1939-01-27

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Baker	MeCuaig
Barry	Plaxton
Bercovitch	Poole
Bertrand (Prescott)	Pottier
Brunelle	Rowe
Denis	(Dufferin-Simcoe)
Fleming	Rutherford
Heaps	Thauvette
Leclerc	Thompson
MacLean (Cape Breton Turgeon North-Victoria)	Turner-20.
(Quorum 8)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Black (Mrs.)
Brasset
Brooks
Brunelle
Clark (Essex South) Cote
Deslauriers
Farquhar
Ferron
Gauthier
Green
Hanson
Kinley
Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane)
MacLean (Prince) MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) MaeNeil
McAvity
McCulloch
McDonald (Souris)
Michaud
Neill
Pelletier
Pottier
Reid
Rickard
Robichaud
Stirling
Taylor (Nanaimo)
Telford
Tomlinson
Tustin
Veniot
Ward
White-35.
(Quorum 10)

Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Black (Mrs.)
Blais
Bradette
Brooks
Clarke (Rosedale)
Cochrane
Crerar
Crete
Esiing
Earquhar
Ferguson
Hamilton
Hanson
Hartigan
Hay hurst
Hill
Hurtubise
Hyndman
Johnston (Bow River) Lacroix (Beauce) Little
MacKenzie (Neepawa)
MacLennan
MacMillan
MacNicol
MeCallum
McDonald (Pontiac) O'Neill
Parent (Quebec West and South) Patterson Roberge Stevens Sylvestre Taylor (Nanaimo) Tremblay-35.
(Quorum 10)

[Stage Direction]
Barry
Black (Mrs.) Blackmore Church Crete
Deslauriers
Dubuc
Gladstone
Grant
Hartigan
Homuth
Howard
Howden
Isnor
Jean
Lacroix (Quebec-Montmorency) Ledue
Messieurs:
Lennard
Maclnnis
MacKenzie (Neepawa)
MacNicol
McAvity
McGeer
McIntosh
Mclvor
McLean (SimcoeEast)
Martin
Massey
Mayhew
Neill
Rogers
Rowe (Athabaska) St-Pere
Taylor (Nanaimo) Tucker-35.
(Quorum 10)
[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Cote
Esiing
Finn
Gauthier
Hill
Lawson
MacKinnon
(Edmonton West)
McIntosh
McNevin
(Victoria, Out.) Mitchell Pinard Pouliot-12.
(Quorum 7)
PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the part of the Commons) Messieurs:
Barry
Bertrand (Laurier)
Casselman
Chevrier
Damude
Davidson
Denis
Douglas (Weyburn) Dussault
Elliott (Kindersley)
Esiing
Evans
Ferron
Fleming,
Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemount) Gauthier Green Hansell Hurtubise Hushion Jean Kirk
Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane)
Ledue
Lennard
Little
Maclnnis
MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) MacLean (Prince) McGregor McIntosh McKenzie
(Lambton-Kent)
McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.) Marsh Marshall Mills Moore Mullins
Mulock
Mutch
Pinard
Purdy
Reid
Ross (St. Paul's)
Ross (Middlesex East)
Rutherford
St-Pfere
Taylor (Nanaimo)
Thompson
Tucker
Tustin
Veniot
Weir
Winkler-54.
LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT (Members to act on the Mr. Speaker
Ahearn
Blackmore
Blair
Blanchette
Bonnier
Bothwell
Bouchard
Bradette
Brasset
Cameron
(Hastings South) Casselman
Clark (York-Sunbury) Duffus Emmerson Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemount) Grant Green Hamilton Hyndman Johnston
(Lake Centre)
Kuhl
Lennard
part of the Commons) and Messieurs:
Maclnnis
MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) MacLennan MacXeil Maephail (Miss) MeCallum Mallette Martin Moore Mutch
Parent (Quebec West and South)
Parent (Terrebonne)
Raymond
Reid
Rennie
Ross (St. Paul's)
St-Pere Spence Walsh Winkler Young-44.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the standing committees of this house shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the house and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. leader of the

European Situation-Correspondence
opposition (Mr. Manion) inquired some days ago as to the possibility of publishing correspondence between the British and Canadian governments dealing with the international situation of last September. The hon. member stated that he excluded confidential information. In reply I stated that I should be glad to communicate with the British government to ascertain to what extent if at all they considered the correspondence should be made public. I added that it would be realized that the correspondence in question contained references to other countries, and it was not the practice to produce correspondence of this nature.
I at once communicated to the British government the substance of the question and answer. I now have a reply, which indicates that in the view of the government of the United Kingdom the telegrams in question, so far as they have not been published, belong to a class of correspondence which it has generally been agreed could not be published without detriment to the system of full exchange of information between his majesty's governments on foreign affairs. I can only say that on review of the documents in question I concur in this view.
It will be recalled that an extensive compilation of documents on the Czechoslovak crisis was issued by the government of the United Kingdom as a white paper, and presented to the parliament at Westminster on September 28. The same collection was printed and made public on the same day in Canada. The government thought that hon. members would wish to have this information at once, so the document containing the correspondence as compiled and printed was mailed to all members of parliament. Additional copies are available if desired. They can be had from the Department of External Affairs.
I now table the white paper as issued in Canada.
It may be of interest to the house to know that there was a comment in a leading Paris newspaper, Le Temps, regarding the French version of the 'white paper in question, to the effect that it was interesting that the most complete version in French of the official documents bearing on the crisis had been issued at Ottawa rather than at Paris.



TRADE AGREEMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might also answer another question of the hon. leader of the
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
opposition (Mr. Manion) in respect to the preliminary correspondence relating to the trade agreements. An examination of the files of official correspondence with the government of the United Kingdom concerning the trade negotiations with the United States has confirmed my impression that we could not reasonably request the government of the United Kingdom to agree to the publication of that correspondence which, in accordance with established usage, has been treated as confidential.
By way of explanation I might add, in the first place, that the original United Kingdom approach to the government of Canada in the matter was paralleled by similar and simultaneous inquiries of other empire governments as to whether they would severally agree to facilitate the successful conclusion of the contemplated trade negotiations between the United Kingdom and the United States by concurring in the requisite modifications of certain margins of preference guaranteed in their agreements with the United Kingdom. Publication of such preliminary correspondence would therefore require the consent, not only of the government of the United Kingdom but of all the other empire governments concerned.
Secondly it may be observed that the understanding finally reached between Canada and the United Kingdom regarding the extent to which they were each prepared to agree to modifications in the margins of preference which they respectively enjoyed in the markets of the other country was effected by the exchange of letters between the High Commissioner for the United Kingdom and myself, which have been tabled as an annexed document to the Canada-United States trade agreement. This understanding was arrived at in the course of the prolonged and complicated negotiations which Canada and the United Kingdom were simultaneously conducting with the United States. It represents the outcome of a confidential correspondence between governments, supplemented by discussions from time to time during the year that led up to the signing of the trade agreements.
In the light of these explanations it will, I trust, be understood why the government does not feel itself in a position to table any of the preliminary correspondence requested.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: I am not going to presume to express any view regarding the question of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), who is absent to-day, but one point occurs to me which I think is important. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) referred to or

Trade Agreements-Correspondence
declared that there had been a definite request by the British government, and it seems to me that when a reference such as that is made in the house, under the rules we are entitled to the particular document upon which such statement is based. As a fact disclosed in the statement is of very great importance in coming to a proper understanding of the whole agreement, I think that document at least should be tabled. For the moment I am not saying anything further with regard to the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); we will leave that until the leader of the opposition returns, but I would like to direct the Prime Minister's attention to that particular document.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I recall
what was said by the Minister of Agriculture, and possibly he could verify this, I did not understand that he was quoting from any document at all. I agree with my hon. friend that no hon. member should quote from a document unless he is prepared to table the document itself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my right hon. friend will permit me, I did not say the minister quoted from the document. He made the statement that the government of Canada had been requested by the British government to do certain things, which I contend brings it under the rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think there is anything to add to the statement I have just given the house. I think it answers the question of my hon. friend and makes it quite clear that there were requests made on the part of the British government not to the government of Canada alone but to other governments of the British empire. Undoubtedly it would be that request that would be referred to by the Minister of Agriculture.


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: In connection with the 'statement just made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). Speaking the other day he said:
Our preference is suspended only until such time as the treaty between United States and Great Britain may be terminated.
He was asked:
Is that stated in any British agreement, in black and white?
Then he referred to the fact that it was in the exchange of notes between Canada and the United Kingdom. Does that therefore fall within the category referred to by the Prime Minister, and may we not be informed as to the details?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I should think not; I believe that could be very well tabled when the agreement itself comes up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is already a part of the correspondence tabled.



FOREIGN PROPAGANDA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: According to a statement made in one of a series of articles published by the Winnipeg Tribune-
A direct tie-up between German government officials and Nazi propaganda in Manitoba is revealed by records in the office of the provincial secretary of Manitoba-
Does this statement, with the accompanying evidence, (1) indicate that the present and previous German consuls have exceeded their diplomatic privileges; and (2) warrant an official investigation into such subversive activities in Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind enough to give me a copy of his question before the house met, together with a copy of the Winnipeg Tribune which contains the evidence, so called, to which the question refers. I am sorry that I have not had time to look through the Tribune; therefore I am not in a position to answer my hon. friend's question categorically to-day; but I would say to him that activities of the kind to which he refers in his question have been drawn to the attention of the government from time to time and have been and are being investigated. Some time later I shall have a statement to make to the house on the matter, but I think that is as far as I can go at the moment.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: In view of the fact that it is almost February 1 and the farmers in western Canada will soon require their seed for the 1939 crop, would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) make a statement as to when he proposes to bring in a measure which will provide for the supplying of seed; and will he assure the house that there will be no delay in furnishing the seed this year, as there was last year?
The Address-Mr. Golding

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I think my lion., friend knows that is scarcely a proper question to address to the government on the orders of the day. Does my hon. friend mean that there is a situation which demands dominion financing, in the same manner that was adopted a year ago? The hon. gentleman implies that such is the case, but I have no evidence that there is any condition as serious as that which warranted the action taken a year ago.


Ernest Edward Perley: Would the minister inform the house, then, if he has had any requests from the provincial governments, from any associations or municipalities or from other bodies, with respect to seed?


Mr. DUNNING:: Such requests might not come to me, but in any case I have had none personally.



DOMINION ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: I
should like to ask the government from what political group or groups the 245 returning officers recently appointed were chosen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend
will have to find that out for himself.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 26, 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. Woods-worth.
Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to extend to my hon. friend the leader of the official opposition in this house (Mr. Manion) my sincere congratulations upon having been chosen for that important position. I congratulate him also upon his recent election and his reentry into this house. The party of which he is now leader has had a great deal to do with the shaping of the history of this dominion, and it is a very high honour to be chosen as its leader. The hon. gentleman is an aggressive exponent of his party's cause, and I know he will put forth his best efforts to lead it to victory. The first time I came into personal contact with the force of his aggressiveness was during my own by-
[DOT] 
election campaign in Huron South in 1932; and I want to go on record now as expressing the hope that in the years to come his aggressiveness will meet with the same success that it met with on that occasion.
Then, too, with all others who have spoken I want to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the motion now before the house. Both these hon. gentlemen made excellent, constructive speeches, and they are deserving of all the congratulations which have been offered during the course of this debate.
I should like also to extend my congratulations to the two hon. gentlemen who were recently appointed to the cabinet. I believe that both these hon. members will fulfil the duties of the offices to which they have been assigned, and will prove to be a credit to their constituencies, to the government, and to the country.
Then, too, on behalf of the citizens whom I have the honour to represent, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing to Their Majesties the King and Queen the appreciation of the people of my constituency for their having graciously consented to visit our country in the coming summer. I believe this is the first time in the history of Canada that royalty will have visited our shores, and I can assure them that from the people of the counties of Huron and Perth they will receive a loyal welcome.
I am sure everyone interested in the welfare of Canada must have been deeply impressed with the full and able presentation of our whole general situation which was so splendidly made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his very excellent address, and by the other members of the government who have spoken in this debate. It must be gratifying to every hon. member and to all the citizens of Canada to know that notwithstanding many disturbing and serious factors which have arisen in the last year and a half, Canada has maintained a steady position. I am glad to know this, because I have been interested in seeing each of the cabinet ministers make a success of the administration of his particular department. I believe that is the desire which has been widespread throughout Canada. Indeed shortly after the last federal election, when the personnel of the cabinet was announced by the Prime Minister, there seemed to be general satisfaction and a feeling that a body of studious and reliable men had been selected to canyon the business of our country. Indeed the announcement was received with general approval, because it was felt that in the cabinet we had a group of men who knew

The Address-Mr. Golding
conditions in Canada and who could be relied upon to deal with them in a sound, sensible and businesslike way. Now, after a little more than three years in office, the confidence in the ministry is greater than it was when they received their appointments, with the result that during the past three years business men throughout Canada have confidently endeavoured to extend their business, in order to restore prosperity to our country, and to overcome the feeling of pessimism and hopelessness which had settled over us after a taste of a depression which, I believe we all agree, was unprecedented. I believe the confidence which has been so apparent is attributable in no small degree to the splendid way in which Canada's business has been managed by the Prime Minister and his worthy colleagues. If one had the time to deal with each department he would find that these ministers have worked early and late, keeping a close watch over all the activities of their departments, in order to give Canada a sound business administration, and also to prove themselves worthy of the confidence reposed in them by the Prime Minister.
In the past three years we have followed the visits of our ministers to other countries. In a quiet and effective way they have been endeavouring to arrange trade agreements with this and that country, making it perfectly plain that they are willing to buy as well as to sell in order to restore our trade, and thus endeavouring to improve the position of our agriculturists and our industrialists, and to assist in removing one of our greatest problems, namely unemployment. Time will not permit me to deal with each department separately and to say what I should like to say about the Prime Minister and each of his cabinet colleagues. I do take this opportunity, however, publicly to express my confidence in them, to congratulate them upon their success so far and to give them full credit for what they have been able to accomplish in a little more than three years in this parliamentary term. Particularly do I extend my congratulations to those who are serving in the government for the first time.
In this debate I believe hon. members are permitted to deal with the general situation in Canada. In the few moments at my disposal I wish to refer particularly to our financial position, and to our position in connection with trade. May I first congratulate our good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) upon his restoration to health, and also upon the accuracy of his budget forecasts in the past three years. I believe that
in the Minister of Finance the government is fortunate in having the right man in the right place, and that under his supervision the financial affairs of Canada will be well and faithfully guarded.
I know that at the present time under the circumstances which exist the government is being compelled to make expenditures that it would be very glad not to make. But in view of the tremendous burden of taxation and debt we are now struggling to carry it becomes the duty of every hon. member to rally to the support of the Minister of Finance, to help him in his effort to practise economy and thus relieve our people of some of their burden. I believe the time has come, indeed it is long overdue, when the federal government and all other governing bodies in Canada will have to be more considerate and adopt policies more generous to the taxpayer.
In many of the speeches in the house we hear appeals to the government to be more generous with this or that class or with this or that proposal, but we all too seldom hear an appeal to be more generous with the taxpayer. It seems to me it should not be necessary to warn the members of the house that even with the splendid upturn of business we have had we cannot now balance our budget; just what hope, then, can we hold out to our people of ever being able to relieve them of this burden, one which is already almost too great to be borne? I fully appreciate the fact that the government is extremely anxious to adopt a policy not only of pay-as-you-go but also of reducing our debt, which has been piling up year after year. I confidently believe this can be done, provided the government has the backing and sympathy of its supporters in the movement. It seems to me that if we arc going to be fair to those who have placed us in our present position we ought to endeavour to manage Canada's business just as carefully and economically as if it were our own. If we do that certainly we will not be encouraging the government to make expenditures running into millions of dollars which cannot be met out of revenue and which through interest charges add to our burden of taxation. If we were to conduct our own private business in this maimer we would soon reach the place where we would not be able to operate at all. We must not forget that governments, whether they be municipal, provincial or federal, are not unlike individuals in this respect. If we continue to spend more than our income, sooner or later we will not be able to operate and will be facing bankruptcy.
We have all heard it stated by certain journalists and speakers that our politicians
The Address-Mr. Golding

are wholly and entirely to blame for the financial position in which the country now finds itself. Indeed, there are some speakers who seem to think it clever to belittle those who represent them in a public way, whether it be in the municipal council, in the county council, in the provincial legislature or in this federal house. It seems to be the procedure of some to try to create suspicion and distrust of those who are in public life, no matter in what capacity. Constructive criticism is necessary and is one of the finest things we can have, but if this carping and destructive personal criticism, this attempt to undermine and cast suspicion on our public men, is continued on a wholesale scale, it will eventually lead to revolution of one kind or another. It has always seemed strange to me that a person in a profession or in any other walk of life may be a respected citizen to-day, but if he enters politics to-morrow, every word that he utters and everything he does will be viewed with suspicion. This condition is an unfortunate one and should not exist.
In every municipality, in every country, citizens of integrity and honesty are needed to fill the positions of public trust and to represent the people in the administration of public affairs. But I am afraid that if this kind of criticism is continued the time will come when it will be very hard to persuade citizens of the desirable type to accept these positions. I wonder if we ourselves are not partly to blame? In this house we vote millions of dollars for the relief of the unemployed and at the same time we tell the country that nothing is being done for these people. I think we should make it perfectly clear that while we differ seriously and strenuously and honestly in regard to policy and matters which we think affect the welfare of the people, there is no reason why those who differ with us should be called crooks and rogues or other similar names. There is no doubt that among politicians, as among other classes of citizens, there are good and bad, but I do think that those who fill their positions honestly and conscientiously should be given credit.
As I say, I am inclined to agree with the statement that politicians, both past and present, are largely to blame for the financial position in which the country now finds itself. But we should not overlook the fact that the people themselves are not wholly free from blame. There is no governing body to-day that is not being continually petitioned to extend services of one sort or another and to do things here and there, all of which in-

crease taxation and debt. Therefore I submit that we must all accept our share of this responsibility.
However, setting aside for the moment the debatable question as to who is responsible, I must confess that when I endeavour to make a survey of our financial structure, I cannot help but be alarmed. I believe that if we are ever going to be able to give any relief to our people, definite steps must be taken to set our house in order. First, drastic reductions must be made in our expenditures. Second, we must eliminate all overlapping services as between the federal and provincial governments. Third, there must be a gradual reduction in tariffs and all other forms of taxation on consumer goods. Fourth, we must endeavour in every way possible to promote and extend our trade in order to assist in the solving of our railway and unemployment problems. Fifth, we must keep firm control over relief expenditures.
I should like to express this opinion. I believe that if this government ever undertakes to assume full responsibility for relief, if it ever takes away this responsibility from the municipalities, at that moment you can say good-bye to the solvency of this country. I say that after twenty years of municipal experience. I do not believe there is any body in this country that is better able to keep a finger on the relief situation than the municipal councils. Therefore I would warn the government, the opposition and all others in this house to be very careful about taking over that problem. This country cannot afford to finance the necessary machinery to keep full control over relief across the dominion.
Both the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) are extremely anxious to practise economy and to put this nation upon its feet financially. I submit that we as members can assist them materially in doing this. It is our duty to do it because if we are to give any consideration to the problems which confront us we must realize how essential it is, if we are to expect our agriculturists and industrialists to compete in the markets of the world in selling their products, that taxation be reduced in order to reduce the cost of production. When I was a boy on the farm-I am sure many hon. members who have had practical experience in farming can recall this also-farm prices were much lower than they are at the present time. Notwithstanding that fact, our farmers were making steady progress because their overhead costs were also much lower. Generally speaking, farming in those, days was more prosperous than it is in these modem

The Address-Mr. Golding
times. That is why I contend that we should endeavour in every way to reduce the cost of production.
I appreciate fully the fact that practising economy alone is not sufficient. Confining our efforts simply to the balancing of the budget might mean impoverishment and hardship to many. We must consider other plans and policies that will assist in solving our problems. In the first place, we must recognize the fact that this is an agricultural country. Our first consideration- should be for the welfare of our agriculturists. I am persuaded that we are not going to solve our problems by carrying on a large program of public works, by endeavouring to promote extensive housing schemes, or by adopting a definite policy in regard to advanced social legislation. I agree that there is a great deal of merit in many of these things and that they are deserving of serious consideration, yet I believe that the solution of our problems lies largely in the adoption of a policy which will put agriculture on a paying basis. If we could accomplish that, I am perfectly satisfied that our unemployment problem would dwindle to the vanishing point, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), who has now one of the heaviest burdens to bear in this government, would be relieved of that particular burden. In passing I should like to say that in my opinion no more honest, no more conscientious man has ever filled the portfolio of labour in this country than the present minister. He is endeavouring to do a good job. During the last parliament I listened to criticism directed against the Minister of Labour of that day, and I felt then, as I do now, that the portfolio of labour is not a desirable one, and that any minister of labour, no matter what he does, will be criticized.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, is an exporting nation. I have always believed, notwithstanding any talk to the contrary, that the prosperity of Canada depends largely on our ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries, and therefore I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. leader and with the policy of the Liberal party of endeavouring to promote trade with foreign as well as empire countries. It is only by following this principle that our trade figures have increased to the extent they have since this government came into power. The policies put into force by this government have been in keeping with the assurances given by this party to the people at the last federal election. I can assure the government that the people are pleased with the results that have
been attained and with the reductions that have been made in tariffs in order to negotiate the various treaties which have been concluded with other countries.
There has been a great deal of criticism of some of the posters used in the last federal election. But, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this government has been a government of action. Immediately after it took office in the fall of 1935, realizing that one of the most effective ways of assisting agriculture was by securing markets for the vast quantity of products we produce, and which with our limited population we cannot consume, this government took steps to make a trade agreement with our neighbours to the south. When the agreement came before the house it was subjected to a great deal of criticism, and a large number of members did not agree with the terms and conditions of that agreement. If we look up the records of that debate and of the vote on the resolution which preceded the introduction of the bill itself, we shall find that every member of the official opposition voted against the resolution, while it had the endorsation of every supporter of the government and of every independent member. During that debate the right hon. gentleman who was then leading the official opposition (Mr. Bennett) took a leading and very active part, and certainly he did his utmost to persuade the members of this house to vote against the resolution. Listening to him and to other hon. gentlemen opposite in that debate I could not help thinking that they were running true to form so far as trade with the United States is concerned.
I have a very vivid recollection of some of the arguments that were used when this country was considering the reciprocity pact which was defeated in 1911. I think it will be remembered by all who were interested in that controversy that our right hon. friend, the former leader of the opposition, was one of those who bitterly opposed the reciprocity pact. Speaking on one occasion, and I have kept this clipping a long time, he said:
Little did I think that within a generation the Canadian people would be called upon to face the issue which endangers our land and the existence of the flag under which we live. Little did I think that the same issue would come to us. Now they (the Americans) have come to us with the golden eagles and the gilded dollars. They have come with their insidious promises to ask the people to traffic with their birthright. Since when did men begin to sell their birthright for a few peas and beans? . . . We have not fallen so low as to allow this country's resources to be exploited by Mr. Taft and the United States. Because X believe this treaty threatens the empire, I ask you to smite it with all your might.
3S4
The Address-Mr. Golding

These arguments and this attitude did not go unnoticed by the Liberal chieftain of that day, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who, speaking in this house after the defeat of his government, used these words:
Sometimes I realize that I have reached the allotted span, the three-score years and ten. I may not live to see it, but the time will come, my friends, when my fellow-countrymen will wonder if, after all, Fielding and Laurier were not right in seeking freer trade in natural products with our neighbours, while increasing our trude with England through British preference. Even my brilliant young friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) may concede it some time. I cannot pierce the mists of the future, none of us can, but I am confident coming years will vindicate our course.
These, Mr. Speaker, were prophetic words. The time did come when our trade was at a very low ebb and when we would have been glad to enter into a trade agreement with our neighbours to the south. I remember well, because I was a member of the house then, that in 1933 Mr. Roosevelt, after he was elected President of the United States, sent out a message to the world that his government would be glad to enter into trade agreements with all other governments in order to get trade moving. At that time there was a widespread feeling in Canada that once more we were to be given the opportunity to sell our goods in United States markets, and I remember how this house was thrilled when the then prime minister announced that there was a possibility of a trade agreement being negotiated between the two countries. But, Mr. Speaker, our hopes were crushed by the speech delivered by the same right hon. gentleman in 1934 when he hurled questions at the opposition asking them what they wanted reciprocity in. He went on to quote the prices of cattle and hogs and butter and eggs, all of which were a little higher in Canada than in the United States, and he asked: Are these the products that hon. gentlemen opposite want reciprocity in? Do they want the Americans to come over here and get our prices? Listening to that address, Mr. Speaker, and remembering the attitude of years gone by, one could come to no other conclusion than that the negotiation of a trade agreement between our neighbours to the south and a government led by any . person with views and feelings such as these was an impossibility, and I think the Canadian people had that definitely in their minds when they voted as they did in 1935.
I have heard a good many references to the fact that our trade is less than it was in 1937 although we still have these trade agreements, and sometimes there seems to be in these remarks a tone of satisfaction rather than

regret. But do hon. members, opposite think for a moment that if we did not have the trade agreements our trade would be as large as it is? I should be glad to have an answer to that.
I cannot forget the many speeches which have been made in this house since I became a member, in reference to the impossibility of expanding or extending our trade. The reason given always was, of course, that all other countries, are trying to provide for themselves. It has seemed to me as I have sat here that the Liberal party is the only party with confidence in its ability to do something worth while along these lines. It is now a matter of history that on October 14, 1935, the people turned to the Liberal party hoping that it would be able to accomplish what it evidently believed and led the people to believe could be accomplished in the way of expansion of trade. Anyone who wants to be fair and who looks up the record of increased trade from 1935 to the present time will come to the conclusion that it has kept its promise in this respect, and that its record is appreciated by all classes of our citizens.
Mr. KARL K. HOMUTH (Waterloo South): Mr. Speaker, if the voice that started this debate was the voice of the west, I think I can truthfully say that I am the voice of the east; and when you compare the figures of the two by-elections they give a very interesting picture of what the people of Canada are thinking to-day. By adding the figures together we find that the Conservative party polled 13,336 votes, the Liberal party 10,313 votes, and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation 10,121 votes-certainly a record from which we have nothing to fear so far as the coming election is concerned.
May I first crave the indulgence of Mr. Speaker and hon. members during this address? I realize that I am a new member of this house, and it is possible that in some respects I may contravene the rules. But if I do so it will be purely through ignorance, and not because I have any desire, sir, to call down your wrath upon me.
I want in the first place to thank many hon. members on all sides who in various ways have assisted me since I first came here. I have found them very willing to help me in looking after the many details to which a member must give his attention while he is in Ottawa.
I also want to make some reference to their majesties' visit, because I understand that they are to pass through Waterloo county. I have not been advised of this, but if and when they do come to Waterloo county they will find not only a district where they will be loyally

The Address-Mr. Homuth
welcomed, but one in which many of the nations of the world are represented-English, Scots, Irish, Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, and many others, and all loyal Canadian citizens.
As a new member I hesitate to criticize the government because I realize there are those who will think that in doing so I should be taking a great deal upon myself. But during my time in the Ontario house I was very close to many of the problems we have been discussing in the last few weeks, problems of vital interest to the people of this country. For that reason I feel that I am justified in rising in my place to-day and criticizing the government for its do-nothing policy.
I had hoped that before I had anything to say in this chamber I should have heard from the government something more tangible than what we have heard as to just what they are going to do for the destitute people of the dominion. It is true that we have promises - indefinite ones - in the speech from the throne. But in examining those promises we cannot find one thing really based upon a policy which will be of some benefit to the people of this country. Reference is made, of course, to the trade treaty. Later on I want to deal with that for a few moments. I come here, a representative of the Conservative party, as a direct rebuke by the people of South Waterloo to this government because of its triple policy and the fear of what it was going to do to Canada-a fear which has been realized to-day.
From what I have heard from the government benches I doubt very much whether the government realizes what the conditions in this country actually are. In 1935 throughout the whole campaign they blamed the Bennett government for everything that went wrong. In the speech from the throne they blamed drought conditions in the west and world conditions. No mention of those things was made in 1935. I have before me a copy of the speech from the thone. Very little is promised in it, and if the promises are of no more value than those which were made by the Liberal party in 1935 there is certainly a very poor outlook for the people of this dominion until another election can be held. To my mind it is a very meagre menu that the government offered the people of Canada. No reference is made to national unity, which I consider one of the most important questions affecting the dominion. It is true that there is a reference to the commission on dominion-provincial relations, a body which, had this government carried out the promises it made in 1935, would never have had to be appointed. As everybody knows, the electors 71492-25
were told then that all that was necessary was to elect a Liberal government at Ottawa and all the troubles and the trials and the lack of unity in this country would come to an end. Who can forget the speeches made by the Hon. Mitchell Hepburn as he went up and down the country asking the people to vote for a Liberal government at Ottawa so that the provincial governments could cooperate with them? Incidentally, that is one of the things which Mr. Hepburn states he will never be able to live down. But what do we find? Immediately after the election they had a dominion-provincial conference. It lasted a day or so and broke up in a quarrel. Mr. Hepburn went home disgusted with the whole matter; when they were hunting for him one afternoon he had taken the train for Toronto. From that day on we have had disunity in this country and it has been a big factor in the troubles we have to-day. As Canadians we read with pride the story of confederation. We realize what those men who brought confederation into being did, and how well they built this nation. They forgot their political differences and joined together to do a job. They did a good job. But over seventy years have gone by and what they did then naturally requires revision now. Are we as Canadians and members of this house going to say to the people of Canada that after seventy years in which to learn by experience the various things that could make this country better and cement its unity we are not big enough to handle the job?


Mr. MARTIN:: That is what the hon. member is saying.


Mr. HOMUTH:: If we will forget this interprovincial disunity and the hostility of provincial governments to the federal government ; if we forget our political bickerings and get together and deal with this matter from the standpoint that there is no east and no west in Canada, no Quebec, no Ontario, but just one nation, willing to give and take, if need be to give more and take less-if we do that there is no reason why we cannot cure many of the ills that afflict us to-day without interfering with the sacredness of provincial rights. These things can be done. All we need is some lead from this government, who promised in 1935 that they would do it. Every hon. member of this house and I believe every provincial government in Canada would do its utmost to bring that about. Instead of that we have quarrelling, quarrelling, quarrelling; charges of conspiracy, and so on. I take some pride in the fact that the by-election in Waterloo South had

The Address-Mr. Homuth

something to do with bringing this condition into the open, because it is just as well for the people of Canada to know something of what is going on behind the scenes. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did not have to go to Toronto to see Mr. Hepburn in order to find out why the Liberals lost the election in Waterloo South. They lost it because of the three years of do-nothing policy of this government, and fear of their trade treaties. Is it strange that when we think of this break between the Prime Minister of Canada and the various provincial premiers, particularly Mr. Hepburn, we wonder if there is the solidarity in the dominion cabinet that hon. gentlemen opposite would like us to believe exists? In fact if the editorial suggestion of the Montreal Standard of Saturday last is true, they had a very interesting caucus a week or so ago. And the two peacemakers who went to the Bannockburn farm and tried to bring peace and harmony in the party apparently were thoroughly chastised for their efforts.
In the campaign in Waterloo South we had three cabinet ministers taking part, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). Whom did they come to speak for? Naturally for the Liberal candidate. But I do say they did me a lot of good. What was the Liberal candidate's attitude so far as the Prime Minister of Canada is concerned? Let me read what he said in his nomination speech. And. mark you, this gentleman made this the one great point throughout his campaign.


Mr. GARDINER:: That is why he was defeated.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: And a lot more of you are going the same way too. This is what Mr. R. K. Serviss, the Liberal candidate, said at his nomination meeting:
"It is my belief," the mayor continued, "that the urban workers particularly in the textile and shoe industries must have adequate protection. We in Ontario are the big brother among the provinces of Canada. If we are going down into our pockets to help sustain the free trader prairie provinces by subsidizing their wheat at 30 cents a bushel, the farmer in Ontario whose province is contributing 47 per cent of the total revenue to the dominion treasury is entitled to some consideration too. These same free traders be they Liberal, Conservative or bolshevik must give consideration to the working men and women in Waterloo South. They must make their contribution by permitting an adequate tariff for the protection of the workers."

Listen to this. This is the prime piece of the whole platform on which the gentleman ran:
"The two greatest problems in our country to-day," said the speaker, "are relief and the railway problem, and we will never solve the latter problem until you get a man like Mitch Hepburn at Ottawa to do the job for you."


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is why the hon. gentleman is here. That is the secret.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I referred a moment ago to the distress of our people and some of the promises that were made in 1935. Who can forget the tirade carried on by the Prime Minister, particularly in 1935, against the camps that were established throughout this country, or the promises he made that he would take the boys out of those semimilitary institutions and give them jobs throughout the country at decent wages? Yes, they closed the camps, but what did they do with the boys? Scattered them over the highways and byway's of Canada. Motoring through the country I have picked up many of them, forgotten men, uncared for by anyone. Who are these young men? If the crisis which threatened last September had broken, as many of us feared it would, they are the young men that this government would have expected to take their part in the military service of this country. They are the young men they would have expected to line up for whatever service the Department of National Defence wanted. They are the young men they would have gone to and said: Here is your opportunity to do something for your country. "Fight for the country-why?" they would ask. "Fight for the privilege of wandering up and down the highways and byways of this country, not wanted by anyone?" What answer could this government have given to them? If that crisis had broken, this government would have found ways to raise millions, yes hundreds of millions of dollars for the purpose of equipping these men, feeding and clothing them-for what? To defend Canada, yes; to be killed or to kill. If we can find money for that, why can we not find money to give them a chance to live and work out their destiny here? If we had been in power when the riots occurred in British Columbia about which we all read, I can easily imagine the Prime Minister and his supporters hurling taunts and accusations across the floor of the house about it. The riots that occurred out there were directly due to the policy of this government.
I have referred to the destitute people of this country. By destitute I mean people who are hungry, ill clad, ill housed, without decent

The Address-Mr. Homuth
living conditions. This government is working on a long range policy, so hon. members tell us in their speeches. As a result of it we have had three disastrous years. They are so busy looking at that long range policy, looking at the horizon hoping against hope that the sun of prosperity will break through, that they fail to see the poverty and destitution at their feet. We hear of communism in this country. Certainly -we have communism. The surprise to me, after the failure of this government to do something for the people of this country, is that we have not something worse. We all read the stories that appeared in the Globe and Mail relative to the condition of the fisherfolk of the mari-times. You do not have to go down there to find poverty-stricken people. You can find them in Ontario; you can find them in Ottawa; you can find them in every township, village, town and city throughout the Dominion of Canada.
I wonder what the poor, hungry people of this country think when they read in the press all the talk coming from the Liberal benches, and learn that the government are hunting for markets for the milk and cream produced on the farms of Canada, when we have thousands of children who are not getting enough milk to build strong, healthy bodies; that they are hunting for markets for our pork and our beef, when we have families in Canada that do not see meat twice a week. The same thing applies to many other commodities the hon. gentlemen are talking about exporting. Give our people jobs; give them adequate, steady wages; give the farmers decent prices for their produce. Then a great deal of this surplus produce will be used up. Our people do not want government pap; they do not need it. We have the right kind of people, who can work out their own destiny if they are only given the opportunity by those who are in power in the provinces and the dominion.
I said I wanted to deal at some length with the trade treaty, and because of my knowledge of the condition of industry in this dominion to-day I say that industry has the jitters and is afraid. There is no security for industry.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tax the farmers more.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: You will have the jitters too, before this is all over. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said they had heard no real protests against this trade treaty. Perhaps not, but there will be plenty of protests yet. I do say that industry is afraid when the Liberal party is in power, 71492-25J
because for the last few years it has been their direct policy continually to chisel, chisel, chisel at the tariffs under which these industries have been operating. Sometimes I am amazed at the childlike simplicity of the Prime Minister, at his belief in the benevolence of those countries with whom we make trade treaties. He believes they would do him no wrong, but in the working out of the treaties we find that they are the sort of countries who would trade a coconut for a peanut any day, and we would get the peanut. I recall a little ditty that I heard in my childhood and which, with a little revamping, fits very well the attitude of the Prime. Minister since 1935 in connection with trade treaties:
Tinker, tinker, little man;
Do your tinkering while you can.
Mischievous tinkering cannot last;
Elections come and your tinkering's past.
The other day the Prime Minister accused our party of being apostles of economic nationalism and of saying that trade was war. He also suggested that we were not being fair to the government in that we continually knocked it. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) said the other day, we are not the apostles of economic nationalism. We are interested in national economics, which is something this government apparently has forgotten. And when the Prime Minister asks us to say something kind and good about this government, why do they not give us a chance to do so? Why do they not do something so that at least we can go to our people, who are worried and harried and wondering what is going to happen in the future, and say, "At least the government are going to do this." Would it not be a good idea for the Prime Minister to take some of that philosophy to heart? Can one forget the campaign that he carried on in 1935? Was there ever a more bitter tirade against a leader or a party than that of the Prime Minister and his supporters in 1935? The Prime Minister accuses us of saying that trade is war. Well, Mr. Speaker, speaking for myself I say yes; trade is war. It is commercial war, and when we make a deal with another country the only way to figure out whether or not that deal is fair to Canada is by the number of lucrative jobs that are given the workingmen of this country as a result of that deal, and the type of market that is given to the farmers at the same time.
The other day we heard two different lines of thought from hon. gentlemen opposite. In his speech the Prime Minister referred to trade
The Address-Mr. Homuth

under the new treaty but dealt more particularly with the treaty from the standpoint of appeasement; that it was necessary to do this; that even if the benefits were not as great as they should be, this was the one thing Canada had to do. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, my fellow representative from Waterloo county, dealt with the question from an entirely different angle; and to my mind, poor as his argument was in regard to the benefits that Canada would receive as a result of this trade treaty, at least he dealt with it strictly from the standpoint of the trade between the two countries. To me that is the right way to deal with it; because under this so-cajled trade treaty from the Prime Minister's standpoint of appeasement, we make a treaty not only with the United States but with Germany, Italy and Japan, while some of the nationals of those very countries are to-day attacking us and trying to undermine the British constitutional system of government. So I ask: What mandate has this government from the people to go out and try to make a trade treaty as a gesture of appeasement to Japan, Germany and Italy? If the safety of the democratic institutions of the United States, Great Britain and Canada is to be predicated only upon the question whether or not we are prepared to sell out our workingmen and farmers to the people of the United States and other countries, then, as reverently as I can, I say God help democracy.
In his speech the other day our leader referred to the question of shoes. The Minister of Trade and Commerce immediately checked him up and quoted figures showing that only some two or three per cent of the shoes used in Canada were brought in from other countries. I still say, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the trade treaty of 1935 and the trade treaty just negotiated we are going to give work to Czechs, to Germans, to Japanese and to people in the United States, while our own people will be put out of work. But it is not a question alone of how much stuff comes in, because after all we are not going to have the factories closed. Men who own industries dare not close them. Every cent they own is invested in them. They dare not close their doors; they have to keep them going. And so, regardless of what is done with the tariff, they try to keep their industries in operation.
How do they do it? Right to-day, in order to compete with the United States on shoes, manufacturers have to reduce wages in the shoe industry in Canada. They will have to lower the quality of the goods which go into many lines of shoes. It is not a question of how much stuff comes into Canada because

of trade agreements; rather it is a question of what, as a result, will have to be done in our industrial areas in order to compete against conditions in other countries. When the trade agreement is up for discussion I shall be able to show only too plainly that the conditions are just as I have described them. I will give facts and figures which will indicate that even though they are importing shoes to-day, and bringing them into Canada in competition with shoes made in the county of Waterloo and other parts of the country, the consumers in this country will not get them one cent cheaper. They are purchased over there simply on the basis of the amount of write-up that the merchant and wholesaler can put on them.
So that when we look back and read what the Prime Minister said in 1935 as to what he expected the trade treaty to do, we have cause to wonder. I challenge the Minister of Labour to go out to any industrial riding in Canada and say to the people, "As a result of the trade treaty of 1935 we have brought you prosperity." I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to go among the farmers of Canada and say to them, "As a result of the trade treaty of 1935 we have brought you prosperity, as predicted by our leader at that time."


James Garfield Gardiner: I did it in Brandon.


Ernest Edward Perley: The rural vote did not
show that.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes, it did.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Long before I came to
the house I heard that the Minister of Agriculture was more or less the bantam or the scrapper of the cabinet. But I have no hesitation in saying he will never be able to sell the argument in eastern Canada that this government has brought prosperity to agriculture in Canada. If he can do it in the west he has made a poor job of it, because he has a minority supporter from Brandon.
My time is nearly up, but there is one more matter with which I did wish to deal, namely the question of commissions. The people of Canada are sick and tired of commissions -commissions for this and commissions for that. Our party has not been wholly blameless in the matter, either. But I do not hesitate to say that the people of Canada, and I include myself, are sick and tired of commissions. A commission which was supposed to work free-8300,000; a provincial commission now set up is going to cost over $100,000, simply because the federal government at Ottawa could not agree with the provinces.

The Address-Mr. Homuth
Surely if we are to have commissions to govern the country we might just as well go home; we might as well quit having cabinet ministers. I cannot understand why we should pay cabinet ministers the large salaries they are paid, and maintain their staffs, if we are going to turn over to a commission every real problem that comes before them.
Furthermore, there has been too much of this business of trying to build up some constitutional issue with regard to everything the people want to have done for them. If a request is made for something, immediately a constitutional issue is raised; lawyers are always able to find one. While I have every regard for the legal members of the house,
I do not hesitate to say that the people of Canada are sick and tired of being told, every time something should be done for them, that it cannot be done because of the lack of constitutional authority to do it. I sometimes wonder why the Prime Minister has not taken the bit between his teeth once in a while and done something about it. But he is one who can raise a constitutional issue just as quickly as anybody else.
The people are tired of the whole thing, and they want to see action this year from the government.


Mr. MacNICOL:: They cannot get it here.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: The government has a
chance to do something. It has a chance to do something to make up for the disastrous three years through which the people of Canada have just passed, in spite of the promises made in 1935. If the government had had a proper approach to the provincial governments, if it had gone out in a spirit of compromise, we would have in Canada to-day national health laws, national hospitalization and national labour laws, all of which are badly needed. All these improvements could have been law to-day if the government had been willing to compromise with the provinces, as it ought to have done.
And so I say that when one reads of the promises of 1935 he has cause to wonder. I well remember the morning of October 15, 1935, when I thought the sky had fallen and there was no longer any chance for Canada. I picked up a paper and read a statement made by the Prime Minister, to which my leader referred in the course of his observations. I read that speech of dedication, and I read it carefully. Who could help being impressed by those beautiful words, those wonderful phrases? They were music to the ears of everyone in Canada who had hoped that something good would come from the election of the Liberal party. I read that
dedication speech-and then, of course, I realized who had made it. I recalled the flowery speeches he had made in the past and I began to understand that perhaps after all the sky actually had fallen. Three years later we find that it has; the people of Canada are absolutely crushed under the burden which has been placed upon them.
Not only do I like the wording and phrasing of this speech, but I think hon. members of the house and the people of Canada generally should be impressed with the significance of the wonderful dedication speech made by the right hon. gentleman; we may then realize how little he has lived up to it. The Prime Minister said:
In the new era which dawns to-day the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, he carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery, are the enemies rvhieh Liberalism will seek to banish from the land. They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls as well as the minds and bodies of an ever-increasing number of men, women and children in our land. We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
And then they tell the hungry, ill clad, ill housed people of Canada that we are hunting for some place to get rid of our meats, our butter, our eggs, our milk and other things that our own Canadian people have not the money to buy.
At least in that dedication speech the right hon. gentleman admitted that the Conservative government had kept these terrible enemies of the people at the gate. We were slowly but surely driving them from the country. But this government has opened the gate. Those enemies have opened the door and entered the homes of our Canadian people, and out of them they have driven peace, happiness and security. The words of the Prime Minister's statement were brave words, but what use are they without deeds?
I say that unless this government makes some definite move to do something it will stand indicted before the highest tribunal in the land, the Canadian people, as a government which has absolutely forgotten those who put them into power. When the opportunity comes, as it must come, and the people hope it will be soon, they will be in a position to undo the wrong that they did themselves
The Address-Miss Macphail

in 1935. After all there is no hope for the government that is in power. No blood transfusion or dope or anything elseh can revive the little spark of life that once was there. They are on their way out. Politically they are dead. All that is necessary now is an election so that the people of Canada can give them a proper burial under an avalanche of ballots. When we come into power we will once more make effective the policies which in the past brought security to Canada.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I intend to lump my congratulations. I offer them to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply, to the new leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Manion) and to the new members, although I think perhaps I should offer condolences rather than congratulations. I offer them to the new cabinet ministers. Their appointment particularly interested me. This choosing of cabinet ministers is a strange business. There must be some rules by which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) decides who is to be appointed. I do not know what they are and I was wondering if some time he would not take the house into his confidence. We would then have some idea as to who were to be our future cabinet ministers.
I do not intend to follow the very eloquent speech of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Homuth). He is new to this house, but has had legislative experience. There are only two things I would say to him. First, we did not have a riot in British Columbia when the Conservatives were in power, but there was one in Regina. I get no enjoyment out of saying this, but I think it is well for us to remember it. The other thing I want to say is that much as I would like to become enthusiastic over the trade treaties, my honest opinion is that if we heard nothing of them one way or another for six months we would never know they had been signed. I have waited so long for Canada to be relieved of its difficulties by means of trade treaties that I do not intend to be fooled by this one.
I do not intend to follow the speech from the throne paragraph by paragraph. I shall refer to only one subject in it. I intend to confine myself entirely to a few questions which seem important to me.
In these days of confusion and tragedy abroad one's mind turns to things at home, to things that one can understand. All over the world we are seeing liberty, freedom and personal security being swept away for thousands, yes even millions of people. We
JMr. Homuth.]
see democracy backing away before the onslaught of fascism. What surprises me more than anything else is the fact that the conscience of the world has been seared to such an extent that we can endure the tragedy of China, the betrayal of Czechoslovakia and the unparalleled agony of Spain without doing anything about it. We even see Great Britain and France, countries which we thought were great democracies, aiding the fascists to overthrow the Spanish government by means of the non-intervention pact. Quite apart from what was in our innermost hearts, we listened to the Prime Minister of Great Britain being lauded the world over in the name of peace, or this new word "appeasement", for having delivered democracy into the hands of the fascists in response to a gigantic bluff on the part of the greatest dictator of them all. In many countries we see thousands of people who are striving to get away from fascism, who want to be allowed to enter the free democracies. An Austrian woman who was my guest yesterday told me that the actions of the leaders in the fascist countries did not break the spirits of the people as much as did the indifference of the democratic peoples like ourselves.
I feel that something has happened to the spirit of mankind when we can go about our daily tasks, even earnestly about the business of government, in days like this, unmoved by others' misery. As I said before, in despair we turn to things at home. I think it can be said that every hon. member of this house wants democracy in Canada. We want to save and perfect the democratic system, but I think we all realize that that cannot be done unless we solve the economic problems of the people. We must pass from a liberal democracy to a social democracy. In the last analysis a desperately driven people will be ready to give up liberty and freedom in search of economic security. As a matter of fact, there is no liberty and there is no freedom for a person who is absolutely destitute. We as members of the parliament of Canada must set ourselves resolutely to the task of solving the economic problems which face the Canadian people. I say in all seriousness that if we do not do this a harassed and bewildered and disillusioned people will turn from the democratic form of government to anything else that they think will give them economic security. In my opinion that other form of government will never be communism, but I think they are ready to consider some form of fascism unless we who are the guardians and trustees of democracy discharge well our duties.

The Address-Miss Macphail
If we really want to preserve democracy, and I believe we all do, we must be willing to forsake all artificial differences. We must be ready to acknowledge that up until now there have been artificial differences between members and parties in this house. We must be willing to get rid of them. It is true that in a democracy there must be free expression of opinion. The beauty of democracy is the fact that we are free to advocate different solutions to a problem. But surely we have reached the time when we should be willing to vote in support of that in which we believe. Surely we have reached the time when we should not be looking for either personal or party glorification in what we do. We should be willing to support the things in which we believe, no matter by whom they are suggested or by whom they are supported.
As I listened to the speeches delivered in the opening days of this session by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Manion), whom we all welcome again to this house, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I felt that there was danger in the fact that the people of Canada will believe the unkind things they said about each other and about each other's policies. That is exactly what has happened. When the terrible row between the Prime Minister and Mr. Hepburn was on -in my opinion it is still on-I heard many people in my constituency say, "Well, at least we are hearing some truth now"; that is, they thought each was telling the truth about the other. I say in all seriousness it is time we stopped political scrapping and settled down as honest people to find solutions for the problems which are besetting and wearing down the spirit of our Canadian people, because I think in Canada we cannot afford to lessen the confidence of the people in our members of parliament and public men and in our parliamentary institutions. In simpler days-and one can look back to seventeen years ago and regard them now as simpler days, when there were not the pressing problems we have to-day-there was an interest taken in the rough-and-tumble of political strife between the leaders and members of different [DOT] political parties. Nobody minded that very much then. I think perhaps the country even took an interest in it, but I again say in all seriousness that that day is done.
When I heard the speeches of the first day or two at the opening of the session I thought: Can it be tiue that we must all session hear this drivel again? When you come from places where you see people who do not know what they are going to do to live, who have not
houses, who have not clothes, who cannot educate their children, who do not know where the next meal is coming from, and then come here and see people with fine abilities- because I am not one of those who think that members of parliament have not ability; I think they have-use those fine abilities in a verbal battle over non-essentials, it seems to me nothing but a complete waste of time. If we are to save democracy the only kind of partisans we can afford from now on are partisans in favour of democracy, both political and economic.
There are only two subjects on which I shall speak, and the first is agriculture. I feel that we can do more towards solving unemployment and a great many of our other problems in Canada by restoring the purchasing power of the farmer than we can do by any other method. In Canada we have some 728,623 farms, and it is true of almost every farm family that they cannot buy the goods they need; and we have idle machines, unemployed workers, and a drift of rural youth to the cities and into white-collared jobs and into the professions, if that is possible.
Agriculture until now has been asked to buy in a protected market, and not only a protected market but a market restricted in many ways, and to sell in a non-protected market. Farmers have been asked to pay exorbitant prices for farm machinery. I am sure no other industry passing through such times as agriculture is experiencing would have been asked to pay such high prices and to stand such a high tariff on their implements of production. Farmers have been asked to pay high prices for the goods and services which they require, and the high prices which they had to pay were very largely the result of the regulating of supply to meet effective demand. And yet the farmer, because he had this mounting overhead, went on produeir-more and more goods without any consideration for the effective demand for his goods.
Farmers have been asked to pay high interest rates. Even the farm loan board-I am grateful to have it as it is, but it could be so much better-charges the farmers five per cent. That is too much, because agriculture cannot pay five per cent. Since I have been in this house the farmers in western Canada have been charged, by various discounting methods, rates as high as twelve per cent. Farmers have suffered very much from a tight money policy. During the last administration, when we could have benefited as Australia and New Zealand and the Argentine did by valuing the British pound at close to six dollars, it was quoted here at only $3.75, and that did very much to impoverish agriculture in Canada.
The Address-Miss Macphail

What immigrants we took in, and I think we ought now to consider very carefully taking in people from countries from which all sense of humanity has gone, agriculture in the last few years has been asked to absorb- not labour, not the professions, not business, but agriculture. The result is, and it need hardly be mentioned, that we have had such an overplus of agricultural products that prices have dropped lower and lower and for a period of years now our farmers have been selling their products below the cost of production. I notice that Mr. Robert Gardiner, at the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, a few days ago, had this to say, and I am quoting from the Western Farm Leader of January 20, at page 2:
It is time that the government and the people of Canada realize that they cannot forever expect that the primary producer will be content to continue to produce new wealth at a loss a loss which means economic insecurity, hardship and debt for the farmer and his family.
All this, of course, has resulted in certain things. It has resulted in farm mortgages being a drug on the market; nobody wants to invest his money in a farm mortgage. Even farm buildings show the decadent agriculture we have to-day. You do not need to be able to read to know the present condition of agriculture. All you need to do is to drive along country roads and see the farm dwellings in need of repair, old buildings falling down, unpainted houses, houses where just the trim needs painting and even that not done; farm homes, the great majority of them, without the comforts and conveniences which even people of small means in the city think are essential. We see farmers working very hard and getting very little pay. We see farmers suffering for lack of medical and dental care. We see a vastly increasing number of cases of high blood pressure and heart disease among our agriculturists. This, Mr. Speaker, cannot go on forever. The farmers are rousing themselves again. They go into long sleeps, and they are now just emerging from one.
The farmer in Canada knows that there were thirty-three acts passed by the British parliament, during the last seven or eight years, having to do with agriculture and tending to raise the price of agricultural products, so that the British farmer did not have to sell below the cost of production. Our farmers see that the farmer in Britain gets $1.30 a bushel for his wheat, in France $1,50, in Italy $2, and in Germany $2.50; and the farmer in Canada, and certainly the farmer of Ontario, feels that something must be done about it.

The first thing that must be done, and the only thing that the farmer can do for himself, is to organize farmers so completely that there will be one body that can speak for agriculture.
I hear farmers talking for the first time m favour of producing for a known market. They see that other countries which used to buy our farm products do not do so any longer. They regret that there are people in Canada who would like to buy cream and eggs, steaks, cereals, chickens-all the things that go to make up a good table-but who cannot afford them. I saw in the Journal of, 1^ think, last night, that a man living at North Bay died of voluntary starvation in order that his wife and children might eat. That happened in this country, where we have such surpluses that we do not know what to do with them. But the farmer is coming to recognize the meaning of these great surpluses, and although he would like to see them consumed by needy people in urban places and the needy who are to be found sometimes in country places, he cannot afford to produce for nothing. He cannot afford to give the goods to the people who need them. So for the first time in his life the Ontario farmer, and I think I can say the Canadian farmer, is coming to the conclusion that what he must do is to produce goods for a known market; that is, to estimate how much the market will absorb and produce that much and no -more.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about crop
failures?


Miss MACPHAIL:: Well, the government can store some of the grain in the elevators in case of a crop failure, and not ask the farmer to do so. The government can conserve for future needs.
And so the farmers of Ontario and, indeed, the farmers of all Canada, first getting together in a great organization-and they are beginning to do so-will soon be coming to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and demanding marketing legislation which will give authority to the majority of a commodity group to bring the minority into line with their wishes, and they will demand a price which is equal to the cost of production, including wages to the farmer. It sounds revolutionary; but it is coming; it is almost here, and it will have to be followed by controlled production. It must give Conservatives some satisfaction when they think back to the Natural Products Marketing Act

The Address-Miss Macphail
and remember the opposition-the political opposition, if I may say so-that the Liberal party put up to that act. They did not want it, and the privy council of Great Britain- I shall not say for that reason, although it may have had a bearing-threw out the legislation and called it ultra vires. I wonder when we are coming to the time when we shall stop sending legislation to Great Britain to see whether or not-


Grote Stirling: The Supreme court threw it out here.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, in that instance both courts did so; nevertheless it was sent on to Londpn.
There is no reason why other Canadians who for a long time have been gauging their production by the market should feel aggrieved or resentful because the farmer is coming to the conclusion that he too must do the same. Take the case of the farm implement firms, which between 1929 and 1933 curtailed production by eighty per cent because the farmer did not have the money to buy their products, and let their price drop by only six per cent. That is, they were not willing to go on producing for idealistic reasons, because the farmer needed machinery, as no doubt he did. They said, "We cannot afford to produce if we cannot sell; there is no effective demand, and therefore we must curtail production." A great many of our manufacturers do the same thing. They estimate how much they can sell; then they start their factories running to supply the market, and when they have supplied the market they close the factories.
Until now Canadian farmers have been reluctant to follow this example-not so reluctant to get marketing legislation or to obtain a price equal to the cost of production, but reluctant to consider the thing which must follow that, namely the control of production. Canadian farmers have not been reluctant to receive the better price for bacon in Great Britain which came as a result of the artificial setting of prices, nor have they been unwilling to crowd the Danish farmer off the market in Great Britain, although it has reduced him to a place where he has had to control production and allot production among the various hog producers in Denmark. There every farmer who produces hogs has what they call pig cards, and the total number of cards that is issued is equal to the number of hogs that may be produced. It is true that farmers can buy and sell the cards among themselves, but the total cannot increase. Nor indeed are we unfamiliar with 71492-26
this type of action on the part of farmers even in Ontario. The adjustment of the volume of production to the demand in a known market is carried out by milk producers. The whole-milk producers supplying our cities and towns are practically all working on a basis which regulates marketing and effects an indirect control of production, with each farmer supplying milk on a quota basis, and with a considerably lower price for that part of the supply which exceeds the quota. That is exactly what is done in Denmark in connection with hogs. Anybody who insists on producing more hogs than his quota gets exactly half price for them.
May I draw the attention of the federal government, in case they have missed it, to the Bracken conference which was held in Winnipeg? It seems to me it would have been more fitting if the federal government, which is concerned with agriculture all over Canada, had called that conference. I do, however, approve the action of Mr. Bracken in calling it. Everybody who attended that conference felt that in their discussion they got down to essentials, and that the farmer was talking about his own business in exactly the same way that business people -manufacturers and business men generally -have until now talked about their business. I believe that if we did something along the lines suggested at that conference-and I . think we shall do it finally-it would so increase the purchasing power of the farmer as greatly to lessen unemployment, by starting the factories of Canada running again.
I notice that the same theme is dealt with in the issue of Liberty of February 4, 1939- it is a little bit ahead of the date, but I suppose we shall finally arrive there-in an editorial in which it says;
Half of our nation looks to the land for support. Agriculture is the driving shaft of our national economic machine. So long as it remains broken, the machine cannot function. Once it is repaired, the nation as a whole will be on the highroad to recovery.
I issue solemn warning to you business men of urban Canada: Your great industries cannot prosper permanently, nor wrill your unemployment problem ever be solved while this dislocation of the agricultural machine persists.
When the farmers can buy, urban Canada can sell.
There are some things which farmers can do for themselves, and these, I think, they are going to do. I believe that for the first time in many years farmers are interested in adult education. They are also very much interested in consumers' cooperation, believing that they will be able, as the years go by,

The Address-Miss Macphail

to buy together, to form their own wholesales and, finally, their own manufacturing plants. But that is all slow, very slow. Whether it will come fast enough to save the situation, I do not know.
There are two other things which I believe agricultural Ontario and all Canada want to see come from the federal government. One is a farm loans scheme which will give loans to young farmers at not more than three per cent and will not require the repayment of the loan in a short period but will allow it to run for any period up to, I suggest, thirty years. Many of the young farmers who come to the cities do not want to come; they want to stay on the farm, but they cannot. The present loan scheme requires them to have 50 per cent of the amount needed, in addition to some farm stock and implements. Unless the father is very well to do, that is more than a young farmer can manage. I am sure that as time goes on we shall have to offer farm loans in which the farmer will not have to put up more than 25 per cent, if so much, on which he pays only three per cent interest, and which run for a long period of years. Then the farmer wants, and as time goes on I believe will get, loans from the federal government, possibly passing through the provincial governments, for great cooperative enterprises in processing, almost debt free. There is no reason except prejudice to prevent the federal' government from issuing money at a service rate.
For the rest of my time I should like to deal with the problem of youth. We ought to try for youth a plan that is many-sided and continuous, until we solve or come close to solving the problem. I connect with this the securing of farm prices that cover the cost of production. Then we could go on and do many other things. The problem facing youth to-day is, I am sure, distressing to everyone in this house. One step we can take to help them is to reduce the age for old age pensions from seventy to sixty-five, and later to sixty. I see no reason why that should not be done. It is not going to hurt a man of sixty-five not to work, particularly if he does not want to, and I imagine that when I reach that age I shall not want to work; I do not want to even now. But it does hurt youth not to work. The government should develop a youth program covering the whole field of Canadian economic life, not just one or two phases. And the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is well qualified to take charge of such a program.
We must admit that this is a difficult time for youth; not hopeless but certainly dif-

ficult. In my generation youth did not worry about a job. We worried about learning to do the kind of work we were preparing ourselves for; we worried about examinations, about a diploma, about apprenticeship, but not about finding a job. I recall, when I applied for my first job, just in order to be safe I applied for five and was accepted for all five. That was no compliment to me; it was merely that teachers were scarce.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, it was special aptitude.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: No, they did not know me. Young people to-day would be very much surprised if, on applying for five jobs they were accepted for all five. It is more likely that when a young person applies for one job to-day, there will be a hundred other applicants-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. I regret to interrupt, but the hon. member's time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on, by unanimous consent.


Mr. HEAPS:: I do not think the hon.
member has been speaking for more than half an hour. She started at twenty-five minutes to five.


Frederick George Sanderson: My information from the table is that the hon. member has spoken for over forty minutes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: All I can say is, the information is wrong.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead; unanimous consent.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I thank the house. I am sure we are all interested, and certainly youth is not a partisan subject. The scheme of education in Canada should be changed. I regret that we have not a department of education in the federal government. Of course we cannot have it under present conditions, but I believe the system of education has had something to do with the youth problem. Too much we have thought of education as a means of preparing a child for an easier life. Too often parents say to a child, " I want you to go to school because I do not want you ever to have to work as hard as I had to." That is a mistake. It gets many people into alleys where they do not belong and are not happy. It leads to crowding in the white-collar jobs and professions, and to a dearth of well trained tradesmen and craftsmen.
School and life have been too much isolated from each other. Youth is kept in the academic world, even those who go only as

The Address-Miss Macphail
far as senior matriculation up to the age of twenty; then they are turned loose in the world of reality wholly unprepared to find their way around in that unfamiliar place. I do not think the problems of youth can be solved entirely apart from the social and economic problems of the country, but a carefully thought out youth program could do much. I commend the government for its youth training project; that is one thing which needed to be done, because it takes these young people who have no jobs or young people who want to work with their hands but do not know how to get into such work, and gives them an opportunity not only to work with their hands but to get training as well. No one who attended the meeting held in the railway committee room the other night could fail to realize the lift that not only the youth of Canada themselves but their instructors have been given by this training project. We so seldom see any real enthusiasm any more that it was a delight to feel the enthusiasm exhibited, although I must say one man from Ontario let his political enthusiasm run away with him.
There is much to be said for the youth training project. It is possibly only a beginning, only a stop-gap. It may be that a great many of these young people cannot be placed in jobs when they finish the training, but it is doing something, and it is constructive. And something constructive is so remarkable that one wants to praise it. I feel that the people of Ontario ought to bring such pressure to bear on the government of that province that they would be forced by public opinion to use the full allotment of money made available to them by the federal government. Last year I understand they used only 40 per cent, and this year they promise to use even less. Enough pressure should be brought to bear to induce even the Ontario government to cooperate with the dominion government.
Something else that could and should be done, possibly by the Department of Labour, since it has undertaken this first task, is to provide a general leisure time program for youth, unemployed and employed; youth who have more time than they can constructively use, who need physical exercise, need the happiness that comes from large numbers of youth being together. This should include gymnastics, singing, outdoor games, and at least something along the lines of handicrafts, art and dramatics. I was impressed by the picture we saw the other night of a mining camp in British Columbia. Those young men were happy together and were learning a great deal.
Since I am speaking on borrowed time I am not going to finish what I intended to say,
71109-9$ J
but shall simply say that good as youth training projects and all these other things that we have been talking and thinking about are, they are not going to move fast enough to take care of all these 100,000 single unemployed, not all young, who are drifting around this country or being cared for in hostels at about ten cents a day for food, sometimes getting three meals a day and sometimes two. I cannot think of anything more terrible than the life of these drifters, going back and forth across Canada or cooped up in hostels. It is a great human wastage, and Canada cannot afford to waste 100,000 of her single unemployed.
If I had time I should like to develop that further, but in closing I shall simply say that I think we should set up camps on the order of the CCC camps in the United States. I do not think we would need to be ashamed of patterning them on the camps of another country, because they have had the experience which we could get only at great cost. I do not want military camps, but the CCC camps are not of that type. They are camps where the young men learn to work on the job. They receive lectures in relation to the work they are doing and are also offered general adult education. Almost every conceivable kind of development is offered them if they want to take it; and in addition, and perhaps more particularly, they are given good food, warm clothes and medical and dental care. They work eight hours a day, five days a week and are paid $30 a month, with from $22 to $25 going back to support their families. Instead of being weights on their families, they have become bread-winners, and the responsibility which many educators to-day claim is not a distinguishing feature of our youth has been developed.
Some other opportunity will offer itself to deal at greater length with this question, but I should like to say that I went through some of the hostels in Toronto just before I came to Ottawa to attend the session. After seeing the hopelessness on the faces of some of those men I should be surprised indeed if anyone could say they did not want to work. The men in charge say that about ten per cent of single unemployed are tubercular, and we know that delinquency is increasing rapidly. It has been said that recidivism among our prisoners now is up to about ninety per cent. They come out of gaol; they cannot find jobs, and therefore, possibly voluntarily, they commit another crime and return to prison. So, if we say we cannot afford to put these men into camps and train them, we do not count the cost we already bear for feeding them, for treatment of the tubercular, for crime and for all sorts of institutions in which a great many of
396	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie (Neepawa)
them finally land. I entreat hon. members of this house to think over this problem of youth and see if we cannot do something that will touch many more than are being affected by the youth training plan, good as it is.


Mr. F. D. MacKENZIE (Neepawa):: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his time to speak.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. B. McKINNON (Kenora-Rainy River):: I wish to associate myself with previous speakers in this debate in congratulating the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address. They both made excellent speeches, and I am sure that the entire house, irrespective of party, enjoyed them as much as I did. I should like also to congratulate our two new cabinet ministers, one of them from Ontario (Mr. McLarty) and the other from Alberta (Mr. MacKinnon). These are men whom we have known quite intimately during the last few years in the house, and I feel sure that the house appreciates their ability and is certain that they will achieve success in the high offices to which they have been appointed. I should also like to congratulate the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his election as head of the Conservative party, that party which has had so much to do with the history of our country. The hon. leader of the opposition comes from the same part of Ontario as I do, and I assure him that the people there feel highly honoured that a man from that part of the country should be chosen to lead that party. I voice the opinion of all the people of northern Ontario in wishing him every success in leading his party-of course in opposition.
In rising to speak so late in the first debate of this session, I feel that I may be very brief in my remarks, and still serve the purpose which I have in mind. Much has already been said on both sides of the house on those problems of the day with which Canada is faced, and while naturally I do not agree with all the views that have been advanced, it is not with any desire to engage in argument that I now rise. Rather what I have in mind is that at the outset of a very important session the people in my riding have a right to. expect their representative to call to the attention of parliament those matters which might most affect them. That duty I now wish to perform.
In common with all other members of the house I want to express my gratification at the proposed visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen to Canada this year. This royal visit is something to which all Canadians, without distinction, will look forward with pleasure and loyal interest. The people in my constituency, many of them at least, hope to have an opportunity of seeing the royal couple, even if only for a brief time. Kenora-Rainy River forms a bottle neck through which travellers and commerce alike
The Address-Mr. McKinnon

must pas to move between east and west, and its location is particularly fortunate in connection with the royal visit, because the riding must necessarily be one through which their majesties will pass. Nowhere in the country will the royal visitors be able to see scenery superior to that afforded by the Lake of the Woods district, nor would a sightseeing journey across Canada be complete without seeing that district. Moreover, Kenora-Rainy River will present as typical a view of the economic life of the great north country of Ontario as can be seen anywhere in this province.
I do not propose at this time to launch into a discussion of the troubled state of international affairs, but I do feel called upon to say a word in support of the attitude of the government in the crisis of last September. Perhaps more than ever we realized then that Canada is but a small factor in the concerns of nations with many times our population, but the issue of peace or war is a vital one for our people. The suffering imposed by armed conflict is relatively as acute in a nation of eleven million people as in one of one hundred million. I feel that we Canadians have much to thank our government for. In those tense days of September we could not settle the affairs of Europe, but any lack of caution on our part, any unwise utterance, might possibly 'have been the spark to light the powder. The government, at the risk of being misunderstood, remained silent, and by remaining silent earned some of the credit for the avoidance of a horrible war. There are other horrors in the world, such as poverty and unemployment, but they cannot be placed alongside war in a comparison of horrors.
Yet the government is not content to trust to chance in defence matters. We may all hope that war will continue to be avoided, but if it is not we must be at least partly prepared to protect our country. From this point of view I welcome the increase in the vote proposed for the defence of Canada. We must be ready to resist greed and aggression, and now is the time to prepare. We are not increasing our armaments against any country; we are only taking necessary steps that the armaments which others will pile up in any case cannot be used successfully against us.
I am confident that the trade agreement concluded with the United States by the present government shortly after coming into office helped employment and trade generally since that agreement came into operation. I therefore feel optimistic that the new trade agreement now entered into will even further expand our trade with our neighbouring republic. These agreements would have been desirable at any time, but with many of our 
former good customers abroad now unable or unwilling to buy as large a share as formerly of the products that Canada has for sale, increased trade on the north American continent is a godsend for us. Until the European situation changes for the better we must hope to expand our trade with Great Britain and the United States in order to help those industries here which depend on trading outside Canada. I speak from somewhat intimate knowledge of this subject because railroading is a very important industry in our district, and decreased sales of wheat, for example, or similar crops, hit our workers directly. Whatever makes trade move, helps our railroads and helps my riding. Employment conditions in Canada have been adversely affected not only by our own troubles but by unsettled conditions abroad. I am glad that the government has not waited for the clearing of the air, so to speak, in international affairs, to give to trade and employment the upswing which is so badly needed.
The housing legislation, special measures for youth training, assistance to the provinces for road construction, and other similar steps, have all been a help in providing much needed work. As a member of this house I am fully prepared to support the government in every future step which they may have in mind to provide more work of this kind. The foreign trade policy of the government, as I have said, has been a big help to us; but unfortunately there is a limit in these days to what we can expect along those lines. Support by any feasible steps to the construction industry, the mining industry, logging and pulp and paper, is very necessary. Kenora-Rainy River is more and more pushing to the front in the mining industry, and whatever the government can do by building roads or by any other steps to help the mining industry will help the people of my riding and will help one of the greatest industries we have in Canada. Assistance to the provinces for road construction is something else that we are very much interested in. We need the work provided by construction, and we need the roads after completion. When road construction is stimulated, it is a case of doing two good deeds at the one time.
As for the forestry industry, much reforestation work could be carried out in northern Ontario, including my own district. Here again, while we might have in mind the employment that this work would give, we should also keep in mind the future of Canada and the shrinkage of products from the forest unless much more is done to replace what is burnt and what is cut. Just this year quite a section of our district was robbed of

The Address-Mr. Brown
valuable forest resources by fire. Lives were endangered and resources eaten up. In addition to clearing the way for the growth of young trees, much profitable work by fire prevention measures could be undertaken.
One cannot sit in this house for four years without understanding the problems with which the ministry is always faced. There is the financial problem; there are constitutional difficulties. None the less there are two considerations that have to be borne in mind in order to be fair to the people of this country. The first is that when normal employment is not sufficient to take care of our people, we must be ready, in order to provide a large volume of much needed work, to take measures that would not be taken at other times. In the second place we must not let financial consideration stand too much in the way when certain undertakings would perhaps pay large dividends to the people of Canada at some future date on an expenditure which would probably be less to-day than if the work were delayed. It is from the point of view of these two considerations that for my part I intend to look upon the legislation that we may be called upon to deal with at this session.
When speaking previously in this house I expressed my steadfast support of the principle of unemployment insurance. It is unfortunate that before now the way has not been cleared to proceed with a measure of that kind, but I do hope that a system of unemployment insurance may grow out of the work of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. If we had started unemployment insurance in pre-depression years, we would have been much better off during the last decade; we would have had a great deal of money accumulated to assist in meeting the cost of unemployment. Even now, and more particularly after the experience we have had, most of us will agree that eventually we must have a system of this kind, and the sooner the better.
In opening my remarks I said I intended to be brief, and consequently I shall not take up any more of the time of the house. I may summarize my remarks by saying that my support can always be relied upon for any reasonable measure which has the object of giving jobs to many of our people at this time.


Mr. A. A. BROWN (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the motion before the house upon the way in which they performed what must have been a most difficult task. While I did not agree with his facts and deductions, I did admire the splendid bilingual accomplishments of the hon. member for Stormont
(Mr. Chevrier), and I regret very much that in my early days I did not apply myself more assiduously to the study of the French language. I must also express my deep satisfaction at the coming visit of their majesties to this country, and I hope and trust that their visit will stimulate the loyalty of all Canadians not only to the crown but to Canada as well.
It is generally agreed that this government was extremely fortunate in being returned to office under conditions probably more favourable than those under which any other government has been returned since confederation. It was elected with a record majority, as hon. members to the right of Mr. Speaker often remind us. In addition, in all provinces but one there were governments of the same political complexion. During the campaign the electors were encouraged to believe that the provincial governments, in cooperation with the federal government, would vigorously and courageously attack the economic and political problems of this country; but as we scrutinize the activities of the government during the three years it has been in office, we find it has made little or no effort to deal with those problems. It has made no attempt to deal with the railway problem, which is costing the taxpayers of Canada about a million dollars a week. It has made no effort to deal with the heavy burden of taxation which is bankrupting our municipalities and provinces, choking our industries and discouraging the investment of capital. No effort has been made to deal permanently with the unemployment problem, which should not exist in a land so rich in natural resources. No leadership is being offered to weld this country into the unified force which is necessary for the permanent peace and prosperity of Canada. Rather do we find the government ignoring these serious problems and following a policy of inaction which is creating a spirit of unrest throughout the whole dominion.
Not only was this government elected under the most favourable conditions; it was extremely fortunate in following the former Conservative administration under the leadership of the former Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), who did the spade work in meeting the problems of the depression. It was the legislation enacted by the late administration that formed the basis for the bulk of the depression legislation under which this government has carried on for the last three years. Many of us have short memories, so I think it would be well to put on Hansard some of the outstanding measures placed on the statute books by the late administration, most of
The Address-Mr. Brown

which were later nullified in whole or in part by the actions of the present government. The late Conservative administration was responsible for acts dealing with unemployment and social insurance, minimum wages, the eight hour day, the day of rest, fair wages and so on; for measures dealing with special farm loans and loans to fishermen; for acts providing for the rehabilitation of drought and soil drifting areas in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta; for special relief measures; for an act to assist in the construction of houses and, finally, for a measure putting teeth in the Combines Investigation Act. And it was the former administration which negotiated the empire trade agreements, which turned out to be the financial salvation of Canada, but which many members of the present government opposed vigorously. The previous government took definite steps to preserve Canadian markets for Canadian workmen, agriculturists and employers of labour, and when this government took office employment was increasing, trade was expanding and Canada had a favourable trade balance amounting to many millions of dollars. At that time it did appear that this country was well on its way to recovery and prosperity.
Perhaps it would be well to check briefly the record of the present government which was elected to office in October, 1935, under such favourable conditions. In the speech from the throne in 1936 the government stated that Canada's most urgent national problem was unemployment. Parliament was advised that the government had concluded a treaty with the United States which was to break up that economic nationalism which was said to be undermining our standard of living. Parliament was further advised that the government intended to refer the social legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada for a riding as to its validity.
There is no doubt the government was and is convinced that the negotiation of the Canada-United States treaty of 1935 was its outstanding achievement. Members of the government waxed quite enthusiastic and eloquent about the benefits which Canada would derive from this great treaty. It was going to expand the trade of the country; it was going to provide wider markets and raise the standard of living. It was going to reduce unemployment and enable our farmers to obtain a fair price for their products. We, the members of the opposition, pointed out that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages and that the advantages gained by our farmers would be only temporary. We pointed out that the employers

of labour and the workers of the country would suffer from the mass production and unfair competition of United States manufacturers. We pointed out further that the farmers would neglect their stable market in Great Britain for the unstable market of the United States. We pointed out that under ordinary conditions the United States was a great producer and exporter of agricultural products, and that instead of importing farm products it would be a competitor of our farmers in foreign markets. We pointed out the experience of Canada with the United States under former treaties, the distress caused the farmers of Canada by the cancellation of the reciprocity treaty of 1866, by the imposition of the Fordney-McCumber tariff and later by the Hawley-Smoot tariff of 1930. We further pointed out the loss which would be entailed by our railway and transportation systems if we engaged in trade north and south at the expense of trade east and west.
We are now in a position to say that the extravagant claims of the government were not realized, and that the predictions of hon. members on this side of the house came true. Unemployment was not banished; the farmers did neglect the British market, and I believe it was the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) who rose in her place in the house last session and protested to the government because there were not proper shipping facilities to ship cattle to the British market. The reason given and accepted was that the farmers had stopped shipping cattle to Great Britain and were shipping them to the more convenient markets of the United States. As a result ships which were ordinarily used for such traffic were converted to other uses.
In the second session of this parliament we were reminded by the government that Canada was rapidly forging her way back to recovery and prosperity; that markets were expanding, revenues were increasing, unem-ploj^ment was decreasing and the wages and purchasing power of the workers and farmers were on the increase. In the speech from the throne we were advised that negotiations were being continued for a three-way treaty between the United States, Canada and Great Britain, which would confirm and enlarge the advantages gained by Canada through the treaty of 1935. A minister of the government pointed out that some industries would necessarily have to make some sacrifices for the general good of the country. The protracted negotiations and untimely utterances by members of the government did much more to slow up industry and increase unemployment than anything else.

The Address

Mr. Brown
Again we read from the speech from the throne that parliament will be asked to approve the Canada-United States treaty which will retain and confirm the advantages derived from the treaty of 1935; that reductions in taxation on trade will be made, and that the government will take over a further share of the burden of relief. In this fourth, and possibly the last speech from the throne before a general election, we would naturally expect to find legislation of a kind which would provide some permanent solution for at least some of our problems. But instead of that we find the same policy of inaction, except that the government has promised to take over the greater part of the relief burden -and that will possibly be only for a short time.
The speech from the throne announces the completion of the Canada-United States treaty, which completion the government hopes will cover all its sins of omission and commission. It is not my intention to-night to deal with the treaty in detail, but I should like to say a few words about the method of its negotiation. There is no question that representatives of Canada were handicapped in negotiating the treaty. The United States representatives had authority to reduce duties by only 50 per cent, and since their rate of duty was at almost the highest peak in the history of the country it was impossible in many instances to receive reciprocal consideration.
The government of the United States consulted all parties whose interests would be affected by the treaty; they permitted representations to be made by the interested parties, and in some instances adjustments were made. On the other hand our government consulted neither the manufacturers and labour organizations nor the agriculturists. The United States, with its population of 110,000,000 people, was exceedingly careful to protect its markets by quotas and restrictions, while Canada, unlike the United States and practically every other nation of the world, took no such precaution.
It has been said in the house that there is very little opposition to the treaty; but I have not found, even in the house, an enthusiastic supporter of the agreement. The support has been qualified, with certain conditions mentioned. It is true that from time to time the treaty has been given faint praise by some manufacturers and some prominent financial men; but the true test of feeling in regard to a treaty of this kind is the manner in which employment is affected.
Have the employers of labour made plans to increase their staffs? Have the labour
organizations gone on record in favour of the treaty? Have the farmers, fruit growers and vegetable growers sent their approval of the treaty to the government? No. To obtain a further test I am suggesting that hon. members should turn to the financial page of their favourite newspaper, and note particularly whether industrial or other stocks have reacted favourably since the completion of the treaty arrangements was announced.
Even members of the government admit they are not sure what benefits the Canadian people will derive from the treaty, but they are hoping Canada will benefit to a great extent. I say the government has no right to gamble away the livelihood of fellow-Canadians on pious hopes.
The speech from the throne indicated further that the government intends to assume a larger share of the relief burden of the municipalities. The government should have taken this action long ago when it was advocated by the mayors' association of Canada. This action should have been taken before municipal debts had accumulated to their present volume. This burden upon real estate is one of the main reasons for the lack of prosperity in the building industry, regardless of the amount of cheap money that is available.
When this parliament convened in 1936, according to the government unemployment was Canada's most urgent national problem. Three years have elapsed and unemployment is still Canada's most urgent national problem, although this government by its inaction does not seem to be aware of the fact. The mayor, the civic administration and the citizens of Hamilton know that unemployment is still Canada's most urgent national problem. Hamilton has one of the best civic administrations in the dominion. Its population is over 150,000 people, and it is situated in one of the largest fruit and vegetable growing districts in the dominion. It is the second largest industrial city in Canada. As I have said before in this house, there is no city in Canada that is more sensitive to the fluctuations of the tariff. It is this uncertainty about the tariff and these new trade treaties that is the cause of a great deal of unemployment in Hamilton to-day. The other day a prominent manufacturer told me that since this government came into office he has found it impossible to plan the activities of his industry for any considerable time ahead. We all know that this is necessary in any business. The manufacturers advise me also that the interpretation of the acts dealing with the importation of certain goods is generally not in favour of the manufacturer.
The Address-Mr. Brown

Since this government came into office in 1935 Hamilton has spent $2,257,152 on relief. In the year ended December 31, 1937, that city spent S329.979 upon 11,201 individuals. In the year ended December 31, 193S, it spent $649,089 upon 17,055 individuals, an increase of 6^254 in the number of individuals on relief. I am informed that during the first two months of this year 370 more families, not individuals, have gone on relief. I should like to inquire from the government what action is being taken to provide work, not relief, for these individuals.
The speech from the throne states further that there is to be a thorough tax revision and that reductions in the taxes on trade are to be made. I believe that such action will prove most injurious to our manufacturing industries,. and the repercussions cannot help but be felt in the primary industries. I feel certain that this action will add considerably to our unemployment problem. The government states that these reductions will increase the purchasing power of our people, but for the life of me I cannot see the benefit in increasing their purchasing power when that purchasing power is to be used in making purchases, not in Canada, but outside this dominion. Surely there are taxes other than the tariff which could be reduced with more benefit to the country. The tariff is the only tax that produces both revenue and employment. Why should Canada, which imposes duties lower than those of any other country- 24-9 per cent on dutiable goods and 13-7 per cent on all goods-contemplate lowering the tariff still further? Why should we have thrown upon our markets goods made by cheap foreign labour? Why should United States goods be dumped on our market at ridiculously low prices, thus throwing Canadian workmen out of employment?
I should like to ask the western farmer particularly to try to understand the problem of the industrial centres. Evidently he believes that the central provinces are the proverbial land of milk and honey. I should like to point out to him that just as the drought in western Canada causes distress, hunger and poverty, so does a reduction in tariff beyond reasonable limits cause distress, hunger and poverty in industrial Canada.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks let me say sincerely that it was not primarily my intention to speak in this debate. I believe, however, that this debate offers an open and very fine forum where all members of parliament find it possible to voice the opinions of their own sections of the country. A number {Mr. Brown.]
of fine speeches have been delivered since the beginning of this session, and in many instances some of the problems facing Canada have been brought forward in a forcible manner.
Before I proceed any further, I want to do as other hon. members have done. It is with all sincerity that I compliment the newly elected member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) upon his wonderful speech, his poise and his profound knowledge of public life. He is certainly a wonderful asset to this house and to parliament.
I should like to compliment highly the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) who has shown in this instance and several times previously how well he is seized of the situation in his own constituency. He has demonstrated to this house how familiar he is with regional and national problems. To those of us of French descent lie has proven to be a wonderful inspiration in showing us how perfectly he has mastered the two official languages of Canada. His accomplishment should be an incentive not only to French Canadians in Quebec, but to all of French descent throughout Canada. They should make it their obligation and their pleasure to learn the English language. Of all the compliments that have been paid to the hon. member, none pleased me more than those which came from the English speaking sections of this house. Hon. members were unanimous in their praise of the accomplishments of the hon. member, and I was glad to hear them say that if it were possible they would try to learn the language of the minority. That is one of the finest declarations I have heard in this House of Commons in the past thirteen years, and I think it speaks well for the future unity of this country and of the mutual respect between the two great races that form the majority of its population.
I should also like to pay a well deserved compliment to the newly elected member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) upon the eloquence and ability he displayed in his speech this afternoon. We know he has received a very fine training in the provincial field. It is not my intention; indeed, I feel that it is against the ethics of the house, to criticize a speech made by a new member, and therefore, with reference to the remark he made this afternoon that he represented the interests of the east, I content myself with saying that I am perfectly satisfied to represent in this house the problems not only of my own constituency but of Canada as a whole, not as an easterner or a westerner, but as a Canadian.

The Address-Mr. Bradette
I was very glad to see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) occupying his old seat in I he house again this session, and it was fine to see the unanimity with which the newspapers of the country greeted his return to public life. Regardless of their political leanings they were unanimous in appreciating the fine work that has been accomplished by the Minister of Finance in the present government and in wishing him a speedy and permanent recovery to health and his full activities again.
May I also pay tribute to the newly elected leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), particularly because he is to some extent a northern Ontario man. It is true that during the last federal elections northern Ontario did not find it possible to give him a seat; but that sort of thing must be expected in public life, and while I cannot say that I very warmly wish that he will find a seat in our section of the country, I am glad that he is a northern Ontario man.
I should also like to congratulate the newly appointed members of the cabinet, the new Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) and the minister without portfolio (Mr. MacKinnon). By their personal ability and the gjasp they have shown of public questions not only have they earned a place in the cabinet, but I am sure they will make a success in their new field. I should also like to pay tribute to the previous Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott), and undoubtedly his successor has a big task ahead of him because the former Postmaster General was a true Canadian, an able statesman. and a good minister, and administrator.
I should like to say a few words about the visit of the king and queen to Canada in the spring. It is undoubtedly a great honour that they are bestowing on this section of the empire in visiting Canada, and we appreciate it very much. But the people in my part of the country were, to put it mildly, not a little disappointed when the itinerary of their majesties' visit was given out and it was stated that it would not be possible for the king and queen to visit our section of northern Ontario. I mention the matter here in the house, and I have already spoken to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), explaining to him that logically we might well expect a visit from their majesties to our section of the country, because of our geographical situation and because of the fact that in that section more progress has been made in the last thirty years than in any other part of Canada. In addition, we have good railway facilities, the best on the continent, and I do hope it will be found possible for our royal visitors, on their
return from the Pacific coast, to visit Kapuskasing, Cochrane, the Porcupine, Kirkland Lake, and also our agricultural and industrial section of northern Ontario. It is a country that has been blessed by Providence, a country with great natural resources now being intensively developed, and our pioneer population of nearly four hundred thousand has been engaged for many years now in pushing back the frontiers of Canada. It has not been an easy task. They have had to fight all the way through. Anyone who studies the economic history of this dominion must realize that during the last eight years the development of the natural resources of northern Ontario has been a wonderful factor in combating the depression. I have already shown to the Prime Minister how it would be possible, without occasioning any delay or lengthening the route of our royal visitors, for them to spend a very few moments with our people of northern Ontario, and perhaps northern Quebec, on their return trip to the east.
I have only a very few words to say about the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition. It is absolutely impossible for me to support it because it is simply a negative.
I very much appreciated the speech that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Grey-Bruee (Miss Macphail), and I should like to compliment both her and the hon. member for the Yukon (Mrs. Black) upon the wonderful speeches they have made during the present debate. Their speeches were constructive and carried more weight than some of the rabid partisan speeches to which we sometimes listen in the House of Commons.
The opposition has been harping on what it calls this do-nothing government. So far the opposition has been only bitterly critical without offering anything constructive. It is hard for me to understand the attitude of the loyal opposition, particularly when I recall that they were in power from 1930 to 1935, and that one of their first acts after being returned to power in 1930 was to call an emergency session of parliament for the purpose of creating one of the worst institutions Canada has ever known, namely, direct relief. The then Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) won the election in 1930 by telling the country he would cure unemployment. Then he called an emergency session of parliament to do what? To cure unemployment? No, to make it worse-to make parliament vote twenty million dollars, and then he instituted direct relief, a system of, doles.
The Address-Mr. Bradette

If was much easier for the government of that day to institute direct relief than it is to uproot the system at the present time. It is often said that democracy is on trial; that is true, and it is true particularly because of the rash promises that were made by hon. gentlemen opposite during the elections and again during the present session. They were going to solve unemployment. Canada was going to blast its way into the markets of the world. But, Mr. Speaker, when we consider what the late government did so far as unemployment is concerned, it ill behooves the present opposition to criticize the government. We are fully seized of the actual situation, and it is the implicit duty of every member of this house to bend his or her energies to abolish direct relief and to give work.
I was surprised to hear some members of the opposition state that we opposed them very bitterly during the time they were in office. I well remember that in 1935 we were accused by the late lamented Sir George Perley. who was at the time leading the government in the absence of the then Prime Minister, for not opposing the government enough. I well remember, too, that the present leader of the opposition, then sitting on the treasury benches as Minister of Railways, accused the opposition on several occasions for not opposing the government sufficiently. Surely that is an evidence that we were giving the government the fullest cooperation possible, in an endeavour to cure a serious situation which is not only national but world-wide.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, has there been anything constructive in the criticism of the opposition since this debate began? Is there anything constructive in the amendment of the leader of the opposition? No, absolutely not. I sat on the opposition benches for a good many years, and I never made a political speech. Why? Because as a member of parliament I was fully seized of the seriousness of the situation that was facing this country, and the responsibility and duties of my position.
As soon as the present leader of the opposition was elected leader of his party, he made several speeches in different parts of this country, as it was his right and duty to do, and one of the first policies that he propounded was that it was an obligation upon the federal government to make unemployment g, matter of federal concern only.
I am absolutely open-minded, Mr. Speaker, in my discussion of unemployment because, representing as I do a district that is largely concerned with mining, industrial development and agriculture, I am fully seized of

the unemployment question and some of the sufferings that it causes. It is true that we have some unemployment at the present time, and there is not a single Canadian worthy of the name who does not at the bottom of his heart want to see this ulcer of unemployment, which is eating into the life of our country, removed. But the problem is not easy of solution. While it is a national problem, it is also an individual problem for which every Canadian is just as directly responsible as any government or any member of the government. We must go down to the valley and play the game with the people; we must see and endeavour to find out and learn the causes of this problem of unemployment and ways of solving it. It is surprising to hear such statements as those, for instance, by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), who seems to think that the individual member of parliament is not fully seized of such a situation as exists in his constituency with regard to unemployment. We are aware of it, and deplore it, and whether we sit on the treasury benches or in the opposition, all hon. members try to the limit of their abilities and powers t# remove this evil from our national life.
I believe that a similar statement was made by the leader of the opposition on one occasion only, namely in Montreal, and that ever since he has been mute upon the subject. If I thought for one moment that to make the unemployment question purely and simply a national and federal matter would solve it, I would be willing that it should be done, and done at once. But that would not provide an absolute and permanent solution; the problem is harder than that to solve. Primarily the responsibility rests on the individual Canadian citizen; second, on the townships and municipalities; third, on the provinces and also On the federal government; but all must equally share the responsibility. You cannot get away from that. We are all fully alive to the situation; all of us have given thought to try to solve it. Only a few days ago I was speaking with a curate in northern Ontario, and he said, "Why do you not solve the unemployment situation the same as they do in Germany, for instance, or in Italy, or in Russia?" This was my answer, "Are the Canadian people at the present time in a mood to have the unemployment and youth problem solved in the same way in which it is being handled in those totalitarian states-to see the youth of this country regimented in the same way as they are in Russia or Germany or Italy, where they get two or three cents a day. and where they are compelled under

The Address-Mr. Bradette
severe discipline to do work which perhaps they do not like or are not fit to do?" The Canadian people are not in a mood for regimentation, although there is no avoiding the fact that as a democracy we are in need of more discipline. I remember that a short time ago the Canadian corps association passed a resolution which, if acted upon, would, they thought, help to a great extent to solve the youth problem in this country. They suggested that it would be possible to "regiment," in the mild sense of the word, the youth of this country, putting them in some sort of camp, not barracks, where they could be looked after and given suitable training and education. Yet immediately there were unfavourable reactions from nearly every section of Canada. While we should not copy what has been done in the totalitarian states, if we are to find a solution of this problem there must be a little more of the spirit of self-sacrifice and self-discipline.
During the present discussion references have been made to disunity in this country. Let us consider for a moment a point which I had in mind in speaking of the unemployment situation, namely, the disunity within certain parties in the house. The Social Credit party, for all of whose members I have a high respect, have their own difficulties; they had to throw out one of their own members, if he did not go of his own volition into the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation corner. We find that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party were rather abusive last year to one of their members who drew out from their ranks, and that the same thing happened to several of their members in Vancouver, British Columbia, and also in Toronto, whom they forcibly threw out of their fold. We have recently seen a spectacle of disunity in the great Conservative party, both provincially and federally. At the same time all these groups capitalize very highly and rejoice over the disunity which they find in this dominion. What is to be said of the attitude of Premier Duplessis as regards the problem of unemployed youth? If Mr. Duplessis thought for one moment that we intended to make unemployment an exclusively federal question, he would realize that it would be one of the finest ways to centre all economic activities under this government, and he would be one of the first to protest. If we were able to solve the present unemployment situation by really making it a national and federal responsibility, I would be absolutely in favour of doing so. But what would happen? You would immediately have a reaction, and rightly so, through the expenditures made by the federal treasury
in all centres of this country, requiring the federal government to take charge of practically all economic activities within the provinces, and then you would hear more "hollering" and criticism from the municipalities and, in particular, from some of the men who have been most outspoken on this subject of disunity. Such a policy will be centralization under federal authority with a vengeance!
Let it not be thought for a moment that any member of this government, when he goes before his constituents or leaves the four walls of this house, tries to unload his responsibilities on the shoulders of others, or is not trying to the uttermost to find a solution of this problem.
A word about national unity. Our friends on the other side seem firmly to believe, and perhaps want to believe, that we have disunity in this country. I belong to a section in northern Ontario where, only twenty-five years ago, some people were speaking very seriously of seceding from old Ontario. I know I shall be believed when I state that this agitation was never deep and never serious, and I always fought against such an idea. Later on, as the country developed, we had a Conservative government at Toronto. At that time some of the farmers and miners in the mining section of northern Ontario, because they did not get all the roads and attention they expected from Queen's Park, as it was called then and as we call it now, or because they did not obtain all the colonization and highways roads they wanted, started to talk about secession, like a bunch of young school boys, because, as has been very properly said, man is just a grown-up boy. But these things were absolutely superficial. In those days the Liberals in a good many instances were guilty of starting that kind of agitation, never believing at the bottom of their hearts that they wanted to secede from old Ontario. At the present time, now we have a Liberal government at Queen's Park, some Conservatives have begun to argue that we should secede. Hon. members need not worry about that kind of thing. Northern Ontario will never secede from southern Ontario or from the Canadian confederation.
Let us review very briefly the situation in the various provinces. It is true that to the Rowell commission were presented several briefs which were explicit and definite in their requests of and intended raids on the federal government. But if one studies those briefs one will find that for the most part it is a case of "ganging up" on the federal treasury to obtain more money. Take the money question away and j'ou have no disunity in this country. I am not a married man-unluckily.
The Address-Mr. Bradelte

I will admit-but I am told that a little family spat sometimes is good for family life, and I should not like to see our national life so placid that we would have no right to discuss our provincial, regional and national problems without talk of disruption and disunity. Is there any real disruption in British Columbia? No; there is none whatever. Is there any real disruption in Alberta? No, there is none there. If some of the regulations put forward by my friends of the social credit party have been disallowed by the higher courts in this country, it was simply because they were against the statutes of Canada, because in many instances they amounted to confiscation or repudiation; only for those reasons were they disallowed. It was not a question of being unfair to Alberta. While I am speaking of that fine province, now they are in power there with a large majority my hon. friends know how hard it is to apply the policies-I will not say the fallacies-of their own party.
Let us turn to the provincial governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Those two fine provinces as well as Alberta have suffered grievously in the past six or seven years on account of the drought. The situation so far as agriculture is concerned has been very bad, and when the people suffer they are bound to make requests not only in the provincial but in the federal forum. But does anyone believe for one moment that for those reasons Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba will secede from the Canadian confederation?
Or take the case of my own province of adoption, the dear old province of Ontario. Does anyone think for one moment that Ontario, the keystone of confederation, will secede from our confederation? No, Mr. Speaker, it will not. It is true we may have some differences, which constitute only a natural development, and during these troublous times the overwhelming majority of the Ontario people are absolutely behind this great confederation and ready to do all they can in a spirit of give and take, cooperation and understanding, to bring prosperity to every section of Canada.
In regard to my native province of Quebec, I realize that for the last few years there has been a propounding of new theories with which I am not in sympathy, far from it, but I tell hon. members that most of the stories of agitation from the fine old province of Quebec relate to the activities of an infinitesimal minority. Take, for instance, those who want to have a French Canada within a Laurentian boundary; they know well that they are not logical with themselves, their own people, or
fMr. Bradette.]
the Canadian people as a whole. That movement does not go very deep. There is talk of fascism, and I have no more love for fascism or nazism than I have for communism, but these movements also have no very deep roots in Quebec. The people who for the last four centuries have colonized both shores of the St. Lawrence and are now colonizing and opening up for civilization the unoccupied lands of this country would never seriously think of secession from the Canadian confederation.
But we have some grievances, and we have problems to face at the present time. One which has been a heavy burden on this country for the last seven or eight years is that of unemployment caused by a new factor that was non-existent previously. Sometimes we hear from the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) particularly and from some other hon. members that in the past when large numbers of immigrants were coming to this country, it was only like filling a bottomless pail, and some of our native population were lost to the United States. There was reason for some of my relations going to the New England states and to California, and no matter what the situation was in Canada these people would never have come back to live in our midst. In most instances the same principle applies in regard to the hundreds of thousands who left Canada for the United States. It is nevertheless true that this heavy emigration was a national loss to Canada in times past, and we all deplored it. But for the last few years that emigration has not been possible. Thus we have to face a new situation. Our natural increase in population has to find means of life in our midst. This is one of the problems that Ontario, and more particularly Quebec, have to face at the present time. But it will never be solved by agitation or talk of secession, which, I repeat, is superficial. In the old provinces there is very little leeway left for colonization; in the western provinces only a few open spaces are left, and there is more left in British Columbia. We must of necessity put our heads together to find ways and means of keeping in this country the natural increase in our population, and giving our people the standard of living to which they are accustomed.
Let us study for a moment the talk of secession in the maritime provinces, those fine old provinces of which we hear so often, and with good reason, that have given so many fine men to the public life of this country, and whose sons have made their mark in every state of the American union and

The Address-Mr. Bradette
Canada. Do hon. members think for a moment that the maritime provinces, which made some sacrifices to come into confederation, would secede from Canada? No, they will not. I am positive it would have proved most beneficial had all the provinces found it possible to bring their grievances before the Rowell commission, because we must have mutual understanding of one another's problems, and all parts must have opportunity to express their sentiments. But there was never a thought in the minds of the people who presented the most rabid briefs and tried to make the greatest raids on the federal treasury, or even made the most rash requests, of seceding if they thought their requests would not be implemented. But it is easier to disrupt than to keep united. It is our bounden duty in this federal house to take a national viewpoint. We have one primary duty when a question threatening disunity is mentioned; that is, to work in every way to maintain unity in every section of the country, and in this work of upbuilding we must always give the best there is in us.
I shall not enlarge much longer at this time on the question of unemployment, although I may say a few words later in regard to its relationship to the agricultural aspect. It is impossible to find some one simple formula to cure unemployment. It will not be cured by reform of the monetary system only; agricultural loans only will not cure it; reduction of tariffs alone will not do it; the problem is more complicated than that. If it were possible, for instance, for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to start the printing press, issue to-morrow billions of dollars of new Canadian money, distribute it to every section of the country and say, go ahead with a program of public works, the problem would have been solved long ago. But I repeat, no simple formula or abundance of criticism will solve the problem of unemployment.
As far as the subamendment is concerned I confess it is not so rabidly socialistic as in previous years. I must give credit to the hon. member for Vancouver East for the fact that it is veiy brief and entirely non-committal, it is neither fish nor flesh; anyone could vote for or against it, and it would be absolutely harmless. But a few days ago the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) put a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), asking him whether, after all that had been said by the leader of the opposition in this house, it would be possible for him or his party to propound their theories in the province of Quebec-something of that kind. I am not
now interested directly in the province of Quebec, but I know the mood and temperament of the people. I know there was no necessity to ask such a question. Although the communists have done all they could to bring the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation into their fold, the federation have resisted the temptation so far although in two ridings at the last federal election they were so close together in Timiskaming and Nipissing that they had the same electoral organization.


Mr. COLDWELL:: Not with the consent
of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Perhaps, I repeat that it is to your credit that you have kept free of them, although the pressure has been so strong from the other side. At the same time a thing that surprises me most is the strong sympathy you show for the communistic ideal.


Major James William Coldwell: In a public statement
in Saskatchewan last week, Walter Wiggins, secretary of the communist party, called for a united front behind the present Prime Minister of this country.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: And your Saskatchewan leader asked them to unite behind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, no.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I repeat that there was no necessity for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to ask that question of the Minister of Justice, and in that way to try to show the province of Quebec in an improper light. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the members of his party, and, as far as that goes, everyone else, so long as they remain within the law of this country, would be as free in the province of Quebec as in any other province of the Canadian federation. Although I am not absolutely in full agreement with the padlock law because it does not go far enough in some particulars. I do say that if our communist friends believed that Russia is such a wonderful earthly paradise, I would be in favour of passing a law immediately to deport them and ask them to go and live in that country. To the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation I can say that I am just as liberal-minded as they are. I have been a labour organizer, and I have good labour support in my section. When there is a strike I stay with the workers and know what happens, and speaking as a labour man I say the communistic party is boring within the labour ranks Trying to solve the problems
The Address-Mr. Bradette

of Canadian labour? Oh, no, trying to aggravate them, trying to sabotage Canadian industry and get the virus of communism running rampant in the factories and industries of this dominion. I repeat to my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that when they pose as champions of the communistic ideal, they must of necessity carry some responsibility for the things for which that party stands. And these are things which are absolutely foreign to our Canadian thought.
When you are dealing with Russia and communism you are constantly driven to metaphors; it is like a vast looking-glass where all "values" are inverted. When they are ready and willing to destroy the liberty of the individual for the sake of the state; when they are ready-and they have done it -to destroy religion in all its forms because they call it the opiate of the people; when they are willing to destroy the intelligentsia of a country; when they want to work from within towards revolution-I see some members on the other side laughing, but see what has happened in Russia. An infinitesimal minority has brought that country to where it is to-day. I do not intend to say that things were good in Russia prior to the present regime, and as far as I am concerned it is absolutely up to the Russians to have the kind of government they wish to have. But at the same time the communist or bolshevik party in Russia, before they were able even to prove that their theories were applicable to their own nation, made it a religion to spread those theories throughout the world. They were not satisfied to impose them on the Russian people only; they wanted to spread them throughout the civilized world. They have sent missionaries and apostles over here to try to scuttle our labour organizations, to poison the food in our labour camps and to destroy the machinery in our mining camps.
I know whereof I speak in connection with this matter, and if I display some sign of emotion it is because one night they rushed me when I was attempting to shame the English and French-speaking Canadians who were being run and led, as far as labour organizations in this country were concerned, by people who did not even want to be naturalized. Those people, who told me I should call everybody "comrade," tried to rush me off the platform; some of them were only a few feet from me. So I say to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party: I want to believe that you are sincere; I have seen you in action in this House of Commons, and I have great respect for the two leaders of your party, though I do not
(Mr. Bradette.]
agree with the principles of socialism. But would it be possible for people from Canada, labour men or average Canadians, to go to Russia to-morrow and try to agitate against the Russian government? What would their lives be worth? They would not be worth a cent; they would hang by a thread. We must beware of revolution.
This is the sort of thing we hear in Canada, under those British institutions which have come to us through centuries of fighting and bloodshed. We have freedom of religion, thought and action. We seem to think we can sit complacently by and take no action on these matters; we seem to think we are absolutely immune in this regard, but we are not. The moment you give a viper a chance to sting you, death follows. Give typhoid a chance to spread into every section of this country and fifty per cent of our population will disappear within a year. Should we be tolerant of disease, immorality and venomous serpents such as those I have mentioned? As far as I am concerned I say, no. We have our Canadian constitution and our parliamentary system. We must uphold with all our might these cherished institutions. It is not perfection, and I have no desire to uphold some of the shortcomings of the democracies, or even of our system of parliamentary government. But surely we know in our own hearts that our system is much to be preferred to what they have in Russia, Germany or Italy. If I speak again with feeling, it is because in my own soul and conscience I have suffered when I have seen fine, upright Canadians fooled into joining these new institutions or organizations, about which they knew nothing. Before they were aware of it they were not leaders at all, but were receiving the sticks and stones which were supposed to be aimed at the heads of the so-called leaders.
I should like to mention just one or two matters with regard to the international situation. I am very glad indeed that it is not within my power to know all the secrets of international diplomacy, because we all feel that the situation is deplorable, and I might find the burden unbearable. Only twenty years after the close of the war that was supposed to end all wars we find that all the so-called civilized nations of the world are ready to jump at one another again like ferocious animals. I am no prophet; I have no power to tear away the veil that hides the future of the civilized world, but it is easy to visualize what would happen if we had a world war again. It would be the doom of civilization as we know it. Our civilization

.	The Address-Mr. Bradette
would be set back at least two hundred years; such a war would create anarchy and untold misery, and that must be avoided by our activity and our prayers. Mankind is never greater than when it kneels before its God and Creator, and it should be possible to have such fervent prayers that the leaders of the nations of the world may find it possible to settle their troubles without calling on the flower of their mankind and womankind to be sacrificed and butchered, not on the field of honour but on the field of blood and mud, and all the miseries known to mankind.
These are things which make everyone tremble. How I appreciate the statesmanlike attitude that was adopted by the leader of this government only a few months ago; and when I make that statement I am voicing the sentiments of every one of my constituents.
' The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie' King) was fully seized with the gravity of the situation, and how his heart must have been troubled when he thought of the horrible holocaust that might have been started at any time during that period of tension last fall, when the fate of the whole world was hanging on the actions of two or three men. And here I must compliment most sincerely the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon the admirable attitude he adopted during that time of stress. He was more than a politician then; he was a statesman, when he said he was in agreement with the Prime Minister of Canada. The same might be said with regard to the social credit group, who showed themselves to be men of vision in a time of crisis and fully aware of the situation. I should like to believe that my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Confederation party felt the same way, but they have always been turbulent and to all appearances antagonistic to peace, and even during the present session they have been twitting and tantalizing the government in regard to its external policy, and have even said during this discussion that the pact of Munich was a fiasco.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the pact of Munich was not a fiasco; it was a triumph of statesmanship on the part of the leaders of Great Britain and France, and the whole world should be thankful to Mr. Chamberlain. More than that, Munich gave an opportunity to the fine German people-because there are many fine people left in Germany; the majority of them are-to cheer Mr. Chamberlain, when they well knew he was not on a mission of war but bent on a mission of peace. They cheered Mr. Chamberlain because the German fathers and mothers and their sons and daughters knew that war would
be just as horrible for Germany and Italy as it would be for France and Great Britain. They were cheering because they knew there was still hope, under Christianity and for the preservation of our civilization as we know it, for peace in this world. My hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party should be sincere with themselves, and I am going to ask them a question. Suppose for a moment that at the time of the crisis a Labour government had been in power in England and Mr. Attlee had been prime minister and had taken the same steps at Munich. Would they not have been the first to praise him for his vision and foresight? I know they are all men of peace, as we all are. I know they are in favour of selfdefence, and I know they will never willingly allow civilized countries to be down-trodden. That is why I am all the more astonished at their attitude on this matter.
Let us briefly review what reasons we might have had last fall to fight against Germany in defence of Czechoslovakia. The natural protector of that nation was Russia. Was she ready to act? Assuredly not. It was impossible for France to fly over Germany and Poland to defend Czechoslovakia. Was it possible for Great Britain to offer any direct relief? Both France and Great Britain have always upheld the principle of justice to minorities, and no one can get away from the fact that in Czechoslovakia there was a German minority that wanted to get away from the tutelage of that country.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. gentleman's time is up.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I just want to conclude with a few words.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Walter Edward Foster: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I thank hon. members most sincerely, and in conclusion I want to repeat that in this house we have a great responsibility. There is more than an election to think of, though if I should be remiss in my duties as a member of parliament I want my own constituents to be my judge and jury.
But as I have said before, regardless of what happens at the next general election, whether it is this year or next year, would it not be wonderful if we could find it possible to put our heads together to work out a solution of our pressing problems? Criticism is necessary; opposition is also necessary, but it should be constructive criticism and constructive opposition. It should then be
The Address-Mr. Rickard

possible to face the future of this country with the knowledge that we shall have unity in our constructive activities, that our work will be fruitful in accomplishments and results, and that we shall find it possible, to a very large extent, to solve the problems that are so important as far as the youth and, indeed, all citizens of this country are concerned, for a better, greater and more prosperous Canada.


Mr. W. F. RICKARD (Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few observations on the speech from the throne. I can assure the house they will be short, and I shall simply state facts because I believe that already a great deal of time has been wasted. May I join with other hon. members in congratulating the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply. Their speeches were a credit not only to themselves but to the constituencies they represent. Also I should like to add my word of commendation of the appointment to the cabinet of the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon). I am sure both hon. members will add much prestige and dignity to the positions they occupy. I am sure I voice the sentiment of hon. members on both sides of the house when I say we are sorry indeed that on account of ill health the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Elliott) had to relinquish his position as Postmaster General. As one of the new members who came to the house in 1935, I should like first of all personally to thank the retiring Postmaster General and his staff for the splendid cooperation they have given.
May I add also on behalf of the people of the constituency of Durham our appreciation of the visit of Their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth. Although they cannot personally visit the only town in Canada where radium is made, I hope they will pass through the town of Port Hope on their way west. I am sure their visit will add much towards cementing the ties of friendship between Canada and her neighbour, as well as ties of friendship with other countries of the world.
May I congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his election as leader of the Conservative party. I am not personally acquainted with the hon. member, but I believe he was brought up in the Liberal fold, and no doubt will do a good job as leader of the Conservative party.
Being a farmer I am perhaps more interested in trade agreements and their effect
[Mr. Bradette.1
upon agriculture than in any other single item. We have listened to many hon. members on both sides of the house who state they are farmers. I cannot see why there should be so much difference of opinion among them, when they are all selling the same articles in the same markets of the world. I agree with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) that both federal and provincial governments have done a great deal towards educating the farmer to produce economically and efficiently. But the main thing is to sell our products to advantage, after we have been educated to grow them. That is where this government has done most for the farmers, through its trade agreements. Surely no one directly interested in agriculture will say that if we had not had the United States market in the past three years we would have received more for our cattle and hogs. On the contrary we scarcely would have been able to sell them.
Among the concessions which have been gained for agriculture in Canada one of major importance is a further reduction in the duty on cattle of 700 pounds or more, and an increase in the quota. Under their tariff act of 1930 the United States established a duty of three cents per pound, but under the trade agreement of 1935 this was reduced to two cents, the number of cattle not to exceed 155,799 head. The duty is now further reduced to one and one-half cents per pound, and the quota is raised to 225,000. The new agreement also stipulates that not more than 60,000 heavy cattle can be sold in any one quarter. I believe this is a good clause. Also there will be 100,000 calves up to two hundred pounds allowed into the United States market at a reduced rate of one and one-half cents per pound. Dairy cows are allowed to enter the United States in any quantity at a duty of one and one-half cents per pound.
The new agreement reduces the duty on hogs to one cent per pound, and on pork to one and one-half cents per pound. The duty on milk has been reduced to three and one-quarter cents per gallon, and the duty on cream from thirty-five cents to a little over twenty-eight cents per gallon, but the quota of 1,500,000 gallons remains the same. Cheddar cheese and poultry, potatoes and many other or - mcd'Ccs are mentioned. Surely no one will say that the treaty is not to the advantage of the Canadian farmer. I should like to place on Hansard figures which I do not believe have been placed there before, showing the number of cattle and other commodities we were allowed to ship and the percentage we did ship.

The Address-Mr. Rickard
Used by Canada
Cattle, 700 pounds or more. Calves, less than 175 pounds
Dairy cows	
Cream	
Seed potatoes	
Lumber	
		1938	1937
Total of	Per cent to	Per cent toquota	December 3	November 27155,799	45-7	Quota filled51,933	73-4	Quota filled20,000	33-2	30-21.500,000	0-34	8-6750,000	99-4	99-6feet board measure	250,000,000	62-4	52-6
Receipts from Canada of seed potatoes amounted to 745,497 bushels or, as the tabic shows, 99-4 per cent of the quota. With respect to unmanufactured lumber the total quantity shipped amounted to 155,906,000 feet.
Of course we must have some form of cooperation. The time has come when we cannot market profitably in a haphazard, slipshod way, but we must have some system whereby the farmers themselves will cooperate and take advantage of the markets their government has opened for them. If they do that, they will be in a much happier position before long.
We hear some criticism of the reduction in the preferential tariff on apples from 4s. 6d. to 3s., but it is generally agreed that the price of apples was no better after we had the preferential tariff of 4s. 6d. than it was before. More than that, I am an apple grower myself, and at present have 400 barrels of spy apples to sell. A man who was on the committee at the time the empire trade agreements were signed told me that the apple growers and shippers did not expect to get 4s. 6d. preference. At that time they would have been satisfied with 80 cents a barrel, which is considerably less than they are getting at present.
I should like to see the dumping duty retained for at least another two months, until March 1 instead of January 1, in order to give us an opportunity to clean up a little more of our fruit before the citrus fruits enter the market at a reduced rate. I believe it is optional in the agreement that with the consent of the other countries this could be done.
Furthermore, I do not believe any package of apples should be put on the market without having a government stamp of some kind on it. We hear people say, "We cannot get a good apple to eat. If we buy a peck or a bushel of apples, the top may be good and the bottom trash." Surely we should be able to relieve that situation and give people what they pay for. If we do not, we cannot expect to have good markets.
Something has been said about price fixing, and the government is blamed by some for
fixing the price of western wheat at 80 cents, and nut fixing the price of Ontario wheat. The previous government fixed the price of western wheat at 87J cents per bushel. I have every sympathy for the western farmer.
Last summer I had an opportunity of travelling through the west to the coast. I visited many cities and towns in western Canada, and also communities in the dried-out areas of southern Saskatchewan. As far as southern Saskatchewan is concerned, it seems to me that it would not make very much difference if the price had been fixed at S2 a bushel, as they had no wheat to sell. To my mind it will be a long time before they have any. There are many areas of the west which are splendid sections of country. To my mind Alberta is a wonderful province. I visited Calgary and the Turner valley oil field, and also drove out to the town of Red Deer which boasts of having no municipal debt. I visited many sections of British Columbia. I want to state now that the hospitality of the people of the west is not excelled by that of any people in the world.
I also represent a riding which is half urban. There are several important industries in my constituency, and I am glad to say that since the present government came into power they have been doing more business than ever before. We will admit that during the latter part of 1938 conditions were not as good as they were in 1937, but even at that they were a great deal better than they were from 1930 to 1935 when hon. friends to my left were in office. This is the first time in the history of Canada that this country did not suffer the full effects of a United States depression. The fact is that Canada's production in 1938 as compared with that in 1935 showed an increase of 13 per cent; the United States production showed no improvement, while that of Great Britain showed an improvement of only three per cent.
In the village in which I live there is a small box factory that employs from sixty-five to seventy men and girls. They have done a wonderful business during the past three years. In that village we have only
The Address-Mr. Rickard

two or three families on relief, and that only because of the ill health and the inability to work of the heads of the households. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company enlarged their plant in Bowmanville last year by several thousand square feet in order to take care of increased business. There are other industries in that town such as furniture factories and foundries, all of which are doing very well. Port Hope is the only place in the world where radium is made, and several of the industries in that town did better business than ever before prior to the last half of 1938. They increased the wages of their employees, and many have added to their plants. These industries have not been hurt in any way by the trade agreements. In fact they may have been benefited. This explains why unemployment is not so bad in my constituency. I do not say that we have no one out of work. We have seasonal unemployment the same as in many other places. There are many people who would like steady jobs, but conditions are not nearly so bad as they were from 1930 to 1935.
The transient problem is one of the worst problems that has to be faced by our municipalities. AVe do not mind looking after our own to a certain extent, but we do object to having our police stations filled with these people all the time and having them live either from house to house or on the town. I am glad to know that the government is taking action in this regard. I am glad also to know that our different service clubs and our churches and other organizations are trying to cooperate with the government in solving this problem. I believe that if the government, these different organizations and business, be it on the farm or in the factory, would all cooperate, we could go a very long way toward solving many of the problems we have to-day. Government and business have new opportunities to work hand in hand in solving problems which can be solved only by their working together. As colleagues and not competitors they could get down to brass tacks on a national program for economic stability and social advancement, including greater security for the individual. Political controversy, failure on the part of governments to take business into their confidence and indifference or inaction on the part of business leaders will never provide a positive approach to our national problems.
The new trade treaties embody two principles that we all should be ready to endorse. In the first place the pact is a step away from trade barriers and restrictive tariffs that have almost crippled world trade and under-

mined the financial structure of many powerful nations. It is fitting that the Anglo-Saxon democracies should be the first to abandon narrow nationalism and lead the world in an attempt to reestablish a normal interchange of goods and services. The Canadian trade treaty with the United States merits commendation because of the advantages secured for the primary industries of this country. Agriculture, fishing and lumbering should all benefit. If these industries improve, the gains will soon be reflected in all phases of our economic life.
I should like to say a word about the implements of production. The tariff on farm implements has been, reduced all along the line. AA'hen this government came into office, duties on farm implements were 25 per cent, 15 per cent and 10 per cent. These were reduced to 7J per cent and 5 per cent, with some items being placed on the free list. Importations of these implements from the United States have increased from a little more than $4,000,000 in 1935 to above $16,000,000 in 1937. The duty on mining machinery has also been reduced. The duty on gasoline was reduced from 2J per cent to one-half per cent, and imports of this commodity have increased by over $1,000,000. Unmanufactured fertilizers have been free since 1906, but reductions from 10 per cent to 74 per cent and from 20 per cent to 15 per cent have been made in the duty on manufactured fertilizers by the present government. AVe have in the town of Port Hope a fertilizer plant which is doing a real business. This plant has proved of real service to that part of the community.
Our national defence problem is perhaps as important as anything that we shall discuss in this house during this session. AAThen we came into office in 1935 the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) promptly called for a report on conditions at that time. It was found that practically every service was absolutely out of date. Canada lacked adequate naval forces, while the militia had no field gun ammunition. There was not sufficient field artillery, and coast defence armaments were found to be obsolete. There were no tanks, armoured cars or tractors, and the manufacturing facilities for these armaments were not available in Canada. The reorganization of the militia was recommended in 1932, but no steps were taken at that time to carry out that recommendation. It was found that militia training was at a low ebb, the training efficiency being only about 17 per cent. Appropriations for the militia service in the last two or three years

The Address-Mr. Evans
have been approximately double those of the previous government. The appropriations this year for the navy are treble those of the late administration. Appropriations for the air force are approximately five times those of the previous administration. Appropriations for the three services prior to this year were almost treble those of the previous administration.
When we compare our national defence with that of Australia we find that we are falling a long way behind. In Australia the national defence premium is S6.73 per capita; in the United States it is $7.58, and in Great Britain, $27.21. Canada's is $3.17. The only countries doing less for their own defence than Canada are a few of the minor Central American republics. We are proud of our asosciation with the great British commonwealth of nations. We are greatly appreciative of the part played by the British fleet in preserving our shores from the menace of invasion. We recall with gratitude and appreciation the words of President Roosevelt uttered at Queens university, when he came last summer to join with our own Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in dedicating the new international bridge at Ivy Lea. He said:
The Dominion of Canada is part of the sisterhood of the British empire. I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire.
We are indeed a fortunate people to have such friends.
While we have a Department of National Defence, I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, how it would be to have a Department of Peace. It may be just as necessary to have a Department of Peace as a Department of National Defence, and I think the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon), who has just been appointed to the cabinet, without portfolio, could fill the position of Minister of Peace very creditably. Of course, he would have to work in conjunction with the Department of External Affairs, and his assistance would afford great relief to the Prime Minister in carrying out his duties as Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We hear a great deal from the opposition about this being a do-nothing government, but I want to say in closing that no government in history has gone so far in putting its election pledges into effect as has this government. They have grappled with many problems which had no direct bearing on their platform and to which no reference was made in the
platform. They certainly did not pass legislation only to have it referred to the courts and declared ultra vires; and I am satisfied that the people of Canada, when they know the whole story, will approve what has been done by this government and will return it to power whenever an election takes place.
I shall vote, Mr. Speaker, for the main motion and against the amendments.


Mr. C. R. EVANS (Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to add my words of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It was a gratification to us coming from western Canada to be honoured by having the junior Liberal member from the west chosen to move the address, and I am sure we are all agreed that he acquitted himself well in his first attempt at speaking in this House of Commons. We are indeed pleased to have the hon. member for Brandon representing in this house the Liberal cause from western Canada.
I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Stormont upon the excellent manner in which he delivered his speech in both English and French. We of the Englishspeaking race often envy the French-Cana-dian for the fluency with which he can speak in both the official languages of the house.
I should like also to extend my congratulations to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his election to the leadership of the Conservative party of Canada. I have one particular wish for him, and that is that for many years he may remain leader of the opposition in this House of Commons.
It is gratifying to know, Mr. Speaker, that our king and queen intend to visit Canada this year. We in western Canada look forward to their visit with great expectations. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bra-dette). in addressing the house to-night, expressed the wish that the king and queen might visit northern Ontario. We in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan and the people in the southeastern part of Alberta are naturally disappointed that their majesties' itinerary as at present arranged permits of no stop at any point between Moose Jaw and Medicine Hat. That leaves a long stretch of three hundred miles in southwestern Saskatchewan and southeastern Alberta where the school-children and our young people will not have an opportunity of seeing their majesties.
During the course of this debate we have heard a good deal of criticism of the distribution of relief in western Canada, and

The Address-Mr. Evans

particularly in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), in the course of his address the other day, stressed the maladministration of relief in Saskatchewan. I come from a portion of Saskatchewan where for the last thirty years it has been found necessary to have relief administered or assistance given at some time or another to some of our people in that part of the province, and the relief had always been administered through the rural municipalities of western Canada until 1930, when that system was changed. A relief commission was then set up by the then cooperative government, which was dominated by Conservative members and led by a Conservative premier. I have every respect for the gentlemen and the ladies who composed that relief commission in Saskatchewan, but I cannot say the same for the relief inspectors who were travelling throughout the country administering the relief. We had that system of relief by a commission in Saskatchewan for five years, and when the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in this government, who was then leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan, issued his manifesto to the people of that province before the provincial election of June, 1934, he stated that if he were returned to power one of the first acts of his government would be to scrap that relief commission.
I could tell many stories, Mr. Speaker, about maladministration of relief in Saskatchewan, under the relief commission, by the inspectors who travelled the length and breadth of the province, but I would hate to stain the pages of Hansard with the corrupt practices which they followed prior to the provincial election of 1934. At that election the people of Saskatchewan definitely decided that they did not want the administration of relief by a commission; for not one member of the Anderson administration, the so-called cooperative government, was returned to office. I think that speaks very well for a system of relief administration in Saskatchewan through the rural and urban municipalities. We had this latter system of relief tried again for four years since 1934; then we had another provincial election in June last, and the people of Saskatchewan definitely endorsed the policies of the Liberal government for the administration of relief through the rural and urban municipalities of Saskatchewan.
There has also been considerable criticism of the labour policies followed in Saskatchewan in connection with certain government projects. In the constituency I have the honour to represent we have had, during the
[Mr. Evans.l
past three years, several large projects carried out under the administration of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and they employed each year several hundred men. In 1938, on the various projects in my constituency, there were at one time between five and six hundred men working. I should like to take a few minutes to explain to the house just how the labour policies were worked out on the larger projects in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan.
We held meetings at which we organized our labour policy. It was decided by the Minister of Agriculture that wherever possible on these projects local labour was to be used. So, in order to use local labour to the greatest extent possible, we drafted certain areas around these projects, from which areas local labour was to be drawn. We then set up a registration employment office for labour. The labour was drawn from that register in the order of registration as the labour was required on the various projects. No credentials were needed either from the provincial members or from the federal member as a condition of getting a job on any one of these projects. Everyone was given a job regardless of political affiliations. I should like at this point to pay a tribute to the Minister of Agriculture for the excellent manner in which he has administered the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act policy in Saskatchewan. We feel that it is going to rehabilitate that province so that the farmers will be able to make a living and carry on.
I should like for a short time to direct attention to one particular branch of work which has been carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and really administered by the experimental stations. Here I would pay a tribute, first, to the great work which the superintendents of the experimental farms at Swift Current, Indian Head, and Scott, Saskatchewan, have done in extending control of soil drifting, re-grassing and the different cultural methods in the drought area. Under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act it is possible for the farmers to organize themselves into agricultural improvement associations. These associations, in cooperation with the experimental farm in each district in which they are organized, are kept in close touch with all the developments in the control of soil drifting, re-grassing and other methods.
Last spring, when I was home during the easter recess, I had occasion to drive through the district south of Tompkins. Tompkins is a town on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway about sixty miles west of Swift Current. South of Tompkins was an area of about 30,000 acres on which during 1936

The Address-Mr. Evans
and 1937 there had been very little growth of any kind. This soil had drifted in the fall of 1937 and during the summer and winter of 1937, and last spring it looked as though it would be impossible for the farmers to seed a crop. Through the work of the agricultural improvement association and with the help of the experimental farm they continued to do good work in this area and have made real progress in solving some of the serious problems facing the farmers in southwestern Saskatchewan. Chief among these is the soil drifting menace which has harassed the prairie farmer severely during the past few years. The unusual drought conditions during 1937 left all the cultivated land in the district tributary to Swift Current either in a drifting condition or in a condition which gave great concern and alarm. This was due chiefly to the fact that the crop seeded in the spring of 1937 failed to grow. With the exception of the scanty stubble carried over from 1936, the whole country was practically bare of vegetation cover of any kind.
Following severe drifting during the winter and summer and fall of 1937 the wind-swept prairie presented a horrible spectacle in the spring of 1938. Thousands of acres in a solid block were swept clear, and miniature deserts covering many thousands of acres could be found in many points in the southwest. The farmers individually were helpless, because any cultural work attempted was quickly destroyed by the wind and drifting soil from adjoining fields. It was evident that the cooperation of every farmer in the entire district would be necessary if drifting were to be stopped and the land seeded. It is in this respect that the agricultural improvement association proved a great help in solving the problem. Meetings were held and plans were laid which included the furrowing of entire areas on the same day. Whole families turned out to stake out the fields in eight-rod strips, and every kind of furrowing implement, from walking ploughs to the new steel lister, was used. By ploughing furrows at eight to ten rod intervals the drifting could be temporarily stopped. The land would then be quickly cultivated to bring the first lumps to the surface to prevent further soil drifting until crops on the alternate strips were established. Difficulties presented themselves, however, and it was frequently necessary after a severe storm to do the furrowing all over again. Furrows alone would not control drifting, and when a storm arose before the whole area was worked, furrows were completely filled. It was here that the organization proved its great value. Encouragement and support were needed to keep a large body of farmers working in the 71492-27i
face of great difficulties. Special equipment and motor power were needed where suitable machines were lacking and power was insufficient. Agricultural improvement associations through the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the help of the experimental station at Swift Current were able to supply a limited quantity of this equipment. This helped the less fortunate of their members to fight the battle of the drifting soil to a successful conclusion. In all areas where the organized effort was supplied, the drifting was controlled and the crop established. Great credit is due to the farmers who cooperated so wholeheartedly in the face of almost insurmountable difficulties.
The agricultural improvement associations have been responsible for many new activities in southwestern Saskatchewan. To their credit they have the solution of the soil drifting problem. The experimental work carried on by the experimental station at Swift Current in cooperation with the agricultural improvement association members has laid the foundation for a successful soil drifting control program which will eventually bring all drifting soil under control. Therefore there is in southwestern Saskatchewan no dust bowl that cannot be controlled.
For just a few minutes I should like to say something about the Canada-United States trade agreement as it affects western Canada, particularly our live stock exports. Already this year we have shipped 17,702 cattle to the United States in comparison with 3,256 head last year. So it is plain tc be seen that the reduction of one and one-half cents per pound on heavy cattle over 700 pounds is an inducement to the growers of cattle in Canada and particularly in western Canada to take advantage of the price of good beef cattle in the United States. During the first week of December of last year I had occasion to visit a big feeder in the southern part of the province who was feeding about 1,200 head of beef cattle. Those were all two and three year old steers, weighing 1,200 to 1,400 pounds. He had been feeding them from about October 15, and he told me he expected to start shipping them to the United States on the first of January. A few days ago I received a letter from this feeder telling me about seven carloads of cattle which he had shipped to Chicago at the first of the year and for which he had just received returns. He estimated that on those cattle he saved about S6.50 per head in duty, and his net profit, not including that, was about S20.50 over what he would have received on the Toronto market on the same day.
420	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
So I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues upon the splendid trade agreement they have consummated with the United States. It will be of untold value to the stock raisers and farmers of western Canada. There are many advantages which they will receive under this trade agreement that were not included in the 1935 agreement. So the stock raisers of western Canada look forward to the future with confidence and hope, believing that under the administration of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture, who has charge of the live stock industry, their future will be very bright. We believe that in the near future that industry will make good progress in western Canada.


Mr. P. J. ROWE (Athabaska):: 
Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member's time is exhausted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Let him finish.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member may continue, with unanimous consent.
426	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)


Percy John Rowe: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was pointing out that this meant fifty million dollars a day for three hundred working days, since they knocked off on Sundays to pray for peace, while spending all the rest of the time in preparing to murder each other; and this reduced the standard of living of the people of the world by exactly fifty million dollars a day. For 1938 it was fifty-five million dollars a day.
In his speech the other day the Prime Minister commented on this diversion of capital, material and labour into these destructive channels. He referred to employment as having been a serious problem for nine years, and said that it was a " difficult " and " perplexing" and "bafflng" problem because it was a " world " problem, and then he gave this astounding reason. I quote his exact words, on page 60 of Hansard:
It is a problem with which every country in the world has been confronted within recent years-and why? Because of the policies that are being made to prevail in certain parts of the world, those policies of economic nationalism which, instead of bringing nations closer together, are putting countries into isolated compartments.
What he utterly fails to see is that our country, the British empire and the United States have been the worst offenders in this very matter. From the Manchester Guardian of May 11, 1938, I quote the words of Sir Archibald Sinclair, leader of the Liberal party in Great Britain, and surely he should be a respectable authority in the eyes of the Prime Minister. Speaking at Launceston, Cornwall, on May 12, he said that from the standpoint of peace the most fatal step ever taken by the British government since the war was the adoption in 1932 of the policy of economic imperialism, and the Ottawa agreements. He continued:
It was not until then that the German people abandoned themselves to the frenzy of despair which we call Hitlerism, and the tariffs and quotas of Ottawa, the economic armaments of the British empire, began to breed in other countries, tanks, aeroplanes and warships, the military armaments of nations which were determined not to go on paying tribute to Britain but to acquire territories and raw materials for themselves in Abyssinia, in Spain, in China, in Austria, in Czechoslovakia, and perhaps ultimately in the British empire itself.
The Ottawa agreements are still in operation, and the new treaty is still, in its effect on German exports, a deadly weapon of economic warfare.
I was literally shocked beyond words the other day to hear the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) speak regarding the effect of the new agreement upon our neighbour countries. He hastened to assure
[Mr. P. J. Rowe.J
the house that Italy would not derive much benefit; that Japan would not derive much benefit, and that Germany would not derive much benefit from the agreement. Is that a worthy achievement, or reason for congratulation? That seems to me to typify an attitude of mind which utterly fails to comprehend the underlying fact that there is unity among mankind; that there is such a thing as the equal worth of all peoples and races, the common blood and destiny of mankind; that nations must have raw materials. Six nations in this world to-day control eighty-five per cent of vital natural resources. Sixty-eight other nations have to be content with fifteen per cent. Now then, how do you expect to have peace on earth and good will among men when you erect trade barriers deliberately designed to prevent those people from getting the foreign exchange with which to import vital raw materials? That simply brings on war. I agree with Sir Archibald Sinclair.
I often admire the mastery of the Prime Minister in the art of beautiful expression; but beautiful and eloquent words are meaningless, empty, idle and futile in the presence of facts that contradict the words. What is the use of affirming an idealistic conception of world brotherhood and world peace, while at the same time doing everything in the field of action and public policy to negate your words and make the attainment of those objectives impossible?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Surely my hon. friend would not say that the new agreements were directed in any way against either Germany or Italy or Japan. The remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) were in answer to a criticism from the other side to the effect that these agreements were favouring Italy Germany and Japan.


Percy John Rowe: Quite so. The
Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), of course, holds a philosophy that I do not hold. I repeat, competition, strife, conflict arising out of our system, compel the creation of treaties which inevitably prevent nations which are short of vital natural resources from getting the foreign exchange which they must have in order to import the raw materials they need. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce holds the same philosophy as the Minister of Justice, but it is certainly not mine, and I think that that philosophy and its fruits constitute the reason why we have war in the world.

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)


Ernest Lapointe: I think
my philosophy is midway between that of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and that of my hon. friend.


Percy John Rowe: We shall be
debating the trade agreement in a few days, and we can go into that in greater detail then.
If I may now continue, the Prime Minister said, at page 56 of Hansard:
I believe if policies of economic nationalism continue to make headway among the different nations, that war will follow as certain as night the day.
And he asks the people of this country to believe that other countries are to blame for this situation. I ask him to ponder the words of the late President Wilson, who, speaking in St. Louis just a few days before his death, said:
Is there a man or woman, nay, is there a child in this audience, who does not know that the seeds of war are sown in hot, successful, commercial rivalry?
That is the point. If there is commercial rivalry, then we are engaged in it. We are one of the leading trading nations of the world. We are engaged in commercial rivalry to a greater extent per capita than any other nation on the face of the globe, and it leads inevitably to war. May I just quote one sentence from the headline book, Peaceful Change, published by the Foreign Policy Association. At page 27 I read the following words:
Through the Ottawa agreements of 1932, the members of the British empire including India, the dominions and a number of British colonies, established a system of trade preferences, favouring each other, and discriminating against outside countries. Since the trade of the British empire amounted to 29-1 per cent of the world total in 1934, such a policy is of serious concern to the rest of the world. Outside countries like Germany and Japan are thus placed at a disadvantage in all these Imperial markets.
I have stated many times in this house that poverty at home is the cause of war abroad; that the farmers and workers who produce the wealth are paid so little for their labour that they cannot buy the goods they have produced. These goods are then shipped abroad in a frantic effort to sell them; but the masses of workers and farmers in other countries are also so poor that they cannot buy our goods, and the resulting scramble for non-existent markets leads inevitably to war. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, how can the three million farmers in Canada who average per family an income of $474 possibly buy the goods they need, or the 98 per cent of Canadian workers whose annual income is $664,
or the French farmers, 30 per cent of whom have lost their farms in the last few years, or the British people, thirteen and a half million of whom are gravely undernourished, and thirty-four million of whom are living on less than $500 per family? How can they buy either their production or ours? How can the American people, sixty million of whom get an average of $830 per family, and twenty-one million of whom are on relief-how can all these people who are not getting enough to buy the bare necessities of life, possibly pay for the comforts of life? War may be the ultimate curse, but the preparation for war has now become necessary to the stability of the whole country.
Thus a nation at peace becomes hopelessly dependent on the war effort to support the nation in peace. This is the tragic mess into which the advocates of armaments as the guardian and guarantee of peace have at last drawn the unhappy world. They began by provoking arms manufacture to protect their societies from war. They end by making the war industry essential to protect society from an equally terrible enemy-industrial collapse. The world cannot live without the arms plants and cannot live with them. Now the wide-circling waves of this mad current have touched our own shores, and flooded into our own country. The workers are now feverishly engaged in forging the means of their own destruction; one of these days the cynical old men, whose spiritual blindness, mental confusion, political stupidity, economic ignorance and business incompetence, have brought about this situation, will sit around a table, and like the criminal fools that they are, order the flower of the world's young manhood into another vast international abattoir to murder and be murdered by other young men whom they never saw before, and against whom they cannot possibly have any quarrel, and thus will the last flickering lights of the present civilization go out.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that a planned economy would banish poverty and war forever from the earth; because I believe that the Canadian people have an unexampled opportunity to lead the world along this path back to sanity, and because I believe there is no other way to do this, I have much pleasure in seconding the subamendment, and urging all hon. members to vote for it.
On motion of Mr. Heaps the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
71492-28J

Immigration Act-Deportations
Monday, January 30, 1939