1939-01-24

CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the criminal code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MALLETTE:: Subsection 6 of section 236 of the criminal code has to do with the exceptions in favour of lotteries. One of these exceptions is found in paragraph (e), as follows:
(e) the Art Union of London, Great Britain, or the Art Union of Ireland.
This exception is now obsolete. However, all hon. members know that quite a few sweepstakes are now being held throughout Canada. It is the intention of the bill to repeal paragraph (e) and replace it by another which would permit the recognition of sweepstakes by the governments of the provinces, the benefits to go to universities and hospitals.
The bill, Mr. Speaker, speaks for itself.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

258	COMMONS
Questions Permissible on Orders of the Day



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), notice of which was given last week-end but a reply to which was not included in his remarks yesterday.
First, will the minister consider the giving of assistance for relief hospitalization? Second, will the minister consider the cases of thousands of senior citizens, industrial workers and others out of work, who are not on relief but are suffering? Third, the minister stated that the prosecutions in Toronto are under the city's by-laws. I would point out that they are being taken under the criminal code as well as under the city's by-laws. The minister stated that these men are in gaol. They got out of gaol last Friday.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member has the right to put questions of public interest on the orders of the day, but he has not the right to make a speech.


Thomas Langton Church: I have a question to ask, Mr. Speaker, but first I wish to call to the attention of the minister, without comment, the cases of those on remand at Timmins, Whitby and Toronto gaols, and to ask what action will be taken. Will the minister give consideration to these complaints, and will he pass some reference over to the provincial authorities when they come up for trial?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the several matters to which my hon. friend has referred are of such a kind as are constantly receiving the attention of the Department of Labour. As I informed the house yesterday with respect to the position of transients in Toronto who are under remand, the matter is now the subject of communication between the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Welfare in the city of Toronto.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps hon. members would allow me, not with a view

to curtailing discussion in any way, but rather to enable the house to get on with its business, to draw attention to the rules with respect to asking questions on the orders of the day.
The rules do provide for an opportunity to ask questions on the orders of the day with reference to an emergent situation on which it is desirable to have immediate information from the ministry. But if hon. members will look at standing order 17, and citation 197, they will see that the rule is that:
A question which could be inserted on the order paper is not allowed on the orders of the day being called.
Yesterday we had a regular battery of questions on the orders of the day. I think most of them might have been placed on the order paper. Probably they would not have been allowed except that his honour the Speaker did not wish to prevent anyone from having as much latitude as possible. The rule which I have quoted is there for the convenience of all members of the house, and no doubt his honour the Speaker will wish to see that it is enforced as we proceed.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: Just one word in connection with what my right hon. friend has said. I quite agree that the rule is there. At the same time I think that both he and I have been impressed with the fact that in the British House of Commons the question hour is literally an hour or more; and I am wondering if it would not be to the advantage of all of us, of the house, and of the country, if in this, as in so many other things, we were to follow the British custom and permit a little more latitude in regard to questions, so that the country would have a reasonably prompt reply in regard to many matters. I am not saying this with any thought of embarrassing the government or of criticizing the remarks of the right hon. gentleman. It is merely that I believe that for the sake of good government it would be a good thing, whatever party is in power, to permit a considerable amount of latitude in regard to such matters as this.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: First, in regard to what my hon. friend had to say as to the custom in the British house in answering questions on the orders of the day, the British house, like this house, is governed by its standing rules, and the rules of the British house are somewhat different from the rules here. If the rules of this house are to be changed they ought to be considered in the first instance by the appropriate committee of the house and approved by the house. So long as the

Radio-Address oj Prime Minister
rules are what they are, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that they ought to be observed.
I have not in mind at the moment the practice of the British house, but my recollection is that except questions which are of an urgent character the only kind of question which is permitted to be asked which does not appear on the orders of the day is a supplementary question arising out of a question that is already on the orders of the day; a minister may be asked-and I think it has been permitted here-if the reply is not regarded as adequate, to supplement his remarks so as to make them quite clear.
My colleague the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has drawn my attention to the wording of the rules of the British house with respect to questions. I quote the following:
No questions shall be taken after a quarter before four of the clock, except questions which have not been answered in consequence of the absence of the minister to whom they are addressed, and questions which have not appeared on the paper, but which are of an urgent character, and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business.
The questions that are taken before that are the questions which are on the order paper.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a question of privilege. In regard to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), we might as well settle what rule 191 says as to what may be asked on the orders of the day. This matter was raised in the British house the other day, and my question is this:	Has there been
any interpretation by you, Mr. Speaker, regarding questions on the orders of the day? I would ask that you give a ruling, because the question I raised relates to the liberty of the subject and to Magna Carta. I am surprised that the Prime Minister has raised the point which he has, straining that point, and as he read Carlyle for three years to the unemployed, and now he reads Beauchesne. Regarding the rule itself, it has been interpreted just recently in the British house owing to the labour party members rising every day and calling the attention of the prime minister and others to foreign affairs and defence and the labour and relief situation. In this parliament we, fortunately, have not found ourselves in the position of Toronto, but when I find the gaols there and in Ontario filled with many people who had come from all over Canada because they could not get work, I think it is a matter of urgent public importance-
71492-17i


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: -and seven youths in gaol at Timmins-I think it right to raise these questions on the orders of the day, under this rule.


Walter Edward Foster: I would ask the hon.
member to state his question of privilege.


Thomas Langton Church: Under this particular rule a minister can be interrogated on the orders of the day on matters of public importance and matters of emergency. I believe that if the Prime Minister were seized by the authorities because he could not find work, and were placed in gaol without a trial and without clothing or food or light, he would not quote Beauchesne-oh, no; he would take the law into his own hands, as was done back in 1837.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your ruling-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the question of privilege, may I point out to my hon. friend that he has been speaking on citation 191. I was speaking on citation 197, which is a different one. I regret that my hon. friend did not hear the one I was referring to. However, what I wish to point out to him is this. I waited until his question was answered before raising the point I did. I took no exception to his question or to its being answered. I did intend before I came into the house, regardless of who might ask a question, to direct attention to the rule with respect to the asking of questions on the orders of the day. Before doing so, however, I waited until my hon. friend's question had been answered.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: I have a question to direct to the Prime Minister. Probably it is one of those which he thinks might have been put on the order paper, but if he takes that view I do not agree; I think it is urgent enough to require an answer to-day. I have to preface it by a remark or two. In my speech the other day in the house I offered in a general way some criticism of the right hon. gentleman about his not having travelled across the country. The right hon. gentleman replied. But last evening he made a

Radio-Address of Prime Minister
speech over the radio which, according to the press reports-I did not have the pleasure of listening to it-was a very good speech, as his speeches always are, and he made a pretty elaborate reply. I believe, to my criticism in the house. I should like to know from him, or from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) if he prefers, whether the Liberal party paid for that political broadcast over the radio last night or whether the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation presented that time as a gift to the Liberal party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In regard to what my hon. friend has just said about my address last night, I was asked, as he was asked, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to give one of a series of addresses relating to the business of government. I was asked to explain the position and responsibilities and duties of the prime minister and the secretary of state for external affairs and the president of the privy council in relation to the business of government. My hon. friend was asked to give an address on the duties of the leader of the opposition, who has a recognized position of responsibility in the affairs of government and is a salaried officer of parliament. My hon. friend did not take advantage of the proposal. I was asked, not by the corporation but by one of my secretaries, if I would not see him about making sure of having his address included in the series, simply to make sure that the series would be complete; but I thought that my hon. friend could decide best what he wished to do and therefore I did not say anything to him about it.
Now as to the substance of my remarks last night. As a matter of fact they were not in any way intended as a reply to any criticism on the part of my hon. friend; they were an explanation of my position as Prime Minister and as Secretary of State for External Affairs. I set forth what my duties were in that regard, some indication of the amount of time they consumed, and the extent to which, the time being consumed in the way it was, it was not possible for me as Prime Minister to do some of the things I would like to do-among others, travel about the country as frequently as I would. I may say that in my remarks I was referring to the duties not only of the present Prime Minister but of previous prime ministers and of possible future prime ministers.


Robert James Manion: Did my right hon. friend mention any of the others?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I made .a reference to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his sue-

cessors. I said that while all agreed that it might relieve the prime minister of some of his duties to have as the secretary of state for external affairs a member of the government holding a separate portfolio, all had found that our leading questions, our big problems in Canada, are so intimately associated with our membership in the British commonwealth of nations, or our membership in the League of Nations, or our proximity to the United States, that it was inadvisable to separate the matters of greatest concern to the Prime Minister from those of external affairs. There was nothing political in the remarks; and if my hon. friend should ever occupy this seat -which I do not imagine will ever happen- he will thank the Lord that I made the speech I did.


Robert James Manion: I am not going to carry
on a debate, and I do not intend to discuss the right hon. gentleman's speech. He always makes a very good speech, and I think he made a good political speech last night. But I just want to say, in reply to his remark that I was invited, that it is true the chairman of the radio corporation did ask me to be one of about eighteen or nineteen to speak; the other eighteen would be the ministers on the other side; and I did not think that it would be a fair division.


Mr. DUNNING:: You are equal to it.


Robert James Manion: It may be that the chairman of the commission looks on me as quite equal to the whole group. But I was too modest to think so.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 23, 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, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Woodsworth.
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I
would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we extend the question period preceding orders of the day, because it seems to me to put the house into that jocular frame of mind that makes it easy for the first speaker who rises after that period.
The speech from the throne is remarkable in two particulars: first, in its length, and second, to my mind, in the fact that it is more or less a death-bed repentance; for we

The Address-Mr. Perley
find forecast legislation that may be brought down this session which should have been brought down three or four sessions ago.
If I had time I should like to review the period in our history from 1922 down to the present time, and to discuss the records of the three governments that have been in office during that period: the King government from 1922 to 1930, the Bennett government from 1930 to 1935-the most critical period in our history, not even excepting the war period-and the regime from 1935 to the present. Time will not allow me to do this. I recall, however, that strikingly eloquent message of hope that was flashed across the dominion on the night of the election of 1935, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) promised that he would abolish poverty and adversity and bring about in Canada that condition whereby all our difficulties would be settled by peaceful and harmonious conferences with the provinces, and there would be one happy family in the dominion.
I have time only to summarize briefly what has taken place in the last-mentioned period. We find taxation the highest in Canada's history. The government still finds ways of spending more money than it receives. The annual increase in trade which they found when taking office has now become an annual decrease. Exports continue to fall. For the first ten months of last year exports to the United States declined to the extent of $140,000,000. Wheat prices are still low. The Canadian wheat board was illegally discontinued in 1936-37. Taxation has increased, the railway problem is untouched, unemployment and poverty are still with us, and no steps have been taken to strengthen interprovincial or domestic trade or to equalize the prices of primary and secondary products in the domestic market. This last feature is important and it is regrettable that no effort has been made to deal with the situation.
We have had for the last three years what has been rightly termed a do-nothing government. We have had government by commission-commissions headed by party men and party counsel, regardless of their knowledge or lack of knowledge of the subjects with which they have dealt. Lastly, in summarizing. may I point out that the social reform legislation passed by the previous government has been destroyed, partly by judicial decisions and partly by repeal, and there has been no clear hand of leadership in sight.
It is my duty to deal with one or two problems pertaining more particularly to western Canada, and I speak with special reference
to relief in Saskatchewan. In that province we have had, in connection with the distribution of relief, a system which in my opinion is a disgrace to this government and to the dominion. I am not complaining of the amount expended, because relief was necessary. Many would not have been able to carry on had it not been for relief. What I am complaining about is the manner in which relief has been distributed in the west. I am referring to the maladministration that has been and is at the present time so apparent-irregularities in the carrying out of relief, and graft in many instances. I repeat, it is a disgrace.
For example, what is going on in the northern part of the province at the present time? Many hon. members, particularly western members, are no doubt aware of what has been taking place. There, the daily press carries red headlines with reference to the evidence given in the courts where certain persons have been prosecuted. Relief has been given out promiscuously to party friends and a favoured few. Orders have been approved by inspectors, supervisors, reeves and secretaries of municipalities and others; and as one witness said before the court, "The government give, I take; thank him nicely." I have here, dated December 27, a headline that reads:
Not Sufficient Checks kept on Relief by Official.
A prominent king's counsel, when pleading for leniency for his client before the court before concurrent sentence of two and a half years was imposed on each of 332 counts for forgery and uttering relief vouchers and cheques, said there had not been sufficient check. The magistrate, in passing sentence, said the accused was only part of a crooked machine. I ask this government what system of auditing or checking is in effect in that province when a man could get away with 332 forgeries involving sums from $15 to $50.
Another headline reads: "Handed more relief than he applied for." On January 14 one witness tells of laxity in checking up municipal relief. Another headline states that direct relief was paid for in the hire of a car of one of the inspectors. The garage people were given an order for groceries. Then we are informed that the Fish Creek relief list is changed daily, and that there is laxity in the check-up. On January 17 a witness states that this check-up was not very efficient; and at the Wakaw trial it was stated that relief was granted to favourites. Again, one man swears that he got all and more than he asked for. The evidence was that it was very easy to get relief.
The Address-Mr. Perley

I have here a statement as reported in the Regina Star of January 17: " Orders for relief were handed out on election day." This is a good one. In point the witness said that some of the relief orders were distributed to people when they came to the polls. He said his father had distributed relief vouchers at his home on election day, and there was a polling booth at his home. What do hon. members think of such a condition as that being allowed to prevail in this country?
Then I have here something that I regret to have to bring to the attention of the house. It is to the effect that the party men in that province decide who shall get the jobs. This is dated January 18 and states:
No jobs for other than Liberals, says Regina M.L.A.
The reference is to the new member-elect of the provincial house and that is the statement he made to the Liberal council when he thought it was behind closed doors. The report continues:
In future, said Mr. McDaniel, "no appointment will be deemed to be properly made unless it bears the initials of Mr. Hogarth (senior member elect for Regina), Mr. McNiven (federal M.P. for Regina), or myself."
I submit that it is a sorry state of affairs when no one in that province can be considered for a position in the service, temporary or otherwise, unless he has the O.K. of these men. I do not think the hon. member for Regina (Mr. McNiven) would be a party to that; I know him too well. But he owes it to this house to make a statement repudiating this, or as to how he appears in the favoured committee that has to O.K. these positions. I think he should repudiate Mr. McDaniel's statement, and I hope he will do so. I should not like to think that he is a part of this political machine, but I have quoted that to show that there is a real machine operating in that province.


Mr. McNIVEN:: Read Mr. McDaniel's
explanation, given in the same report.


Ernest Edward Perley: His explanation I have here. He stated that he thought it was behind closed doors, that his reference was only to post office appointments, and that he did not think there was a reporter present. The reporter comes back and says he shook hands with ten of the council and was in the building.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it all.


Ernest Edward Perley: I cannot read it all, but I give the date of the paper and hon. members can look it up; perhaps the hon. member for Regina would like to read it all. I hope he will make a statement to clear himself from any business of that kind.

We have also a statement here that tokens have been handed out by merchants in the northern part of the province: that these tokens were taken to pool rooms, beer parlours, barber shops, and that they come back to the merchant who gives goods and cashes the tokens in Regina.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Who is responsible for that statement?


Ernest Edward Perley: I have the authority right
here of men who have seen the tokens and young men who have used them. If hon. members want to know, all they have to do is to appoint the commission that I am going to demand this afternoon, and I will give the information.


Malcolm McLean: You are not
giving it now?


Ernest Edward Perley: I have it here, but I do
not propose to give it right now. But I think this has been going on in the district of the hon. member, and he can tell the house about it.


Malcolm McLean: I deny that.


Ernest Edward Perley: I ask the hon. member to
keep his seat.


Malcolm McLean: On a question
of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I deny that at any time to my knowledge have tokens been given out and used in that way or in any way in the district I represent, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement.


Ernest Edward Perley: The towns named in the
information I have received I think are very near the hon. member's district. I am not sure of the towns, but I have the names of several villages and towns in which these tokens were in use. It is very prevalent in all the northern part of the province, and it is a wonder to me if the hon. member'3 district has escaped. We have inspectors, supervisors and reeves issuing orders even from the cars during the election campaign. Gas coupons are being issued and used at filling stations. There is political patronage in that province that should be cleared up.
I now ask the government to consider, even at this late date, the setting up of a national relief administration or commission to handle the distribution of relief in Saskatchewan from now on, such a commission as we had from 1930 to 1935. I demand that the government take the suggestion into consideration with a view to clearing this thing up. Such a commission should be appointed in due course. The condition I have outlined has perhaps not been prevalent in every part of the province; in the central part I

The Address-Mr. Perley
do not think it has prevailed. I know many of the municipal clerks and reeves and councillors in my district; many of these councils are composed of men who have a sense of responsibility and duty, and I am sure it would not be safe to suggest anything such as this to them.
I regret to have to inform the house that owing to a blunder or incompetence on the part of someone last spring, seed was not delivered to the farmers in proper time in the areas in which it was required. Distribution of seed wheat was late. In some cases one farmer had his seed and got it in in proper time, while his neighbour had not, and there was a difference of five to ten bushels an acre in the crops. That condition should be inquired into with a view to finding out who was responsible. We know that the municipalities had prepared their statements and estimates, had arranged their credits at the bank; we know that the board had the order from the government to convert the options into seed, and we know that there was blundering somewhere, and the people in that western country through the lateness of distribution of seed suffered a loss of at least S30.000,000. We know what that means to eastern Canada and to labour and transportation. The loss is so serious that it is the concern of this dominion to know who blundered, because we do not want it to recur this spring.
If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) were in his seat I should like to ask him to state when this matter of seed wheat is going to be dealt with in this house. When does he propose to bring down his bill providing for seed? Last year he will recall that he asked some of us on this side to refrain from asking questions. In order to facilitate the passing of the bill we did so, but we want to know this year that the bill will come down in time to permit of proper distribution of seed for spring seeding. I have here a resolution which has come to hand in to-day's press. If hon. members care to look it up in the reading room they will see that the association of rural municipalities have protested the delay in the seed distribution in 1938 and requested the government to take action in proper time this year.
I should like to deal with the live stock industry as it affects us in the west. As far as Saskatchewan is concerned it has been struck a blow from which it will not recover for many years. I regret that the Minister of Agriculture was not more concerned last year when there was a demand from farmers in many western rural districts for an increase in
the number of sires. I hope that this year he will give proper consideration to the matter and see that it is dealt with efficiently. The live stock industry is in a precarious position, and I urge upon the minister that he take every possible step to foster that industry and restore it to the position it held a few years ago.
The marketing question is also important. I am pleased to note that in the speech from the throne it is indicated that the government may take some action to improve the marketing of our primary products. I have prepared a resolution on this subject and have it ready for the order paper, but unfortunately the procedure does not permit me to have two resolutions on the order paper at the same time. But I ask the government to take some action looking to the passing of the necessary legislation. It may be providing for marketing boards to be set up as under the Bennett government, but some action should be taken to correct the inequality between prices of primary and secondary products in our domestic market. We realize that the domestic market is the best market we have. Ninety-five per cent of our products, other than wheat, are consumed in the domestic market, which should be preserved for the Canadian producer and equalized as I have just suggested.
Now I come to the question of wheat and wheat marketing. Never has the western producer of wheat been in a more precarious position; never have the world wheat markets been more demoralized; never has the future looked more uncertain than is the case at the present time. After listening to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) the other day I think everyone will agree with that. We only need to look at the comments which appear in the press every day, in any paper you may pick up, to realize the truth of that statement. I would refer to the conference that took place in the city of Winnipeg not long ago, called by the premier of Manitoba, attended by representatives of the federal and provincial government, of the grain exchange, the wheat growers, the wheat pool and so on, to consider this question of the marketing of wheat. No constructive suggestion came from that conference. Then we had the international conference not long ago in London. Nothing of very much importance came from that except the appointment of a committee including the representatives of ten nations to consider five distinct subjects and report at a world conference to be held later. The fifth subject was important; it concerned the desirability of a
The Address-Mr. Perley

set export quota, not on a bushelage basis but on the basis of a percentage of world demand. Acreage reduction was definitely shelved at that meeting.
I believe that is an important subject, which should be considered. The farmers of western Canada realize now that there must be some control of production, or at least some control of marketing. I am not in favour of controlling acreage, but if I had the opportunity I think I could work out a scheme for controlling deliveries to the market. I had another resolution ready for the order paper-I do not suppose it will be reached this session-to the effect that the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Wheat Board Act to empower the board to control deliveries to it through a system of licensing producers to sell or deliver a given number of bushels per seeded acre, and that the permits to sell should be negotiable among the producers only. I should like to enlarge upon that matter, but time will not permit. However, I do think a system of that kind could be worked out, which would control the amount marketed based on world requirements or possible Canadian exports.
May I say here, Mr. Speaker, that I think there is altogether too much publicity given this question, altogether too much talk with respect to our difficulties in connection with marketing, too much advertising as to our surpluses, and so on. I think there should be some censorship. I hold in my hand a little chart which came to my hand just a day or two ago; I think every member received a copy of it, and I would commend it to the study of hon. gentlemen. It deals with the world and Canadian wheat situation under three heads; world and Canadian production, world and Canadian surplus and world and Canadian exports. After reviewing that, sir, I have no hesitation in saying that I am not fearful of the future. I am not a pessimist, and on that I agree with what was said by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) yesterday. I think many of these problems could and should be approached from an optimistic rather than a pessimistic point of view, and I am an optimist in connection with the possibilities of marketing our wheat in the future.
Now, I should like to say just a word with regard to the wheat board in 1938. I commend the government for carrying on that board for the 1938 crop. They set the price at 80 cents. I think if they had pursued a proper selling policy they could have set the price at 90 cents without incurring any greater loss than will be incurred under present conditions. The policy which was announced when

that price was set tended to depress the market. I have before me a statement by Mr. Sanford Evans of Winnipeg, who is a statistician of some renown, as follows:
In announcing the plan this season the government went to questionable extremes in disavowing market-price motives.
In another article Mr. Evans quotes from the Chicago Journal of Commerce, in which that newspaper said that when the price was set and the policy of the government announced, it had the effect of depressing the market. Then he quotes from Broomhall's Corn Trade News, of Liverpool, a day or two after the price was set. That should be an authority, and here is what Broomhall said:
As a fact, after a small advance, Winnipeg futures dropped several cents a bushel, considerable importance being given to a statement by the Canadian premier, Mr. Mackenzie King, that the wheat board's policy would not be to withhold supplies from the international market, but rather to offer competition at all times. In other words, no attempt is to be made to dictate prices to consumers and, in the prosecution of this policy, the government is prepared to absorb any loss which may be sustained.
The Minister of Agriculture made a very great mistake a few days after the price was set- I am not sure of the exact date-when down in Ontario he made the statement that the board was prepared to take a $30,000,000 loss. I would ask this question of any man who has had anything to do with industry:	If you had a new manager in
charge; if you had a year's business to transact, and if in the first three weeks your chief director went out telling the people to whom you expected to sell your goods that you were prepared to take a $30,000,000 loss, what would you think? I say that statement, or any statement with respect to the possible loss, should have been withheld until the last three weeks of the crop year, at least. I have already quoted statements to show that the policy as announced by the government had a depressing effect on the market.
Just here I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), one question, though it may be a question which should be placed on the order paper. Before the price was set, on August 4, did the board sell futures? Perhaps he can turn that question over in his mind and answer it some time later. The price at that time in the open market was 86 cents, and if the board did sell futures-and I hope they did- they may make a handsome profit. If that is the case we will not have the loss everyone seems to expect.
What I want to know is this: What is to be the policy of this government with respect

The Address-Mr. Perley
to the marketing of wheat in 1939? They should have a policy, and it should be announced. Western Canada was expecting that announcement by the Minister of Agriculture at the first opportunity. Does any hon. member of this house know the government policy? I do not think so. But I believe the minister has a policy. He took part in the Brandon by-election campaign, during which he spoke at Reston on October 25. He is reported by the Canadian Press as follows:
The minister stated that the government's experience with the present wheat board had convinced him that the hoard was only effective to deal with temporary emergencies.
The following day he spoke at Souris, and in the Regina Leader-Post I find the following headline:
Permanent Wheat Board Inadvisable, Gardiner Believes
It is true that a day or two later, at Saskatoon, the minister tried to correct that statement and said he did not mean exactly what the press had reported him as having said, but he can tell us now, in this house, exactly what he means; that is what we expected him to do the other day. I do believe, however, that the minister has made up his mind and that he has a policy. I would refer to the Regina Leader-Post of January 19, which I saw in the reading room the other morning. There I found this headline:
Gardiner Informally Approves of Wheat Quota Plan Proposed by Weyburn Farmer
The article goes on to say that a Mr. Lowery, of the Weyburn district, had outlined a scheme under which a farmer would be permitted to sell a thousand bushels at a dollar a bushel, and that the farmer must have been actually farming during 1938 and 1939 in order to come under the plan. The remainder of his crop could be disposed of in some other way, or through the open market. It goes on to say that the person in question had outlined the scheme, had sent it to the Minister of Agriculture and that the minister had replied saying that he informally approved of the scheme. That is the quotation from the Regina Leader-Post.


Mr. GARDINER:: I think the hon. member wishes to be fair, and that he will agree the article underneath that headline does not agree with the headline.


Ernest Edward Perley: I have quoted it and copied it from the Regina Leader-Post. It is unfortunate the minister's mouthpiece in Saskatchewan cannot report or interpret his views as to what he means. However the minister has the opportunity right now. There is the 71492-18
statement that the minister made a reply and that he has some policy. We would like to know what it is.
The other day the Minister of Agriculture made some observations concerning increases in acreage. His statement was that the importing countries in Europe had not increased their acreage but had improved their system of farming and had thereby increased their production. My reply to that is that Canadian producers have very materially increased their acreage in the period mentioned by the minister, but that increase in acreage was a patriotic duty. During the last one or two years of the war, and in years following, Great Britain asked Canada to make sure of a food supply for the British isles, and with that end in view we increased our acreage in western Canada for the production of wheat. That action was taken as a patriotic duty. Because of action taken at that time we find ourselves in a difficult position to-day, and I do not think that it is fair to ask the farmer to reduce his acreage, when there should be some other way of giving him a fair deal.
The minister referred to the increase of production in European countries. He might have added that Germany, Italy and France increased duties against Canadian wheat during the period between the years 1922 and 1930 when the Liberal party was in office. For the information of hon. members who are of the opinion that a general reduction in tariff to those countries means-an increase in what they purchase from us, I should like to set out certain facts. In 1922, when hon. members opposite were in office, France was enforcing a duty of 20 cents per bushel on wheat; it was admitted free into Germany and free into Italy. When the Liberal party left office in 1930, France had increased her duty to 85 cents per bushel, Germany had imposed a duty of 97 cents and Italy one of 86 cents. That was the reply made by those countries in connection with our exports of Canadian wheat, and during a period when we had made genera] reductions in rates of duties on goods coming from those parts of the world.
The Minister of Agriculture has made reference to the six-cent preference. His statement was that the removal of the preference had nothing to do with shipments through Canadian ports. May I point out that while the preference has been taken off, the United States has not offered us any compensation by reducing the duty of 42 cents on Canadian wheat entering that country. The rate still prevails. And with reference to the observation that the six-cent preference has nothing to do with grain entering through Canadian ports I would refer the minister to a statement
UnSED EDITION
The Address-Mr. Perley

issued by the Secretary of State of the United States the day after the treaty was signed. This statement made public the text of the new reciprocal trade pacts between the United States and the United Kingdom, and the United States and Canada and said, in part:
The state department, making public the text of the new reciprocal trade pact between the United States and the United Kingdom, predicted the agreement should facilitate recovery of a larger share of the British wheat market by American farmers.
One of the most important British concessions it said "is the removal of the duty on wheat which has been equivalent to about six cents a bushel." This has tended to divert trade to Canada and Australia.
The United States formerly sold great quantities of wheat to the United Kingdom, and with normal crops in the future and the restoration of free entry it again should be able to sell large quantities.
Ports in Competition
Also, as a result of the removal of the preference it should be possible for the United States port aud transportation interests to regain their lost business in the transshipment of Canadian wheat to the United Kingdom.
It may be noted that important concessions have been obtained for United States wheat flour in Newfoundland and the British colonies.
The United Kingdom is the leading wheat-import market of the world. Formerly about a fourth of the total of United States wheat exports were shipped regularly to the United Kingdom.
Under the influence of the world economic depression and the establishment of an import duty in 1932 '(with empire wheat remaining duty free), imports of United States wheat into the United Kingdom dropped from 39,267,000 bushels in 1930 (20T per cent of total wheat imports) to only 9,000 bushels in 1933 (less than -05 per cent of the total while imports from empire sources for the corresponding year rose from 79.234,000 bushels (40-5 per cent of total wheat imports) to 140,459,000 bushels (67 per cent of the total).
It is also pointed out that the United States is likely to get back business for her ports.
Then, there is something further I should like to place before the Minister of Agriculture for explanation. This is from a report in the New York Journal of Commerce, dated December 13, 1938:
Britain takes More U.S.' Subsidy Wheat 5,000,000 bushels Bought-Attainment of Export Goal is Seen
Another substantial portion of the self-imposed wheat export quota of 100,000,000 bushels for the United States has been filled with the disclosure by the Department of Agriculture late yesterday of an additional sale of 5,000,000 bushels to the United Kingdom.
Then, mark this:
Price again was not mentioned. The trade is aware, however, that low levels must have been received in view- of the depressed condition

of the world wheat market. This, in turn, means additional expensive subsidizing of the exports.
May I now refer to the matter of low prices? On my way to Ottawa I paid a visit to the grain exchange. Although I am not very popular at that place I made a call and was told that in the first sale of 20,000,000 bushels made by the United States to Great Britain under the new arrangement the market had broken to the extent of two cents, and that there had been dumping. In the agreement of 1932 with the United Kingdom there was a clause which protected the Canadian wheat grower against unfair competition, in that British authorities agreed to impose the dumping duty against Russia, the Argentine or any other country guilty of dumping. The United States has been guilty of dumping on the first sale it has made. I know the British authorities were disappointed in the fact that the market was broken to the extent of two cents. The British producer is subsidized in his own market to the extent of SI .30 per bushel. Every cent the Liverpool market is broken is another cent out of the British treasury.
As the time at my disposal is drawing to a close there are some matters with which I shall not have time to deal. I wish however to refer briefly to the treaty. From the standpoint of increased export trade I do not believe the results will be satisfactory. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) admitted giving concessions but he did not give details of compensations we were to receive. He is trying to sell the idea to the primary producers of Canada that he is giving up preferences as a means of promoting harmony, unity and peace. What bunk! I do not believe the western producer will swallow that explanation. He will not believe that it is necessary for us to give up all these preferences in order to create peace and unity among the English-speaking nations or democracies. Does the Prime Minister think the United States would not want our friendship if Japan happened to throw a few bombs in the country across the border? What does the Prime Minister think of what Hitler will say with respect to the fact that we have foregone our six-cent preference? Will he be more friendly to us? There is nothing assured in the treaty.
I have made some calculation with respect to the quota on live stock, and they show that the constituency of Qu'Appelle could supply a very considerable proportion of the quota, and four times the milk quota.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.

The Address-Mr. Mayhew


Ernest Edward Perley: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration given me last night. I should have liked to have another moment or two, but I realize that without unanimous consent I may not proceed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Ernest Edward Perley: In conclusion I wish to point out that the British market is the stable market of the world. During the whole period of the depression Great Britain decreased her exports by only five per cent, whereas the exports of France decreased 56 per cent, of Germany 77 per cent and of Italy 60 per cent. I urge that these figures prove the assertion that Great Britain is the stable market-and we are now out of it.
I asked the minister a few moments ago to state the wheat policy of the government, and I hope that he or some other member of the cabinet will do so. Why was industry not consulted in the making of this agreement? Why did not this parliament have the opportunity to pass on it, as it had in 1932? All that western Canada wants is a square deal. There is no east or west so far as we are concerned, and I regret to see that some of the press are trying to make an issue of that. The Conservative party intends to give the west a square deal. Ours will be a constructive policy that will give protection to the great agricultural industry of the west, the backbone of this dominion; and the Conservative party realizes that just as well as anyone else.
Just a word with respect to the subamendment. In great part I could have supported it, but I regret that I am unable to do so because of the way it is worded. If the amendment had read "those financial institutions which are exploiting the Canadian people" I would gladly have supported it. But we have a certain control over financial institutions generally at the present time. I would be almost one hundred per cent, I was going to say, behind the subamendment if there had been one other word in it. As it is I propose to support the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), and I shall have something further to say later as important problems come before the house.


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this the first occasion of my addressing this house, recognizing my obligation to the city of Victoria, the constituency which I am proud to represent here. I recognize also my obligation to hon. members to make any suggestions that I con-71 492-l8i
sider will tend to create a better understanding between the different parts of Canada and better conditions within our country.
I would ask the house to bear with me for a moment while I say a word about the city of Victoria. I believe that its advantages are fully appreciated, generally speaking, but in some quarters our city is not very well known. I shall not say anything about its wonderful climate or about the beauty of the city itself. I do not wish to say anything in particular about our industries, which are mainly lumbering, mining and fishing, and the tourist trade. But I do wish to say a word about Victoria as the western gateway to Canada. It is the gateway to Canada for all those people who are living on the shores of the Pacific ocean, and as such the city of Victoria and its citizens recognize their responsibility to the rest of Canada. We would like to make it such a city that when people enter it for the first time they will get not only a view of the beauty of the city itself but a glimpse into the character of the people who live in this wonderful country of Canada.
I am sorry to say, however, that we have at least one drawback in Victoria. Our outer port is very badly run down, and is very greatly in need of repair. It presents a very bad approach to the city. It is owned practically by the dominion government, and I am in hopes, Mr. Speaker, that the present condition will be improved within a short time.
I should like now to join with other members in congratulating the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I had never before had the experience of listening to addresses of this kind, but from what has already been said by so many members of the outstanding ability of the mover and the seconder, I can readily understand that their rank with other speakers on similar occasions is very high. I heartily congratulate them both upon their efforts.
I should like now to refer briefly but most sincerely to the forthcoming visit of our king and queen to Canada, and particularly to their visit to the city of Victoria. I can assure hon. gentlemen that the kindness and warmth of the reception which their majesties will receive in the city of Victoria will not be surpassed by that of any other community of equal size in this dominion. I am pleased to note that a representative has already left Ottawa and spent a week-end in Victoria arranging for their majesties' visit. Already offers of assistance are coming in from all quarters of the city and from people
The Address-Mr. Mayhem

in all walks of life who are anxious to assist in the reception. I hope that a definite organization will soon get under way to coordinate the efforts of those who are willing to assist in the reception, and that everybody, particularly our young people, will be given the opportunity to see their king and queen.
The benefits that will accrue from this visit will be many, and I hope they will be permanent. I hope that it will be a time when we as the people of Canada will examine our own hearts and minds and find out for ourselves if we are big enough to look beyond the boundaries of our own community, over the borders of our own province, and beyond the shores of our own country and realize that we are an integral part of the British Empire, and that as such we have a right and a duty to stand with the empire in peace or in war, for good or for ill.
As a new member and comparative stranger in the house, Mr. Speaker, it would not be in veiy good taste for me to criticize men who are much my senior in matters of government, men who I am sure are just as sincere as I am and who will do all they can to make a contribution to the welfare and progress of Canada. But I cannot refrain from remarking that much of the criticism which has been offered by the opposition has been about as original and as constructive and as annoying as losing one's gate on Hallowe'en. This "do-nothing government" is a phrase coined for election purposes, and it is no more reliable than catchwords and slogans often are. I am inclined to believe that the people of Canada read the reports of proceedings in this house, and I am sure that we can depend on their intelligence.
Much has been said in this debate about the diminution of trade in Canada. It is true there has been a diminution, but is the government responsible for that? Is not the diminution of trade due to world conditions? Has not trade diminished because countries are at war with one another, while other countries are engaged in preparation for war?
Mention has been made in this debate particularly of the pulp and paper industry. I happen to have been engaged in that industry for the last twenty-four years, and I admit that the pulp and paper industry on the Pacific coast is having a hard struggle at the present time, but that is not due to any action by this government. It is due particularly to the war between China and Japan. Some of our trouble in the lumber industry is also due to similar conditions.

I am inclined to think that, rather than criticize the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), we should compliment him on the interest that he has taken in world affairs. I am confident that in taking that interest he will help to correct the present situation. I am confident that, with the new trade agreement in effect, with things settled in the orient and in Europe, we shall not be looking for a solution of our unemployed problem; the difficulty will be rather the other way, namely to find men able to do the work. I am sorry to see evidence in so many places of defeatism in our people. Even at the present time in some of our cities we have no great surplus of trained mechanics. The wastage of ten years will have to be taken care of. Let the clouds of war roll by, give us a few years of peace, and we shall soon find a solution of the problem of unemployment.
My attitude to the tripartite trade agreement is one of gratification, appreciation and general satisfaction. I do not believe that the people of Canada are looking for a gift in the way of trade; they are looking for an equitable agreement, because they realize that it must be equitable to endure. We are looking not for a good bargain but for an opportunity to trade beneficially and uninterruptedly on a friendly basis. We are not looking for a one-way street, as some would indicate. Yet in fairness one must admit that there is a little hardship in some branches of both industry and agriculture. I will mention one branch of agriculture that is affected, particularly in our own district -potato growing. Before the present agreement went into effect the potato grower had the privilege of a countervailing duty which he does not now enjoy. That countervailing privilege was given to him by the present government in the agreement of 1936. He has enjoyed it for two years; but he is no worse off than he was before that time. On the other hand ihe agriculturist reaps a benefit from the sale of his cattle, his hogs, his dairy products, and many other items, as well as getting an advantage on the things which he has to purchase.
There has been some criticism in this house because of the loss of the six-cent preference on wheat. Naturally we would have liked to see it retained, but I believe the change will provide at least one advantage which we cannot overlook. Wheat, after all, is a raw material. Will not the effect be to encourage the milling business in our country?-and if that happens, the by-products from that milling business will go a long way towards the raising of cheaper cattle and cheaper hogs. It will at least provide cheaper food for our live stock.

The Address-Mr. Mayhew
One branch of the lumbering industry which is particularly pleased with the treaty is the cedar shingle business. We have several such firms and factories in Victoria. Not only is their quota increased but they are able to continue to sell on a comparatively small duty after their quota has been filled. The lumber business generally is not finding fault with the treaty. Naturally retailers would have liked to retain the full British preference, but they realize in fairness they have to give something. They realize also that the value of a trade with 130,000,000 people across an imaginary boundary line, without any transportation difficulties, is far greater than a market of probably fifty million people six thousand miles away, with transportation interferences to be overcome.
Just here I should like to say a word as to how we may counteract some of the disadvantages that we are under in the way of trade, if we are prepared to pay the price. Alberta is full of coal. Why not bring some of it from Alberta to the east and keep our men in Alberta and the employees of the railways busy, rather than buy our coal from the other side? I ask further, why not bring petroleum products from the Alberta oil fields and use them down here rather than purchase our gasoline and fuel from the other side? Why not give a little assistance to our moving picture industry at the coast, so that we may be able to use our own pictures rather than buy them from the other side? There are many ways in which we can assist, provided we are prepared to pay the bill.
I wish to deal for a moment or two with the youth problem and with youth training. I do not suppose there is a man in this house possessing any of the milk of human kindness who will not be interested in assistance to our youth. I believe the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) should be thanked for what he has done, and encouraged in his work. I cannot understand how the opposition can be honest and yet call the government a do-nothing government when they consider what has been done for youth and for the cure of unemployment. The government is to be congratulated on the start it has made upon the training of youth in Canada. It is true that it is only a start, but reports coming in from every province, such as we had the opportunity of hearing the other night, are evidence that that start is appreciated by the mothers and fathers of the young people of this country.
We talk a great deal about the wonderful natural resources of Canada, but of all the potential values in Canada there is nothing to be compared with the potential value of oui
young people, and I urge that we give them every opportunity we can to make full use of their Canadian citizenship.
Large numbers of high school graduates, as well as those who do not complete a high school course, cannot find jobs. More and more, the young people reaching the age of employment each year encounter a regiment of newly-invented machines, competing with them for their jobs.
The failure to keep the open door of opportunity for youth is tantamount to recruiting large numbers for the marching clubs of dictators. Since this condition is a serious one is it not time to stop criticizing the efforts that are being put forth, and to make suggestions that may help, viewing every suggestion with an open mind in the hope that out of it all some good may come?
We must not create the impression that the government owes a living to our young people. The government does owe the young people good sound practical education and as little interference as possible so that they as individuals may develop themselves and our natural resources. We do owe them an opportunity to make a living, but the obligation on the part of the government is particularly that of education. That I think we are doing in the youth training program. I would like to see it extended so as to give all young men who have left school and who are unable to find employment three chances -in fact I would say four. It would have to be on a purely voluntary basis, and the choice would have to be theirs. The opportunities I would suggest are these; that they be given an opportunity of joining the militia; that they be given an opportunity of joining the navy, and that this government establish training farms where they may learn agriculture. These farms could be small units scattered through the provinces so that the men trained on them would be absorbed in their own communities as soon as the training had been completed. The other suggestion I make is that mercantile marine training ships be established on both the Atlantic and the Pacific. Many of our boys to-day are jumping into ships, going off to learn seamanship without realizing the nobility of the profession, without realizing the dangers and hazards of it. The result is that after one or two trips they find they are not fitted for the calling. A few weeks in foreign ports is enough to ruin the boy himself. If he were put on a training ship under a proper man he would appreciate the responsibilities of the profession and such training would make him a good mercantile mariner.
The Address-Mr. Mayhew

With regard to the other two suggestions, I believe that this government have the facilities as well as men of calibre, intellect, loyalty and ability, men who could direct boys in both the militia and the navy, giving them a chance to learn a vocation under reasonable discipline.
I should like to add a further suggestion to the one I have already made. It has to do with the treatment of our older people, because the youth of to-day will be the elderly people of to-morrow. I believe that there is no fear in the human mind so great, no fear that retards the activities and efforts of people to the same extent, as the fear that when one is old one will be dependent upon friends or the government for a living. That fear, I believe, can be very largely banished by putting into effect a compulsory contributory superannuation policy. By this I mean that all employers and all employees in any walk of life should be obliged to contribute an equal share so as to provide for the superannuation of employees when they have reached the age of sixty or sixty-five. I am sure that there would be no opposition to a policy of this kind from the larger employers of labour, and I do not believe that there would be any objection to it by labour itself. It is not fair either to the people or to the government of Canada that workers at the zenith of their earning capacity should be allowed to drift on without making adequate provision for their needs when they are unable to work. Nor is it fair for the employer to use the best part of a life of the employee, making use of him in a competitive system, and then when he is worn out toss him on the scrap heap without consideration as one would a piece of worn out machinery. The government's contribution to this scheme would be one of management, to see to it that the funds as they were collected were properly taken care of.
I would suggest that a uniform plan for Canada be proposed by the dominion government, but that each province look after its own collections, investing its funds in its own securities with the endorsement of the federal government, and thus giving the fund raised for this purpose every security possible. Could we in any saner or better way repatriate our government loans than through some subh mode of procedure?
In conclusion I wish to thank the government for what it has been able to do: the consummation of the United States trade agreement; its contribution to unemployment and relief; its. contribution to unemployment through the home improvement plan-and in this regard I would ask whether this plan could be extended to business properties so

that many of the present dilapidated buildings in our cities might be improved; its contribution to home life through the home building plan; its contribution to people living in municipalities through its municipal aid plan. I would ask the government to pursue this policy of progress so vigorously that no reasonable member could stand in this house and accuse it of being static.
As a business man I think the only definite cure for our present trouble is an expanding policy. I admit that there is a danger of expanding too rapidly, and in my opinion the expansion of business must not be left entirely to the government. It is an obligation on the part of the individual as well. It is an obligation put upon us by democracy and must be carried out if we are to retain that privilege. In a word, I believe that industry, not quack remedy, is the solution of our present distressing problems.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: May I join with those who have preceded me in extending congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I was particularly pleased to listen to the mover of the motion because I had the pleasure of knowing him and his family in Brandon some years ago when I attended college there. It was a very' great pleasure for me to hear him make such a fine impression in his maiden speech in this house. I should like also to extend my congratulations to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his accession to his new and difficult position. He is following in the footsteps of a gifted and able predecessor, and I trust he will be granted strength to discharge the duties of his office in a manner that will bring credit to himself and the Dominion of Canada.
I am sorry I cannot concur with hon. members opposite in lauding the pact of Munich as a milestone on the road to world peace. In my opinion, the pact of Munich did not avert war; it only postponed war until that time when, collective action having become impossible, and our allies having fled, the English-speaking nations of the world, isolated and discredited, will face the fascist aggressors alone. The pact of Munich was the final culmination of a long series of concessions to force, each concession leading to a situation that demanded still further surrender. Yielding to dictators does not bring peace; it merely brings about demands for further concessions. However, it is not my purpose at this time to discuss the question of foreign policy, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) having assured the house

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
that ample opportunity will later on be afforded for a discussion of the matter. Neither do I wish to discuss the government's announcement that there will be increased expenditure for national defence, because that, too, will be debated later in the session. I do wish, however, to urge upon the government that before they bring down the estimates for increased expenditures for national defence, they shall first of all bring down legislation dealing with the national control of the armament industry.
On the order paper, standing in my name, there is a resolution ashing for national control of the armament industry, and I trust that the government will anticipate me in this regard. We are agreed in all parts of the house that in view of world conditions Canada ought to be prepared to defend her shores. But what right have we to ask the Canadian taxpayer to contribute between $,50,000,000 and $60,000,000 a year for national defence, while at the same time we permit armament manufacturers in this dominion to send a steady stream of aeroplanes, munitions and war material to the very countries against which this government is asking us to arm ourselves? I hope that before this session has proceeded very far the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) will bring down legislation calculated to assure this house that a situation like that revealed by the recent Bren gun inquiry will not recur, and to assure the country that the equipping of Canada for defence will not be accompanied by armament profits, graft and corruption.


Mr. MARTIN:: Where is the evidence of
that?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not
say there was any. I think the hon. member is a little touchy. There is an old saying that when you throw a stone into a pack of dogs and one yelps, he has been hit.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Surely the hon. gentleman
is going to withdraw that remark.


Robert James Manion: It is a general statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have
nothing to withdraw. I merely made a general statement.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask the hon. member to withdraw that remark if it is intended with reference to any hon. member of this house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Certainly, in
reference to any hon. member of this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I ask the hon. member
to withdraw that statement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Nobody wishes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The list
includes articles such as International trucks, Ford automobiles, tires, gasoline, distillate, cream-separators, gas engines, combine harvesters, disc harrows, sugar, coffee, oranges, overshoes, overalls, unbleached sheeting, radios, et cetera. In every instance, taking two towns opposite each other, one on each side of the international boundary, we find that the Canadian consumer is paying twenty to forty-five

per cent more for those articles, despite the fact that wages in those parts of the United States are higher than in Canada. In the case of repairs for automobiles the consumer in this country pays as high as seventy per cent more than the consumer in the United States. I draw this to the attention of the house because the hon. gentlemen who complained about this and the Minister of Labour himself are members of this government. What have they done about the matter? When it was raised at the last session the Minister of Labour rose in his place and said that it was impossible at the present time to lower tariffs in this country without destroying the basis of confederation.
I reviewed this material to point out that while the income of the farmers of the west, and particularly of Saskatchewan, has declined until last year in Saskatchewan it was one-seventh of what it was in 1925, at the same time by means of such factors as fixed interest rates, tariffs and excessive freight rates the prices of the commodities they have to buy have been kept fairly high. This government has been in office now for almost four years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Too long.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
Malcolm McLean: Would the hon. member be good enough to inform the house where those figures are available?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I refer the hon. member to the report of the agricultural branch of the dominion bureau of statistics which report was issued last Friday at four o'clock.


James Garfield Gardiner: Giving fifty-nine cents for No. 1 northern?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


James Garfield Gardiner: Not the average price received by the farmer?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: According to this report the average price was fifty-nine cents.


James Garfield Gardiner: For No. 1 northern?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: No; the
average price received for wheat.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is too high, I think.


Malcolm McLean: That is quite
impossible.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, I refer my hon. friend to the report; I shall be glad to send it over to him if he wants to use it. I do not propose to take up time reading any more of it, but after I make one more quotation from it I shall send it to my hon. friend.


Malcolm McLean: I wish it were correct, but I am afraid it is too high.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It may be too high, but I am trying to give the government every possible credit, as the hon. gentleman will appreciate. The report which I received in November gave the figure as fifty-seven cents, while the report issued last Friday gave it as fifty-nine cents.
Now. with reference to the marketing of products other than wheat, the government has failed to take any constructive action. They were a party to having the Natural Products Marketing Act, which might have assisted the farmers in controlling the marketing of their own products, referred to the courts, and they have put nothing in its place. There
has been no attempt to work out a marketing scheme as between the federal and provincial governments which would enable the farmers to control effectively the marketing of their products. Consequently, this year, farmers who have sold oats, barley, rye, hogs, poultry and so on have done so at prices so low as to lead to nothing but bankruptcy for those engaged in these phases of agriculture. I refer again to this crop report released last Friday, which says:
The gross farm value of production of the 1938 field crops is now estimated at $528,860,000, which is five per cent below the value of $556,222,000 in 1937, due to price reductions more than offsetting the effect of increased production.
The third claim made by the government is that they have given the farmer increased trade by virtue of the recent trade agreements. As has been said from all parts of the house, it is too early as yet to assess the merits or demerits of that agreement. One thing is certain, however; the United States government considers that the removal of the six cent preference on wheat will enable that country to export large quantities of wheat to Great Britain at the expense of the farmer of western Canada. I have in my hand a statement which was issued by the state department at Washington under date of November 18. I have time to read only two or three short excerpts, as follows:
The United States formerly sold great quantities of wheat to the United Kingdom, and with normal crops in the future and the restoration of free entry it again should be able to sell large quantities. . . .
Under the influence of the world economic depression and the establishment of an import duty in 1932 (with empire wheat remaining duty free), imports of United States wheat into the United Kingdom dropped from
39.267.000	bushels in 1930 (20-1 per cent of total wheat imports) to only 9,000 bushels in 1933 (less than -05 per cent of the total) while imports from empire sources for the corresponding year rose from 79,234,000 bushels (40-5 per cent of total wheat imports) to
140.459.000	bushels (67 per cent of the total). . . .
In view of the large wheat surplus this year in the United States and the probability that the United States will continue to be on a wheat export basis in the future, the removal of the competitive disadvantage which confronted our wheat in the United Kingdom should facilitate recovery of a larger share of that market.
There is no doubt that the western farmer is going to pay the price for any concession this government has gained under the trade agreement.
May I turn now to what this government has done for the unemployed. First of all,
274	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
as they promised, they set up a commission; not a commission to administer or dispense relief, as they had promised, but a commission to advise the government and to gather statistics. Having brought in its report and made recommendations to the minister- four-fifths of which he did not accept-that commission was dissolved. The second thing they did was consistently to throw the problem of relief back upon the municipalities and provinces, where it does not belong. These bodies, with only limited fields of taxation, cannot begin to carry the burden of relief, nor should they be expected to do so. This government has found refuge behind the divided responsibility set up under the British North America Act. But they knew there was divided responsibility in 1933, when the present Prime Minister said from his place on this side of the house that unemployment was Canada's most urgent national problem, and when he promised to appoint a commission to deal with it. They knew there was this divided responsibility in 1935, when they were elected to office; yet not until 1937, two years later, did they appoint a commission to investigate this divided responsibility. And now in 1939, two years later, we are still waiting for a report from the commission. Someone should change the old saying to "The mills of the Grits grind slowly." Then in the speech from the throne the Prime Minister says that when they finally do get a report from this commission they are going to have a conference. I do not want to say anything about that conference; I shall just quote what the Prime Minister said in this house about conferences on January 27, 1937, as reported at page 322 of Hansard for that year:
It Beems to me our generation has gone a little mad on the. question of conferences. A conference is often a very convenient way of appearing to be doing something while in reality very little may be achieved.
That may well define the conference that is going to be held. Then, Mr. Speaker, what has this government done for youth, particularly unemployed youth? They have set up some youth training courses, which are commendable. I visited a number of these schools, and I think the men and women who are doing that work ought to be encouraged. But when you realize the comparatively small number of young people affected, as compared with the hundreds of thousands of young people who to-day have no hope of getting gainful employment, you will see that as yet we have not even scratched the surface of the problem. I cannot go into the figures the minister quoted yesterday, but I must point out that they touched only
[Mr. T. C. Douglas.!
upon the numbers on relief or those who have been employed. In the past eight years thousands of young people who have become of age are living with their parents. They are not registered as being on relief or as having worked. Those young people are to be found in every town. They have never worked and they are not registered. In every small town of Saskatchewan they may be seen standing around the filling stations or street corners looking for jobs, and their only hope is that of obtaining a little work on government projects. The situation has reached a point in Saskatchewan where one cannot get work on a government project unless one happens to be of the right political complexion.


Mr. YOUNG:: That is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member says that is not true. Does he wish me to read what appeared in the Leader-Post of last Wednesday?
Party men to decide.
No jobs for others than Liberals, says Regina M.L.A.
A definite clamp has been placed upon the appointment of Regina residents to posts within the civil service that bars those whose political faith is other than Liberal, B. J. McDaniel, 1C.C., junior member-elect for Regina, told the meeting of the Liberal council at the Labour temple Tuesday night.
In future, said Mr. McDaniel, "no appointment will be deemed to be properly made unless it bears the initials of Mr. Hogarth (senior member-elect for Regina), Mr. McNiven (federal M.P. for Regina), or myself."


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Read his denial.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I expected that. I am not trying to misrepresent the matter. I have before me Mr. McDaniel's explanation-even Mr. McDaniel thought it ought to be explained. This is what he says:
Appointments discussed by members of the Regina Liberal council Tuesday night were not permanent positions over which federal or provincial civil service have authority, according to B. J. McDaniel, M.LA, retiring president of the Regina association.
In further explanation of his statements before the council, Mr. McDaniel said Thursday that only temporary Christmas jobs in the post office were involved and he contended the report would cause misunderstanding if this point were overlooked.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: The first question is this: Does Mr. McDaniel-if that is true-control all positions in Saskatchewan?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is
exactly what I want to know. Since when did the retiring president of the Liberal association, a member of the provincial legislature of Saskatchewan, begin making appointments

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyhurn)
to the post office, which is under federal jurisdiction? I ask this:	Has the public
morality of this country sunk so low that a Liberal member may bluntly state in a Liberal paper, or publish boldly the fact that no Canadian, though he may be a Canadian citizen and a Canadian taxpayer, though he may have fought for his country on the field of battle, shall have a job, even if that job be one of shovelling snow, unless upon his application are the initials of the three musketeers from Regina? Is that situation to prevail? That seems to be the situation, as it is set out here. And then, one other thing-


Donald Alexander McNiven: Probably the hon. member would read the balance of Mr. McDaniel's explanation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker,
I do not purpose using up the forty minutes at my disposal in reading lengthy statements. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. McNiven) may, if he wishes, in the forty minutes at his disposal, read the entire Leader-Post. If the house would permit me sufficient time, I would be prepared to put the whole article on Hansard-


James Garfield Gardiner: But it looks better to
send out your Hansard without it.


Ernest Edward Perley: The balance is worse; it
gets the government in deeper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope you
are taking note of the time, Mr. Speaker. I should like to make some observations with respect to what has been done in connection with the farm placement scheme, the regulations for which I have in my hand. This year those regulations have been constructed so as to make impossible the qualification of thousands of young men and women who were eligible last year. This year they find they are deprived of the opportunity of earning a few dollars. I have before me many letters from people in and outside my constituency who worked under the scheme last year but who find it impossible to do so this year. I doubt if anything I encountered on the prairies this fall caused quite so much bitterness of feeling as the new regulations in connection with the farm placement scheme.
In the time I have left at my disposal I should like to outline some of the suggestions the group to which I belong has advocated in the past three sessions as alternatives for the policies which have been followed by the government. From time to time, in common with all opposition parties, we have found it necessary to criticize the government. At all times we have tried to
be constructive in our criticisms and to offer alternative suggestions. I shall set out briefly the suggestions which have been made by this group, the first of which is as follows:
1.	The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have asked for fixed guaranteed prices to the primary producers under a properly planned marketing system.
A few nights ago the Prime Minister repeatedly stated the fact that trade was the only hope, and that economic nationalism was responsible for the depression. I believe that suggestion is capable of debate. Be that as it may, however, are we to assume the Prime Minister means that we in Canada can do nothing towards trade revival until the .world returns to a state of sanity? Are we to believe that we must sit and wait until the other nations of the world are ready to forsake economic nationalism and return to free trade? Surely the government must realize that the selling of a greater quantity of commodities on the markets of the world will not meet the situation, unless the price received by the farmers for those commodities is commensurate with the cost of production.
The other suggestions are as follows:
2.	Members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation consistently advocated a crop insurance scheme which would enable farmers to manage in those years in which, through no fault of their own, they are deprived of a crop.
3.	The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group have advocated consistently a work and wages program which would utilize the unemployed in the city and farmers of the drought stricken areas.
4.	Members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have advocated the lowering of the age for old age pensions and increasing the amount of the pension.
There are 850,000 people in Canada who are over sixty-five years of age and who, if it were possible for them to retire with security, would be able to leave jobs to younger people who at the present time cannot get work.
5.	Members of this group have consistently advocated an unemployment insurance scheme and are still waiting for the government to take some energetic steps in this regard. No doubt the close proximity of a general election will bring forth something-at least on paper.
6.	Federal grants to education and national scholarships have been advocated by this group
276	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
as a means of dealing with the terrible plight of school teachers and pupils alike in the depressed areas of Canada. In Saskatchewan back salaries owing teachers is in the neighbourhood of SI,000,000 and the conditions in the schools almost beggars description.
7.	We advocate cooperative handling of farm machinery, with a view to enabling the farmers to secure machinery at a much lower price.
Last year I moved an amendment to the farm implement committee's report to this effect, but the government did not see fit at that time to accept it. During that debate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) figuratively shook his fist under the nose of the farm implement manufacturers. He told them that serious consequences would follow unless something were done about the high price of farm machinery. What has he done? May I ask any member of the government what has been done about the high prices of farm machinery. In the recent trade agreement there was no indication of a lowering of the tariff on farm machinery, despite the fact that many hon. members opposite advocated and intimated that farm machinery and cream separators should be placed on the free list.
8.	Last year a comprehensive scheme of slum clearance and housing was advocated by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) on behalf of this group. There is no more pressing need in Canada, but as yet nothing has been done in this regard. A housing scheme was passed. It has built houses for a few people who are able to meet the requirements. How many houses have been built on farms? How many slum areas have been cleared? How many low-rental houses have been constructed? These things have not been done because part 1 of the scheme requires enabling legislation by the provinces, and that legislation has not been forthcoming.
9.	This group has advocated the extension of the principle of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act to enable not only farmers but homeowners and small business men throughout the country to reduce obligations which were assumed in times when the purchasing power of a dollar was much less than it is to-day. The government's only response has been to restrict rather than to extend the operations of the act.
10.	Members of this group have suggested that such a program could be financed without increasing the burden of taxation, which now rests too heavily upon the people least

able to bear it, not by an eight per cent sales tax to which we are violently opposed, but by (a) an increased income tax in the higher brackets; (b) a surplus profits tax, and (c) by deriving revenues from some of the great monopolies such as the tobacco industry, the meat packing industry, and the gasoline industry, which are at the present moment exploiting the Canadian people to an extent that amounts almost to highway robbery.
In conclusion may I say this, Mr. Speaker. Last Easter when I was returning to this house, I met in the town of Sudbury a young man who was out of work and had been riding freight trains across Canada looking for a job. He said something to me that I fear is being said too often in various parts of Canada to-day. He said, "I believe in democracy, but if I have to choose between democracy and a job, I am going to take the job and let democracy go." Only last week a prominent official of the Anglican church on leaving for England gave an interview in which he said, "I believe that Hitler is the greatest statesman in the world. Germany and Italy have solved their unemployment problem, and Canada should be able to do the same."


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course, that is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I cite these two instances because I believe they are symptomatic.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: But is it the hon. member's own view?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: (Weyburn): If my hon. friend will allow me to make my speech, I shall in turn listen to him. I may say that it is not my own view. But there are in Canada to-day, hundreds of thousands of people exhausted by eight years of economic insecurity and instability, who are now beginning to say: "If we have to choose between security and democracy, we will take security and let democracy go; if we have to choose between freedom and stability, we will take stability and let freedom go." I believe, Mr. Speaker, that democracy is on trial to-day as it has not been on trial for centuries. I believe that democracy must be made to work, and that unless it can provide jobs for the unemployed, equitable prices for the farmers, and give opportunities and stability to the business and professional classes, democracy will be thrust aside in favour of some other form of government. It is not enough to talk about democracy. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has talked more about democracy than any other

The Address-Mr. McNevin
man in Canada, and perhaps, in view of his great opportunity, he has done less than any other man in Canada to preserve it.
The Prime Minister also talks about national unity. But people do not unite simply because you tell them to unite. People unite if they have some great goal in common, and when they feel they are marching toward some national attainment, with some unity of purpose. But the people of Canada do not believe they are marching towards some national attainment.
We in this group believe in democracy. But by democracy we do not mean laissez-faire, maintaining things as they are, inefficiency. We believe that you can have freedom and social security; we believe that you can have democracy and employment. We believe that you can have liberty and economic planning; we believe that we can give to the people of Canada a more abundant life without destroying freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, or parliamentary institutions. Rather we believe that building upon these fundamentals of our society we can go forward from political democracy to economic democracy, without which all talk of democracy is idle and futile.
Abraham Lincoln said that no nation could long exist half-slave and half-free. It is equally true that no nation can long exist politically free and economically enslaved. That is where we part company with hon. gentlemen opposite. I believe that most of them are democrats but they are political democrats, not social democrats, not economic democrats. They believe that parliament should be controlled by the people of Canada, but that the economic life of Canada should be left in the hands of the monopolies and financial barons. But unless parliament is prepared to control big business, in a few years big business will control parliament. That has happened in other countries, and it can happen here.
We in this group believe that the salvation of Canada depends upon this parliament taking effective steps to control those financial institutions and monopolistic enterprises that are now exploiting the people of Canada. When we have done that, and only when we have done that, can we be sure that government of the people, for the people and by the people shall not perish from the earth.


Mr. BRUCE McNEVIN (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose first of all of extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address to his excellency in reply to the speech from the throne. Both hon. members made a profound impression upon this assembly.
My next thought is to express great pleasure and satisfaction on my part and on the part of my constituents at the proposed visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen to this dominion in the months of May and June. This gracious gesture on the part of our sovereigns, which is without precedent in our history, will I am sure quicken the spirit of loyalty within the mind and heart of every true Canadian.
As one of the members who did not have the pleasure prior to the present session of parliament of sitting in the house with the hon. member for London, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), I desire to extend to him my heartiest congratulations upon being chosen to lead his party. May I also express my sincere wish that he may long be spared to lead His Majesty's Loyal Opposition in this dominion.
I wish to voice a note of regret at the retirement of one of the foremost privy councillors in the history of this parliament. I refer to the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Elliott), the former Postmaster General. Mr. Elliott has had a long and distinguished public career in the public life of his native province and in that of this dominion.
I feel I should be remiss in my duty if I did not add a word of congratulations to the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) who have been chosen to take their places on the front benches of the government. I go a step further than the other hon. members who have preceded me; I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government upon being able to secure the services of these two gentlemen, who I am sure are well qualified for the strenuous duties that have been assigned to them.
During the course of this debate much has been said upon the questions referred to in the speech from the throne, and not a little has been said upon matters untouched or unmentioned in the speech. This is in accordance with the usual custom, but in the course of my remarks I shall endeavour, with a few exceptions, to confine myself to the subject matters contained in the speech itself.
The first question which I wish to discuss is marketing. It is a very large question, and for the present I shall content myself with making a few observations with regard to the wheat situation. At the very outset I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not going to offer serious objection to the action taken by the government in setting the price of wheat at eighty cents a bushel for the crop year of 1938. In the year 1937 I
The Address-Mr. McNevin

travelled over a large part of the drought area in western Canada. I am therefore, in a position to judge with regard to conditions existing on the prairies at that time. However, I feel sure there will be general assent to the suggestion that we cannot establish as a settled policy in our economy provisions which would permit the payment of a set price for any commodity in one part of Canada and deny the same concession to those producing a similar commodity in other parts of the country. In addition, may I point to the unequal results which must inevitably follow the distribution of funds on the basis referred to, that is the eighty cent price for western wheat. For example, to the farmers' who have much, much is given; to the farmers who have little, little is given; and to the farmers who have nothing, nothing is given.
Furthermore, may I point to what I believe would be a dangerous precedent. For instance, supposing a large producer delivered under this plan ten, twenty, or even thirty thousand bushels of wheat-which I assume is not impossible-and the world price eventually turned out to be twenty cents below the set price, the thirty thousand bushel producer under these circumstances would receive from the federal treasury $6,000 on one year's operations. I am of opinion that the significance of this statement requires no further comment.
Then we have the broad aspect of the situation to consider. Is it practicable to select one particular commodity and set the price for it, thus ignoring the producers of other commodities which may entail as much or more effort and expense to produce? Upon this aspect of the question I may have some further remarks to make at some future time.
Now let us analyze some of the conditions affecting the marketing of wheat. We have in one classification the exporting countries and in another classification the importing countries, in regard to this commodity. A review of the figures of the importing countries for the last five years, 1933-1938, shows that wheat imports were on the average for that five-year period 223,000,000 bushels less than the average during the 1922-1927 period. What is taking place is that coarse grains, potato flour, rice flour, chemicals, et cetera, are replacing wheat flour on the tables of the consumers in these countries. It is true that these substitutes are much inferior to wheat flour; therefore this changed condition represents a lowering of the standard of living in the countries referred to. Some of these countries may not be in a position to purchase both bullets
[Mr. McNevin.)
and bread. The purchase of the latter is restricted and the purchase of materials for the former is increased. The net result is to increase the surplus of exporting countries, of which Canada is one of the greatest, and thereby reduce world prices for wheat.
Now with respect to the Ontario farmers' position, the increased price in some lines of production has improved their position over a few years ago. I believe the majority of the farmers referred to have been able in the last three or four years to meet their immediate obligations. Complete recovery has been impossible, due to the accumulation of unpaid taxes, unpaid interest, repairs which should have been made but were not, worn-out equipment which should have been replaced but was not-all of which was piling up for the previous five or six years. I have no hesitation in saying that the Ontario farmer is not in a financial position to assist in carrying the burden of taxation which would be necessary to maintain permanent fixed prices which must be materially above world prices for any farm commodity in other parts of the country. The whole question of set prices for farm products will be under consideration later in the session, when all aspects of the situation must be fully explored.
With reference to the problems of unemployment and relief: both of these difficult questions are in a large measure attributable to the low price level of farm products. I venture to predict that, in spite of palliative measures which may be used, no permanent solution will be achieved with regard to these matters until such time that farmers' returns are comparable with those of people who are engaged in other important vocations. If this were attained, it would immediately reflect an improvement in the position of the low wage employee.
In view of the remarks made by some hon. members to my immediate left with respect to employment in industry and with respect to the effect of the trade policies o( this government upon improvement in industry in this country, that is the next point which I desire to discuss for a few minutes.
I am of opinion that our greatest problem is the surplus of unskilled labour. I so state because a review of employment by industries shows that while employment is down slightly when compared with 1937, it represents a substantial improvement over any other year since 1930. In fact it is only surpassed in the years 1929 and 1930 since the post war period. The figures I now propose to place upon Hansard cover employment in manufacturing, logging, mining, communication, transportation, construction, service and trade. The reason I

desire to deal with these matters is that in my riding we have substantial lumbering industries, and I am sure that the Canada-United States trade treaty which was passed in 1935 very materially improved the condition of the lumbering industry, which gives employment to a large number of workers in the riding I represent. Note that the relative weight shows the proportion of employees reported in the industries indicated above to the total number of employees reported in Canada by the firms reporting at December 1. 1938. The index in all instances is on the basis of 1926, 100:
1934
1936
1938
96-0
103-7
111-6
If we look at the employment situation from the viewpoint of economic areas, we find that the greatest decrease in 1938 when compared with a similar period in 1937 occurred in the maritime provinces; British Columbia and Ontario registered slightly lower figures; while Quebec and the prairie provinces showed an increase, attributable, I think, to the fact that they had a crop.
Now let us compare the results in the eight leading cities in Canada. I desire to place these figures on record by reason of the fact that farmers in Ontario and, indeed, all over Canada are dependent, in a measure at least, upon these cities for the disposal of such commodities as milk, eggs and poultry. Taking the same index of 100 in 1926. we find that employment in these eight cities stood as follows:
1933..
1934..
1935..
1936..
1937..
1938..
88-2
97-7
105-7
With respect to the eight leading cities in this dominion, as far as employment is concerned the year records a drop of one-tenth of one per cent. I am sure that this does not illustrate the disaster which has been so forcibly discussed by hon. members to my immediate left. It may be interesting to note that employment in 1938 showed a steadier trend, while in 1937 there was revealed a wider fluctuation from low point to high point.
I am not one to state that all our economic troubles in the depression years were caused by the government policies in force at that time. I believe the policy of economic nationalism which was pursued by the government of that day was one of the important contributing factors in connection with our
The Address-Mr. McNevin
economic troubles. At the present time I give some credit to the trade and other policies of the present government as a means of assisting to counteract a contraction in industry and business comparable with the extreme condition of unemployment which prevailed for many months in the neighbouring country to the south, the United States.
I think this is a splendid example and endorsation of the policies of this government which have materially assisted stability in Canada, and I make this comparison with regard to employment in the United States and employment in Canada. A comparison between these two countries for the years 1937 and 1938 shows a drop in industry in Canada of approximately three per cent, while in the United States for a similar period the drop amounted to slightly over nineteen per cent. In this connection may I point out what must be firmly impressed on the minds of all the members of this house, that government spending on a huge scale does not cure economic ills nor offer any permanent cure for unemployment. For this reason I trust that as the discussions of this session proceed, the interests of the taxpayer will receive more recognition and consideration by this parliament than has been the case so far in this debate.
I come now to an item which is of special interest and significance to myself and my constituency. I refer to that portion of the speech from the throne dealing with matters pertaining to the Department of National Defence. I so state because dominion arsenal No. 2 is located in the riding I have the honour to represent. Before proceeding further, I desire to convey to the minister of this department my appreciation of the start which is under way at the Lindsay arsenal; but this represents but a small part of the plant. It is a well-established fact that the administration which preceded us prepared plans and already had proceeded with the construction of additional extensive arsenal buildings at Valcartier.
As is well known to the officials of the government, soon after my entry into this parliament I offered strenuous objection to this development because it appeared unreasonable to me to proceed with the construction of additional arsenal buildings to meet the needs of this department when at the same time the extensive facilities at Lindsay were idle and unused except for storage purposes. I am well aware that until that time the Lindsay arsenal had been classified as an auxiliary arsenal for use when the country was actually engaged in war. I also
The Address-Mr. McNevin

offered my strenuous objection to this policy. It is true that during the regime of our predecessors, and up to the present time, certain requirements of the department were procured from private industry on the basis of cost plus profit. Mr. Speaker, I want to make my position perfectly clear with regard to this point. I am unalterably opposed to the further extension of this policy until such time as all the remaining facilities for production at the Lindsay arsenal have been utilized. I strongly favour and urge upon the government and this parliament the policy of using the government arsenals to their utmost capacity when it is necessary in times of peace. With respect to private industry it should stand ready in times of war for auxiliary armament production. At such times the interests of the Canadian people should be carefully safeguarded by government supervision of such plants. Now, having so expressed myself, I trust that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) whom I, in common with the large majority of Canadian people, hold in very high esteem, will, when the opportunity presents itself, inform the house in regard to the government's intentions with respect to this important matter.
I come now to another point. In listening to the addresses of hon. members to my immediate left, I note but little variation in their remarks. The thought occurred to me that the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) may have missed his calling in taking up medicine. He should have been a schoolmaster, because it would appear that his followers, in the absence of any reasonable grounds upon which to attack the administration, have learned to repeat a few inapplicable phrases, prominent among which we find the one, "do-nothing government". I say, let the opposition be fair. If we look out upon the world around us to the south, to the east, or to the west, do we find the sun of tranquillity, of prosperity, of peace and contentment, shining with its noonday strength upon the nations? I feel sorry that it is not so. But what do we see? War, and the rumblings and rumours of war. In many lands when the sun goes down the people know not what the morning may bring forth. This condition resembles very much, in fact it is in some respects more aggravated than, the condition behind which these same hon. members excuse their own inaction.
* This government has diligently applied itself to the difficult problems confronting it, and has more definite accomplishments to its credit than any other government since confederation. What are they? In the first place,

with respect to exploring world markets, more effective trade agreements have been negotiated by this government than by any of its predecessors. I mention this point particularly because it has a quite definite interest to farmers, lumbermen, and others in my own constituency. Under the provisions of the 1935 treaty, lumber producers, live stock producers, and producers in various other lines of agriculture have received great benefits. In fact, I sometimes wonder, if it had not been for that assistance, where the live stock producers and others would be at the present time. Furthermore, the final completion of the revision of that treaty, which will be before the house in the not distant future, contains in my opinion many provisions which will much more adequately serve the interests of the Canadian people.
In my riding there is a large woollen manufacturing industry. I observe in the provisions of the Great Britain-United States treaty that the woollen industry of Great Britain has been given material concessions upon woollen textiles entering the United States. Canada is not mentioned; that provision deals only with the nation which in connection with the exchange of commodities contributes the largest quota of the article, but the same provision applies to Canada. I am satisfied that the woollen textile industry in Canada will reap substantial benefit from the treaty reductions on woollen goods entering the United States.
The recent pronouncement by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) regarding the problem of transients deals with an extremely difficult situation. I am sure every hon. member has great sympathy for the transients. I pay tribute to the thousands of Canadian citizens who, while not working at the present time, are willing and anxious to work. But the principle embodied in the British legislation should apply, whereby men, when given the opportunity to work, must accept that work in preference to relief. In saying this, however, I do not mean that married men should be removed from their homes and families.
I might proceed to enumerate many more accomplishments of this government:	for
example, the taking over of the central bank. When this government assumed office, credit was hard to get from banks, while to-day the banks are looking for borrowers who have any reasonable security. We have also the housing legislation; the elimination of taxation on the construction industry; and a constructive youth training program is under way. I do not know what form the government expenditures through the Department of Labour may

The Address-Mr. Sewn
take. If the construction of the trans-Canada highway is resumed, I would be interested in seeing it completed through the eastern section of northern Ontario, and I should like to see an artery built through Algonquin park, which is in my riding. Our citizens and tourists would then have the opportunity of travelling north and south as well as east and west. But that matter will come up for discussion later on. I know that up to a certain point road problems are entirely provincial matters. The latest proposal to absorb a larger share of relief costs will greatly relieve the excessive taxation on real estate, and act as a stimulant to business and the building trade.
Then with regard to national defence: what were the conditions when this government came into power? A group of officers and men equal to those of any other country were training with antiquated and obsolete equipment. Now we have modern aeroplanes-


An hon. MEMBER:: And Bren guns.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: -which, if not completed. are nearing completion, and warships for the partial protection of our shores. I believe that achievement alone is worthy of the commendation of every Canadian citizen because, much as we regret the necessity for larger expenditures on armaments in this country, world conditions are such that this expenditure can no longer be avoided.
In answer to the contention that this is a do-nothing government, I simply say that they have proceeded along sane lines, acting on the motto that where there is a will there is a way. In conclusion, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for his excellent work throughout the September crisis.


Robert James Manion: He did nothing.


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I am satisfied that his handling of that situation alone will commend itself to every thinking citizen throughout this dominion.
Mr. Speaker, I support the motion.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: As this debate proceeds it is becoming difficult to avoid repetition in discussion of the matters referred to in the speech from the throne. There is, however, one important matter which received very little attention in that speech, and which, until a day or two ago at least, has received very little comment by hon. members in the house. But it is a most important matter to all the citizens of Canada. I refer to the plight in which agriculture finds itself in this country, and I intend to confine my remarks largely to a discussion of that
question. It is true that some mention was made in the speech from the throne of the intention of the government to revise the grain act and to introduce a bill further to regulate grain exchanges. But these are matters which affect only the farmer in the west, in fact the western wheat grower, and have very little to do with the problems facing the mixed farmers of Canada. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) this afternoon made an excellent speech in discussing the problems of the western wheat growers,, but I wish to take a few minutes to discuss the problems of farmers in Ontario and particularly those engaged in mixed farming.
Before proceeding further, I should like personally and on behalf of my constituents, to join in the unanimous expressions of rejoicing in this house over the approaching visit of Their Gracious Majesties the King and Queen. Their visit will undoubtedly tend to increase the loyalty and devotion to the crown of all true Canadians, and will also tend to strengthen the ties which bind Canada to the empire.
I also wish to express the satisfaction and relief of the people of my constituency at the fact that the recent threat of war has been averted for the time being. In every municipality in the constituency of Haldimand cenotaphs have been erected bearing the names of those who made the supreme sacrifice in the great war. They serve to remind us, among other things, of the horrors of warfare. The memory of those trying days is still fresh in the minds of everyone, and I express the hope of all Canadians that any international complications which still exist may be speedily and amicably settled without recourse to arms.
I should like also to take this opportunity of expressing the pleasure I feel at the reentry into this house of the hon. member for London (Mr. Manion). I wish to congratulate him upon being chosen as leader of a great party. He possesses those qualifications, those graces of heart and of mind, which have made him an able debater and one of the most pleasant and gracious personalities in the house. I make one prediction, and it is that in the next house he will lead a much larger group than he does at present; and, unless all signs fail, I believe he will be Prime Minister.
In listening to the debate which has taken place so far, it seems to me strange that so little enthusiasm on the part of hon. members sitting on the government benches has been displayed over the new trade agreements. A survey of their speeches in Hansard will show that, apart from the mover and the seconder of the address, very little comment has been
The Address-Mr. Senn

made by hon. gentlemen opposite. This attitude is in direct contrast to the enthusiasm which was evidenced when the 1935 agreement was brought into the house. On February 25, 1936, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) introduced the resolution approving the 1935 trade agreement and used these words, as they appear at page 502 of Hansard for that year:
The government of the United States and the government of this country were actuated by one and the same motive, namely to make an agreement which would be equally beneficial to both countries. . . . Could anything destroy the agreement more effectively than that it should be shown in the course of the next three years that one country had got considerably the better of the other? Would not the effect of an agreement reached in that way be to destroy the possibility of its continuance beyond the period of three years.
The trade figures for the past few years prove conclusively that one party to the agreement, to -use the Prime Minister's words, did get considerably the better of the other, although that has not prevented the government from continuing the treaty and negotiating a new one. Let me for a moment review the question of trade balances between the two countries. The other day the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) pooh-poohed the idea that trade balances had any particular significance. The hon. member is an expert in statistics. He has always professed a great belief in the value of figures, and from time to time has used figures to prove his own arguments. I suggest that the trend of trade balances between the two countries indicates, more clearly than anything else could, the effects of the treaty of 1935 upon Canadian trade with the United States. For the first thirty years of this century Canada had an unfavourable trade balance with the United States amounting to over five and a half billion dollars. That is an enormous sum of money, much greater than our national debt if we do not take into account our railway liability. It is about five times as great as the average annual agricultural production of this country during the past ten years. Yet that does not take into account the sums of money which have been sent to the United States in payment of interest charges and dividends. That flow of money across the border has greatly retarded our progress in days gone by; it has had a very bad effect upon our industrial and economic life and also upon our population, because during those years thousands and, indeed, hundreds of thousands of our young men followed that flow of money across the border in order to obtain employment.

When the Bennett government came into power in 1930, however, one of the first acts they performed was to revise our tariff schedules, placing them almost on a level with those tariffs which the United States had raised against Canadian products. The result of that action became apparent immediately. Our unfavourable trade balance began to dwindle and finally disappeared altogether, so that in 1934, 1935 and 1936 we again had favourable trade balances with the United States amounting to some $120,000,000. When the new treaty came into effect in 1936 another change took place, and in 1937 we again had an unfavourable trade balance of some $8,000,000, which rose last year to about $79,000,000. So, if we consider the Prime Minister's statement in view of these figures, what could be more apparent than that one country did get considerably the better of the other in connection with that agreement? Yet the present government, obsessed as it is with the idea of making treaties, has entered into another agreement with the same country. It is a treaty which will give little if any encouragement to Canadian agriculture, but it will encourage the importation of manufactured goods into Canada not only from the United States but also from all those countries which are enjoying favoured nation treatment.
In the speech from the throne much attention has been paid to the question of unemployment, which continues, of course, to be one of our most pressing and urgent problems. On the other hand, as I said in the beginning of my remarks, little has been said of the problems facing agriculture, which problems are just as important and just as vital to the prosperity of Canada as any others that exist in this dominion. Perhaps little was said about the problems facing agriculture because many at least of the ministers of the crown made statements at the beginning of the year forecasting what they thought would be the situation in the country during the year to come. For a moment I should like to refer to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), appearing in the Globe and Mail of January 3, 1939; I believe it is worthy of comment. Among other things the hon. gentleman asserted that there was an abundance of feed in Canada; that is, feed for live stock. He also made the significant statement that the numbers of our live stock -hogs, cattle and so on-had greatly decreased and on that fact he based the prediction that live stock prices probably would advance. To me it seems strange-indeed, it is a commentary upon the inaction of this

The Address-Mr. Senn
government-that the only prediction the minister made in regard to better agricultural prices was based on the fact that the numbers of our live stock had decreased. I remember very well the glowing terms the minister used some three years ago when he told the house he was going to institute a marketing branch within the department; but now, after that branch has been in operation for three years, all the minister can say is that we may have better prices for live stock simply because their numbers have decreased.
The farmer has been always faced with that very difficulty. In years of plenty prices fall, generally below the cost of production. In years of scarcity, or when the farmer has very little to sell, prices soar. In 1938 we had a bumper crop; yet prices of all kinds of grain and feed fell to the lowest level they have experienced since the very trough of the depression. It is true that in 1938 the farmers of Canada, and particularly those in the western provinces, had more difficulty in paying their taxes and meeting their obligations than they have had in many years.
I am convinced that the cure for unemployment does not lie in measures such as those advanced by the government, including the home improvement plan and the new housing plan, or in the expenditure of public moneys, such as has been forecast in the speech from the throne, for building programs to provide work. Nor do I think that the cure for unemployment lies in another suggestion made yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), namely the employment of men on our farms. I say that simply because the farmers of to-day cannot compete with other industries in the labour market.
After all, these are only palliative measures and provide no permanent employment. I believe the causes underlying unemployment in Canada are economic. To a great extent they arise from an unbalanced price structure. I do not suggest for a moment that prices of manufactured goods are too high; I do not suggest that the price of labour is too high, but I do say that the price of farm products is out of proportion to other commodity prices in this country. Recently the Hon. Mr. Morrison, Minister of Agriculture in Great Britain, speaking in the British House of Commons upon the question of the orderly marketing of farm products, concluded his remarks with these words:
I hope the lesson is now well learnt that this great edifice we have built up of commerce and industry in various countries rests upon the foundation of primary production throughout the world, the empire and our country. If the primary producer is denied his proper reward, it soon brings ruin upon those who
hope to sell him their goods, and I believe that stable organization for a market of this kind would really be a contribution not only to the prosperity of agriculture, but to the prosperity of trade and commerce as a whole throughout the world.
Those words express much more concisely than I could the idea I am trying to present. For instance, if agriculture were to be placed on a prosperous footing, it would immediately and of necessity initiate a building program much greater than any government can afford, simply because farm buildings and equipment are sadly in need of repairs and replacements, which cannot be carried out under present conditions.
It is, after all, the new wealth created each year in primary industry which maintains the buying power of the people, and which is in large measure the controlling factor of distribution. We have a number of primary industries in Canada, but the greatest of them, the greatest industry of all, is agriculture. It is therefore most important that the farmer should receive a price commensurate with the cost of his production, so that he may buy a liberal share of all kinds of merchandise. If this could be brought about, I believe our unemployment difficulties would gradually but surely disappear.
Governmental activities, both federal and provincial, have largely been directed towards assisting and teaching the farmer to produce efficiently and economically. I am not trying to discredit the operations of governments in this respect. Essential and efficient services have been performed, and the farmer has been taught the value of good live stock, good seed and proper cultivation. He has been taught soil chemistry, food values, balanced rations, and so on. But too little attention has been paid by governments and departments of agriculture to the farmers' most pressing problem, namely, the marketing of his products.
I have stated many times, in this house and in other places, that if the farmer were assured of attractive prices he would produce goods in quantity and in quality. But he has little encouragement when prices for farm products fluctuate as violently and rapidly as they are doing to-day, and as they have been doing for some time past.
Agriculture must take a leaf from the book of industry, and set up a proper system of merchandizing its products. The day is gone for the producer as an individual to market on a competitive, cutthroat, hit-or-miss basis, without knowledge of what other producers do, or what his competitors do from day to day.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
The Address-Mr. Serin

After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mark Cecil Senn: Mr. Speaker, when the house
rose at six o'clock I was discussing the imperative need for more stability in the price of farm products in Canada. I had stated that if the farmer could be assured of prices which were commensurate with the cost of efficient production, our unemployment problem would gradually disappear. It cannot be questioned that farm prices are not on a parity with those of other commodities, particularly in times of plentiful production on the farm. The reasons for this are many, I believe, but I shall refer to only one or two.
Agriculture is practically the only Canadian industry whose prices are controlled by supply and demand. The price of manufactured goods bears a very close relationship to and is largely governed by the cost of production. Lawyers, doctors and professional men in Canada all have a schedule of fees which they adhere to more or less closely. The salaried man knows at the beginning of the year what his income is going to be. Merchants endeavour, and very successfully, to maintain a constant margin of profit between buying and selling prices. Freight rates, passenger rates, telephone rates and so on are controlled by a government board. Government contracts contain a fair wage clause, and labour has its union scale of wages which is recognized by statute. Recently I read in one of the Toronto papers an item stating that a Toronto barber had been haled before the court and fined because he had charged twenty-five cents for a haircut, which was lower than the union wage scale.
Unquestionably, Mr. Speaker, these systems of price maintenance are here to stay. But notwithstanding these schemes for maintaining prices on every hand, the farmer has little or no control over the prices which he obtains for his products. Agencies must be maintained to collect, to process, to grade and to distribute farm products, and they all take their margin of profit. The spread between farmer-producer prices and consumer prices is gradually widening, but little or no effort has been made by the present government to provide a remedy; in fact, the present government immediately on coming into office took steps to destroy the machinery set up by the former administration to assist agriculture by referring the Natural Products Marketing Act to the privy council for a decision as to its validity.
I want it to be understood that I am not suggesting that prices for farm products should be fixed in Canada in the way that was done

by the present administration when it fixed the price for western, wheat. I do, however, agree heartily with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand), and again this afternoon by the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. McNevin) that since this has been done for the western farmer, similar concessions should have been made to the eastern grain grower and the mixed farmer.
May I point out that in many lines of farm production a very large percentage of the production is consumed in the Dominion of Canada. I have before me a bulletin issued by the bureau of statistics, agricultural branch. It is entitled, "The relationship of exports, imports and apparent consumption of agricultural commodities to Canadian production." I find that it gives the percentage of exports to the amount produced in Canada in the year 1935. for example, and I shall give the house only three or four commodities as an example of what I mean. In 1935, of oats, for instance, we exported only 3-9 per cent of our production; 9-11 per cent of barley; 2-4 per cent of potatoes and 7-9 per cent of cattle. Of our total meats we exported 12 per cent; of our total dairy products, 6-8 per cent; of eggs, -6 per cent; of our total poultry products, -8 per cent. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is the price we receive for this small exportable surplus which, in a great many instances, determines the domestic price. Why should the price received for the eight per cent of our cattle exported control the price of cattle in our home market? And yet it undoubtedly does.
In a bulletin which I received from the industrial and development council of Canadian meat packers I find this significant sentence:
It is evident that with a duty of six cents per pound on dressed beef the Canadian packing industry has been eliminated as a competitive factor in United States markets.
This situation makes market prices for Canadian cattle dependent on United States cattle prices. The value of any cattle in Canada (with some possible minor exceptions) will be what they are worth for export alive to United States and any possible export to Britain. This must obtain in every class of cattle of which there is a surplus over domestic requirements.
This is surely a case of the tail wagging the dog. It is a most unsatisfactory and unprofitable method of determining domestic prices. In many instances our Canadian farm products compete in foreign markets with the cheap goods of other nations which have lower wage scales and lower standards of living. The search of the present government for markets in foreign countries, no matter how successful,

The Address-Mr. Kinley
can never solve the problem of the farmers' price structure in Canada. Some leadership must be given, whether we like it or not, towards maintaining a reasonable price structure for farm products in this dominion. Other countries have taken drastic steps in this direction. Australia some time ago put into effect what is known as the Patterson scheme of bonusing exports to help maintain a profitable price level at home. New Zealand two or three years ago set the price of butter fat in that country, where the production of dairy products is the most important industry, and as yet its government has not paid out one cent on that account. Great Britain has established a quota system, in order to maintain farm prices by means of the quantitative regulation of imports. France, Germany and Italy have bonused the production of cereals in their respective countries and have erected impassable trade barriers against these commodities.
The former administration passed the Natural Products Marketing Act, under which some twenty-two schemes were operating when the act was declared ultra vires by the privy council, to which body it had been submitted by the present government for adjudication as to its validity. In contrast to all this, the present government has done little or nothing toward assisting agriculture in Canada to maintain a stable price for farm products. Fluctuations in prices continue with startling rapidity, and the Canadian farmer is powerless to prevent them. If Canadian agriculture is to survive, something must be done and done quickly. I heard a responsible man not so very long ago say that a very large number of our farmers are to-day bankrupt. He placed the proportion at fifty per cent. I am not going to say that such a percentage is at all correct, but I know the number is very large and is gradually increasing. It is little wonder, therefore, that everybody in this country is condemning in no measured terms the inaction of the present government. It is high time that action should be taken, and I suggest to the government that if they are unable to cope with a situation they should make way for somebody else.
For the reasons I have outlined I intend to vote for the amendment which was proposed by my leader. In the words of that amendment:
. . . the government has failed ... to show a proper realization of the serious economic conditions existing in all sections of Canada, as evidenced by . . . widespread distress which prevails in agriculture; and has failed-
Dismally.
-to take appropriate measures to relieve such conditions.
I should like to conclude by quoting one sentence which I read recently in a trade journal and which expresses in a few words my sentiments regarding the great basic industry of agriculture:
It can be said that agriculture is God's chosen profession, and nothing can be nobler than producing foodstuffs for the Canadian people. If the producer cannot get his just reward, then no other class of people can enjoy permanent prosperity. The farmer in the last analysis asks for nothing more than a square deal with a decent standard of living in the farm homes of Canada.


Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, in this house we have assembled 245 members, and each one has an intimate knowledge of conditions in some part of Canada. They are men and women who in the aggregate know more about the country and have more accurate information than could be obtained from any other source. This knowledge was exhibited at the outset by the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address. I have a great deal of pleasure in adding my congratulations to those they have already received.
As the debate has continued, some have spoken of our achievements and other have told of our problems and our difficulties. But with it all I am sure we shall all subscribe to the thought that in spite of those difficulties and our problems, we all feel thankful for the many blessings and advantages we enjoy. Canada is a good country. In fact at this time I can think of no other that is superior. We have freedom in this country, and in the midst of a troubled and perplexed world we have a degree of security which is assuring. Our associations with outside peoples are most fortunate, and we believe that in spite of conditions which exist and pending disasters that seem to have threatened us during the last few years we are making economic and social progress.
To judge of our country we must compare it with others; and when we make these comparisons I am certain we shall agree that Canada is in the very forefront of progress. Trade after all is the industrial blood stream of the nation. We are told that we are sixth in foreign trade in the world, that our domestic exports are fourth of all countries of the world, and I am sure we agree that this is a splendid position for a country such as Canada. We are told also by experts, men who admire us from the outside, that Canada is a bright spot in the industrial life of the world and that her immediate future is full of promise.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) thinks we have failed, and he has so expressed
2S6
The Address-Mr. Kinley

it in the amendment which he moved to the address. Well, this is natural. As leader of the opposition he is supposed to criticize and show the imperfections of the government. But I am reminded that he was formerly a member of the Bennett government. Being a member of that government, he has memories; from his speech the other day I think one can draw the conclusion that he thinks he was most severely and wrongfuly criticized in the days that are gone, and now that he is leader of the opposition he is going to return the compliment. He would like a reduction of taxes, but he is not so enthusiastic about the removal of the three per cent excise tax. And when he talks about a reduction- of taxes and enumerates in this chamber the taxes that have been placed on the statute books, we are reminded that most of those taxes were placed there by a former government, and for a purpose, that purpose being to pay the enormous burden caused by the war. That burden is still with us and is still growing. While we thought that during recent years some way would be found to overtake and lessen this burden, we have discovered that we must now spend millions of dollars in order to defend this country and make it safe as a part of the British Empire, and therefore we cannot see, in view of the spending which is imposed upon the government, how this reduction in taxes which he talks about can take place.
The right hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett) led the opposition in this house for three years, and he was most critical; he also thought that the government had failed. He recently decided to move to another land, and in being entertained before he left he took the people of this country into his confidence. He has now decided that the church has failed. Well, I should hate to think that the church has failed, and it would be sad to visualize a country where there is no church. I do not think the church has failed in Canada; but, like all progressive movements, all movements for uplifting the people and raising the standards of the citizenship of the country, the church can never completely accomplish its purpose and in this world it will never reach its goal. On the one hand we have the present leader of the opposition saying that the government has failed; on the other we have the leader who has retired from the field saying that the church has failed in this country. I am sure that we all have faith in this country; but some hon. members, in trying to inform us how the administration fails, will go to distant countries and exhibit to this house what they think is a good picture of prosperity there.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. [DOT]Coldwell), who almost always contributes something of interest to the discussions in this house, the other day told us how well New Zealand was getting along. Well, my information is that New Zealand enjoyed a period of artificial prosperity induced by a program of expanding expenditures in public works and in other ways. But they found it too great a strain on their resources, and they are now endeavouring to restore the situation by making drastic restrictions in imports in the hope that this will relieve the financial strain. It looks as if they will be required to pay for their carnival of prodigality.
I have before me a circular that came to our office in the course of business. It deals with New Zealand's import licensing system and advises that a further cablegram has now been received from New Zealand stating:
The New Zealand Finance Minister has decided to admit any goods ordered on or before December 5, 1938, irrespective of the date of shipment of such goods, provided the quantities are not abnormal. As to orders received since December 5, the present status is that the importer in New Zealand must get a licence from his government to import before it is safe for the Canadian exporter to forward shipment.
It seems to me that the story about New Zealand's prosperity can well be taken with a grain of salt. Our friends to the left refer from time to time to Norway and Sweden, which countries they say we should copy. Their example, we are told, is well worth considering. I have never been in Sweden, but in our harbour I have visited vessels from both Norway and Sweden and have talked to their crews. I have seen how their men are fed, and I know that Canadian sailors would not be satisfied with what is given sailors from Sweden and Norway. I know also that these people are undermining the marine trade of this country. Through the low wages they pay their crews they are able to compete successfully against our people. I have seen these vessels come and go for years, and I know that there are members of crews who will desert at every opportunity in order to remain in Canada.
I took the trouble to prepare from the records of the League of Nations a statement of wages paid different classes of men in Norway, Sweden, Great Britain and Canada. The list comprises shipyard workers, machinists, shipwrights, helpers and labourers, carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, cabinet - makers, street-car conductors and motormen, machinists generally, truck drivers, bakers, and civic labourers. I find that in every instance the wages paid in Canada are a great deal more than those paid in Norway and Sweden.

The Address-Mr. Kinley
But, we are told, the social structure in those countries is so good that there are no monopolies in Norway and Sweden. The fact is, however, that the most iniquitous millionaire of the century carried on his work in Sweden through a match monopoly, and his operations had their repercussions in other countries. He finally came to an untimely end by shooting himself.
However, there are difficulties in this country, and as we all know, unemployment is one of them. To-day it is really the fly in the ointment; it is the thing that troubles us most. But why should that be? I wonder if our people are making a really determined and intelligent effort. Some responsibility rests, of course, with the government, and there is some responsibility with those who are unemployed; but I am referring especially to the intelligent, virile and strong people of the country, who, after all, are the people who must make it a success or a failure. On Sunday morning it was my privilege to listen to a missionary from the island of Formosa, which is about as large as the island of Vancouver. I am told there are over five million people there, and one wonders sometimes how they get along. The same is true of many other countries with large populations. But here in Canada we have eleven million people with great resources and a vast territory, and it seems to me that if the matter were seriously considered by every Canadian citizen, a way would be found of providing employment for our people.
I was very much interested yesterday to hear the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). He spoke of the responsibility of private industry. He said that private industry had a responsibility in Canada to see that men were employed, and I agree with him. Perhaps there should be a more extensive system of subsidized apprenticeship in order that every man could learn a trade. When I think of unemployment I think naturally of my own riding. In my counties there are men who naturally wish to work at sea. On the seacoast of Nova Scotia we have the greatest commercial fishing centres of Canada, and I am constantly approached by young men who are anxious to get a berth so as to work on the sea instead of being unemployed.
I have known for a long time that the Canadian mercantile marine and'the marine interests in this country were not very considerate of Canadians. I came across, in the Financial Post, an article that startled- me. May I read it:
Whose Vessels are They?
Should Canada contribute to the support of the British navy? A member of the staff of
the Financial Post recently in London was asked by many English people when Canada intended to carry its "share" of the load of protecting Canadian shipping on the North Atlantic.
This question is one capable of provoking a prolonged discussion in any group. In the ensuing argument there is one factor that is likely to be overlooked. Not a determining point, it is nevertheless important.
The ships on the North Atlantic that carry cargoes between Canada and the United Kingdom are British ships. The Post staff man came home on a C.P.R. ship. It had been built in Britain and was of British registry. It carried a crew of 381, of whom only one was a Canadian. That man was the railway ticket agent!
In the twelve months to March 31, 1937, 911 vessels of British registry carrying cargo entered Canada with 1,523,557 tons of freight from the United Kingdom. The vessels were manned by a crew of 114,211 men. In the same period, one vessel of Canadian registry, carrying cargo, with seventy-five tons of freight and with a crew of thirty-nine, entered Canada from the United Kingdom.
Now we know that the head of the Canadian Pacific Steamships and the Canadian Pacific Railway is interested in youth. He is a public-spirited man who is anxious to see unemployment ended, and it is to his interest to see that it is ended. But how can we do away with unemployment if men of that standing forget that the people of this country must be employed in industry if unemployment is to be ended? I am told that these railway companies are anxious to have more immigration into this country. And I believe that if fifty or one hundred thousand people came into this country from Europe they would be employed within a year or two. But I am more interested in the men of Nova Scotia who in the past sailed to every country in the world and on all the seas. These men desire employment; it is a natural ambition and a legitimate claim that they should have the first openings in the services of this country. They are not looking for big wages. From Vancouver we are told that it is a matter of wages. What our men want is a chance to start to learn something; it is a question not of wages but of getting employment. When the statute of Westminster was passed I thought it was the emancipation of the coasting trade and the merchant marine; but concurrent with the enactment of that statute was also enacted the merchant shipping agreement; which handed back everything we gained as far as shipping is concerned, and Canada's coasting trade to-day-differing from that of the United States and other countries-seems wide open.
With regard to relief, we realize that there has been an abnormal situation in western
The Address-Mr. Kiriley

Canada and that the effects of those years of drought are still being felt. Were it not for that condition, good as our progress has been it would probably have been much better, and the ministry could have presented a better report. In Nova Scotia it is hard to think of a farmer on relief. We very rarely have a failure of crops, and whatever else he has, he at least has enough to eat and is able to keep himself warm. In my riding there is no relief. I have under my hand a report relating to the municipal council of Lunenburg, which appeared the other day. It states:
While other municipal councils in the province are raising their tax rates, Lunenburg's governing body gave assurance in their opening session to-day that the rate for the municipality of Lunenburg would be lowered again this year. For the past three years this county has been favoured by a reduction in rates, and it is expected that the present rate of $3.10 will be brought down to the $3 level.
This condition prevails not only in the municipality of Lunenburg but in the town of Lunenburg, where the tax rate has been reduced and they are retiring bonds; also in the towns of Bridgewater and Liverpool. These are the three important towns in my riding.
Hon. members may wonder how this comes about. The year book shows that we in Nova Scotia earn less than in practically any other province except the other maritime provinces, that we have less per capita wealth, and that our production is less. Still, in my riding there is no direct relief. Thrift is a virtue which I commend to the people of Canada. It seems to me that the municipality is primarily responsible for relief, notwithstanding the contributions from the federal government and the provincial government. But if the municipalities do not realize that this relief is a canker in the life of this country, there is little hope of accomplishing much. It is probably true that in urban districts the position is worse than in the rural districts. That is to be expected because in the artificial life of cities when people are out of work they have no resources with which to maintain themselves.
With regard to unemployment, I think that youth training is the most important matter with which we have to deal. Time will cure the troubles of the older people, but teaching our youth to be good, responsible citizens is the right place to start to solve this problem. If a young man lives to the age of twenty-two or twenty-three loafing around pool-rooms and becoming a drifter, he is not apt to be much of an asset to his country. As a subject for youth training in the maritimes, navigation at once presents itself. I am glad that I succeeded in getting the marine section of the

Department of Transport to open a navigation school in a principal seaport town in my riding. It should be part of the public education from a technical standpoint in Nova Scotia. Every boy who exhibits a desire to go to sea should get training in navigation. Six years ago parliament passed the Canada Shipping Act. Sometimes laws aggravate unemployment. In my riding the Canada Shipping Act aggravated unemployment. Our men were men of experience. They go to sea and become expert sailors by experience. But they did not have certificates. But when this shipping act came into effect they were put out of their jobs; they were told they were not fit because they had not a certificate. I approached the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and explained the matter; he sent his technical officers to Nova Scotia, got these men together and held examinations, and in the town where I live fifty or sixty of them passed. This year again we had some trouble with certificates; the minister again sent his technical officers to the province, and I believe they found a satisfactory solution of the matter.
With the advent of the internal combustion engine we should be training engineers capable of handling the Diesel engine. This is a new field of endeavour for young people. I believe that the Diesel engine will bring back wooden shipping along the Nova Scotia coast. These wooden ships with Diesel engines are very economical; they do not need a large crew and they have good speed. Quite a number have been built during the last few years; we have had a revival of wooden shipbuilding in Nova Scotia by reason of the Diesel engine. I want our men to be taught to be good engineers to operate these boats.
We sometimes hear about public works, and we are told that public works are not much good to help unemployment. Well, public works are good. Along the coast of Nova Scotia there are many fishermen who hardly earn enough to get by, and if there are public works which enable them to earn $50 or $75, it just makes it possible for them to get along comfortably and helps out the situation splendidly, in addition to providing the breakwaters and wharves that are necessary in order that the fishermen may properly carry on their business. I think public works, as they apply to the sea coast, are absolutely necessary, and the men give a return for the money they receive.
I am glad that the speech from the throne contained a reference to the fishermen. That is a compliment, because it is not often that the fishermen are mentioned there. At page

The Address-Mr. Kinley
27 of Hansard for January 16, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) quoted from the speech from the throne, as follows:
Continuous improvement in the position of the fishing industry as a whole has been reflected-
He stopped there, and said that his reports were to the contrary. As a matter of fact, however, this is what was said in the speech from the throne:
Continuous improvement in the position of the fishing industry as a whole has been reflected in annual increases for the past few years in the aggregate amounts received by the fishermen from their work. The Department of Fisheries have given, and will continue to give, increased attention to the problem of marketing. The government have also assisted fishermen substantially through direct aid.
Well, we are not satisfied with the condition of our fishermen, but we think a great deal has been done. I must remind the house that it was a Liberal government that first appointed a separate Minister of Fisheries in the person of Hon. Cyrus Macmillan; and during the last few years a great deal of attention has been paid to this industry. Loans have been granted, with the cooperation of the provincial government. In some provinces direct contributions were made, but in Nova Scotia it was done by way of loan. A collection service has been established in eastern Nova Scotia, where the worst conditions prevailed, and this year nearly two million pounds of fish have been brought from that section to the market at Halifax. Then I am reminded that the provincial government has been giving a bounty of one dollar per quintal on salted fish, for the export trade. After that had been in existence for two years it was reduced to seventy-five cents, but the fisherman still got his fifty cents while the owners of the vessel got twenty-five cents.
Our hon. friends to the left ask what we have done for the fishermen. I recall when a delegation from my county came to the government, before 1930, complaining that conditions in the export trade were bad and asking for a bounty of fifty cents in connection with salted fish. That request was refused. Then, when the Liberals came into power in Nova Scotia, with the cooperation of this government a bounty of a dollar was paid the fishermen in order that they might have a fair show in the export trade in competition with other countries doing the same thing. There was also a bounty established on seals, which were destroying the fish and causing a great deal of damage. In my riding also, I am proud to say, we have the Nova Scotia fisheries exhibition each year, which 71492-19
was honoured last year by the attendance of the Minister of Transport. That exhibition has been subsidized since its inception, and we feel that it is a great advertisement for the fisheries of this country. That subsidy is also something we obtained from the Liberal government.
I should like to refer to old age pensions. As hon. members know, the old fisherman was always a problem on the coast of Nova Scotia. He might possess considerable wealth one day; then along came a storm and his nets would be swept away. We find that as the fishermen get older most of them have very little of this world's goods, so the old age pension did a great deal for the fishermen of Nova Scotia, making an asset of many an old man who had been a liability to his sons, and bringing some social justice to these people along our shores.
When we came here in 1935 we had high hopes in regard to the trade treaty. I must confess that I was a little disappointed, when the trade treaty was consummated, that fish of the cod family were not included in it. But we thought perhaps there would be a chance in the future. Some fish, swordfish, halibut and so on, were covered by the treaty, and the production of those fish immediately increased. In my riding we have the largest fishing fleet in Canada, and I thought if we could get a trade treaty with the United States, giving us entry to the best market in the world for fresh cod, halibut and other Canadian fish, we would be doing something for the people whom we try to represent. Now this three-way trade agreement between Great Britain, the United States and Canada has been consummated, bringing with it reductions in the duties on fish entering the United States. I believe that will do more to stabilize and assist our fishing industry than anything that has been done by this parliament for many years.
In 1932 we had an imperial trade conference in Ottawa. Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin delivered an address in this very chamber, and speaking of empire trade he said that there were two ways in which increased preferences could be given, either by lowering tariffs among ourselves or by raising them against others. Then he said:
The choice between those two must be governed largely by local considerations, but subject to that it seems to us that we should endeavour to follow the first rather than the second course.
He was in favour of the lowering of duties. I think this trade treaty, though it is to extend for three years, will be more stable than the treaty of 1935 because it is linked up with the British trade agreement, and the

The Address-Mr. Kinley

British agreement with the United States is of greater importance in the industrial life of the world. Of course if the British trade agreement fails, we shall get back some of the things which our friends say we lost but which probably were given so that the cod. fish of the maritimes might get into the United States market.
Let me say I was very proud of the position taken in Nova Scotia by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) just after the treaty was signed. He represents a great apple growing constituency, one enjoying a preference in a free market. On the other hand fishermen have had to enter a market carrying a high duty, a market which was by no means a free one. I might add that apple growing is also carried on to a considerable extent in the constituency I have the honour to represent, which adjoins that of the minister. I believe the minister spoke for the people in Nova Scotia when he said that, after all, apples still have a good preference, and will continue to supply the British market.
I do not believe trade is divine in its origin, but I am of the opinion that the Divine Architect of the Universe had some regard for trade when the world was created. We find oranges and bananas' growing in warm countries, fish in the cold waters of the Atlantic, minerals in the unexplored regions of the frozen north. All this is a challenge to man. Trade is a challenge to man to be industrious and to be diligent in his business operations. After all, trade is the life of the nation. Has any hon. member entered a town and heard someone say, "Oh what a dead town!" What did that person mean? He meant there was no trade-nothing moving. No one knows better than the leader of the opposition that if a man's blood stops circulating, he is dead. If water remains quiet, it becomes stagnant, and develops power only when it begins to move and when there is circulation. The same reasoning applies to the trade of a country. The circulation of trade is what makes the people prosperous. It is my belief that Canada's exceptionally good position as a trading country means that our future is assured and that the government in office deserves credit for this achievement. '
The West Indies treaty has been the cause of much discussion, and the hope shared by hon. members from the maritime provinces is that we may obtain a better deal under that treaty. Criticism has been lodged in the country about a lack of notice at an earlier date. Hon. members can well see that in view of consideration of the three-way British-
[Mr. Kinloy.l
Canada-United States trade agreement it would not have been a good idea to have given earlier notice and thereby cause embarrassment in connection with the arrangemnts with Great Britain and the United States. Notice to the West Indies was given immediately after the trade arrangements with the United States and Great Britain were signed, and I believe in due time hon. members from the maritimes will find the amended trade treaty will be signed, will exhibit their desires, and will show that we represent our people in an intelligent manner.
I have spoken about the low earnings per capita of the people of Nova Scotia, and have pointed out that no direct relief has been paid in Queens-Lunenburg. From those observations hon. members may have received the impression that we have little culture, that we do not look after our social services, and that we are lacking in intelligence. I would remind hon. members that such is far from the case. I have felt grateful to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which has given us an opportunity to give expression to the cultural side of our people. The broadcasts over the Canadian network of the concerts of the Lunenburg glee club have left no doubt as to the cultural development in that part of the country. We are of the opinion, too, that the contest in which the Bluenose took part was well handled by the broadcasting corporation. Both the race and the musical activities are expressions of the cultural development in Queens-Lunenburg, the riding I have the honour to represent.
In closing, let me point out that the price spreads committee of which the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) was chairman, stated that the fishermen of Canada needed markets, and that there was no trouble about production. As a matter of fact, we have over-production, but we need more markets. In Canada, while we consume only twenty-six pounds of fish per capita a year, we produce one hundred and twenty pounds per capita. Hon. members will see that there is a large surplus which must go somewhere, and it will be recognized at once that trade treaties for the fishermen of the Atlantic coast are of paramount importance. We must have such treaties if those men are to live and prosper, and I hope the fishermen will get a larger share of the consumer's dollar.
We hear fears expressed to the effect that democracy is imperilled. Democracy is not easily attained; it is militant and demands a virile, industrious and alert people. I do not believe the peoples of Europe want dictatorships, but they have sunk below the level of men who can govern themselves. The

The Address-Mr. Hayhurst
question occurs to me: How long in this country can men who cannot support themselves govern themselves? The question arises as to whether or not we should take a firmer stand and the captains of industry, the governments and the alert people of the country join together in an effort to eradicate unemployment which, after all, is the real and serious problem which faces us.


Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I quote the last sentence of the speech from the throne:
In this critical time of the world's affairs, I pray that Divine Providence may guide and bless your deliberations.
Yes, "guide and bless your deliberations." At the present time the international situation calls for enlightened leadership. Canada is placed in a position where it may give leadership to	the nations.	Surely by	ourexertions we might do something to save ourselves and	by our example	might	dosomething to	save others.	The	health	and
happiness of mankind are of more importance than the piling up of armaments, something which is most distasteful. Out of the anguish and distress of to-day it seems to me that it would be possible to make Canada one of the leading nations of the world.
The public	ravings of	some	people	in
various countries are creating an attitude of fear not only among neighbouring peoples but among ourselves. The powers of fear and hate have superseded the power of reason. The defenders of democracy are being challenged, and that implies the possibility of conflict. May Providence guide us from such conflict, which can lead only to chaos. Public opinion in neutral countries would and could change for good the balance of our civilization.
Democracy as practised by this government is said to be aimless, inefficient and eco-nomicalb' unjust. It is time the government did some really democratic planning. Democracy in Canada does not give freedom or opportunity to the mass of the people on account of economic inequalities. I ask, what good is freedom to a starving man? He cannot eat or drink freedom. The situation is critical. Time is a vital factor. The world is changing rapidly, and dilatoriness can easily give the fascist dictatorships the control they desire. The road to victory lies in taking the offensive, and the first offensive should be the crystallization of public opinion against inroads on our liberties. We must be quick to organize against such inroads while there is still time. We cannot be silent in the face of injustice; for liberty must arouse respect in the minds of our people. Those who know 71492-19}
what liberty means will not surrender. Democracy should adopt a counter-strategy to fascism, but this strategy must have aims which are worth working for. It has been said that democracy stands for liberty, equality and happiness. We should not be afraid to advertise these facts to the world.
The armies of unemployed in the world, the economic interdependence brought about by booms and slumps, take from us the power of judgment. It is impossible for us to penetrate beneath the mask which our enemies prepare, and thus has been killed the very idea of freedom. At times it seems that mankind is again heading into a new dark age. The search seems to be for power. Witness Japan in her lust for imperial dominion, carrying on a ruthless warfare with China. Angry passions rule nations. Making war in order to gain economic objectives has become the adopted policy of many nations.
Security is all that people want, but insecurity has made people careless; for we are not free if we are helpless to keep our security. The policy of to-day is such that foreign glory has been presented as a substitute for a higher standard of living. Social reform must await the completion of arms programs. The normal habits of freedom will be difficult to attain in lands where dictatorships have flourished. Hate and passion have taken the place of free debate, and who knows whether it will not end in revolution or international conflict? The urge for freedom should be powerful enough to make us organize and be prepared for eventualities.
Democracy will survive only if its most ardent devotees prefer it to other ideologies. Democracy has a reai responsibility. It must oppose the encroachment of dictatorships, or the struggles of our fathers will prove to have been in vain. We should not compromise on fundamental principles. It seems that we must choose between an open-door economy and a closed economy, between open diplomacy and secret diplomacy, and if we choose the former we must realize that it must be based upon faith in each other's pledges. Too often these pledges have been broken. We have compromised on armaments only to find that other nations have not kept their agreements.
With purpose and decision we should plan for a better society. No doubt our society should eliminate poverty and unemployment, and it is within our power to do so. Can we remove these evils; can we hand on the freedom won to the generations that are yet to come?
The Address-Mr. Hay hurst

I shall never forget the time of the recent crisis in London. One day I listened at Hyde Park corner to the speeches of various people. I was particularly interested in the startling remarks of a tall, gaunt, hollow-eyed man who was denouncing Mr. Chamberlain. He said that Mr. Chamberlain had gone to see the barbarian in the barbarian mountains, and that he might have brought back peace, but it was peace with dishonour. It is not for me to pass judgment upon him. Later I visited Westminster, with all its history. Here is the very cradle of our parliamentary institutions. Here the lives of the great men remind us that the administration of the empire or of any part of it has been far from perfect. But where do you find perfection in democratic government, which believes in a maximum of liberty for the individual? This very liberty gives us freedom to do so many things that we are bound to make mistakes somewhere. The administration of the empire, I repeat, is far from perfect. There are many stains on our record -stains on the record of our treatment of the native peoples of Africa-stains on the record of the treatment of our Indians-but these stains are abhorrent to us and we are anxious to wipe them out. We stand for justice, mercy and beneficence. Far from perfect, the record of our parliamentary history will compare favourably with the history of any other people with a different form of government.
It is difficult to find a satisfactory basis of classification of the governments of the world, but in any such classification the parliamentary form of government, imperfect though it be, is still our greatest heritage. Conditions will not remain as they are. We shall have changes. Indeed to-day the great need is to change. We have witnessed the adoption of the federal system of government in Canada and Australia, and have seen the unification of South Africa. The process will not stop there. Science and geography will make us change as the needs arise. Our achievements in the past will urge us on to greater and better liberties, and we shall ease and lift the burdens now borne by many. Every type of civilization, every cause, however hopeless, has always found defenders who would accept martyrdom in its behalf.
In this connection I wish to read a passage from The Things Men Fight For, by H. H. Powers:
But while our preference is not due to the superiority of our civilization, the superiority of our civilization is largely due to our preference. The most ideal civilization would die if its devotees did not passionately prefer it, just as the most perfect species of animal

would perish if it did not cherish and protect its young with unreasoning devotion. Hence our unreasonable preferences as measured by the inherent quality of things, are justified as the only thing that can gi' e our way of life a fighting chance in the great struggle for survival.
It is invidious to make comparisons, and I do not propose to do so. I shall simply say that our ideals are the result of a long and arduous struggle. The yoke on our shoulders has been lightened by the struggles of the past, and now we must hold fast to the intangible things that have made our empire great.
The nations of the world are engaged in a mutual effort to strangle each other by war, by raising tariffs, or by lowering quotas. Every nation is trying to increase its exports but is unwilling to import. The imports of one nation are, however, the exports of another, so that in so far as world imports are reduced world exports are thereby correspondingly reduced. Until, therefore, nations generally are prepared to increase their imports, world imports cannot increase.
The reason for dwindling world trade will accordingly be found when it is discovered why nations wish to reduce imports. The individual merchant is vitally interested to see the removal of the obstacles which each nation places in the way of imports, and a consequent expansion in total world trade. He is personally concerned in the discovery and removal of those causes which have led nations to attempt to restrict imports by means of tariffs, quotas, and exchange restrictions.
The dragon's teeth of discord are being sown in countries of eastern Europe. Will this break down our civilization? Will bitter propaganda kill all originality of mind and creative thought? Will democracy survive? If it will, it must be reinforced. The dark clouds of war are casting their shadows over the world to-day. Italy has struck, Japan has struck, and Spain is experiencing the horrors of internecine strife. It is a grim outlook. Different ideologies are attempting to win converts by brute force. Fascism is the dominant force in many lands. We know that the violent words of Herr Hitler were supported by' a tremendous increase in armaments in Germany. It seemed to anyone in London on that memorable day when the German chancellor delivered his speech that the question was one either of war or of peace. It would not have mattered greatly who had represented the British; he would have had to consider this cold and unpleasant reality- to be or not to be? That was the question. It would be presumptuous on my part to pass judgment on what happened at Munich. I

The Address-Mr. Hay hurst
was in England at the time, and there was both praise and criticism of the Munich pact. The dramatic events which succeeded each other in quick succession are now history. The consequence of the decisions reached by Chamberlain, Bonnet, Hitler and Mussolini will have tremendous results in the destiny of Europe. Our international relations seem to be confused. Our conscience is shocked by reports in newspapers from day to day. The Spanish situation makes us wonder how it will all end. Statements in the press, on the radio or in reviews perplex and confuse us; so we may well pray for guidance in our deliberations.
Has Munich merely postponed the evil day for a day more terrible? What a terrible state of affairs! Look at China; here is the Daily Telegraph's Supplement of June 27, 1938, on China. What does it say?
Ruin and terror in China!
Bombing has maimed and killed thousands, destroying homes and industries.
Burning has wiped out towns, villages, crops and stocks.
Floods have engulfed immense areas of fertile land.
Famine is transforming China's peaceful folk into wandering terror-stricken refugees.
The same applies to Spain. Public indignation in a democracy changes the course of events, sometimes for the worse. It is possible that the public indignation which caused the resignation of Sir Samuel Hoare at the time of the Hoare-Laval plan was primarily responsible for Italy joining Germany.
Timidity and lack of knowledge and foresight have done much in the past few years to allow a handful of men to paralyze whole nations, but we must not despair. We must learn to draw from misfortune the means of future strength. It is the hour, not for despair but for courage, remembering that justice is as important as peace.
The greatest wastage in Canada to-day is the wastage of our youth. The government should give a lead in defining democracy; should tell us plainly what the benefits of democracy are, and should help our young people by means of scholarships or in other ways to become leaders. Democracy can survive only if men and women know what it means. Democracy should work so that our young people will be enthusiastic in its cause.
Regarding the subject of democracy I will take a quotation from Constructive Democracy. Here is a piece by the Marquess of Lothian:
But the weakness of liberal democracy has been-
And this applies also to Canadian Liberalism. -that it has not hitherto been able to establish economic liberty or equality. It gives liberty
to those who can command property or credit to initiate and conduct economic enterprise. But it does not yet give liberty to the man without capital. It is not liberty to be free to look for a job when there is no job to be found. And it is not equality to have access to the multitudinous goods which capitalism puts in the shop window when, through no fault of your own, you have no money in your pocket with which to buy them.
And what of the new Canadians in our land? Our ancestors came from nearly every European country. We have in Canada over 600.000 citizens of Ukranian descent, and they are asking us to take an interest in them. During the past twenty years the Ukrainians have been struggling to establish once more in the Ukraine a motherland which could be called their own. They enjoy democracy and would uphold it in this country. It seems to be the dream of every Ukrainian that they have in Europe a free Ukraine as their motherland. In general they have remained a democratic nation and continue to believe in the liberties of democracy.
I have received several communications from friends of the Ukrainian people, and they are desirous that an impartial Ukrainian viewpoint concerning Ukrainian problems in Europe be given. I have before me a declaration from Ukrainian Canadians and friends regarding the Ukraine. In publishing this declaration the committee hopes, first: to stop false representations of the Ukrainian cause to international opinion as sponsored by some foreign influences, and, second, to provide true information to the British authorities and thus enable the British Empire to take part in a settlement of the Ukrainian question on behalf of her citizens in Canada. This is the declaration of Ukrainian Canadians and friends regarding the Ukraine:
The grave danger to world peace during the European crisis which resulted from internal minority problems in Czechoslovakia, has shown clearly to the powers of Europe, as well as to the rest of the world, that minority problems within the artificial boundaries of post-war European states composed of several nationalities are dangerous sources of strife and are productive of great international conflicts. At this moment, we, the British citizens of Ukrainian origin, enjoying the privileges of free government, feel that it is our supreme duty to raise our voice in the interests of world peace, the British Empire, and a just and permanent solution of the Ukrainian problem. That problem involves the largest subjugated nationality in Europe of to-day. We are supported also by Canadian citizens who, though not of Ukrainian nationality, are friends of Ukrainian liberation.
The Ukrainian problem concerns the vital interests of over forty millions of Ukrainian people, a number equal to the population of France or Italy, who inhabit a solid area of more than one million square kilometers between the Carpathian and the Caucasus mountains in a great arc north of the Black sea.
The Address

Mr. Hayhurst

This entire territory and its people with state traditions dating from 862 A.D. were again united into one sovereign Ukrainian state by the act of January 22nd, 1919, on the basis of the Wilsonian principle of selfdetermination.
Blockaded and attacked from the north by soviet red armies, from the east by the monarchist Russian armies of Generals Denikin and Wrangel, from the west by Poland, and from the south by the armies of Roumania, this newly created power in eastern Europe for three years without support from the great allied powers heroically endeavoured to defend its borders from these enemies and at the same time to check the waves of Russian communism threatening western Europe. However, under the weight of simultaneous and successive blow's of overwhelmingly greater armies, and burdened with the outbreak of a deadly typhoid epidemic, Ukraine finally collapsed before it was able to exert its stabilizing effect upon post-war Europe. This rich Ukrainian state, so important economically and strategically, w'as nevertheless partitioned, its people degraded to the level of "minorities" and divided between the nationally-mixed powers, Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Poland and the Soviet Union. By incorporating considerable parts of the Ukrainian territory and population within their political boundaries, all these states from the very beginning of their existence after the great war and the Russian revolution, became the breeding grounds of dangerous national struggles, oppressions, hatreds and fears, as well as potential sources of a new world war.
During the past twenty years the Ukrainian people, under the four occupant powers have experienced various degrees of cultural, religious, economic and particularly political oppression, including mass pacifications, and famine policies. Not the least of the grievances was the fact that this great nation v'as deprived, through censorship, suppression, and terrorism, of an opportunity to speak freely of its cause in the international forum.
It is for this reason that we, the citizens of Ukrainian origin in the free British Empire, together with the friends of the Ukrainian people in Canada, are moved on behalf of the Ukrainian nation in Europe, to draw to the attention of the British government and other world pov'ers the following points concerning the Ukrainian problem:
1.	In the interest of the balance of power and of a lasting peace in Europe the creation of the Ukrainian sovereign state in the spirit of the acts of January 22nd, 1919, embracing all ethnographically Ukrainian territories, is a historic necessity of wide international significance.
2.	The Ukrainian territories now within the political boundaries of Czechoslovakia, Roumania, Poland and the Soviet Union, must be regarded and dealt with, not as separate minority problems in each case, but as integral parts of the Ukrainian cause as a whole.
3.	To avoid further complications similar to that of the recent European crisis arising from the minority problems of Ceehoslovakia, we strongly urge and earnestly request the great powers, signatories of the Munich pact, to appoint without delay an international commission for the final settlement of the Ukrainian problem in Europe.

Mr. Speaker, we are a country of many races. His Excellency the Governor General in a speech at Halifax said:
The strongest peoples have always been a mingling of races .	.	. but they are only
strong if that mingling is conducted in the proper way. And that proper way is that each accepts and appreciates the qualities of the other.
I shall close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by quoting a few lines from Shakespeare's King Lear:
If that the heavens do not their visible spirits
Send quickly down to tame these vile offences.
It will come,
Humanity must perforce prey on itself,
Like monsters of the deep.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I wish to tender my congratulations to the hon. member who has moved and to the hon. member who has seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I can add nothing to the praise given to them for the manner in which they have fulfilled their task, for no word of mine would add anything to their merit.
During the few years which have elapsed since I was returned as a federal member, it has been my wish that some day, in order that we might enjoy all the better the wonderful speeches delivered in this house, the government, on the recommendation of Mr. Speaker, would provide loud speakers, which would allow those who, like myself, occupy seats in the far corners of the house, to hear better, and to take a more comprehensive view of, the statements of national import made by our legislators. I shall bring up the matter again later on and insist upon it until we succeed in securing that improvement which may seem more or less necessary, but the importance of which is unquestionable.
It is a pleasure for me, Mr. Speaker, to see you presiding again over the debates of this house. The sound judgment which marks your rulings is a great comfort to those who take part in the discussions. May you long remain in the position you occupy; your presence ensures the smooth working of the parliamentary machinery.
I would be remiss in my duty, and my electors, both men and women, would upbraid me if I did not thank publicly the leader of this government (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the sympathy he extended to my constituency on the occasion of the unprecedented disaster which occurred during the night of August 31 to September 1 of last year and which caused such great hardships. The torrential rain which had swollen the Portneuf

The Address-Mr. Gauthier
river had scarcely stopped when we learned that eight human lives had been lost within a radius of about one mile. Two Canadian Pacific Railway employees trapped inside their engine, a mother with her five children swept away by the river which had become a raging torrent; bridges wrecked as if they had been so many toys; dwellings engulfed and carried away like houses of cards, such was the havoc wrought during a single night in the parish of Portneuf. In spite of his heavy duties, the Prime Minister sent us his sympathies that very same night. The people were greatly moved by this splendid gesture of his, and sufferers seemed to regain their spirit.
The government, through the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), who came quite unobtrusively to survey the extent of the losses, extended its help to the stricken municipality.	_
The necessary work is now practically completed and the thanks which I am now extending to the government are well deserved. The action of the Minister of Public Works was very much appreciated by the people. To him also I tender my heartfelt thanks.
I also wish to thank the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) _ for the deep sympathy he has shown, upon his return from Europe, to the sorely tried population of my constituency.
The forthcoming visit of their British majesties to Canada has been, for the last few months, the main topic in the press and among the public men and the whole population of the country. Naturally, our interest is awakened and our curiosity aroused when we realize that the rulers who will be welcomed in this country are the king and queen of Canada, visiting for the first time one of the countries freely associated in the British commonwealth of nations. This democratic gesture does great credit to their majesties; and following the visit of the President of the United States, it is of exceptional significance for the great democracies, and in view of the recent renewal of trade relations, it augurs well for a much more reassuring future and for the realization of a victorious union in the struggle for supremacy between the different nations of the world.
When, from aboard ship, their majesties shall cast their eyes on the Canadian shores, they shall still see the British ensign flying on ships masts and on the house tops the colours of Britain and France as well as those of the head of the Catholic church in the world. However, during their stay in Canada, they will live among a people without a flag. And yet we are a proud people 1 More than ever,
we realize our national responsibilities, we have confidence in our vast resources which, properly used, are such as to make our country entitled to a voice among the nations. However, we Canadians are still without a truly distinctive Canadian flag. I doubt if within the next few weeks to elapse before the arrival of their majesties, we shall have time to reach unanimity of opinion on this matter, in order that we might unfurl a flag which will announce from afar that one is nearing Canada, a truly independent and free nation. We have a long way to go before we are taken seriously and our statements are acknowledged. A flag is only a piece of cloth for the materially minded, but recalls the history of a nation for those who realize all that it stands for.
Although the speech from the throne was severely criticized by some hon. members who saw nothing in it, it contains, however, some very interesting and highly important statements, for instance the government recognizes the necessity of increasing the expenditures for national defence, in view of the world conditions, as well as the need of giving increased attention to the unemployment problem of the country. The assistance given to the youth of the country, worried over the future, shows that the government is determined not to neglect an issue of such importance to our young country. I am greatly concerned by that very consideration which I view from a particular standpoint.
The duty of the government is primarily to provide for those who were born in this country and for those also who, foreign-born, have chosen this country as their land of adoption. Let us hope each and every one of the latter group shall always place the Canadian point of view before any other, and that both these groups of Canadian citizens, in a close and durable unity of purpose, shall help public authorities to improve the economic conditions. Such as have cast a longing look upon our country as the promised land for those who suffer persecution elsewhere, must understand that notwithstanding our spontaneous disapproval of methods which an exaggerated nationalism has inspired, and our deep sympathy for their cause, at the same time, if some of our people can successfully take care of themselves, others must depend on state assistance until better days.
The youth of this country cannot and must not accept any immigration policy tending only, in final analysis, to aggravate their own difficulties. It is not to be wondered at if they have taken the lead in an important movement which can no longer be ignored, which has been rapidly gaining momentum and
The Address-Mr. Gauthier

promises to last indefinitely should we fail to meet their demands. The statement made by the Secretary of State in Montreal last Friday has caused great rejoicing among the younger people. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall quote an article published in Le Canada on January 23rd:
Hon. Mr. Rinfret and Immigration. Commonsense has inspired the federal government's decision not to loosen the restrictions on immigration from Europe. Moreover, it is in accordance with public opinion in the whole country. Hon. Mr. Rinfret, Secretary of State, in the speech which he recently made in Montreal, very ably described the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment.
The minister states:
While we deeply deplore the fate of foreign refugees, particularly of those coming from Germany, our sympathy remains with the people of Canada. We are aware that many of our people are unemployed and that certain elements are not easily assimilated to the French and English population of Canada. And the dominion government has come to the decision, while sympathizing with the foreigners, that the existing statutory restrictions on immigration should be maintained. The dominion has no intention of curtailing present restrictions, so long at least as we still have to cope with unemployment in this country.
The editor of Le Canada goes on:
No doubt the systematic persecution endured by the Jewish race in Germany and Austria is bound to move us to pity, but precisely, the dominion government does not want this problem to grow into a question of sentiment. Both wisdom and properly understood charity require the government to look first after the well-being of our Canadian population.
The attitude of the government -would undoubtedly be altogether different if they could get the assurance that all those who desire to enter Canada could settle on the land and earn a living, but such is not the case. In his remarkable book, Canadian Mosaic, Mr. John Murray Gibbon has noted that the flow of Jewish immigration which made its way to Canada around the year 1880 headed chiefly for Montreal and Toronto where they built up the garment industry. The same thing would happen again to-day and we know that neither of these two cities, affected as they are by unemployment, are prepared to receive additional workmen.
According to the census of 1931, out of 156,000 Hebrews settled in Canada, 794 only were farmers. The greater number were employed in the textile industry.
I endorse the views voiced in this editorial and, on behalf of the youth of my province,
I wish to thank the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) for having dispelled the uncertainty which had been brought into their mind by certain newspapers striving too eagerly for the success of a political party on which they are founding their hopes. I have already stated that I wanted no race in particular to be ostracized. Each one is 
entitled to a living in this Canada of ours; on the other hand, all nations have the right to choose their new citizens, even if radio addresses are broadcast from overseas, even if committees are being set up in our country in order to prove that Canada, in the words of Dr. Wallace, principal of Queen's university, in Kingston:
A free and broadminded country, a country that needs more population, has the privilege to show in a practical way that it thoroughly understands the needs of a suffering people. We must not neglect this opportunity.
Had the distinguished doctor lived a century ago he would not have to join such a movement to know whether Canadians can understand the needs of a suffering people; he would realize that sufferings of others need not be added to our own difficulties.
People ostracized by Germany will have the sympathy of all. We have in our midst hundreds of thousands of citizens of Jewish origin. Would it be in their own interest and would it be practical for them to add to that present considerable number thousands of their brothers? We all agree that agriculture has no inducements for them. And is there one Canadian citizen who could reasonably believe that the greatest need in Canada is not more man-power on the farms?
Before accepting further immigration, whichever it may be, let us lead our own people towards lands which would be productive, but for the lack of settlers. The youth training plan is an excellent idea; it should be multiplied fivefold and constitute the chief concern of our governments. The problem of our youth is far more important than any other now before us. Should we fail to solve it we shall have to resign ourselves either to perish economically or to await the leadership of others more bold and concerned with the famous equal distribution of citizens owing the same allegiance in the different colonies which they inhabit.
Our young people must not be let down. They are ever ready to follow whomever will undertake to lead them out of their distressful state. This government has made a good start. Let them continue in spite of all criticism; the people will be grateful to them.
A second interesting point in the speech from the throne is the government's declared intention actively to pursue the execution of its national defence program. I have already expressed my opinion on this question, saying among other things this: A country of 10,000,000 people stimulated by the fever of war, by enthusiasm for the empire, can raise in a few months a considerable army. Public men categorically opposed to participation in

The Address-Mr. Walsh
foreign wars did vote for the sending of troops to the empire's assistance. Circumstances and events proved stronger than men's wills and Canada did take part in a foreign war.
My opinion has not changed. It has not changed, because the circumstances and events to which I was referring will occur again.
We all know about those press campaigns carefully carried out all over the country, those series of speeches having an effect similar to that of the drop of water regularly falling upon the rock, those manoeuvres conducted in different parts of the country with the certitude that politicians, whose election was brought about by the display of posters showing the piled up corpses from wrecked battleships upon a rocky shore will afterwards take refuge among people known as rabid supporters of participation in all the wars of the empire. Such a campaign as we all know, gradually brings the people to such a frame of mind that they finally accept as a necessity something of which they nevertheless disapprove; all such concerted action will bring about a repetition of events which the true dictator, gold, multiplies seemingly as it likes, and it leads to circumstances which men fail to understand and to which they fall easy preys.
No one entertains any doubt about the necessity of national defence; not even he who now has the floor. To my knowledge, no hon. member from this side of the house questions the sincerity of the clear cut statements made by the leader of the government and his ministers, concerning participation in foreign wars. Those who look at things from a Canadian standpoint only- and it is the one which must be considered- are delighted with his firm stand, frankly and admirably Canadian. That stand will, I believe, be the objective of a campaign, already under way, and not unlike the one .waged from 1910 to 1914. There seems to be in Canada, a keener and more deeply rooted public opinion. I heartily wish that such may be the case, for it will then be a harder task, to-morrow, to oust the successor to the Canadian we lost in 1919. Democracy in danger; the empire in danger-for certain sections of the country; the frustrated rights of the provinces-for some other sections; the revamped nationalist doctrine; everything will be used to discredit the man 'who places Canadian patriotism above everything else.
First, he must be dismissed from the scene, and then we shall witness the repetition of what occurred in 1911, 1914 and 1917. I had that picture in mind when the military esti-71492-20	.
mates were first discussed, and it is now even more vivid and enlarged. When the armaments mongers, having disposed of their abominable wares through a war, shall feel like taking a rest, a new crisis will engulf the whole world and Canada, in common with the other countries, will suffer from the flood of unemployed workers from the war industries thrown back into the ranks of those who will not have been able to find employment elsewhere, and the whole game will start all over again.
The whole world is arming, one might say. Unfortunately, such is the excuse offered by those who live from the blood shed during war times and that excuse has found an echo in many quarters.
I have declined, and still decline to be a party to such a farce meant to draw one's attention away from the world wide tragedy. I prefer to devote myself to other activities and to spend my life in bettering the economic life of my country. I stand for Canada above all, for Canada alone, and for Canada forever.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I shall first congratulate my hon. friend the member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). I can not approve of all his opinions, but he has stated his views to this house in a splendid speech.
(Text) Mr. Speaker, I wish I could go farther in that language without making too manv grammatical errors.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: That is
pretty good.


William Allen Walsh: If I had been placed on a
platform in my constituency I would not hesitate to reply in as good French as I could command to many of the arguments of my good friend the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier).
I should like with other hon. members to offer my sincere congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address, and particularly to the seconder, who spoke so easily in both French and English, and set an example for every Canadian citizen. I should like, too, to extend my congratulations to the new members of the house. Naturally I regret the reason which brought them here, but I am pleased to see that those who have left us apparently have been replaced to good advantage. I hope the new members will soon fit into the atmosphere of the House of Commons and will discharge their duties to the advantage of their constituencies, and to the country in general.

The Address-Mr. Walsh

May I take this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the hon. members who have recently been elevated to the rank of privy councillors. It is gratifying to sit in the house and see one or another of those with whom one has been associating in the ordinary walks of life selected by their political leader for preferment and advancement within their own party. If one may judge from the names and constituencies, it would seem that the Macs have something which some of the rest of us have not, and that a constituency with the suffix "west" may win the favour of a considerable number of people. Entering the house this afternoon I noticed a floral display on the desk of the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Tomlinson). In passing may I congratulate him upon having attained another milestone in life, and may I wish him much joy and happiness as he goes from one milestone to another.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I digress briefly. During the course of the last session there was a somewhat heated debate on a subject centring around the city of Kingston. During the course of that debate I was interrupted by the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser), and in a rather heated reply I used words which might very well be construed as casting a reflection upon his character and reputation. I went to him personally and apologized, and have awaited an opportunity to do so publicly. This is the first opportunity, and may I say here and now that any unworthy ideas or suggestions which could be woven into those words were not intended to be there. I hold the hon. member for Northumberland in the highest esteem and regard, and I believe I do so in common with every hon. member of the house.
It is noticeable that times and conditions of Canada are not good. When times were good and conditions seemed to be improving there was no one on the government side unwilling to take the credit for such improvement. We heard of it in 1937; we heard in 1938 how conditions were improving-and, of course, we were told that conditions were improving only and solely because there was a Liberal government in power in Ottawa. But conditions are not so good to-day. That fact is recognized in the utterances of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and all other hon. members who have taken part in the debate. If the government wishes to take credit in the good years it must of necessity take discredit in the lean years, and must not be 
content to refer to world conditions and suggest that they, as a government, have no responsibility for conditions prevailing in Canada to-day.
If we examine the records of our exports and imports, my reference will be apparent. In 1936 exports were valued at $1,015,000,000; in 1937, $1,110,000,000, and in 1938, $913,000,000, a considerable drop. They still continue to drop, and I have no doubt the report in March, 1939, will not be pleasing to the citizens of Canada. Imports have shown a like tendency. I shall not quote the figures; they speak for themselves and they are already on record. I have noted, too, that revenue returns showed a marked increase in 1936, again in 1937 and again in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1938. If we examine the figures for the year which will end on March 31, 1939, we shall notice that, to the disadvantage of hon. members on the treasury benches, revenues are showing a decided drop. May I point out in passing that this drop is not noticeable, so far as direct taxation on business and industry is concerned. That branch of taxation shows a revenue increase of $20,000,000 to the government. These figures serve to show that despite times which are not good, $20,000,000 more than in previous years has been extracted from business and industry, and it means too, that there is left in business that much less money with which to keep the wheels of industry turning. A government should endeavour to leave in business and industry as much money as possible, because it is that money which keeps industry busy and people employed. But apparently it is the ambition of this government to extract from all sources as much revenue as possible in order to have more money to spend.
I also draw attention to the construction figures for Canada, in order to emphasize the conditions which prevail in this country; and seeing that we were forced to agree last year that conditions were good, and the government claimed credit for that, this year, when conditions are bad, it is only fair to impute the blame to the government. As a further proof of our business recession during the past year I quote the 1937 construction figures, which stood at $304,000,000; in 1938 that figure had dropped to $274,000,000. I call the attention of the house to the paragraph in the speech from the throne in 1938, in which the government says:
It is gratifying to note that, during the past year, there has been a further substantial advance in Canada's economic recovery. Revenues have reached new levels. Trade with other countries has materially expanded.

The Address-Mr. Walsh
There is no such reference in the speech from the throne this year. It is noticeable by its absence; it is absent because times and conditions are not good, and therefore they could not be referred to in the glowing terms which this government liked to use with reference to what had taken place previously, and for which they endeavoured in the past to take credit.
It seems to me that every time there is a discussion of a United States trade agreement it is a bad omen for this country. Conditions in Canada immediately begin to get worse, as we shall notice if we study the trade figures. The benefits that we derived from the empire trade agreements of 1932 have often been emphasized in this house, and those benefits are obvious from the trade figures. But while our trade agreement of 1936 with the United States was followed at first by a substantial increase in trade with that country there was later a substantial decrease, and I want to assure the house from my study of our trade agreements with the United States that this will always be our experience. Our only safe and sure market is the market in Great Britain, the market of the empire, and the least sure market in which we deal at any time is the United States market; for surely that republic will take advantage of every opportunity to encourage trade on behalf of its own people, and we in Canada will suffer in consequence. I feel that this government has sold its birthright, the golden opportunity on which we were launched in 1932, and sold it for something that may look all right on the surface; but when the surface is scratched and we begin to experience the results of the agreement, after it has come into operation, we find that it is impossible for Canada to trade on an equitable basis with the great republic to the south.
In passing I want to lodge my protest against the manner in which this trade agreement was drawn up on behalf of Canada. In the United States they have a regulation that if any tariff items are to be changed or amended by a trade treaty, the industries affected must be advised and given an opportunity to present a brief or to make representations before final action is taken. But a similar situation does not prevail in this country. Our business men and industrialists are kept decidedly in the dark as to what is going on. The only thing they know about the treaty is after it has been signed and is beginning to affect their business, without their having had an opportunity to present their views or to register a protest against the provisions of the treaty. I shall not take further time on the trade treaty because we 71492-205
shall have an opportunity to discuss it at a later date. I hope that every member of this house will take an intelligent, Canadawide point of view in discussing such an important piece of legislation.
Not only do I take this government to task for the condition in which Canada finds herself economically to-day, but I would suggest that the present administration has made absolutely no headway in reducing the expenditures of government. For example, ordinary expenditures in 1936 amounted to $372,000,000, whereas in 1938 they amounted to $414,000,000, and this increase took place despite a saving of several million dollars by a process of refunding. That does not show any economy in expenditure so far as this government is concerned. This government seems to be beset with the idea of raising revenues, collecting the money and increasing the expenditures of government, rather than decreasing the costs of government and leaving in the hands of the taxpayers some money by means of which business can carry on and prosper, and unemployment be made to shrink. I think of that item of ordinary expenditures increasing, and I think of the possibilities of extravagant expenditures being found in the estimates for the coming year. I think of many of what we call in ward politics, " pork-barrel " items, that might appear in the estimates this year, to increase still further this $414,000,000 of ordinary expenditures. I think, too, of the railway deficit of over 150,000,000, and of the outlay of over $60,000,000 incurred through fixing the price for wheat. There are other items to which I could make reference; but surely, Mr. Speaker, in view of the items I have cited and the conditions that prevail in this country, this government, despite the fact that this is most likely an election year, will devise ways and means of presenting to the house estimates that will show a decided shrinkage in the cost of government so far as the dominion is concerned. If this government would set an example in economy, I believe the provincial governments would follow suit, and I believe the municipal governments would follow the lead of the provincial governments. The result would be that we would have decreased costs of all our government services, and the Canadian people would have to pay less in taxation to their various governments.
There is one item to which I wish to make special reference to-night. I am sorry the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) is not in his seat. An item has appeared in the press indicating that the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways has authorized an expenditure of $12,600,000 for work on the terminal or tunnel station at Montreal. To
The Address-Mr. Walsh

my mind this looks very much as though the Canadian National Railways was getting back into politics. We are in an election year, and here is the government getting the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways to make this expenditure of $12,600,000, spread over a period of four years.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Is the hon. gentleman against it?


William Allen Walsh: I will make my position so abundantly clear before I finish my remarks that the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Dupuis) will quite appreciate the point I am making.


Vincent Dupuis: That is no answer.


William Allen Walsh: I am making the suggestion that the Canadian National Railways is getting back into politics, and it is being forced into that position by this present government. The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) during the St. Henry by-election made use of these words:
The government of which I am a part will settle this problem of the Canadian National railway and the level crossings; we will fill the hole on Dorchester street and solve the problem of the approaches thereto.
In that he was supported by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). I have heard in this house so frequently from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) that the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways have been completely divorced from politics; that they are not under the control of the Minister of Transport; that they are not under the control of the government, but that they are an independent body conducting the affairs of that railroad as they would conduct a corporation of their own. Yet we have during the course of a byelection statements of this kind from responsible ministers of the crown in order, with the people's own money, to purchase their support during the course of the election. Now the money is being spent: $12,600,000 of it is being spent, and for no other purpose than to purchase the votes of the electors in and around Montreal, so that this government, which is discredited in other ways, can come back into office, purchasing their way into office on the strength of bringing the Canadian National Railways back actively into politics-which we tried to avoid in 1933.


Vincent Dupuis: And filling holes left by the Tories.


Mr. STEWART:: They did not make the hole.


William Allen Walsh: I ask the question seriously, and I ask the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville to give it serious consideration:

Has the Canadian National Railways got back into politics? Have we gone back to the conditions which prevailed prior to 1932? My answer is yes, and I support that answer by the suggestion that the very first act of this government was to change from a board of trustees to a board of directors. The warnings of the Duff commission were not in any way heeded by the present government. I read, on page 13 of the report of the royal commission to inquire into railways and transportation in Canada, words like these:
Running through its administrative practices, however, has been the red thread of extravagance. The disciplinary check upon undue expenditure, inherent in private corporations because of their limited financial resources, has not been in evidence. Requisitions of the management have been endorsed by governments, and successive parliaments have voted money freely, if not lavishly.
Within the railway organization there has been freedom in expenditure and encouragement in plans for expansion and extension of services which were inconsistent with prudent administrative practice. The administration failed to realize that this country, with the greatest railway mileage in the world in relation to population, could not afford further capital and maintenance expenditures for unwarranted branch lines, for de luxe services, for unrequired hotels, for the building of ships in competitive service to be shortly abandoned; and, generally, for costly adventures in competitive railways out of proportion to the needs of the.country.
I would ask hon. members, Is it the intention of the government to go back on the recommendations of this report, or are they shoving the Canadian National Railways back again into politics? I warn the government that if they do so they will get exactly the results which were experienced in this country from 1920 to 1932, the experience that is warned against in this report, and this country will be brought into a financial condition where our bonds and other securities will not be of the value they were when this government came into office in 1935.
I want to ask the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville if he recalls an item in the Duff report bearing on cooperation. If there is one place in the worid where these two railways can cooperate, it is in terminal facilities. Everyone, even the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, knows that terminal facilities are not a paying proposition. Terminals are an expense, and if there is one place where railways can cooperate and where they do cooperate, it is in the matter of railway terminal facilities.


Vincent Dupuis: May I be allowed to answer that question now?


Walter Edward Foster: Order.

The Address-Mr. Walsh


Vincent Dupuis: The Minister of Transport said-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


William Allen Walsh: I want to continue.


Vincent Dupuis: -the union station will be built there-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


William Allen Walsh: I am always willing to have anyone ask a question.


Vincent Dupuis: The hon. member asked a question.


William Allen Walsh: But I do not want hon. members to make speeches at the expense of the few minutes I have left. I want to read from page 65 of the Duff report:
We have emphasized the fact that a principal weakness of the past decade has been the failure of the railways to act together in their own interests and in the interests of the public. It is not enough that each should take all practicable measures of economy in respect of its own system. There must be joint action with a view to savings in the wider sphere.
I could go on to the next paragraph of that report, but time is short. I just wanted to use that to show hon. members that the Duff commission, after a careful study', presented a report urging cooperation, and that we in parliament at a later date, in 1933, in the Statutes of Canada 1932-33, chapter 33, sections 16 and 17, incorporated that principle, urging cooperation. I say again, and it cannot be repeated too often, that if there is one place in the whole system of these railways where cooperation could be effective without detriment to either railway and without any detriment to the people of this country, it is in railway terminals and terminal facilities. Yet this government are condoning the action of the directors of the Canadian National Railways in going ahead with this expenditure of $12,600,000. I ask this government, where does cooperation fit in with their railway policy? Have they any railway policy which is going to assist this country in curbing its $50,000,000 deficit? Do hon. members ever stop to appreciate the significance of that deficit? Practically one million dollars of our taxes is going every week to provide for the deficits of the Canadian National Railways. Yes despite that condition they are burdening the railway further with this terminal site expenditure of $12,600,000.
And that is not all, Mr. Speaker. I turn to the Palmer report. On page 9 you will find these figures, figures which show an estimated cost of $46,000,000. They have already spent S18,000,000; the balance left to complete the work is $28,000,000. The proposal is to spend
$12,600,000 during the next four years. This leaves another $15,400,000 to be spent at a later date, most likely just before another election, if this government is able to buy its way back into power at the close of the present session of parliament.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Money cannot save them.


William Allen Walsh: Bear in mind that these are only estimated figures; they are not final; if we have anything to go by in past estimates, government figures for government projected expenditures are very far beside the mark, and this balance of $15,000,000 which is left to be spent will doubtless be expanded to thirty or forty million dollars before that tunnel station is complete.
We have as an example of government estimating, the building of a harbour bridge in Montreal, where the estimate was $9,000,000 the final figure was $18,000,000. No doubt the tunnel station will fall into the same category. Why should there not be a union station in the city of Montreal? There are union stations at Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Ottawa, Toronto, and other cities throughout Canada. That plan has been adopted in most of the large cities in the United States in order to save expense to the railways, and it has also been adopted in European countries. Why can we not adopt it in Canada? It would not be detrimental to either railway to have a union station in Montreal.
Again, would it not be' wise definitely to settle the railway and transportation problem in Canada before launching upon such an extravagant expenditure for something that will possibly block the future as far as Montreal is concerned and prevent our ever having union station facilities for the railways and the public travelling in and out of Montreal?
I was going to suggest that if the government is doing this work as a relief measure there are many other relief measures that could be adopted in Montreal. There are many others that would bring greater glory to the city of Montreal than the filling of that hole by a tunnel station. The tunnel station work already done there could be used to advantage for the building of a civic centre, a road approach from Victoria bridge into that hole in the ground. It could be used as an entrance and exit for buses and a tram service to parts of Montreal, and the $18,000,000 would not be at all lost. I repeat, the work already done could be used to advantage. If it is really a relief measure, then I think of those huge buildings I have spoken of on another occasion, referred to as the university of Montreal. That project is unfinished, unused. An opportunity exists
The Address-Mr. Walsh

there for a government to do a really useful piece of work for the general uplift of the whole community, because from that expenditure untold benefits could be derived through the establishment, in the way of a return on the money that might be spent, of scholarships that would enable our j'oung men to attend that university from every point in Canada. Also young French-Canadians who cannot afford it at the present time could take advantage of further education in that institution. Money spent in that way would not be ill-spent.


Vincent Dupuis: It was flatly refused by the previous administration.


William Allen Walsh: I am afraid that this government is so intent on politics that it forgets the ultimate good of Canada. Politics seems to be an obsession with this government. Why, they cannot even appoint returning officers without having politics as the predominant factor in their consideration. I had spoken to the Secretary of State about a returning officer in my division, a returning officer who was there in 1926. He was reappointed by the government in 1930 and in 1935. I had half a promise that he would be left there because he was a competent man, but he has been removed and in his place what name do I find? I find the name of the chief organizer of my Liberal opponent. He has been appointed returning officer for the constituency of Mount Royal, a position which is supposed to be held by an unbiassed public servant. I am given to understand that mine is only one example; very many others could be quoted along the same line.
There is only one other phase of government I should like to touch on in conclusion, and that is the condition we find in Canada on account of lack of cooperation on the part of this government. A complete lack of unity exists and is all too apparent. While visiting in Charlottetown I read on a tablet erected in confederation room these words:
In the hearts and the minds of the delegates who assembled in this room on September 1, 1864, was born the Dominion of Canada. Providence being their guide, they builded better than they knew.
It has been left to a Liberal government practically to undo what the fathers of confederation have done. Just take a glance over the political map of Canada and you will readily see to what I have reference. This government is not on speaking terms with the government of Alberta-not through any fault of the Alberta government. Because they were not a government after the complexion of this administration, this administration refused to consider with the Alberta

government the question of taking care of a loan that became due. It had, in my opinion, a political motive in view. That should never have been. No dominion government should allow any provincial government to fall down on the repayment of any loan secured from the public. This government says it was impossible to deal with the premier and the provincial treasurer of Alberta. I say that it was not only possible, but that it was the duty of this government to do so. It was the duty of this government to bring the premier and the treasurer of Alberta to Ottawa and to lock themselves in a room with those gentlemen and say, "We will go out of this room when this question is settled satisfactorily both to you and to ourselves." The province of Alberta had as much right to fair treatment from this government as any other provincial government in Canada. That was the beginning of a very sharp antagonism between the province of Alberta and the dominion government at present holding office.
Then we come to the older provinces of Ontario and Quebec. With regard to the present discord let me read a statement made by one of the ministers in the course of a speech. In supporting the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) said:
I subscribe most heartily to everything which Mr. Rogers has stated with regard to the alliance which exists between Premiers Hepburn and Duplessis and also with regard to the altogether deplorable effort which has been made to bring about the retirement of Premier Mackenzie King as leader of the Liberal party -a move very clearly intended to establish a government at Ottawa which would be subject to the joint control of provincial administrations in Toronto and Quebec and which as such would constitute the very antithesis of responsible government under the accepted federal system. Subterfuge must be uncovered, selfishness must be blasted asunder. We must make our stand on the solid foundation of national unity.
Do words of that sort bring about national unity? I say that such words, the irresponsible utterances of responsible ministers, create a condition which it is impossible for this government to remedy. Unity in the Dominion of Canada will never again be a recognized fact as long as the present government holds office.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is only another year.


William Allen Walsh: I could go further in reading this, but the time is short. I was surprised at the bizarre utterances of these two ministers. It was a terrifying story that they had to tell at Port Arthur. These details of a conspiracy that they were going to unfold to a waiting public have not yet been told.

The Address-Mr. Brunelle
If we read such a story from Germany or Italy we would think something sinister was taking place. These responsible ministers speak of a conspiracy in this country; do they understand the terms they are using? Do they understand that national unity can never be brought about in this country by responsible ministers of the crown making such bizarre utterances? I verily thought that the days of Guy Fawkes had returned and that we had better place additional guards in the corridors and cellars of these parliament buildings to protect ourselves and even the members of this government from what might happen in the course of this conspiracy as it was being hatched. Both of these ministers have already spoken in this debate; yet we have had no unfolding of the details of this conspiracy. It is rather a bold charge. Subterfuge must be uncovered, they say; selfishness must be blasted asunder, intrigue and conspiracy must cease to flourish; yet they have given us no details. I think hon. members should demand an explanation. Men occupying high public office have had their names connected with such sinister expressions; yet we have had no explanation either in this house or in public. They go further, suggesting that the premier of Ontario and the premier of Quebec might even be conspiring with the leader of this party to get rid of this government. That is going rather too far. The object is a worthy one, but I am sure that these two premiers are not at the present time in any conspiracy -with the leader of the Conservative party here to overthrow the present government by the means suggested by the two ministers. Certainly the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) is anxious to overthrow the present government, by constitutional means-


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


William Allen Walsh: I just want to finish one
thing.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let him finish.


Walter Edward Foster: By unanimous consent
of the house.


William Allen Walsh: Surely the leader of the
opposition cannot be drawn into a conspiracv to get rid of the present government. To get rid of it is his duty; he is paid to do that work, but he is going to do it by educating and enlightening the public, not by associating himself with people who enter into conspiracies. It reminds me very much of Lie condition we had in Quebec prior to 1936, when the Taschereau government had outlived its usefulness. During the last two or three years of their existence, whenever any criticism was directed against them they haughtily suggested that the province of Quebec was being assailed. There was some indication of that attitude in the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); he took us to task for not going from one end of Canada to the other to tell what this government had done for the people of Canada, which he said it was our duty to do. Although we criticize the government we are no less loyal to Canada than is the Prime Minister. We shall continue to criticize, believing that we are acting in the best interests of the people of Canada; we are trying to stir up this government to solve at least some of the major problems with which Canada is confronted.
In conclusion I agree with the statement of the premier of Ontario when he said:
I am very optimistic with regard to Ontario, but' I am most pessimistic over the condition in which we find the affairs of the dominion.
And further:
I would suggest that Mr. King lift the blinds of his summer retreat at Kingsmere, peek out, and then go back and hibernate again. It strikes me that's about all he has been doing the last four years, and he might as well continue.
On this side of the house we are in hearty agreement with those sentiments, although we cannot always agree with the person who gave utterance to them.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the several hon. members who have so justly praised the mover (Mr. Matthews) and seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Also I congratulate the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) for their recent appointment as ministers of the crown. It is also a pleasant duty to felicitate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon the honour which was conferred on him when he was chosen as leader of the Conservative party and leader of the opposition. I wish him courage and patience.
Before I came to Ottawa for this session I heard a great many contradictory comments about the leader of the opposition. I even heard it said that he is a self-made man. Of course I reserved my judgment. But when I listened to his speech last week and saw the rather rude way in which he was treating the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who is usually so kind and considerate of his political opponents, I did form my opinion; I came to the conclusion that the leader of the opposition is a self-made man, and thus Providence
The Address-Mr. Brunelle

escaped a great responsibility. Many hon. members of this chamber knew him and sat with him in this house in previous sessions. It was therefore particularly interesting for a new member like myself to listen to the three-hour speech that he made at the beginning of last week. I dare say new members could not help thinking that he is capable of saying a great many things. I expected in the first place that he would refer to the different reforms which he wishes to bring about in this country. I expected also that, he would make a new declaration as to immigration, those fifty or seventy-five million people whom he wishes to bring to this country, as stated by himself at the meeting which he held in Toronto in July shortly after he was chosen as leader of the Conservative party. Let me read the report which I saw in Le Devoir of July 22, shortly after that meeting:
R. J. Manion in favour of immigration. There is room in this country, he said, for 50 to 75 million people. If we adopt a -wise immigration policy, there is no limit to the future development of the Canadian nation.
That statement, of course, was quite consistent with the program-


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but neither do I wish to be misrepresented. I have not advocated the bringing of immigrants into this country, during the past eight or nine years, at any place or at any time, and if any newspaper states that I have done so it is telling a falsehood.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Well, Mr. Speaker, the report I just read from Le Devoir apparently came from the Canadian Press. The leader of the opposition should not blame me for reading the newspapers as they are; he should blame the newspapers for publishing what he said instead of what he meant.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. After I have made a statement of fact that hon. gentleman has no right to imply that I am telling a falsehood. That is what he is suggesting by the remark he just made, and I object to any implication of that sort.
I know it has been stated in the province of Quebec, in some of the newspapers, that I advocated immigration, and a man there named Bouchard has stated many falsehoods about me in that connection. I want to say again that I have never, at any time since the depression of 1929, advocated bringing in immigrants. Before that we all did.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member should take the word of the leader of the opposition when he states that he did not advocate that policy.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I will take the word of the leader of the opposition, but I must read the newspapers as I find them, and this news was supplied by the Canadian Press. Later, in the city of Quebec, it seems that the hon. gentleman changed his mind, at least again according to the newspapers. There he stated that he was opposed to immigration. For his satisfaction allow me to read a passage from Le Nouvelliste, of Three Rivers:
Dr. Manion, the leader of the Conservative party, declared last night his categorical opposition to the admission of immigrants to this country when there are so many unemployed Canadians.
I hope the hon. member will accept that.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I accept that fully.


Vincent Dupuis: In Quebec only?


Robert James Manion: No, the attitude is the same everywhere.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: According to what I read in the newspapers it would seem that the leader of the opposition is quite in accord with the principles of that southern politician, to which he referred the other day in these words: "Them's my principles, but if you don't like them I can change them." The fact is that the Conservative party is pledged to a policy of immigration. Allow me to read from the platform of the Conservative party, adopted at the convention held last July in the city of Toronto:
In order to ensure a continuance of the British connection and Canadian participation in the benefits that accrue from membership in the British commonwealth of nations and the economic welfare and safety of Canada, this party recognizes the immediate necessity of our government's approaching the government of the United Kingdom and discussing and deciding upon a policy for the selected migration of British families from Great Britain and Ireland under a carefully prepared plan whereby ample and proper provision will be made for British finance and supervision and the return of families found unable to fit into the national and economic life of Canada; and be it further understood that similar advantages be extended to France.
To confirm this view the right hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett), at a banquet tendered to him in the city of Toronto on the 16th of this month, declared:
It is urgent that Canada's gates be opened to immigrants. . . . Canada should welcome newcomers to help develop the raw materials possessed here in such abundance.
The leader of the Conservative party in the senate also was present and apparently gave his blessing to that statement. When the platform of the Conservative party is in favour of a policy of immigration; when all

The Address-Mr. Brunelle
the leaders of the Conservative party state that they are in favour of a policy of immigration-


Robert James Manion: Except the leader himself.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Except the leader himself'-it makes it hard for the people to understand the position.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps that might be
cleared up. I am the leader of the Conservative party.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Was the choice of the new leader of the Conservatives a success? Was the Conservative platform adopted last July a success? Probably the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon) could tell us something very interesting if he cared to speak his mind. Be that as it may, however, let me read what was written, by a writer in Toronto Saturday Night who signs himself "Rideau Bank," and who is well known to have Conservative tendencies, with regard to the new platform of the party now led by the hon. member for London.


William Allen Walsh: If I might ask the hon.
member a question, from whom did he get his information that "Rideau Bank ' was a known Conservative?


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Well, it is sufficient that I should state it.


William Allen Walsh: I may inform the hon. gentleman that he is not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: I quote:
It is permissible to suggest that the conclave of federal Toryism just ended heralds the decline of a once great party to the status now occupied by Liberalism in Great Britain. This view is based less upon the selection of Dr. Manion as a leader, than it is upon the almost incredibly weak and innocuous program which the master minds of the party drafted as a platform. The chief defect of the new platform is its failure to express any definite political philosophy .	.	. the strategy of
course, is to avoid having a definite platform which will invite attack, and to win on the mistakes that the Liberal government may be expected to make. In other words, the game which the Conservative convention played politically was the old game of "Ins" vs. "Outs."
Speaking for my constituents, [DOT] sir, I say I am opposed to immigration. Let our abundant raw materials be developed and exploited by our own Canadians who are now without work. I congratulate the government upon not allowing the entry of immigrants into Canada. I congratulate the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) upon the statement he made recently in the city of Montreal, to the effect that the government was not in favour
of amending the restrictions in regard to immigration. I want to be placed on record as one who objects strongly to the entry of Jews, en masse or otherwise, into our country. I hasten to say that I have no brief against the Hebrew race; but since through all the ages they have been the cause, justly or unjustly, of great difficulties in various countries, I say we must take care. History repeats itself. I have deep sympathy for the Jews who are now being persecuted in certain countries of Europe; I think their situation is deplorable; but at the present time in our own country we have thousands of fellow citizens whose situation is also deplorable, and I believe that charity begins at home. I do not want one job in Canada to be taken by an immigrant, be he a Jew or otherwise, so long as we must spend money for relief. It is known by all hon. members that for the most part Jews inhabit only the cities and towns. If they are admitted they will either find jobs or be thrown on relief. We have at present too many people on relief, and if there are jobs available they should be given to our fellow citizens. I dislike reading press reports to the effect that the government in London or some English societies wish to assist the Jews by sending them to the colonies-and in that statement they include Canada. May I point out that we are not a colony. To preach charity and generosity, and then to practise those virtues at the expense of someone else is not a worthy procedure.
I now approach a more pleasant subject. May I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the treaty with the United States he signed in 1935, and upon the one signed more recently. A greater trade within Canada and a greater exchange of goods with other nations will help to solve unemployment. At the risk of repeating what other members have said. I would point out that the exchange of goods between nations will help primary and secondary producers and will give more employment to a greater number of people. New industries will establish themselves in Canada, as it becomes known that their products can be exported to other countries. It is in great part on account of the fiscal and commercial policy of this government that a new industry called International Foils has erected a large plant in my native city of Cap de la Madeleine. The entire production of the plant is to be exported. Could that industry have established itself in Canada if there had been no exportation facilities or the possibility of exchanging its products for other articles which Canadians require?
The problem of unemployment will be at least partly solved if we have a sufficient
30G
The Address-Mr. Brunette

number of new industries in Canada. Another partial solution lies in the exploitation of our natural resources, the greatest of which is agriculture. There is plenty of unbroken land awaiting cultivation and occupation. Let the provincial governments, which control colonization, undertake a serious back-to-the-land movement. Let them pay the unemployed to improve our unbroken lands and thereby make them attractive, remunerative and suitable for settlers. Large areas of partly improved land are to be found in several of the older and more settled districts. Those lands are lying idle and unproductive, despite the fact that there are highways, railways, schools and churches to be used by settlers who would need only a little assistance for purposes of exploitation. I feel so certain that a real back-to-the-land movement is urgent that I never miss an opportunity to speak about it.
The fact that I prepared this speech on the train may have directed my thoughts to the situation as regards railway station accommodation in the city of Montreal. I have thought, too, of the large sums of money the railways have cost Canada. My mind goes back to the millions of dollars which are about to be spent on the erection of a Canadian National Railway terminus in Montreal. If we must do work to relieve unemployment-and I think we must-it is urgent to choose the most useful way of spending public funds. Until the contrary has been shown to me, I shall hold that we should make a union station out of the present Windsor station to serve the western part of Montreal, another union station out of the present Viger station to serve the east end of the city, and eliminate that miserable and pitiful stopping place now known as Moreau station. I shall say no more on the subject and shall be content to await the views of my colleagues representing the city of Montreal.
On motion of Mr. Euler the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, January 25, 1939