I say that without any disrespect. I come from a family of down-east Yankees who made money selling wooden nutmegs. If they could do that then, I am sure they have not lost that ability at the present time.
When coming to the house many members display a spirit of optimism, while many others display a spirit of pessimism. We in the Yukon have been greatly favoured by not having the large numbers of unemployed that you have on the outside. A few drifters came in this summer, one or two of whom did not want to work. However, I must say that I believe I could count on the fingers of one hand the men who did not want work. One man came to me and said that he was tired of trying to get work. I asked him if he had tried pick-and-shovel work. When he told me he had not, I asked him what he had come there for. He said, "I heard you say that the Yukon was a place where every man could get a job." I said, "I may have said that, but what I meant was that every man who wanted a job could get a job provided he was willing to do gruelling, back-breaking work." I told him he could not get anything for nothing in that country. He leaned back and looked at me and said that I was a fine member. He told me, "The government has to take care of me or else send me out." It is not often that I lose my temper, but I did then. I used language that he understood. I am sure

The Address-Mrs. Black

you would ask me to retract that language, Mr. Speaker, if I used it here. I said to him, "Why don't you walk from here to Skagway?" He said, "How far?" I told him it was only about four hundred miles. He said, "What do you mean by insulting me?" I said, "My husband and my brother have walked that distance and they are much better men than you will be even though you live to be a thousand." He said, "This is no country for a white man to live in." Under the circumstances, I was forced to agree with him.
The Yukon is a good country; it is a cruel country; it is a kind country; it is a wicked country. It is a country that you can love; it is a country that you can hate, depending upon your attitude. I have lived there for forty years; I have travelled from one end of Canada to the other, as well as across the United States; I have travelled overseas; but I have never in my life seen a country that could thrill me as does the Yukon. We have our cruelties; we have our hardships; we have our glories, and we have our magnificent summers. We have our flowers, our vegetables, our gold and silver, but only when we work for them. If we come down here, it is because we have worked, not because we have sat back and folded our hands.
I wish that hon. members were more familiar with that country. Then, instead of smiling when I ask for a favour, instead of thinking that the Yukon wants all and gives nothing, they would remember the many men from that part of the country who have paid off the mortgages on their farms; they would remember the many men who served overseas during the great war. Out of a population of less than 5,000, over 500 men enlisted before conscription was brought in. All of us are ready to serve this country in time of peace and in time of war. We pray for the glory of peace and hope for its beauty.


Mr. E. O. BERTRAND (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, in my first attempt to speak the language of the majority in this house, may I crave your indulgence, and ask my colleagues not to be too severe in their criticism.
The hon. member for the Yukon (Mrs. Black) will undoubtedly forgive me if I do not follow her in her remarks. But I want to say that I am always very much interested in what she has to say to the house and also in the interest she takes in the far and cold country that she inhabits.
I also want to congratulate the proposer and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), a newcomer in this house, has surely done credit

to himself and to his constituency; and the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) has shown once more that he is well informed in politics, that he is a good debater, that he is a thorough bilinguist, and one for whose future his compatriots have great hopes.
As was so well said in the speech from the throne, every citizen of our country rejoices in the coming of our sovereigns to Canada this year. We Erench-Canadians are proud to say that we are not the ones least honoured by this visit. Might I suggest that when Their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth are in Ottawa, the capital city of Canada, we as the first civilized settlers in this country should have an official representative to express in our own language to their majesties our homage, our past and present loyalty to the crown, with the strength of our traditions and our true aspirations for the future.
Might I express on behalf of my compatriots and my constituents our wholehearted gratitude for the non-committal attitude taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his government during the dark days of the European crisis in 1938. It is, undoubtedly, similar steps that are conducive to the maintenance of peace in the world. Canada can be proud of the attitude of its Prime Minister and its government in that instance, and, by the way, of the cooperation that was given to the government by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Manion).
It is also refreshing to consider the friendship expressed to other nations by our government in the conclusion of trade agreements with other parts of the world, but principally at this moment with the United States of America. We are all sure that every part of our dominion will greatly benefit from that new trade agreement. The last trade agreement between the United States and Canada brought a great deal of comfort to our population, and we hope for still better consequences through the new regulations which are placed in the present trade agreement.
Here, I think, it would be only timely to suggest that special attention be given to trade possibilities with the countries of South America, where there is a population of eighty-five millions of people, who produce commodities which are not produced in our country and who necessarily buy commodities which are produced in the country we inhabit. Let us hope that goodwill will be the governing factor in all our relations with other

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
countries, and that this point of view will be always fully considered when questions of armaments and defence are under study. May I add that my compatriots dislike war; they have a very strong feeling against it, and they are not always ready to approve any move which looks like preparation for it.
Everyone regards with anxiety the unemployment problem in Canada. I do not hesitate to say that this is a very difficult problem, and that probably too much was said during the past year to the effect that it should be treated as a national question. I am not afraid to say in this house and elsewhere that this problem should be dealt with in all instances by the nearest competent body, by which I mean the municipality. Outside of large cities, almost every family is known intimately by the mayor, reeve, aldermen or councillors, or any one of them. May I then ask who is in a better position than they are to deal with these individual needs and these problems which arise in these different places? Instead of taking the matter away from them I would suggest rather that adequate assistance be given to those municipalities where the situation is the worst; it should not be removed from those who are best able to make the people understand that, after all, the state cannot give them a living for all time.
For this reason I am pleased to learn from the speech from the throne that a public works program will be undertaken by this government to face the situation, and also that laws will be made to help local work programs and local improvements. In making this statement may I venture to say that we should not fritter this program away by asking for problematical provincial guarantees when these works are done by the municipalities. The said guarantees have been given by some provinces and refused by others in the past year, and some municipalities which are positively in a good financial position are therefore denied the privilege of benefiting from the agencies to help unemployment in their , districts. If the necessity of a provincial guarantee is enforced, I am afraid the result will be that work will be done in places where the security is problematical and will be refused to municipalities where a great deal should be done by way of local improvements and that this would be justified to help the situation as regards unemployment through loans so granted for local improvements.
Passing to another item of the speech from the throne, I want to say that there are no more important works than the youth train-71492-7J
ing program. We are all satisfied to learm that it will be continued and enlarged. Youth' is the future of our country. Means should be taken to help each and every young man to improve his situation and to give him some help to learn some trade or craft so-that he may be able to make his own struggle in the development of the future of our country.
I wish now to make a few comments on the paragraph of the speech from the throne which reads:
In order to avert economic disaster to a large part of our population, my ministers, under the terms of the Wheat Board Act, approved, for the current crop year, an initial payment for wheat as recommended by the board.
In this paragraph I take the words, " a large part of our population," to mean the population of the prairie provinces. I hope it is unnecessary for me to give further explanations to convince anyone of the correctness of this interpretation. For a few months now we have seen all sorts of articles and propaganda concerning the difference in the situation as between eastern and western Canada, and when I speak of western Canada I mean the prairie provinces. Comparisons have been made in this propaganda on platforms and elsewhere. It is sufficient to say for the moment' that it is unfair to compare the problem of the prairie farmer with the problem in eastern Canada when you take into consideration the secondary industries in other parts of the dominion.
Let us examine the position of the prairie farmers and that' of farmers in other parts of the country. I desire first to present figures with regard to the rural population of Canada. These figures, which are taken from the Canada Year Book, 1938, at page 145, are as follows:
Prince Edward Island	 67,653
Nova Scotia	 281,192
New Brunswick	 279'279
Quebec	 1,060'649
Ontario	 1,335,691
British Columbia	 299,524
This is a total of 3,323,998 or 69-20 per cent of the total rural population in Canada. Now let us take the prairie provinces. The figures are:
Manitoba	 384,170
Saskatchewan	 630880
Alberta	 453^97
Northwest Territories	 12,593
This is a total of 1,480,740, or 30-80 per cent of the total rural population of the country. What about the returns of this
100	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
rural population in different sections? In 1938 the prairie provinces' proportions of Canadian production were:
Commodity
Wheat	(335,430,000 bushels)
Cattle	
Hogs	
Sheep	
Eggs	
1! utter	
Milk	
Per cent 93-0 46-1 38-2 45-3 42-1 30-8 28-0
From these products they enjoyed a corresponding ratio of revenue. In other words 30-8 per cent of the rural population of Canada produced the proportions just enumerated. But the prairie provinces did not enjoy this bountiful production only in 1938. Let me quote from the special edition of the Ottawa Citizen of January 13, in which there appeared an article dealing with the resources of western Canada. This special
edition of the Citizen gave the situation very fully. It is most interesting reading and is enlightening to anyone who takes an interest in the problems of the farmers in different parts of the country. I quote:
In the past twenty years cattle on the ranges and farms of the prairie provinces numbered on the average 3,500,000 per year. These cattle had an average gross value of $130,000,000.
The marketings of cattle from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta over the twenty-year period under review averaged approximately five hundred and twenty thousand head. These marketings provided an average gross income from cattle of $48,000,000.
Let me give some other figures to show that this bountiful production did not characterize only 1938. I quote again from the same review appearing in the Citizen of January 13. I have already given the figures for 1938.
1935	1936	1937Value of cattle	$ 11,747,540	$ 18,815,284Value of calves	
1,208,336	1,991,236Value of hogs	
25,601,235	24,654,448Value of sheep	
1,722,244	1,676,906Total value live stock	
40,279,955	47,137,874Value of dairy products	
37,357,000	39,419,538Total value live stock and products 77,636,955	80,554,412Wheat production (bushels)	263,800,000	204,096,000Value of wheat production	$153,368,000	$159,677,000

True, these provinces, in spite of the revenues I have mentioned, suffered from [DOT]drought. On that ground the assistance to [DOT]these sections provided by this parliament was never questioned. But compare the aforementioned revenues with the revenues of the farms in other sections of Canada. Not that I have any grudge against the guarantee of the price of wheat that was given to the west by the government, but if it can be given to the west my contention is that it can be given to other parts of the country .as well. When these provinces joined confederation, it was to be supposed that their administrations would increase their services in about the same ratio to population as other parts of Canada. Let me state that the cost of education in the prairie provinces has increased six times more than the increase in population, and the cost of public services has increased thirty times as fast as the Increase in population.
In the east it will be found that people managed to make both ends meet; this was done by economy and thrift. And may I say that the further east you go, the thriftier are the people. If anyone took the trouble to visit parts of the maritime provinces and see what the fishermen of that country live
} Mr. E. O. Bert.-and.]
upon, he must admit that they must be thrifty, and very thrifty. But many slices of the savings of the people of the east by thrift and economy were taken in taxes to help the prairie provinces in one way or another. I shall not undertake to state amounts so transferred or to state the help given to that part of Canada; but I do say that if in order to avert economic disaster in the western provinces it was necessary to fix a guaranteed price of eighty cents a bushel for No. 1 hard wheat f.o.b. Fort William, it is the opinion of the farmers of the east and of other parts of the country who have been realty battling with troubles and difficulties in the last few years, who were also hard hit by the crisis or by poor crops, that it is also necessary to fix and guarantee a reasonable price for commodities produced by the agricultural population in other parts of Canada, shall we say cheese, or butter, or potatoes, or maybe wheat, oats and barley, seed clover or timothy, or vegetables, and all commodities sold-may I draw attention to this proviso- sold at less than cost of production in this year or past years.
The farmers of my county strongly oppose price fixing by the state. They claim that this is something which governments should

The Address-Mr. Thompson
not undertake. They claim that it is far from Liberal policies. But if it is to be done, let it be done so as to do justice to farmers in all sections of the country. May I add, let it be done to do real justice to all classes of the population.
Let me end my remarks with one quotation from an address delivered by Premier Bracken of Manitoba as reported in the Ottawa Citizen of January 13, 1939, at page 6:
No large economic area of the country can for any length of time remain impoverished by failure of federal policies to secure markets and during this period be expected to meet its indebtedness, or be enthusiastic about national unity.
Of course this declaration is not made by anyone in the east. But if this declaration can apply to the difficulties of the farmers of the west, I say it is doubly applicable to the farmers of the east in the past year, and it is my plea on their behalf on this occasion.
In this great Canada of ours, for whose future we have great hopes, we want to build for this future on unity of population and an equal chance for all. I do not want to be too severe or to condemn what has been done; probably the situation was urgent, and it was practically impossible to do otherwise than fix this wheat price for the west for last year's crop; but let me say that to promote this unity and have our people feel that they are given an equal chance, I simply thought it my duty to raise my voice at this moment and to plead for just and fair treatment for all, to make this Canada of ours a place in which all will be satisfied to live and where people will feel that all are on exactly the same footing.


Mr. T. A. THOMPSON (Lanark):: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my deep gratitude that Their Majesties the King and Queen have graciously consented to visit Canada. We have in this country our differences, political and otherwise; we have men of different races, different creeds, different nationalities, different outlook on life; but we all join together in honouring the same king. And I think this coming visit of their majesties will have a great unifying influence upon the Dominion of Canada, and that our people are looking forward to their visit with great pleasure as well as pride.
The speech from the throne is rather a meagre bill of fare to be presented to this house at a time when the masses of our people are looking for leadership; when they are looking for some national policies which will
give them a greater sense of economic security, and looking to be eased of their burden of unemployment and debt and taxes.
As to the proposal to increase the appropriation for defence, and particularly for air defence, I have no criticism to offer, so long as the contracts for the material required shall be honestly awarded and that precautions are taken to see that private individuals do not make undue profits out of them. The Canadian people at the present time are in no mood to countenance any further Bren gun contracts. The effectiveness of the proposal to form a defence purchasing board will depend entirely upon its personnel. If this government continues to do as it has done in the past, and to appoint political partisans as a reward for services rendered, this board will be nothing more or less than just another of this government's royal commissions that have been of no effect.
Unemployment, debt and taxes are the nightmares that disturb the peace of every thoughtful citizen in Canada; yet in the speech from the throne no mention is made of either our debt or our burden of taxation. Nor is any solution offered for our unemployment problem, nor any redress for the men and women who have been forced on relief by the policies adopted by this government, by their injurious trade agreements and by their continual tariff tampering. During the campaign of 1935 we remember with what eloquence the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-and he is an eloquent man-cried from one end of this country to the other that unemployment was Canada's most urgent national problem; that poverty and adversity, want and misery, were the enemies which Liberalism would seek to banish from this land. Further he said, " We take up at once, as our supreme task, an endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty." He also promised that the government would practise economy in the conduct of public affairs and that credit would be issued in terms of national need.
With all the eloquence at Ins command the right hon. gentleman used such beautiful phraseology and enunciated such high ideals, but where are the results? After every promise made by the right hon. gentleman during the last campaign can be written the word failure, dismal failure. We find that the Canadian Welfare Council, after a thorough investigation of the whole situation in Canada, said that no fundamental attack upon the serious national ills which have occasioned these heavy expenditures had been taken by the present government. That is an expression of opinion by a non-partisan organization
The Address-Mr. Thompson

in regard to what has taken place in the last three years. We have spent $900,000,000 and we are no better off than when we started. There is no improvement to-day.
It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that the former right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) made promises in 1930. He said he would end unemployment or perish in the attempt, but of the right hon. gentleman and the government of that day it must be said that they did introduce those principles and policies which under normal conditions would have brought prosperity to this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite forget that from 1930 to 1935 the government of the day was piloting this country through the greatest depression the world has ever seen. But the present government, in normal times, has failed to redeem the promises it made to the electorate. The commission on employment and the trade agreements which have been negotiated by this government, and which it hoped would bring great prosperity to this dominion, have not relieved our economic situation, and as I travel throughout Canada I find that the people are tired of the present physician and are crying aloud for a new doctor to heal their wounds, a new leader to bring them out of this wilderness.
Increased trade, world trade, as advocated by the present government, will never solve our unemployment problem. A nation that depends for its economic welfare and security upon its exports to foreign countries places in the hands of the foreign buyers the prosperity of its people; for it has absolutely no control over the markets to which it sends its goods. Industry and agriculture in this country are not enemies; they are partners in our development. Agriculture supplies the raw materials; industry supplies the manufactured articles, and they must work in cooperation. In future, industry, to a far greater extent than agriculture, must take up the slack of our unemployment. As farmers, we are producing a surplus of every food that can be profitably produced in Canada. We are not only feeding our own people; we are exporting large quantities of foodstuffs. But what about our manufactured articles, our machinery, our clothing and everything in the manufactured line? At least fifty per cent of it is being bought from foreign countries. We are sending our money out of this country instead of building up. markets for our farmers at home. After all, with the exception of wheat, we consume over ninety per cent of our agricultural products at home, and when we build up industry here we build up markets for the farmer. The greatest market the farmer has to-day consists of the men and women engaged in the industrial life IMr. Thompson.)
of this dominion, who are non-producers of agricultural products. When we build up industry we build up agriculture and the country prospers, but the very moment industry is at a low ebb we find our farmers in distress.
I represent a constituency in which there are many large textile mills. Between 1930 and 1935, when a Conservative government was in power, many of these mills ran day and night. What is the situation to-day? One of the largest mills in my riding is closed while several are running only part time. When I was home last weekend I was talking to the owner of a great mill, who told me that between 1930 and 1935 his mill ran day and night. To-day it is miming only three days a week, and his goods are not being sold but are being put in storehouses. He said,-" I am running my mill because I do not want to have my people go on relief, I am trying to retain my employees." The men and women who are getting relief to-day are not the people who are suffering the most. We have a class of people who are being employed only two or three days a week, who are earning just enough to keep body and soul together, and who are too proud to ask for relief. These are the people to whom my heart goes out.
In the county of Lanark there is one mill which is at present running day and night. That mill is manufacturing cloth from shoddy. I went to examine it the other day, and the proprietor told me he did not buy one pound of wool. It is a good looking cloth which he sells to the ready-to-wear clothing manufacturers who, in turn, produce cheap suits. The policies of this government have so reduced the purchasing power of the average person that he is not able to afford to buy a good suit of clothes. The mills making good cloth are idle, while this mill, turning out a cheap quality product, is running day and night. That is the condition in which we find industry.
The policies of the present government have not effectively dealt with unemployment, much less solved it. The situation is as it was when the government took office, unemployment is still Canada's greatest national problem. If we work together in unison, I believe there is not any problem concerning the whole country which cannot be solved by the combined effort of our Canadian people. But if we are divided we are lost.
A few years ago, prior to this government taking office, internal discord was a cloud on the sky no bigger than a man's hand; to-day it darkens the whole horizon and threatens the very foundation of our confederation.

The Address-Mr. Thompson
Canada is fast disintegrating into nine sovereign provinces. Where is the dream of the fathers of confederation of a great, united Canada? Where is the happy family of Liberal governments the Prime Minister predicted before the last election?
Reference was made in the speech from the throne to the Canada-Uuited States trade agreement which I shall not discuss at length at the present time. I trust I shall have an opportunity to make further observations when the agreement is before the house.
The speech from the throne offers no relief to the already overburdened taxpayers of Canada. We cannot continue this process of pyramiding our national debt and yearly adding millions of dollars of deficits. If we do so continue a huge debt will be left as a burden on our children and our children's children. Are we going to pass this country on in that condition to those who will come after us? That is not the way in which we received it from our forefathers, and it is up to us to see that we pass it on without unduly hampering those who will come after us. Posterity will have enough problems of its own to solve without the people of this day heaping ours upon their backs. Let us bear our own burdens. The eleven million people in Canada are to-day carrying almost all the taxation they are able to bear. I should like to see it made compulsory for every government to live within its means and to balance its budgets or, failing that, to be placed in a position, except in case of war, where it would be obliged to resign and go back to the people.
The speech from the throne was replete with beautiful phrases which meant anything or nothing, but which were characteristic of the present do-nothing government. I was surprised last evening as I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) twitting the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Manion) with lack of patriotism. When the great war broke out, there were in Canada people in the prime of their lives who had no families and who could have rendered good service to then-country, but instead of that they slipped quietly across the border into the United States and secured good positions. Following the war they came back quietly, when they thought all was quiet on the western front. Compare that, I say, with the record of the Leader of the Opposition. When war was declared, he was a married man with a family of small children and with one of the largest medical practices in central Canada. He was rapidly becoming one of the most promising surgeons in Ontario. What had he to leave? He left his wife, his family and
his business, donned the king's uniform and for three years offered his life in the defence of Canada. It ill becomes the Prime Minister or any other man to twit the present leader of the Conservative party with lack of patriotism.
I ask in all sincerity: Whither is the Prime Minister leading Canada? Whither are we bound?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Up a back street.


Mr. MARTIN:: To victory.


Thomas Alfred Thompson: His first act after the
election of 1935 was to hie himself to Washington and, while there, sign a trade agreement which the leader of the former government (Mr. Bennett) had refused to sign because, big business man as he was, he realized that its provisions were detrimental to the best interests of the Canadian people. What has happened since then? Since that trade agreement became effective, our exports to the United States have fallen off every year and our imports have increased by millions of dollars. The former leader of the Conservative party foresaw that.
Last year, 1938, the Prime Minister sent a few civil servants to Washington, and, while there, they negotiated a trade agreement bargaining away Canada's birthright for a mess of pottage. In 1932, when the trade agreements were signed in Ottawa, my former leader called a special meeting of parliament and placed the agreements before it for en-dorsation prior to their becoming effective. He did not ignore parliament or the elected members of the house. What about later trade agreements? In 1935 the present government signed a trade agreement on the first day of January and called parliament together a few weeks later. Then the government's supporters were jumping up like a lot of jacks-in-the-box voting for something which had been in effect before being presented to parliament. What about the trade agreement which was signed recently? It became effective on January 1, 1939, and parliament was called on January 12. Again members of the House of Commons have been utterly ignored. Where is responsible government going? Where is our much boasted democracy? We have a government that has been governing this country without paying proper respect to the members of this house. We have had orders in council. We have had royal commissions in connection with which many of their Liberal lawyer friends were paid daily fees that they could^ not possibly earn in months in their own business. Some of them have drawn in fees during the last three years between $30,000 and

The Address-Mr. Thompson
$40,000 from the public treasury of this country to produce reports similar to the one the hon. member for Temiseouata (Mr. Pouliot) threw on the floor of the house last session stating it was fit only for the waste-paper basket. That is how hundreds of, thousands of dollars of the money of the taxpayers of Canada has been spent in the last few years.
What this country needs, and needs in the worst way, is a public conscience. We must arouse a public conscience in the electorate. If a government have been honestly and wisely discharging the duties of their office; it they have been fulfilling the promises made to the people, then I say that they have every right to be returned to office. If they have not, then the people should tell them so with no uncertain sound. We have been prone to form ourselves into political camps. We are too ready lo go out and fight for our side as we used to do in school when playing football, lacrosse or some other game. We have been fighting for our own side. Let us awaken in this country a public conscience so that any government, I care not what it may be, will be afraid to go back to a discriminate electorate when they have not faithfully, honestly, and wisely discharged the duties of their office.
I do not wish to speak at any further length at the present time, but I think we should cease harping on the past. I know that the Conservative party has nothing to regret in that regard. That party has had a glorious past in Canada. It has been associated with the development of this country and it has a record that we are proud to bring forward. But let us live for the present and for the future. That is all that matters. Let us like business men face the problems that confront Canada. Let us cease this party strife. No grain is ground by the water that passed by the mill yesterday.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from Manitoba I was proud of the performance of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne. After three years of association with him in this house I was prepared for the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier). This is the first time I have risen in my place this session, and I should like to say to the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Manion) in this house that as a western Liberal I was delighted over his elevation to his present position.

But it is of more serious things that I would speak. The people of Winnipeg South rejoiced to learn of the visit of their majesties. I can say on behalf of the people of that city that when that visit does occur, their majesties will indeed receive a royal welcome.
Since this house met last, the world has walked in the valley of the great shadow, and it continues. I think every hon. member and every person in the country are delighted over the fact that for the moment at any rate the dark clouds have lifted. But the whole experience has left a bitter taste in the mouths of many of us. We have deep apprehension because we have had a glimpse of ourselves as people. To say the least, this has been disconcerting. The conclusion has been forced upon many of us that after twenty years we have learned nothing. Diplomacy as practised in the world to-day is not something that decent people can view with any degree of complacency. When we view the welter of hypocrisy, timidity, treason and greed, it is poor consolation to remember that a year ago most of what has happened -was predictable and was predicted in this house. Then we might have said as -was said in the sixteenth century, I think by John Selden:	.
Thou little thinkest what a little foolery governs the world.
There is little profit in evaluating the past unless we are to learn from our observations, unless we can hope to use the lessons of the past as a guide in the future. Here at the beginning of a new session we had better realize again that yesterday is gone, that to-morrow never comes, and that to-day waits while we hold post-mortems on yesterday or build fanciful structures on the sands of to-morrow.
I think if an object lesson were needed by members of this house, this new session provides an excellent one in the passing from this chamber of the previous leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). We have watched him in recent years fighting a rearguard action inspired by a political philosophy that may never again become invigorated in Canada. He made the assumption of infallibility seem more impressive than truth. He was a product of an age and generation when every Canadian boy knew that if he minded his own business, worked hard and saved his money, he might one day make a million dollars and be Prime Minister of Canada. The last great exponent of that theory having accomplished

The Address-Mr. Mutch
both, we can now turn the page and gaze on the reality of the opportunities of youth in Canada in 1939.
The last three years have been years of accomplishment. For what has been done we shall have no lack of praise and explanation, of criticism and condemnation. Neither my tongue nor my temper is suited to the task of flattery. Even honest praise, well merited, must for me be tempered by the meaures of opportunity and need. First, have we done that which was crying out to be done? Second, have we done all we might have done? I think it was Rousseau who envisioned men as being born free and equal and everywhere in chains. To-day, of freedom and equality we have still precious little. Unhappily only a few voices are raised to cry out against this condition, and man is everywhere in chains. Even in Canada, where as yet we keep the outward and visible emblems of liberty, the substance is disappearing. We have given too little thought to the preservation of our heritage, forgetting the truism that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
I find the most disconcerting evidence of that in the youth of the world. Irreverence, independence, intolerance, is the natural heritage of youth. Do we find it? We do not. I suggest that we find indifference, dependence and docility making great inroads into the spirit of youth. My generation has been called the lost generation. We were those who were young in the war. That was tragedy, but a worse tragedy threatens another generation who may yet be called the legion of the damned. Damned to what and by what? Obviously I do not mean that they are damned morally, spiritually or for the hereafter, but I do suggest that it will take superhuman effort to salvage them economically, at least from a condition of affairs not of their own making. They are a generation in economic chains and their political liberty is, I submit, threatened. They ask us what can be done. For my part I answer-honestly, as youth ought to be answered-in so far as their immediate economic liberation is concerned I do not know what anyone can do that they cannot do for themselves. But I think that there devolves upon us in this house a duty to preserve, for them particularly, the political liberties which they might in their extremity be tempted to forego. I am not a revolutionary. Time was when perhaps I was, but now I would be prepared to build before I would be willing to tear down. I suggest that we have not exhausted the avenues of approach to work. Although I have nothing but praise for the
long term policies of the present administration, I suggest that a wasting generation cannot afford to wait.
We have not examined to my satisfaction the possibilities of making industry bear its own burden. It is nonsense to say that they can pay no more. They are bearing the burden and adding to it by the wasteful systems of exploitation of labour which I am sorry to say are current in the country to-day. They are bearing the burden and adding to it. Labour pools do exist in this country; they are increasing at the present time, and this particular evil is getting by unnoticed in the guise of seasonal unemployment.
What do we need? What is our Canadian objective for youth, for mankind? Do we adopt the materialistic Huey Long concept of a radio and a two-car garage for every home, or do we seek some measure of competence, a reasonable hope of security in labour, and a world at peace where men and women work out their destiny with some relationship between ability and reward? When this or any other government is criticized as a do-nothing government, almost always the foremost critics are those who are wailing because the government has done nothing for the critic or the critic's business or the interests that are lying near and dear to the heart of the critic. Most of those who are contributing to the undermining of our democratic order proceed selfishly and without reckoning the cost. Most of those whether they are young or old, who decry governments, criticize politicians or damn the system, are howling because in some way they hoped to live off the taxpayers and have not succeeded. Is it not time that we in Canada faced up to this attitude? Why should governments do anything for the individual? What is the function of government? What are the oft orated rights of youth? Is not this the function of government and the main right of youth, that the government should see that every youth has a chance to exercise his talents within the range of opportunity available? Because too many youths desire to be doctors, should the government poison people to bring them patients; or because there is a desire on the part of too many people to be architects, must we go on forever and ever building government buildings in order to employ them?
We have a youth problem in western Canada. There is nothing, new about youth problems, but they are new to us in the west. Three decades ago the youth problem was

The Address-Mr. Mutch

an eastern problem, easily solved because the frontiers of the west were calling to the second and third and fourth sons of back concession farmers, presenting an opportunity which has departed from this country at the present time. The young men of the east, more than eastern dollars, builded western Canada, and the youth of the west too was quickly absorbed in an ever-expanding economy. To-day there is no new frontier other than the north. Truly as yet the limits of northern development are far from being reached, but it has also little appeal to many of a generation who have been educated to "ask, and it shall be given unto you." I do not blame them. You cannot blame them; but we can and we should blame ourselves, and in my opinion it is time to stop.
Whenever the largesse demanded by the indigent is threatened, the venerable leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth) thunders in effect that to those who ask for bread we offer a stone. I ask, cannot discussion ever be honest? The choice is wider than to give bread or a stone. Why not recognize the fact that organized society is being blackjacked into providing for some at least who insist on pointing their lives in one particular direction or else sit tight and let someone else do it. We have a youth problem in western Canada. During the civic elections in Winnipeg I heard a young man say, and I took down his words, "I spent years in preparing myself for a responsible position." He should have prepared himself for a job. Responsibility comes with experience, not with education. Education should speed up the process.
The economy of the west is still agricultural, and no economy can provide for youth which plans to live off it rather than in it. In Winnipeg the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation has been loud in its condemnation of the farm placement scheme. Natural^. That party has thrived by organizing the discontented, the dissatisfied and those ever ready to follow any glimmer that promises to lessen their responsibility for their own existence. That party has no interest in an agricultural society save to exploit the farmer's real or fancied grievances for their own political advantage. That party is the real parasitic, political growth, battening on misery and discontent. Please bear in mind that I deliberately discriminate between my friends of the labour party and their political associates in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.

Even in the so-called normal days between 1922 and 1930 young Canadians left Canada at the rate of about fifty thousand a year. Why? Who were they? Hon. members know the answers. Were they farmers, miners, fishermen, lumbermen? In the main, no. Few of them were primary producers. Many of them were educated beyond their opportunity, or so it seemed to them. They were definitely young people who could not, or would not, fit into the Canadian economy and could not live off it. And at that time we did not take care of them if they could not live off it. I am told that in one year every member of a western graduating engineering class went to the United States or to South America.
The last Conservative government while in opposition in these years wailed incessantly because we were losing these exotic blooms from our educational hothouse. In power the same party dammed up every possible avenue of approach to a job in Canada by stifling our trade and so smothering our productive industries. To-day more youths are finding work. But who are they? They are mainly the newest recruits to the ranks of youth. The boy who was too young for a job ten years ago is now refused the same job because he is too old. The generation from twenty-five to thirty-five has to be considered in Canadian economy.
Our problems are not all insoluble. Honest facing of them will pave the way to some solutions. Clearly there is no obligation to provide for employment in any particular job or profession. There is perhaps an obligation to render labour as fluid and mobile as possible. Establishment of the projected dominion government employment agencies will clearly help in that direction. I, regret that no mention is made of it in the speech from the throne. If we had it, no excuse would need to be accepted. If we are to accept the theory that every man has a claim on the state for his living, then the state will ultimately have to say how he shall earn it and where. Is that what youth wants? Ultimately perhaps it offers a measure of security, but at the price of liberty. The only countries in the world without a youth problem to-day are those where youth has been enlisted in state organizations or those which are at war. The story of those states is on every front page. Is that the best the world has to offer youth? Mr. Speaker, there are those of us who do not think so. There are those of us who still contend that there is no economic necessity for the degradation of another generation of mankind. I could not help but regret that the

The Address-Mr. Mutch
leader of the opposition was more anxious to prove conditions were worse than formerly than to suggest a remedy.
Those of us who hold this view ask of our government two things, both of them within their power to do. They are these: First, that they stand four-square for peace, not for the hope of peace, not for peace if the price is not high, but for peace that is absolute. How can they do so? We believe that this and any government can foster peace and security by being well informed and by backing reliable information, by being always on the side, not of sentimentalism, not necessarily of nationalism, but, on the highest of all grounds, of morality, the expression of which is justice. Paradoxically, it is possible that justice can be done only by force, but our government must know; they must not be swayed by hysteria, emotionalism, sentimentalism, or business expediency. When we know, then we can act. When we know, we must not count the cost because, secondly, we believe that the cost of failure to restore confidence and friendly relations in the world is ultimately either a war which will eliminate western civilization as we know it, or alternatively the complete break-down of world trade with the inevitable result of starvation in a world of plenty and an equally inevitable world revolution.
Fear holds the world in its thrall. We ask our government to join in with each and all who will contribute in any degree to the reestablishment of good relations among men.
We are proud that our government has been a party to the recent tripartite trade agreements. The immediate economic results can be left to consequences. Those who believe as I do are confident that the results will be good.
But, sir, some of us are more impressed with the political significance of the trade agreements. We see the dawn of a realization that no nation can live to itself alone. We see the faces of the two greatest creditor nations turned to the sunlight of freer trade and better relations with the world. We rejoice that the ramparts of the Ottawa agreements have been breached. We hope that they may crumble to the inglorious dust whence they came. Born of fear, they throve to engender hate. For the mirage of momentary advantage we conspired with our commonwealth associates to encourage the rabid nationalistic orgy which is the greatest threat to the world.
We ask our government not to be too modest. Let them proclaim to all who will hear that we are not prepared to let a generation of Canadians perish because we must wait until mightier powers show us the way to renewed willingness to do business.
The Prime Minister's grandfather had a vision of a great opportunity and a great duty. The man was matched with the hour. How often in the years of his distinguished service to his country must my leader have hoped for this opportunity to match his talents with the nation's need. He is a man of peace. He is a man whose imagination and sympathy have kept him close to the realities of human experience. He is a man of deep conviction and the courage to fight when only a fight can meet the emergency.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is the emergency. Throughout the world all that he and we have held most dear is threatened. All around us a generation of Canadians are threatened with a living death. To-day, now, is the hour to strike! The walls of intolerance that have cramped the world have been breached- behind him sits a majority unparalleled in history. Around him sit men, good company in any fight-and, sir, there is time left. Time enough, to say as Holland has said for generations: Come, let us reason together, let us trade together. Time to say again to those fearful nations of the world, let us help you to help us. We have made a grand beginning; we dare not falter now.
Two thousand millions of people in the world need bread, motor cars, machinery, lumber and iron, paper, pulp, everything that we have to sell. Two thousand millions of people await only some way to pay in order to buy all those commodities which go to make possible the higher standards of living which man to-day in every comer of the world desires. Did I say, "only"? Alas, that is but half true- other restrictions do exist, but we can do more to break down the barriers. Many of our business men lack the imagination to visualize their opportunity. Their employees tremble for fear of losing a precarious living-failing to to see the possibilities of expansion. Motor car manufacturers, for example, shudder lest they lose a part of a two or three million market and fail to see the possibilities of a seventy million market. They try to sell us motor cars on the basis of the number of eggs they eat, or apples, or fish, while the parent companies, located in the United States where they have no competition, spend their advertising dollars trying to persuade United States consumers to let down the bars against foreign imports, realizing full well that, if they do, more United States cars will be exported.
Some misguided farmers turn to a plea for permanent price protection when they
71492-8J
The Address-Mr. Mutch

should be stiffening the determination of our government to trade our way into the markets of the world.
Professional calamity howlers urge restricted production in a .world that is a potential consumer of the maximum of production. Reduce acreage, bonus acreage, combine, restrict; their tongues and pens create a new Babel.
Professional agitators yelp for the redivision of wealth, for its restriction, for social dividends, for anything and everything except the opportunity to make wealth do its real job in the bettering of the living conditions of the world.
Our people realize that we have not come to the end of the road. The Canadian public will not forever be content to be cribbed, cabined and confined by a few chiselers with a good thing, by the fear of our industrialists or their employees or the lack of courage of legislative bodies.
Canadians cannot bring about the economic millennium, but we can have the courage to make a start-this government has done so. Is it too much to hope that we shall seize every opportunity, and make new ones, to go farther along the road to the economic salvation of ourselves and the world?
Dare we falter before the often expressed fear that by trading freely we may hurt our own pampered industries? "Oh, ye of little faith!" I, for one, am confident that Canadian brains and ingenuity, Canadian capital and Canadian labour can compete and hold their own. I believe they can. But, sir, if they cannot, let us count the cost. Must we contribute to the destruction of a generation of Canadian youth to protect such an industry, as would, by its failure, admit its incompetence and uneconomic establishment? The future is not devoid of hope. In seventy years England grew from seventeen millions to forty-six millions. We are ten millions and more. We have raw materials, power, geographic advantage, brains and brawn. Capital can be enticed from cover to promote the projects of a nation that is on the march, that knows where it is going.
Leadership is essential. Since business does not give it, parliament must. Courage is needed-the history of Canada is the story of undaunted courage. Faith is needed; for faith is the bed rock of confidence. We have all faltered in these last ten years. We need a touch of evangelical fervour in our attitude toward our problems.
We Canadians need to consider our political and social creed. May I give you mine? I believe in Canada, in her vast resources,
IMr. Mutch.]
and in the courage and ability of her sons and daughters. I believe in my neighbours, in the duty I owe them, and in the brotherhood of man. I believe that the peoples of the world have a right to a decent livelihood, and that this is possible with advantage to all. I believe that "fair exchange is no robbery," and that in peace and better trade relations lies the economic salvation of the world.	,
To this end we have made progress. But I come again to the need of the moment. May I say that in this I am motivated by a sincere desire to see immediate succour for those young people for whom I plead. For myself I can wait for the long pull; or, if I cannot, the great constituency which I represent has come through greater adversity than my departure from the scene would entail. At this moment the greatest reclamation problem in Canada is a human one, and its slogan and watchword is, Save our sons and daughters. The speech from the throne recognizes the need and makes it known that something more is to be done. May I reiterate what I have said every session since I came to this house, that the problem has become- indeed to my mind it always was-a federal one. I am not critical of proposals which have not yet been explained, but I warn the house that the municipalities where the need is greatest are broke. Let this government assume full responsibility for employable unemployed on aid; then perhaps with this government's cooperation the municipalities may be able to cope with the problem of those employable unemployed not on aid, among them our youth. I am not fool enough to imagine that any government can by legislative act or series of acts end unemployment. I do not believe that our banks or financial system are either the bulwark or the bugaboo of our existence. We have put on money the emphasis that we should have put on morality; we examine coinage when we should probe conscience.
I would not fool around with the British North America Act for five minutes. In time of war governments assume extraordinary powers. Well, this is a struggle for survival. What if it beats a ministry, if it saves a generation? I have boasted that I know of no hon. member in this house who does not wrestle with all the earnestness and ability at his command to find a way out for our people. The sharpest-tongued partisan in this house would wear the same uniform as the rest of us to defend our homes. Are our homes more important than the flesh and blood within them? Can we not either abolish or

The Address-Mr. Graydon
ignore these restrictions which hamstring the honest desire of every member, and get on with the job that has to be done? Then, if it is still necessary, we can let the lawyers argue the legality afterwards. If we can do that, then perhaps Canada-loving, Canada-serving legislators, federal, provincial and municipal, may be able to effect an approach to the settlement of the problems of our people, which is the honest desire of every hon. member of this house.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: At the outset of my remarks to-night I should like to pay a very well deserved tribute to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was particularly taken with the splendid way in which the task assigned to these hon. members was discharged. The mover of the address (Mr. Matthews), a new man in the house, received the kind of welcome that this house is accustomed so generously to give. The seconder of the address (Mr. Chevrier), whom I have the privilege and honour of calling a very close friend, impressed, I think, every hon. member present not only with his sincerity and earnestness but also with the great facility with which he spoke the two languages in his address. Such men in public life do much to promote national unity in its widest and broadest sense. Therefore I congratulate both these hon. members.
I should also like to echo the widespread and general feeling of keen appreciation and eager expectancy so evident throughout the dominion in regard to the coming visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen. During the course of this debate many allusions have been made to that visit. The house may well spend considerable time in emphasizing the importance to Canada of the visit of these prominent personalities in world affairs. In these days of international unrest, and sometimes, perhaps, internal unrest, it is a very fine thing for Canada to experience the visit of our monarch and his consort. I am sure that throughout Canada all citizens will be vying with one another in an earnest and sincere effort to give to the king and queen one of the most spontaneous and affectionate welcomes that any monarch or ruler has ever received in the history of the world. I look for nothing less than that as far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned.
Also I want to congratulate the committee in charge of arrangements. These arrangements may not always meet with the approval of every hon. member, but with a fine regard for the king's wishes the itinerary does provide that their majesties pass through the
county of Peel. I want to thank the committee for the privilege and honour bestowed; upon our county in arranging that their majesties pass through that admittedly attractive part of this dominion.
It was appropriate that the speech from the throne should refer to the disturbed international situation. But it omitted to refer to the determined feeling which existed during that September crisis, and which was so prominently exhibited throughout the whole dominion ; I refer to that feeling of loyalty and patriotism to the British Empire. I should like to have seen in the speech from the throne some reference made to the fact stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) just last evening, that when Great Britain is at war Canada also is at war. I was glad to hear him say that. If we are bold enough to say that ordinarily in this country, surely it is not too much to ask this government to include at this time a paragraph to that effect in the speech from the throne.
Then we have in the speech from the throne reference to a new defence purchasing board. Throughout the dominion, so far as I have been able to discover, there is not much feeling in favour of either commissions or boards. But if this board should be a strictly nonpartisan and non-political organization, perhaps it will not meet with so much criticism. But here again this government is delegating its administrative duties to another commission. Whether you call it a board or a commission, it is still the same type of organization against which many people in the dominion to-day rebel strongly. I am hoping that this board shall not be just another spending body, or as expensive as other commissions which have preceded it, because a great many people in Canada, a majority of them I think, to-day are searching for means to reduce the cost of government and the burden of taxation generally.
In the speech from the throne much stress is laid upon the question of trade agreements. That is only natural. At the commencement of my remarks in regard to trade agreements may I say that I should like to see matters such as this treated in this House of Commons with a fine balance of common sense and some idea of the proportion of things. In dealing with such questions-* and I know there must have been sins committed on all sides of the house from time to time in connection with matters of this kind-let us not be guilty of over-emphasis in offering criticism with respect to agreements of this kind which have not been long
The Address-Mr. Graydon

in operation, and on the other hand let us not make extravagant and reckless claims in regard to what the agreements will do. Surely it must be apparent to most hon. members, as it must be to the man on the street and the man on the farm, that when someone says these agreements are going to be great factors in international peace for the future, there is quite a dash of colour added. I would not for a moment suggest that agreements such as these may not have some bearing on questions such as peace, but so far as we in Canada are concerned, we as members have a trust and this government has a trust for the Canadian people. We must never lose sight of the fact that we are trustees for the people of this country, and before this government loses itself in a cloud of international understanding it must be sure that everything is well on the ground below. To me, Mr. Speaker, that seems to be one of the cardinal principles on which we must proceed to deal with the pros and cons of an agreement such as this. I do not believe Great Britain would ask, let alone permit, this dominion to jeopardize its interests in behalf of anything so fantastic as the suggestion that has come from some quarters that this agreement means the binding together of three great portions of the Anglo-Saxon world.
It is not difficult, of course, to recall the glowing hopes which were expressed some three years ago. I remember so well the supporters of the government suggesting that the agreement of 1936 was going to do- what? Well, it was to be a blow at economic nationalism; it was to encourage greater international understanding; it was to be a great benefit to agriculture, to business and to industry in general. Let us hurriedly examine what has happened with regard to the lesson in international understanding which the agreement of 1936 was supposed to teach.
1 would be the las.t one in this chamber to -suggest that this agreement was the cause of what happened; but when an hon. member suggests in this house that the agreement of 1936 was to be a great step towards a broader international understanding and a way to peace, perhaps I may be excused for very humbly and quietly pointing out that since that agreement went into effect, in 1936, there has been scarcely a moment when the tension has not become greater, until we bad the crisis of September last when an armed holocaust almost resulted. I give that illustration, Mr. Speaker, not with any desire to discredit the agreement as far as it went at that time, but merely to point
(Mr. Graydon.]
out the fallacies under which we may labour when we attempt to advance extravagant and reckless claims for agreements which have been scarcely entered into.
Let us look at this new agreement. May we not perhaps also remove a little of the colour from some of the statements we have heard in this house with regard to its part in international affairs? As yet I have not been able to come to the conclusion that it is going to be the means of ridding the world of the trouble with which it is confronted. I think most historians and students of foreign affairs will agree that our troubles in this world have deeper roots than the mere question of changing some of the items in the tariff schedules of the Dominion of Canada.
Let us look at the benefits which came from the 1936 agreement, so far as our people were concerned, leaving aside for the moment the lesson in international understanding to which I have just referred. Before that agreement came into operation, the 'balance of trade between the two countries was in favour of Canada. I am sure there will be plenty of hon. members who will say that the balance of trade is a worn-out theory; but in spite of that I should like to place upon Hansard the manner in which the trade balance was reversed, for the benefit of those who still cling to the theory that perhaps, after all, there is something in the balance of trade as far as a country is concerned. Canada, a country of eleven million people, bought from the United States last year goods to the value of $487,000,000. During the same period we sold to that country goods to the value of only $423,000,000, leaving an adverse balance of trade amounting to $64,000,000. Before the agreements were entered into, as I said before, we had a balance of trade in our favour in our trading relations with the republic to the south.
Let us consider fresh fruits and vegetables, in which I am particularly interested. In 1935, before the agreement went into operation, we imported approximately $13,000,000 worth of fresh fruits and vegetables. In 1938, after the agreement had been in operation for three years, we imported no less than $17,500,000 worth, or an increase of 35 per cent. Someone may ask, " Well, how did the agreement work"? I would not suggest that any public speaker supporting that agreement should go into any area where these fresh fruits and vegetables are produced; I am doubtful as to the welcome he might receive from some of those people.
But we must not confine ourselves entirely to that particular branch of agriculture in this country. Taking the figures for 1935 and 1938, covering the periods both before and after the

The Address-Mr. Graydon
1936 agreement, I find that there was some little appreciation in the price of cattle. On the other hand, the general price level of field crops and dairy products dropped to extremely low levels in the interval. In other words, the glowing and extravagant claims made for the old agreement were not, in all instances, substantiated by the results. Of course it must have helped some lines of business, but undoubtedly it also harmed others. So I think it would be a bold man indeed who would rise in this chamber to-night and say that the old agreement resulted in any overwhelming business recovery in the Dominion of Canada.
This subject of agriculture is very near to me, and perhaps hon. gentlemen will excuse the constant references to this question by one who represents a rural area, as I do. After all, however, there is something about the condition of agriculture that some people who come from urban sections seem to fail to appreciate. I was disappointed, yes, I was discouraged to find that the speech from the throne contains nothing that looks like a forthright, vigorous or aggressive plan for the rehabilitation of agriculture in Canada. It has been said many times that national agriculture in this dominion provides the best barometer of business conditions. I agree with that statement, and would couple with agriculture the condition of the working man. Those of us who represent constituencies where eastern agriculture is carried on at its best are deeply concerned. May I point out that no one is raising his voice in regard to the reasonable alleviation of the distressed condition of western agriculture. We realize that, after all, we cannot think in Canada simply as "I"; we must think as " we," because when we speak of one part of Canada we think of it all. May I point out, however, that this year eastern agriculture has experienced great hardships and low price levels, and many farmers in eastern Canada feel that perhaps the eastern end of agriculture ought to have some measure of rehabilitation too.
Last year I listened to an eloquent exposition of agriculture delivered by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader) whom I see in his seat to-night. He pleaded with the government for assistance in promoting and arranging a market in the United Kingdom for Canadian chilled beef. There are many practical farmers in Canada who feel that in England we have a market of consumers, a great market where there is a heavy demand for high grade products of agriculture. One cannot wonder when he hears the farming population of Canada crying out for real opportunities to sell beef and
bacon in the British isles. I should like to see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) begin to-night on a program of rehabilitation, so far as agriculture is concerned, and provide for the farmers of Canada a market in Great Britain for bacon and chilled beef. It always seems to me-and perhaps I am wrong in my premise-that we lay too much stress upon the market in the United States. We lay stress upon a market which is not alone a consumer's market but a market which has close to it competitive farmer producers who compete every day with our products sent in. On the other hand in the great British market that is not so to the same extent. The government is losing sight of the principles and policies which will help the farming population of Canada, and should make some aggressive and vigorous move to capture the market for bacon and beef in the British isles as quickly as it can be done.
One hears a great deal of talk about agriculture being the backbone of the country. I do not mind so much hearing a farmer make that statement, but I do not like to hear anyone who has not come from a farm or who does not understand farming, make it. Every member of the house must realize that the farmer-and I speak more particularly of the eastern farmer with whose conditions I am more familiar-is to-day caught between low prices and high overhead. I believe most practical farmers realize that this is one of the greatest problems they face. A great basic industry such as farming cannot survive with the increasing overhead which seems to come with every improvement in farm machinery and farm conveniences, when prices are not proportionately higher than they were when general overhead was much lower.
The prosperity of the farmer is reflected, in good times or bad, upon every class of person in Canada. It is the nation's business barometer; let us make no mistake about that. During the discussion of the trade agreements we shall hear about the prospective benefits which will accrue to the farmers, particularly in connection with cattle and milk. I do not wish in any way to detract from the glowing picture which has been painted. I should not like to spoil a good picture, even one painted by a Liberal government. On the other hand, with great respect I should like to point out that with relation to cattle weighing over 700 pounds the duty has been cut one-half cent per pound. But our farmers are still faced with a quota which prevents them from shipping into the United States and taking advantage of the entire market,
The Address-Mr. Gray don

so far as the sale of their cattle is concerned. I have made some calculations-I do not know whether they are correct-but they seem to indicate that even under the new agreement we can ship only one and one-quarter per cent of the total number of cattle slaughtered in the United States in previous years. That is not very great consideration, to say the least. It seems to me the United States farmers have taken due precautions to see to it that they are not going to meet with very great competition in that regard. Then, the agreement restricts the entry of cattle to the extent of 60,000 for every quarter year, so that when the market is good over there in any particular season we are cut down to that 60,000, again protecting the United States farmer. Let us make a simple computation. If every twelve of our farm population were to pool their farm stock in any single year for export to the United States, they would be able to ship only one head of cattle weighing over 700 pounds. If we figure it out on another basis, actually only one in every twenty-six of our total cattle population in Canada comes within the restricted quota.
Then I ask hon. members to look at the situation with respect to milk. The rate of duty has been reduced on milk entering the United States to the extent only of a yearly quota of three million gallons. That would seem to be quite a bit of milk. However, I looked up the figures, and I found that three million gallons means only one gallon in every 570 produced every year in Canada, or four gallons for every farm in the dominion. These figures may sound fantastic, but may I point out that the milk production in the county of Peel, which I have the honour to represent, is no less than nine million gallons per year. We produce in that county three times as much as the government permits for the whole of Canada under the quota. I repeat that in that one county we produce three times as much milk as under the new agreement there may enter the United States under the lower tariff rate. I do not wish to criticize the government unduly, but I must say that they will have to pardon me if I say that this is not likely to revolutionize agriculture to say the least, and is not likely to put our dairy farmers and cattle breeders in the higher income tax brackets for the year 1939.
May I draw the attention of hon. members to one further important matter. In the town of Brampton, which is in my constituency, there are cut-flower producers, about whom I have spoken many times in the

house. We have been affected in that connection by a reduction of fifteen per cent in the duty on cut flowers coming into Canada. I must admit that a similar concession has been granted on the product entering the United States, but we must remember that climatic conditions in the two countries are entirely different. The cost of production in one country cannot be compared with the cost in the other. The result is that all we can do is to hope that this agreement will not work any serious hardship. A good many workmen in the cut-flower industry are not enjoying very prosperous times to-day, and I am hoping that this agreement will not work to their disadvantage.
There is one more injustice of which I should like the government to take cognizance. A sales tax of eight per cent is imposed on cut-flower sales, although no sales tax is imposed on the sale of ordinary agricu-tural commodities. The cut-flower industry must face competition from outside sources and from many growers who do not have to pay the sales tax, and I think this item might well be the subject of exemption when the next budget is brought down.
I am interested also in the boot and shoe business. In one of the towns in my riding great difficulty has been experienced because of "short time" schedules in this industry. While it is perhaps too early to forecast what will be the result of this trade agreement, I cannot see where it will help the men and women working in the shoe industry to take away their protection to the extent of even five per cent on goods entering from the United States, plus the elimination of the three per cent excise tax.
A change has been made in the preference granted on apples and other fruits entering the British market from Canada. I was hoping against hope that the British preference would not be changed by this agreement. We have built up a great export market for apples and other fruits, and since the empire agreements came into force there has been an increase in the prosperity of our fruit producers generally. But now part of the protection is being taken away from our fruit growers. The preference on the British market is to be reduced, and it is possible that as time goes on the United States producer will enter that market to the detriment of our growers. I also want to make as vigorous a protest as I can on behalf of the vegetable growers. Before 1936 the general tariff protection offered to these men amounted to thirty per cent. This has now been reduced to ten per cent

The Address-Mr. Gray don
under the general tariff, with further restrictions in connection with dumping duties.
I am speaking on behalf of these hard working men who are able to obtain only a small return from their labours in the vegetable industry. If there is going to be a progressive drop in the tariff by various agreements that this government may enter into, there will be eventually little left of this great industry. While I am discussing this matter I would suggest to the Minister of Agriculture that he pay some attention to the recommendation I made last year to provide in his estimates for the furnishing of a proper statistical set-up in connection with fruits and vegetables. The vegetable growers of this country feel that they are penalized because of lack of statistical information. I believe the minister would be well advised to take this into consideration.
I want to make reference to the omission from the speech from the throne of any really vigorous policy with respect to the working man and his familj'. I do not make any apology for being the spokesman for the working man in the riding which I represent. One of the best lubricators of the machinery of business is the wage envelope of the working man who spends his money freely on the necessities of life. He provides business with the greatest impetus that it can possibly have. This government might well be criticized for not promoting any scheme to help the working man.
Let me now consider unemployment insurance. What a hackneyed word that has become throughout Canada. Nineteen years ago a great Liberal convention met in the city of Ottawa. That was the convention which elected the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as leader of the Liberal party. That convention solemnly nailed in the platform of the Liberal party the plank of unemployment insurance. Last night the Prime Minister made an eloquent address. He said that we are coming closer to unemployment insurance legislation. The time to have introduced that legislation was during the nine years from 1921 to 1930 when Liberalism was in power and when this country had a share of world prosperity. At that time there was more in the pay envelopes of the working man. We had not entered the depression, and we did not have the spending on public affairs that we have to-day. That was when the Liberal government should have brought in unemployment insurance legislation.
But it was left for the Conservative party to enact in 1935 the only measure of importance with respect to unemployment insurance that we have had since the days of confederation. That legislation was sent to the courts where it became a legislative wreck. To-night I heard a Liberal member, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), state that he believed that policy of putting through unemployment insurance was one which should be pursued to-day, even by this government. The Conservative government answered when urgency and emergency called, and I think their legislation will always stand as a monument to their efforts to solve the problems of the working man. If this government will bring in a workable scheme of unemployment insurance, I am sure they will have the support of every hon. member and of every man and woman in the Dominion of Canada. All they have to do is to enact the legislation and see that that happy family of provinces which was spoken of before, is a reality. There should be some real measure of assistance for the working man of the dominion.
The hopes of the working man seem to be raised every year by some mention of unemployment insurance in the speech from the throne, but nothing is ever done. No longer than two weeks ago a working man said to me, "Will there be unemployment insurance after this year?" I said, "I think there will be, because there will be a Conservative government to give it to you the same as they did in 1935." He said, "I hope your party gives us a little more leadership and shows a little more aggressiveness than this government has done, because we do not want any more sit-down strikes' in Ottawa."
Not one thing was said in the speech from the throne with regard to the relief of real estate holders in the Dominion of Canada from the burden of taxation. It has been said at mayors' conventions; it has been stated from municipal platforms all across the dominion, that there is a need of easing the heavy burden of taxation on real estate. Along with the great majority of Canadians I believe that we must provide some policy to coax and persuade private capital once more to get into business. Governments are into business. They are into business sometimes too far, I believe. If we can reduce our taxes, cut down our overhead, show the people that we mean business in parliament instead of delays and promises, we shall once more get private capital into circulation in our business in this country, and the wheels of industry will turn and prosperity will be with us once more. I am in favour of a drastic reduction in governmental overhead throughout this country. Perhaps I need do

The Address-Mr. Graydon
no more than mention that, because the need for a pay-as-you-go policy in the dominion, as pointed out only a few moments ago by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Thompson), is one of our crying needs. The county I represent is a representative county of Ontario, and in the last eight years we have not only paid as we have gone in the county of Peel, but reduced our debenture indebtedness by sixty per cent. Is it too much to ask the government of Canada to do what municipalities are already doing. This parliament should be giving a lead; the municipalities should be following only; the cart has gone before the horse much too long.
In closing, I wish to revert to a matter which was referred to yesterday. Throughout the country confidence in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not been strengthened in recent times. One hears criticisms all over the land with regard to the control exercised over radio broadcasting in general. The idea of having to pay a radio licence fee of $2.50 still rankles in the minds of most people. May I offer a friendly piece of advice to the government of the day; they will be surprised at the extent to which public opinion in this dominion is rebelling against the payment of any kind of radio licence fee. That is one matter which ought to receive the careful and immediate attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and the government as a whole. If we are to have some kind of radio control, it must be such as will have the confidence of the people generally, and it should not be associated in the minds of everyone with what they regard as an annoying nuisance tax.
In this country we have talked a good deal about national unity. Perhaps we have not reached the point of achieving what we should like to do in that direction, but if we are to have national unity it must be predicated upon aggressive and vigorous leadership in the dominion House of Commons. Instead of blaming all the provinces of the dominion for our troubles, let us analyze our own short-comings as a national legislative body and government. Let us provide in this country leadership which will lead, not merely jompromise and delay, leadership which will jompel every corner of Canada to think in terms of the nation as a whole. Our responsibility for the reconfederating of Canada has become greater in these days when jealous and eager foreign eyes are cast upon us. Let us measure up to the job we have before us and provide efficiency in government, virile and progressive leadership in administration,

and a strong national feeling of strength and unity before it becomes too late. That, in my opinion, is one of our tasks in parliament to-day.
On motion of Mr. Coldwell the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, January 18, 1939