[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
He said: This amendment to the Canada Shipping Act sets up machinery by means of which the government can control shipments in Canadian vessels of arms and war materials to belligerent countries if and when such control is deemed necessary.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the criminal code.
He said: This bill deals with motor cars and the criminal code in relation thereto. It is not the same bill as last year's. I think that if it gets a second reading it should go to a committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, respecting Japanese immigration.
He said: This bill is very short, containing only two sections. It proposes to place the Japanese nation on the same plane, as regards immigration into Canada, as that occupied by the Chinese during the last fifteen years. It is strictly moderate in its language, is nonprovocative, makes no reference to current
68
Canadian Loan in London
[Stage Direction]
events in the east, and I think has the support of ninety per cent of the people of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: As an emergency matter I should like to ask the government a question, notice of which I have already sent to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). It relates to the ice jam in the Niagara river. The question is: Will the government take up with the government of the United States and the governments of Ontario and New York state the question of erecting joint regulation works in this river to prevent the recurrence of the abnormal conditions which have recently arisen? The matter is an urgent one because the light and power and transportation of nearly the whole province of Ontario is threatened.
Also, has the minister any ice-breaking plants for use on lake Erie and the Niagara river from lake Erie to Chippawa and Niagara to Queenston similar to that used in the St. Lawrence river? As I say, I sent notice of this question to the minister, but I do not see him here.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The minister is absent;
the acting minister is present, but I think the question is of such length that it should be examined carefully before any reply is made. Possibly my hon. friend might wait until to-morrow for a reply.



CANADIAN LOAN IN LONDON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Before the orders of the day are taken I think that in view of some of the statements made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) yesterday with reference to the recent Canadian loan in London, a statement is desirable in order that the house may be in possession of the facts in relation thereto.
My right hon. friend stated that there was "less confidence in this Canadian loan than there was in the Australian loan"-I quote from Hansard. The facts are that the last Commonwealth of Australia loan issued in London was offered on November 17, 1937. It was for the amount of £11,409,954 and for a term of sixteen years, callable in thirteen years. The coupon was not 3j per cent but

3) per cent, and the loan was offered to the public at 97 to yield approximately 3-75 per cent to maturity.
Furthermore, the underwriters were left with 67 per cent of the issue on their hands, and initial quotations began At a discount of l per cent from the offering price.
In contrast, the Canadian government loan was a £10,000,000 3J per cent loan, maturing iu twenty-five years, callable in twenty years. This 3j per cent twenty-five year loan was offered to the public at a price of 98i to yield approximately 3-34 per cent to maturity. It will be noted that in spite of the much longer term the yield on the Canadian loan was much more favourable \o the borrowing government, 3-34 per cent as compared with 3-75 per cent in the case of Australia. It will also be noted that the head of the underwriting syndicate in each case was the same banking firm, R. Nivison and Company.
The right hon. leader of the opposition referred to the fact that forty-nine per cent of the Canadian loan was left in the hands of the underwriters, and stated that "the underwriters did not get forty-nine per cent of the Australian loan." He must have been misinformed. The fact is that sixty-seven per cent of the Australian loan was left in the hands of the underwriters.
Mr. BENNETT:: I was not dealing with
the same loan.


Mr. DUNNING:: Perhaps I should make some reference to certain comments which have appeared in the London financial press in connection with the basis upon which the underwriters of the Canadian loan made their allotments. Subscriptions received by the underwriters would have made it possible for them to allot a larger proportion of the issue than they actually did allot. Apparently, however, the underwriters preferred to limit maximum allotment on any one cash application to a moderate amount, believing that more effective distribution of the new issue and a more stable market would thereby be obtained. As our issue was underwritten, this matter of allotments of subscriptions was the concern of the underwriters and not of ourselves, but I think everyone will agree with the soundness of the general objective which the underwriters apparently had in mind.
I thought it desirable to place these facts on record.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I might be permitted,
the Australian loan to which I referred was

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
not the loan of November. I was dealing with the prior Australian loan which was at 3{ per cent, as the minister himself knows. I very much regret that the Australian loan of November 1937 is one with which I was not familiar at all. I am very glad the minister has made it clear that the Australian loan of November 1937 was sold on less favourable terms as far as the public is concerned than our own.
But I was going to ask on the orders of the day that the minister make a statement with respect to our loan, setting out what the position was. What he has now said is what I said last evening, that the underwriters saw fit to limit the allotments so that there would not be sales that would depress the market below the three-quarters of one per cent that they received as their underwriting compensation. I think if the minister will look at the Australian figures compared with ours he will see that at the time they did issue their 3J per cent loan it was on more favourable terms than ours, but perhaps it is not fair to compare what took place some time ago with what took place later.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend will understand that I naturally assumed he was comparing comparable things, two issues reasonably close together. In judging of market conditions I assumed he was taking two issues at about the same time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not aware of the
other, unfortunately.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, January 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. N. Francceur for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Bennett.
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: We are met, I believe, Mr. Speaker, in one of the gravest years in the history of our dominion. I think the events of the next year will abundantly prove that to be the case. Therefore I believe it is most important that all of us should work together with the greatest possible earnestness, forgetting such matters as political struggles. In the debate yesterday, although the speeches were excellent and amusing and fine displays of parliamentary oratory, there was altogether too much jockeying for political advantage. We
should cease endeavouring to gain political advantage at least while we are in this very trying time.
As a case in point of this political jockeying let me mention one instance. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) chose to interpret the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as showing that he was opposed to foreign trade, and he concluded, I judge from his remarks, that the leader of the opposition was in agreement with the social credit group in attaching small value to foreign trade. Now I assume that the Prime Minister was sincere in that remark. If he was he manifested a lack of knowledge concerning social credit, for the social credit advocates have never disparaged the value of foreign trade. All they have done is to urge upon the people that we must not look to foreign trade alone for the complete solution of our problems. Perhaps it would be instructive if I were to read one or two little quotations. I do not wish to read quotations to any extent this year, but since this matter has been raised it is of vital importance that the country should know just where the social credit people stand. First I should like to refer to Major Douglas himself, as the founder of the movement. I am quoting from his book called Economic Democracy, at page 145, where I read these words:
It must be evident therefore that an economic system involving forced extrusion of product from the community producing, as an integral component of the machinery for the distribution of purchasing power, is entirely incompatible with any effective league of nations, because the logical and inevitable end of economic competition is war.
That was what I understood the right hon. leader of the opposition to contend, and that is our contention. Trade, of course; if we have a surplus of wheat and another country has a surplus of bananas, of course trade the surplus of wheat for the surplus of bananas. But if the people producing apples wish to trade their apples for our beef; if we already have apples and we not only refuse to accept their product but go into the world market and endeavour to displace their product with our apples, then we put them in a position which ultimately will lead to war. There can be no question regarding that.
In order that everyone may see that this belief is held by the Canadian social credit movement let me quote a statement of the Douglas Social Credit Bureau of Canada, with headquarters in Ottawa. I am not saying that this organization is identical with the one which I represent, although I see no difference between the two. I am merely quoting what is

The Address-Mr. Blachmore
said here. This statement is issued under date of February 1, 1938. and bears exactly upon the situation under consideration:
Under a social credit administration foreign trade would he distinctly encouraged hut the transactions between countries would he balanced. There would he no need for the so-called "favourable balance of trade.1' Imports to Canada would be a distinct advantage, for under social credit adequate purchasing power would be distributed to enable Canadians to purchase the imports, thereby increasing the standard of living and diversifying the products available.
Imported goods are, so far as real wealth is concerned, equivalent to goods produced by home industry and exported goods are equivalent to goods consumed. [DOT]	.
Under existing conditions one nation can only expand its foreign market at the expense of other nations; and as an expanding market is, under the present system, a matter of life and death for all nations, the ensuing scramble for markets inevitably culminates in war.
Ralph L. Duclos, President.
I 'believe, Mr. Speaker, that these extracts sufficiently clarify the position of those who believe in social credit with respect to trade, and I maintain that any attempt to misrepresent to the people of this country the meaning of the contentions of the followers of social credit is an action distinctly contrary to the interests of Canada. If we want the truth-[DOT] and as the Prime Minister very well said, we do want the truth-certainly that is not the way to get it. I support both those statements, without making any statement myself with regard to trade, except that I endorse the remarks and the sentiments contained in those two excerpts.
Perhaps I may be just a little more truculent than usual because for two years in the province of Alberta we have experienced the most deliberate, the most malicious, the most unjustifiable attempt to drag all sorts and kinds of red herrings across the path. Anything and everything that could foe done to deceive the people has been done. No attempt at all has been made to give them the truth. We may laugh about that, but that is the fact, and it can be verified over and over again. I am not going to bring up any unpleasant matters this afternoon, but that statement stands. If we want the truth there is a way to get it. I cannot recall the exact words used last night by the Prime Minister but, as he said, the truth will stand and it is the truth we want.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the twenty-five dollars?


John Horne Blackmore: That is another bit of it. Isn't that a brilliant attempt to get the truth?
I was impressed with the remark of the leader of the opposition with regard to righteous elections. I believe that statement,

although it was not pleasant, raised a question which the people of this dominion must settle, or, as the right hon. gentleman said, our very national existence is endangered. What do we mean by democracy? Do we not mean an appeal to the people so that the people, informed, intelligent and calm, may through their ballots express a considered opinion as to the policy which the government should follow in carrying on the affairs of the country? Is that not what we wish? All we need do is just think of what has been done in far, far too many constituencies throughout this country, in order to realize that the policy pursued by both the old line parties has been diametrically opposed to that, the object being under all conditions to deceive the people and confuse them so they do not know what it is all about.
I come from a province, Mr. Speaker, where we have grappled with this problem with great earnestness since 1921. In that year we commenced to fight our elections with the nickels and dimes of the people. The social credit victory in 1935 was won almost with the very lifeblood of the people, and since those sacrifices were made by poor, suffering men and women, in order to get a government which would represent them, we have had attempts made to override the will of the people by the most despicable forms of deception. We know what democracy is. We started this thing in 1921 and we have continued it even to the present time. Every cent that is used to fight a social credit election in Alberta comes out of the pockets of the poorest people in the province, fighting earnestly for the right to live and believing still in the principles of democracy.
The propaganda which has gone on and is going on to-day in the province of Alberta is a standing disgrace to the people of this dominion. I say that without fear of any kind of successful contradiction. We are seeing perpetrated upon the people of that province and the people of the whole dominion a monstrous iniquity. Somewhere there is a solution to our problems. Do you know where the solution is? If the answer were to be given from your own soul it would be, "No, I do not; I wish to heaven I did." How are we going to find that solution if we persist in discrediting everyone who comes forward with a new idea? Political trickery has been resorted to. I had not intended to mention the subject. However, the right hon. the leader of the opposition raised the question, and I believe I should make some observations. Out in our province there exists a government duly elected by the considered thought of the people of Alberta. Every

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
conceivable device has been exercised to prevent that government from doing what the people put it there to do. This summer there was formed a despicable organization called the People's League, very aptly called by Premier Aberhart the people's slavery league. That is exactly what it is. In that league were participating the Liberal and Conservative leaders of the province. In it were found some leaders in the United Farmers of Alberta group, and some others. There is no gainsaying that fact; there it is.
At least partially as a result of the operations of this organization Mr. E. L. Gray was elected in Edmonton as a representative of the People's League. Then they turned to the provincial constituency of Lethbridge, and by a sufficiency of red herring dragging, and the exercise of other devices beneath my notice, they succeeded in electing another People's League candidate. Three days following his election Mr. E. L. Gray, on behalf of himself and the Liberal party, withdrew from the combination. He was completely disgusted with its behaviour. However they had succeeded in electing two men, and the elections were noised across the country as evidence that the Aberhart administration was losing the confidence of the people of Alberta.
I ask any fair minded man or woman in the house, and I realize that all hon. members could be so classed, if he or she regards that as decent procedure in Canada. Is it in accordance with what you consider sound behaviour on the part of men who pose as the leaders? That is all I ask; you need not answer it, but just think it over.
May I now proceed to. mention some misrepresentation which took place last night. I shall not say it was deliberate; I am almost certain it was unconscious. However there was at least the intimation, or something which gave me the impression, whether the Prime Minister meant it that way or not, that he attributed the unrest in Canada, in which five of our majestic provinces have participated, to ill will which exists in other parts of the world. He has suggested that that ill will has come into our country and that we have become contaminated with it. Well, that may be a good political move, but in my judgment it is as far from the truth as it could possibly be. I shall not say it was a deliberate misrepresentation, but I must say that it manifested a great lack of consideration.
Before dealing with this matter at greater length may I refer for a few moments to the
kind words used by the leader of the opposition in advocating some of the avowed principles which we hold dear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: No doubt there may be a good deal of merriment in that connection. There was a time, however, when the principle of the abolition of slavery in the English speaking world was laughed at. They laughed at that time, just as hon. members across the chamber have laughed today. Because there were men and women who stood out sternly and self-sacrificingly through the years in the defence of those principles, they finally prevailed. The same is true with respect to the secret ballot, and in connection with many principles which today we value and prize, and which make our democratic institutions both beautiful and hopeful. So it is with the principles I put before the house. The day will come when all will recognize that, absurd as they may seem today, those principles are sound.
I know not why the right hon. the leader of the opposition made the statements to which I have referred, but no matter why he made them I wish to thank him for them. If he has come to see the light, it is greatly to his credit. I wish to give credit where credit is due.
Before commencing a discussion of the causes of the strains and stresses which are so painfully manifested in the dominion I should like briefly to deal with the question of recovery. Speaking generally I find it beyond my power to comprehend why men as intelligent, thoughtful and well informed as hon. members sitting opposite can be satisfied with such specious reasoning regarding recovery. I was positively amazed to hear some of the observations made yesterday, and especially when one can find from any informed source a complete confutation of every statement that was made.
For example, there is not one of the South American republics which has not had as satisfactory recovery as has Canada, and during the very years in which the Liberal administration has held office in this country. The little country of Chile, which was looked upon as the most hopeless spot in a hopeless world, after the crisis of 1931, has had a phenomenal recovery. Was that because the Liberal party were in power in Canada? Let us be at least careful. Let us spend our time at something profitable. Let us face realities.
According to the best authorities the reason for recovery was the very rapid increase in rearmament. Around fifteen billions of dollars
The Address-Mr. Blackmore

is being poured out to-day by the various nations of the world, and the demands for raw materials which can be turned into war machinery are tremendous. Those demands have melted or, shall we say, unfrozen the great masses of goods which were waiting for buyers. As a result of that change the countries have felt free to lower their tariff restrictions and to begin to trade. There can be no successful contradiction of that statement. I could quote authorities which could not be disregarded by any person who has any interest in his reputation for accuracy. I could quote authorities in our own country. We could turn to the report of the 106th annual meeting of the Bank of Nova Scotia held recently, which was published in the Ottawa Citizen of January 28. There it is stated clearly that the recovery was due to rearmament, and that it is general throughout the world.
How in the world can men arrogate to themselves or to their party complete credit for the achievement of something which is world wide. In the same report there is the statement that to a great degree economic conditions in Canada are dependent upon those in the United States. Witness recently the depression in Canada, and the recession which began in the United States on August 15. To say that one political party in Canada has solved an economic problem, and caused recovery, is reckless and beyond excusability.
Then, there is a further difficulty which has to be considered, I value optimism. We could not live without it; but let us be careful of our optimism. Around us to-day there are signs of recession. According to the figures which I have, already in the United States thirty billion dollars worth of wealth has been swept away. In Great Britain we find that between November 15 and December 15. 1937, unemployment was increased by 166,204. Notwithstanding that their armament preparation race is at its' height and their re-housing program is under way, there were 90,000 more unemployed in December 1937 than there were in December 1936. There is a reason for this increase in the number of unemployed; let us try to find it. Some may say that the occurrence was seasonal, but such is not the fact. In 1936, from November 15 to December 15, there was an increase of 30,000 in the number employed, but for the same period in this year we find a decrease of 166.204. Any one who desires to be at all judicious must bear these facts in mind before he rushes to make any reckless confMr. Blackmore.]
elusion. Evidence of this statement may be found in the Christian Science Monitor of January 22, at page 9.
What was the cause of the recession in the United States? I am not going to take the time to discuss the matter at any length, but I should like to direct the attention of such hon. members as may not have noticed it to the October, 1937, letter of the Royal Bank of Canada. There they will find a well-developed analysis of the situation by a careful thinker. He shows that whereas in 1936 the President of the United States put that country into debt to the extent of 14,500,000,000, scattering the money around generously through the WPA and CCC programs, yet increasing the purchasing power of the people, in 1937 he changed his policy considerably. In that year he went into debt to the extent of only $1,500,000,000, and the result was the beginning of a depression the end of which no one can see. Does that not show that the secret of recovery or of avoiding depression is the spending of money? About half way down in the second column of his letter this gentleman sets forth this principle. I shall just quote a few words out of their context, but the meaning is as I have given it. He states:
It would seem that the government will be compelled to increase its spending or, as an alternative, to permit a decline in national income.
Where will the government get the money to spend? If it must borrow that money, then it will be creating a disaster because the debt is already beyond the power of the people to pay under the present economic system. How can the United States ward off a fall in the national income in the midst of the greatest era of prosperity this world has ever seen? That is the problem we are facing, but I am going to leave it at that.
There is another matter which I think should be considered carefully. Last year I supported the government in its move to rearm for Canada's defence. I am confident that that was a wise move and I think the evidence is that we were sound in our judgment. I did not take the occasion to point out at that time to the house that I am unalterably opposed to war. I did not point out that I believed that some time we are going to have the fulfilment of that great scriptural passage wherein the prophet says:
-and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
If the time has not come when we can do that, when do hon. members of this house think it will come? How can we do it, is

/ >j q	The Address-Mr. Blackmore
the question. I maintain that the rigifit hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was on sound ground when he said that our trade policy is provoking war. I urge hon. members not to become disgusted with that statement before they hear the reason why it is made. It will be noticed that we are exporting a great deal of war .material. I do not intend to argue the soundness or unsoundness of that policy, but I do want to say that the people in my part of the country are very averse to that sort of thing. I cannot, without the greatest revulsion and horror, think of sending lead to Japan in order to make bullets with which my sons may be killed. Even the most callously inured to these things must be incensed at that sort of thing. To name only a few of the most vital materials used in the preparation for war, let me direct attention to the fact that we are exporting aluminum, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. Our exports to Japan in 1936 and 1937 of these materials were as follows:
1936	1937
Aluminum	$1,491,039	$3,458,321Copper	
56,710	714,720Lead	
3,140,296	4,297,536Nickel	
1,223,677	4,053,712Zinc	
1,099,737	1,169,799
When I consider .that every dollar's worth of that material is helping the Japanese to destroy the Chinese I fail to be warmed with any enthusiasm when contemplating that increase in our trade.
Here is another thing which I believe hon. members will find interesting. I intend to spend most of my time in discussing this matter .because, after all, it is dear to my heart. I am not a pacifist in the sense that I want peace at any price. I realize that we must have some defence, but I realize also that there are fundamental causes of war which people of our intelligence should be able to discover. An effort should be made to remove these causes but we probably do not realize what they are.
Let us consider why Japan is attacking China. The information I have is up to date as far as I have been able to find out. The area of Japan is 150,000 square miles and her population totals 70,000,000 people. She has 2,900 people per square mile of area. Hon. members of this house need only think of what it would mean to have 2,900 people for every square mile of their constituencies. Then take Great Britain, with a population of 2.200 to every square mile; or China, with 1,300 people to every square mile.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or Belgium.


John Horne Blackmore: I have mentioned
only three. The figures I have quoted give
us a picture of the conditions Japan is struggling against, and I am going to ask hon. members now, frankly: Can you see how in the world international trade is going to help Japan-the kind of international trade that we are getting? Just let us see.
The resources of Japan comprise the following, and all this has a bearing on the question: Japan has small coal deposits; considerable iron ore, of a poor quality; some copper, and some water power, about one-fifth of the amount Canada has. She cannot send her people abroad, so that emigration is no solution for her difficulties. What is her solution? Manifestly, she must import raw materials, manufacture them and sell the finished products in the markets of the world. We know-we have the figures brought to our attention-at what ridiculous prices Japan has been able to sell her products abroad. For example, she can sell at as low as $6, a bicycle that we would sell here for $50, and she is doing that in an attempt to get into world markets. We have raised tariff barriers against her. "Very well," the free traders will say, "that is where our trade will come in." Yes, but wait a moment. When these Japanese bicycles come to our shores, it is found that we are already manufacturing bicycles, and instead of lowering our tariffs to admit bicycles we raise our tariffs to keep them out. The result is that Japanese have turned from us in desperation, and that has gone to the point where it has maddened the people of Japan.
Here are figures which I have found astonishing, of Japanese imports and exports, showing that her balance of trade has been getting rapidly worse since 1931. Taking 100 as a basis for 1931-these figures will show her difficulty in maintaining a balance of trade in her favour-the index figure stood at 89 in 1932, 83 in 1933, 73 in 1934, 71 in 1935, and 68 in 1936. It was time Japan did something, was it not?
I am going to ask frankly, what were we doing to help Japan? In the light of what I have quoted from Major Douglas, and the Ottawa Social Credit Bureau, I ask what were we doing to help Japan? If we were not consciously courting war, we were certainly doing it unconsciously. The figures I have quoted mean that in 1936 Japan had to give for the same quantity of imports, 47 per cent more, in quantity of exports, than she gave in 1931. Now we see why the right hon. leader of the opposition says that our cutthroat competition will cause war.
My time is rapidly expiring, but before I sit down there is one extremely important

The Address-Mr. Blackmore
point upon which I wish to touch, and that is the causes of the strains and stresses. I shall not have time to develop this subject at any length today, but in future discussions I a,m going to rise and lay before you, my fellow-Canadians, as an advocate from the province of Alberta coming here to plead in the interests of justice before the high court of parliament, the reasons why we are forced to make these strains and stresses that we are making-and they have nothing to do with ill will against any other country, I can tell you that.
In the first place, this government has not removed poverty. I aiji not saying that under the existing financial structure they could do any better than they are doing. In fact, I am pleased with the progress this government has made under the existing financial structure. But I say that your financial structure is wrong, fundamentally wrong, and you will never solve your problems until you change that financial structure, whether you think so or not.
The possibilities which we have at the present time make it a disgrace to us to consider the continued existence of poverty in our midst. Take the Brookings Institution discoveries. It has found that in the peak of the boom in the United States, the people of that country were able to buy only eighty per cent of the productive capacity of the United States. Now, will any member of this house, who thinks he knows, tell us why that was? Without any addition to their industrial equipment or any addition to their labour, they would have been able to increase their production thirty per cent. Will anybody who thinks he knows tell us why they did not do it? You only need to become aware of these things and the very blood in your veins begins to boil.
A similar condition existed in Canada. There is no question about the facts which I have given from this report. Our wage level is a disgrace considering our opportunities. In 1935, according to Mr. Horace L. Seymour, B.A., B.Sc., writing in the Canadian Unionist for November, 1937, sixty per cent of the Ontario workers receive less than $900 a year. Keep that figure of 1900 in mind until we get some more facts and see how it makes you feel about the way your province and your dominion is being managed. The United States government, on July 11, 1937, issued to the press a report in which it was set forth that a family of four in the United States required $30 per week, if they were 
to live decently. Now living conditions in the United States are easier than they are here.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member has exhausted his right to speak.


John Horne Blackmore: Just one more remark, Mr. Speaker, if the house will permit me.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


John Horne Blackmore: The United States
government made the statement that in order to live decently at all a family required $1,250 a year. All you need to do is to think of the contemptible pittance you are giving your unemployed; think of the disgracefully low income which your people are receiving for their work; think of the starvation income upon which your farming population has to live; and then you will see what I contend without any fear of successful contradiction, that your standard of living is far lower than it needs to be.
I am going to say only one thing more in closing. I am leaving out a great deal that I had intended to say, which I shall have to leave for another occasion. Here is a man you may not agree with. Here is Professor R. F. Irvine, M.A., for twenty-five years professor of economics at Sydney university, Australia, an orthodox professor of economics, and he solemnly uses these words in 1933:
I believe that the principles put forward by C. H. Douglas are not only sound, but that they provide the only practical way of escape from the tragic fate which otherwise awaits the whole of western civilization.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur in the protest of the last speaker (Mr. Blackmore) against the shipment of materials of war from Canada to Japan, and we shall take an early opportunity of bringing this matter before the house.
I shall not attempt to follow the arguments advanced in the Prime Minister's lengthy speech; I am afraid it would take more than my forty minutes to correct some of the implications of his statements. He assumes that revenue is an index of prosperity; I suggest it may be only an indication of oppressive taxation. He assumes that the total production or national income means the general welfare; it may mean simply the opportunity for the wealthier to become still more wealthy. He assumes that the total volume of trade is an indication of national greatness; it may simply show how thoroughly we are being exploited.

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
I agree heartily with the wording of the amendment as proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I should like to congratulate the Conservatives on their seeming conversion; possibly our efforts throughout the years have not been altogether wasted.
The speech itself seems to run true to form- Liberal form. There is very little constructive legislation adumbrated. We are told that there is to be sought an amendment to the British North America Act to enable the dominion government to enact a national scheme of unemployment insurance. But why should we not ask for an amendment that would give us the right to amend our own constitution in any way we may please; or better still, why not assert that we have such a right? Where are all the fine phrases of the imperial conference of 1926? You will recall this language in reference to the self-governing communities:
They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
After all that, we are going, cap in hand, asking that we may be allowed the right to amend our constitution in one particular. I hope that some day in Canada we shall acquire a little bit of dignity. I wish the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) could have given a lead in that direction.
I was almost hoping that we might have had in the speech some reference to safeguarding the civil rights of our people. Very shortly before the close of the last session I *brought to the attention of the government the serious curtailment of our civil liberties through the so-called "padlock law" of Quebec. I may say that our worst apprehensions have been realized; for between November 9, 1937, when the law was enacted, and January 27, 1938, the act has been applied some fifty times. Let me show what that means in the individual home.
A few days ago I had a personal letter from a friend of mine whom I had known many years ago in the west when she was engaged in social service activities. She wrote telling me that her home had been raided by the provincial police. I quote a paragraph:
They didn't get any of the works of Marx or Lenin but they took your biography and a number of social research pamphlets. They also took a book on Spinoza written by a young Columbia professor whom I know, with his autograph in it, so I'm afraid Mr. Duplessis and his friends are not up on the fine points of the Labour movement. Among other subversive literature they took a copy of the magazine "Time" which happened to have Leon
Trotsky's picture on the back of it and another dangerous bit they got was a copy of "Current History." I was able to rescue a book on the South Seas by Robert Louis Stevenson and also a novel by Dostoyefsky.
They found a book of German Fairy Tales and were quite surprised that we could read Yiddish.
Apparently the provincial police had confused German and Yiddish. This is simply typical of the class of literature that has been seized in recent months in the homes of Canadian people in the province of Quebec.
I have here a list which I will not take time to read. I ask, have we no right to expect that the government of Canada will protect its citizens? I called attention on March 30 to this situation. Let me read a summary of my position. I said:
I would ask in closing: What might we expect from the Minister of Justice in a Liberal cabinet? First of all, I think a declaration that the Quebec act is ultra vires and as illegal as a sit-down strike. In the one instance the minister undertook to interpret the law; why should he not do so in this much more important case?
Second, we might expect a statement that there are legitimate means of protecting Quebec against lawlessness and violence. We have that, as I think he will tell us, in the criminal code. . . .
Third, there should be the emphatic assurance that the resources of the dominion will be used to protect the rights and liberties of all Canadian citizens-even in Quebec. . . .
Fourth, I suggest that the minister should assure us that there will be a reference to the supreme court in order that we may know what rights we have. I point out once more that such action was taken by the government in, respect to certain social security measures. Surely similar action might be taken in the present instance.
What had the minister to say in reply? He pleaded that the bill had not come formally before him. Surely he cannot any longer make that plea. Secondly, as regards disallowance as a possible course of action, he said:
For many years the power of disallowance lias not been resorted to by the government of Canada. . . .
I would not say the same condition would apply to provincial legislation, but it has often been stated by the courts that within the sphere of their own jurisdiction the provincial legislatures are sovereign. I do not think that in a federation such as this the power of disallowance could easily be exercised by the central government. I believe the provincial legislatures feel that they are still supreme and sovereign within the sphere of their jurisdiction.
Since that -time the power of disallowance has been exercised by the dominion in the case of Alberta. If it can be done with respect to Alberta when it concerns financial

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
measures, why not with respect to Quebec when the matter concerns the liberties of the citizen? The minister goes on to say:
The hon. member suggests that there should be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. As I have said, I was surprised to hear him make that statement, because he criticized the government for having referred to the Supreme Court of Canada acts of our own parliament; now he wants us to take an act of the legislature of Quebec and refer it to the supreme court. All I can say with regard to his suggestion-and the hon. member certainly does not expect me to say more-is that it will receive the most serious consideration.
Well, there have been some eight or nine months for consideration, so I should like the Minister of Justice to take an early opportunity of informing the house what action the government propose to take to safeguard the interests of our citizens in the province of Quebec.
With regard to the economic situation, the speech from the throne says;
It is gratifying to note that, during the past year, there has been a further substantial advance in Canada's economic recovery.
I suggest that that sounds very much like the echo of a bank president's annual address. The yardstick used is the same, that is, increased resources and expanding trade. I should like to suggest that prosperity in Canada is very spotty indeed. There are many of our communities that have not experienced the slightest return of prosperity. It is unfortunately my duty to present the darker side of the picture. The position of my own constituents, which is that of vast numbers of people throughout the country, shows that there is anything but prosperity at the present moment. Take the case of my own city of Winnipeg. We in the west have recently had to prepare some statistics in regard to this matter, so fortunately the facts are available. I quote from the submission of the city of Winnipeg to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations:
Up to the end of 1936, property abandoned by the former owners and reverted to the city through tax sale procedure was valued at $7,500,000, and represents over 33 per cent of the area of the city. In addition properties valued at $6,400,000 have been sold for tax arrears, but have not yet come into the city's hands.
Or again;
Many properties in good condition have been demolished by the owners in order to escape taxation. These include residences of the class which may he termed the mansion type, amongst which were the former homes of such well known citizens as Sir Augustus Nanton, Sir William Whyte, Sir Daniel McMillan, the Honourable Robert Rogers, and so on. A number of other houses of the same type have been

abandoned by the owners and are now owned by the city. In addition many business properties have been torn down including the former Hudson's Bay departmental store on Main street, occupying half a city block. It is also significant that title through tax sale proceedings has or can be taken to many valuable business properties situated in the very heart of the city, including Robinson's department store, almost at the corner of Main street and Portage avenue, the Forum block, the Walker theatre, the Playhouse theatre, and many warehouse and other properties. Each of these properties have been at one time valued at over $100,000 at least, and some of them at very much more.
Or again:
Salaries and wages of all employees, including teachers, have been reduced on the average by about 15 per cent.
Or again:
Many essential services, including street maintenance, the provision of adequate fire protection equipment, etc., have had to be neglected. The amount expended in 1936 for those services fell short of normal requirements bv at least $300,000.
Or again:
The Bank of Canada report finds that there is not now available, for either the city or the province, new sources of revenue through taxation.
And again:
The Bank of Canada in its report on the finances of the province made early this year states that Winnipeg on account of being the chief urban centre of the west has been called on to bear a disproportionate share of the relief burden. The report goes on to say that eighty-four per cent of all direct relief expenditures in the province have had to be made in Winnipeg and suburbs. An analysis of Winnipeg relief cases made some months ago showed that of 6.837 families on relief 959, or fourteen per cent, had come to reside in Winnipeg since 1930.
And again:
The city has thus not only exhausted all sources of revenue, but has also reached the limit of its capacity to borrow for relief purposes, and unless aid is immediately forthcoming from the dominion or provincial governments, a major crisis will be inevitable at the end of the year.
These are serious statements, coming from the city of Winnipeg itself. As hon. members know, western cities do not like to advertise their poverty. Alderman E. D. Honey-man a few weeks ago-someone prompts me that he is a Liberal, but I was speaking of him in his capacity as alderman-speaking in committee of the whole of the legislature of Manitoba, stated that there were 5,000 families on relief, that eighty-five per cent of the cases were willing to work. I was not so greatly moved yesterday when I heard the

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
Prime Minister speaking of all the schemes the government has set up to help the unemployed. Of course these schemes are doing something, and I welcome them as far as they go, but they do not begin to touch the fringe of the unemployment problem in this country. I repeat that in my own city there are 5,000 families on relief, -and I may say that 1,000 of these are recent arrivals in the city, many of them from farming districts. And eighty-five per cent of the cases were willing to work. I should like the Minister of Labour to take an early opportunity of explaining a situation of -that kind, and bringing forward some adequate provision to meet the immediate needs of the unemployed. It is not sufficient to eay that there are fewer unemployed now than there were a year ago; that does not help -those who are to-day in the bread lines.
Again let me give a few facts with regard to the rural part of my own province. 1 fancy that people in the east hav-e not yet realized the condition of the rural west. I quote again from statistics given in Manitoba's -case as presented to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. For the year ended June 30, 1937, it was estimated that there were 868 school teachers in Manitoba in receipt of a salary under $500 per year. These represent twenty per cent of the -total teaching force of the province and forty-two per cent of the rural teaching staff. School inspectors report rapid deterioration in school buildings owing to inability to finance repairs. They also report deficient equipment in a large number of schools. At the present time, mainly for financial reasons, 237 school districts are being administered by official trustees, and these districts have been operated on the average only 100 days yearly. In dealing with the municipal financial situation it was submitted that land, the main source of municipal taxation, could not bear any further burden of taxation.
The effect of this condition on individuals is indicated in another section of the same report. Surely matters of this kind are of as much importance as the fact that we are assuming a high position among the nations in the total volume of our trade. What are the social effects of the present situation throughout the province of Manitoba with respect to individuals?
(1)	Incomes have declined to a point below the average for Canada; and net profits from private enterprise in agriculture, except in the last two years, have in many cases disappeared;
(2)	For large numbers of our citizens, private indebtedness has been found too heavy to be
borne, necessitating the continuance of debt adjustment laws by the provincial government and of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act by the dominion;
(3)	For many taxpayers arrears of taxes are beyond their capacity to pay;
(4)	Production of agricultural products by farmers has been maintained largely by drawing upon capital reserves, by permitting -heavy depreciation in equipment, by dispensing with all but a minimum of hired labour, by a large degree of dependence upon family labour, and by a distinct lowering of living standards;
(5)	To many individuals opportunity for employment lias disappeared; a long repetition of disappointments has brought discouragement, loss of hope of improvement in economic conditions and the acceptance by some of radical views which find expression in various forms of political protest, in the hope that a change might bring about better conditions.
Again let me remind hon. members that these are by no means irresponsible statements. I think they may be taken to represent the facts of the situation.
At this time I shall not go into the proposals that the government of -my province make with regard to the provincial debt and interest burden or with regard to the allocation of responsibilities as between the dominion and the provincial governments. I pass on for a moment to the question of unemployment, and in view of the facts that I have related with regard to my own city and province, -which might be supplemented by the facts with regard to unemployment in other provinces, I ask what effective action is being taken by this government that has been in office now for two or three yeans. The other day I came across a pamphlet entitled The Vo-ice of the People, a reprint of the statements issued to the press by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King on the night of the general election, October 14, 1935, and issued by the National Liberal Federation of Canada, 114 Wellington street, Ottawa. I quote:
To-day's election discloses that the people share the view which the Liberal party has all along maintained, that unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem.
It was the pledge to deal with unemployment, according to the Prime Minister's own statement, that elected the Liberals to office. A few weeks ago we had the interim report of the national employment commission, which recommended that the primary responsibility for the relief of distress should remain with the municipal authority and/or the province. So here, after two years, it is a case of "as you were." Back again goes the responsibility upon the provinces and municipalities which, as far as the west is concerned, are absolutely unable to carry those burdens. Forgotten seems -to be the "work

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
and wages" program. Even relief is now considered as primarily a municipal or provincial program. Of course it may be said that this is simply the report of a commission and that it need not necessarily be the policy of the government. I hope that may prove to be true, but I very much fear that a report by a commission along this line will be considered to have absolved the government from directly undertaking the burden of unemployment and relief.
The problem is still acute. I shall not take time to read the figures, but I would point out that according to the interim report of the national commission, relief for unemployment can come only through measures that involve dominion government action. I give several points mentioned in the report:
In fact, the stage was in considerable measure already set for recovery since stocks of consumers' goods and raw materials had fallen to normal, or were well on the way to becoming normal;	_
Community savings had again accumulated and capital was beginning to press for investment;	.
Banking policy had resulted in low interest rates;
Abandonment of the gold standard had put the Canadian dollar on a more or less comparable basis with that of its competitors in the production of goods for export;
An increase in the price of gold and the discovery of new gold mining areas was proving a stimulus almost equivalent to that provided by an entirely new industry;
An accumulation of obsolescence in plant and equipment was becoming increasingly evident.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that these are factors that do not come under the control of the provincial governments. They come under the control of the federal government. I am not now saying that the Liberal government is wholly to blame for this situation; not at all. I think the former government was very much to blame, especially in the case of the gold standard, but I do say that the recognition that these are factors that enter into the unemployment situation is clear evidence that the dominion government cannot escape responsibility with regard to the question of unemployment.
There is a very interesting passage that occurs in another section of Manitoba's case, in which reference is made to the effect of federal monetary policy on western Canadian economy:
To the seller of goods abroad, however, there are two factors that determine the price the seller receives for his production. These two factors are: first, the price of goods in the foreign import country, and, second, the rate of exchange. The rate of exchange is equally important in determining how much that price yields him in his own country.

In a preceding section I find this passage;
-the annual income to the grain growers of Manitoba upon their grain exports was $6,000,000 less than if the Canadian dollar had been kept in line with the Australian pound.
I submit that keeping the Canadian dollar in line with the Australian pound is not a matter than can be affected by any action the province might take. It is a dominion affair, and the effect of a wrong policy on the part of the dominion government has tended to worsen conditions in the west. Hence I think the dominion government is clearly responsible.
Let me make one other reference from Manitoba's case, and that is the effect of the federal tariff policy on western Canadian economy. It is very strange, Mr. Speaker, that it should fall to me to present this phase of the matter to a Liberal government. I should like to know why the Liberal members from the west are not doing it. I hope they will take an early opportunity to present this phase of the case, because remember, this Manitoba case is in effect presented by a Liberal government-a progressive Liberal government, if you like to call it that. I would hope that the case for the west with regard to lower tariffs would be backed up by the western Liberal members.
There are one or two passages in the statement that I should like to present. The right hon. leader of the opposition quoted the Minister of Labour. I shall not further embarrass him by quoting anything he said with regard to Nova Scotia. However, I shall quote the following from Manitoba's case:
The following tabulation brings together the results of our detailed calculations by commodity groups of the estimated increased cost per farm in western Canada due to tariff on
imports from the United States:
Automotive equipment and fuel.	.. $ 27	19Machinery, implements, etc	
18	45Building material	
7	16Household equipment and furniture	12	00Clothing	
24	41Food	
20	57Total	$110 38
There are approximately 290,000 farms in the three prairie provinces and we have estimated the added cost per farm per year as roughly $100. Therefore, the total added cost borne by western farmers is 29 million dollars per year.
The weight of this burden may be judged by the following comparisons: The total municipal and school tax burden in western Canada was 44-5 million dollars in 1933. This figure includes city, town, and village taxes. It is no exaggeration to state, therefore, that the cost of the tariff, to farmers only, is equal to what the whole population of western Canada now pays to maintain local government and education. The Searle Index calculates the average real property tax on western farms at $69.85, which, if compared with our estimates of an

The Address-Mr. Deachman
added tariff cost per farm of $100, indicates the relative weight on rural life of local taxes as compared with the burden of national tariff policy.
I would urge that it is high time that we no longer allow matters of monetary and tariff policy to drift, when they affect so adversely large sections of our community.
As I look over the speech from the throne I can find no indication of anything along new lines which would materially affect the welfare of the great masses of our people. To me that is the most serious aspect of the situation. Apparently we have gotten into a rut. Comfortably situated in Ottawa, we seem to be content to go over and over great masses of figures. We do not realize what they mean in terms of human welfare and human suffering.
A short time ago I came across a report in the New York Tribune of an address on the constitution delivered by President Roosevelt. It is not without application to conditions in Canada. It states:
The constitution of the United States was a layman's document, not a lawyer's contract.
I suggest that if the British North America Act is to be considered a lawyer's contract, in spite of the suffering which must be endured by a great number of our people, partly at least because of the inflexibility of that document, then there is a bad lookout for Canada. Mr. Roosevelt continued:
Less than two years ago fifty-eight of the highest priced lawyers in the land gave the nation, without cost to the nation, a solemn and formal opinion that the Wagner Labor Relations Act was unconstitutional, and in a few months the supreme court overruled them.
I would invite the attention of the Minister of Justice to that statement. Are we to go on indefinitely allowing our people to suffer economically because there was a constitution drawn up some seventy years ago which may have been fitted to the needs of our forefathers, but is not fitted to the needs of Canada to-day? One concluding pregnant sentence is this:
We will no longer be permitted to sacrifice each generation in turn while the law catches up with life. We can no longer afford the luxury of twenty-year lags.
I commend that to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I commend it to the attention of my legal friends in the house, and indeed to all others. We in Canada have been affording ourselves the luxury, here referred to as "twenty-year lags." We have been going along with old economic policies as well as an old constitution. Meantime the world has been moving with wonderful rapidity. Our people have suffered because the house and parliament has not had imagination enough to alter its policies to meet the new needs which this century has thrust upon us.


Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore). He is a man of great faith. This is an age of grave doubts, and we must at least have some admiration for those men who still retain some of their old faith.
Almost three years ago the Social Credit party in Alberta was elected, with great promises. I venture to suggest that no party has been a more complete failure, so far as carrying out its promises is concerned, and yet my hon. friend remains absolutely unshaken, with a faith that laughs at impossibilities and cries it must be done.
A year ago last summer I was startled to find in my morning paper a report of a statement which had been made by my hon. friend in some small town in Alberta. He suggested that hundreds of millions of years ago providence had contemplated the idea of bringing into existence the province of Alberta and that there would be a great leader raised up to direct the destinies of that province. That leader was Mr. Aberhart. Hundreds of millions of years ago means at least two hundred million years. I do not know the condition of the earth at that distant date. It may have been without form and void; it may be that it was still in a stage of fervent heat. Perhaps it had begun to calm down a little and it may be the first crude forms of life had begun to develop. There may have been a slight movement, a bubble in the primordial ooze, and perhaps providence looking on, waved a hand and said:
There little creature, don't you cry;
You'll be Aberhartan by and by.
Even though I speak thus kindly of my hon. friend, I want also to call the attention to something else. He said today that we should work together with the greatest earnestness and fairness. He believed that we were all fan-minded men. I hope he will be able to live up to the creed which he has laid down. Last winter there was some discussion in this house about a bonus to be paid upon the production of sugar beets. I opposed that because I do not believe in tariffs or bonuses. If an industry in my constituency demanded a bonus, I would let it go and take my chance on being defeated. But I have heard on other occasions from friends of mine, who had it direct from the lips of the hon. member for Lethbridge, that he could not understand why I was opposed to the bonus being paid unless I was in the pay of the sugar interests. It is rather
The Address-Mr. Deachman

humorous to think that I would be in the pay of the sugar interests, but I suggest that my hon. friend ought to be careful.
I do not treat his statement with the sternness with which I might regard it if it came from a member of one of the older political parties, such as the Conservative or the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. After all a moral code is a product of slow growth. First, there are certain moral conceptions and it takes time to develop them. After all the Social Credit party is the youngest party in the House of Commons and it has not yet established its own code. It has not reached the condition where it can stand on honest convictions and antipicate that others will do the same. I suggest to my hon. friend that when he makes a statement such as that, he does not measure me; he measures himself. There is still some truth in the old couplet:
Now, as of old, Mail by himself is priced,
For thirty pieces Judas sold himself, not Christ.
I shall be glad now to turn to something more entertaining. The Conservative party is developing new leaders, and I am glad to see them. I would not for one moment suggest that I should be glad to see the old leader disappear, because after all the older he gets, the more I like him. Prior to 1935, when my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) laughed at all, he laughed at other people. In 1936, having thrown off the burden of office, he laughed spontaneously and naturally. In 1937 he laughed with others. From personal contact and from what I have heard from others, this year he laughs at himself. He must have had abundant reason to laugh at himself when he went home last night.
The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) has moved down closer to the front. I congratulate him. He is getting nearer to the throne, and I do not think he will ever get very far away from it. He ran away a little too far last summer, but the results were not happy. Then we have the outside leader of the Conservative party, a new man who has come upon the scene. I do not know whether he is the heir apparent, the heir presumptive or merely the pretender to the throne. He made a speech some time ago in Toronto upon which I must congratulate him. That speech contained some sentences which convinced me that I have converted him and that he now has some doubt as to the value of tariffs. A Conservative who has the dawning of doubt with regard to tariffs

is a valuable asset to the Dominion of Canada at the present time. We ought to welcome him to our midst. I am not sure that the conversion is complete, because his speech contains some strange dogmas. However, it is a very interesting speech and I should like to read a few sentences from it. He said:
In the beginning, the disadvantages of the national policy eclipsed its advantages. To build a Canada of great and equal opportunity meant hard work, especially at the outset;-
I agree with that. He continues:
-meant hardship, especially to the primary beneficiaries of freer trade. Our infant industries needed protection, if they were to prevail. Our labour needed protection, if it was to survive. But the foundations of a higher standard of living for the future, meant at that time, higher costs of living to the consumer. The producer of natural products paid twice over.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


Robert John Deachman: Mr. Herridge, the
former minister to the United States, the aspirant to the throne. Where is the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris), the man who occasionally whispers an invocation for higher protection? Where is the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol)? Where is the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) ? Mr. Herridge speaks as a father who is chastizing his child and says: I hate to do this; it hurts me more than it does you, but it will be good for you in the end. His speech continues:
This was unavoidable, if you like. But none the less it was a strain upon the scanty resources of a pioneer community. It is to the eternal credit of Canadians that they saw the vision of a greater Canada, and endured.
I can imagine the members of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association enduring while they were permitted to charge the consumer two prices for the things that they had to sell. In order to build a Canada of great and equal opportunity, it was necessary to divide the country into two classes-even the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) was not accused yesterday of doing that-those who received payment and those who paid the bills. There is another touching passage here:
So up went the tariff, undoubtedly beyond that point where ends the public welfare and begins those high profits of special privilege which feast upon the public welfare.
And thus the tariff became a wall dividing east and west, industry and the primary producer, labour and the farmer. It ceased to be protection and became the perversion of the high morality of Canada first.
The Conservative party put up tariffs. It misemployed a noble principle.
Isn't that good?-the noble principle being that of charging the consumer two prices.
The national policy became discriminatory.

The Address-Mr. Deachman
It was born that way.
Admit it gracefully.
I wonder if my Conservative friends will admit gracefully that the national policy became discriminatory-no, not "became" but always was. Then he goes on to say:
Therefore, when labour is protected the farmer must be protected likewise.
It took them sixty years to find that out. It was twenty-four years before they realized the truth about reciprocity, and even then they could not vote for it. But it took them sixty years to realize that the farmer must-be protected alike with labour. It goes on:
And so his turn comes round at last. His protection is also a minimum wage. His minimum wage will be a minimum price level. In this way, labour and the farmer unite and become the joint guardians of our security.
I wonder if you could ever find a more delightful thing than that. The manufacturer, the protected interests, are still to be permitted -to exploit the community. No change in that. But the government is to undertake -the task of guaranteeing the prices of the products which the farmer produces, and so we will have industry exploiting the farmer and the government recompensing the farmer for the exploitation of industry. That is the new protection; that is the new national policy. Well, that will not last very long so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, but it does bring to the attention of the house a very serious matter. Even the Conservative party realizes the danger which confronts this country in connection with agriculture, and that is a story which I now desire to present.
For sixty years we have budgeted fairly steadily for depressed agricultural conditions. We have the fruits of that situation today. The average farmer in the province of Ontario -I am dealing now with the Ontario farmer because I happen to represent an Ontario constituency, but what I am going to urge in regard to the Ontario farmer ought to be applicable to the other provinces, although in the present circumstances Ontario is the pick of the bunch. Conditions here are better than in the other provinces, partly because of natural advantages, climatic conditions and so forth. The average farmer in the province of Ontario, according to the census of 1931, had an investment of $7,273. He had 119 acres of land. The value of his production per farm was $1,585 in 1930; that is gross production and takes no account of the cost of production or of the cost of living. It represents the value of the products produced on the farm, available for sale or for
consumption on the farm. In 1932 the value
of production had sunk to $964; that is, it declined by $621 in two years.
Permit me to say this for the benefit of my Conservative friends: This problem is too big to make it a partisan issue, and I am not charging the former government with the entire responsibility for the decline in the value of farm products which took place during these two years.
In 1936 the value of farm production had risen to $1,335, still a decline from 1930, but a substantial increase of $371 over the low level of 1932. I am going to be fair in this also, and say that the government cannot take the full credit for that increase, because part of it was the result of natural causes, and agriculture is still left in a depressed condition, which is something still to be faced.
As I have pointed out, that was the gross return. Then the farmer had to pay taxes on his farm, averaging $100. He had to buy feed, costing $80; fertilizer, $15; spraying materials, $3; seed, $24; power and light, $6; labour, including board for labour, $155. Then there should be an allowance for maintenance and operating expenses of implements, including gas, oil, twine, repairs, and so forth, which would amount to at least $100. Threshing would average $25, and the depreciation on his buildings and equipment would amount to at least $165. With an investment in his farm of $7,200, he ought to be entitled to five per cent interest, and if you add all these items of expense together, you have $973 of expenses on that farm. If the farmer was not getting interest on the money invested, he was paying interest on a mortgage, and if all these items are deducted from his income of 1936 the average farmer's net income in the province of Ontario was $362, or less than one dollar per day.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I wonder what you are going to do for an industry which has sunk so low that the total earnings, per farmer, are $360 a year. That is less than the pay which this government gives an office boy starting to work in the government service. Is there courage enough in parliament to say and to do something about this? Do you not think we have a problem there, a tremendous problem, as it exists at the present time? I wonder what we are going to do about it.
Let me put it another way. Let us take it upon an index basis. It is difficult to compare farm earnings with industrial wages, and in this case remember that I go only so far as an index will go. You must consider it as an index and nothing else, but yet it is an indication of real conditions.

The Address-Mr. Dcachman

Taking industrial wages at 100, and farm earnings at 100, in 1926, we can come to a fair approximation of farm earnings in the following years by comparing the relative prices which the farmer received for his products with the wages which the industrial worker received. There is no substantial variation in the volume of farm production during those years, and the reward of the farmer is dependent largely upon prices.
It stands this way: Industrial wages, 100 in 1926; 104-3 in 1932; 109-8 in 1935. Farm earnings, 100 in 1926; 83 in 1930; 59-5 in 1932. In other words, the earnings of the average farmer in Ontario in 1932 represented a decrease of 40-5 per cent from the level of 1926, while the earnings of labour went up during the same period by four per cent. Please note that I am not finding fault with the wages of labour. I am not saying that the earnings of labour are too high. I realize that while this was going on, while the farmer was paralysed, while his earnings had decreased over 40 per cent, labour was largely unemployed. But I raise this question-how far can labour go in increasing its wages while the farmer stands as he does. There is the difficulty which labour must face. You cannot have the rate of wages of labour steadily increasing over the years when you have at the same time the income of the farmer almost cut in two.
If we take again the cost of living and the value of farm produce at 100 in 1926, the cost of living in 1932 stood at 81-4 and the price of farm produce at 48-4.
These are conditions that call for the attention of the House of Commons, not of one political party only, but of all. I have given the prices of farm produce, and I want to point out that in the normal operation of the law of supply and demand the price of farm produce ought always to stand at a higher level than the price of manufactured products. There are certain basic reasons for this: First, mass production lowers the cost of manufacturing. Mass production is always possible in industrial production, but rarely possible in agriculture. Second, the mechanization of industry goes forward more rapidly than the mechanization of agriculture. Greater resources in capital and greater capacity for employment of technical experts in the development of research assist progress in manufacturing. Manufacturing is driven forward towards the lowering of costs of production-not necessarily of selling price-much more than agriculture. Third, fluctuations in volume of production and price are, to a large extent, under control in manufacturing. This gives greater stability and

permits lower costs. Fourth, production, per unit of capital invested, is greater in manufacturing than in farming. Fifth, interest rates are lower for the industrial borrower than for the agricultural producer. That ought to aid the manufacturer still further in producing at a low cost, while the farmer is naturally faced with a higher cost of production.
In view of all these facts we cannot expect that the price of farm produce will decline, as will the price of manufactured commodities; and for that reason the situation should be changing steadily in the direction of the farmer and not in the direction of the manufacturer. Why does this not happen? I am not going to be positive in that regard, because I want the house to explore and find out why, but I think there are some reasons which are quite obvious and the house ought to be able to discover them.
What is the result of the changes I have pointed out? Let me mention one fact which I regard as of great importance so far as farm life in Ontario is concerned. In 1931, according to the census, there were in rural Ontario, in the age group from twenty to twenty-nine, 115,000 males and 87,000 females. According to normal expectancy, taking the age group from twenty to twenty-nine-that is, the group in which most marriages take place-we should have had 124,709 males and 111,822 females in 1931. That was the normal expectancy. Actually there was a decrease of 9,000 males. The decrease in the number of females was 24,000. The young women had deserted the farms.
What is the reason for this? The reason is that the young woman was no longer a valuable economic unit on the farms of Ontario. The cost of living was high and she had to make a living. The female population moved away from the country to the city. Those of my hon. friends who are bachelors know, as perhaps the married men, too, know, that when the young women leave the country there inevitably follows a decline in the social activities of the people, for the young women are the life of the community, and so you have a serious social condition in the rural life of Ontario. Economic conditions have destroyed the normal balance of population. Moreover, there is a constant tendency for the young men to leave the country and go to the city. This is one of a number of aspects of the general situation that has developed as a result of agricultural conditions in Ontario. Another is the fact that our standards of education are declining, at any rate, so far as rural education is concerned.


Mr. WALSH:: Does the hon. gentleman say that education is declining.

The Address-Mr. Deachman


Robert John Deachman: I say that the standards of education in the rural communities are declining as compared with .the standards in the city schools.


William Allen Walsh: Will my hon. friend amplify that statement?


Robert John Deachman: Yes, gladly. My hon. friend, I understand, is a teacher, and I think he will realize that where salaries are low one is not likely to get the same standards of training among teachers as where higher salaries are paid; yet I find that among male teachers, in 1935-1936, the average salary in the country schools was $848, while in the urban schools it was $1,922. Even my hon. friend would not work as hard for $848 as for $1,922.


William Allen Walsh: Is my hon. friend differentiating between the grade of diploma held by the teacher receiving $800 and the grade of diploma held by the teacher receiving $1,900?


Robert John Deachman: What I have given has reference to public schools, and if .there was a difference in the matter of diplomas it only shows, what I am contending, that the country school cannot afford the high-salaried teachers who are employed in the cities. There are, in Ontario, something like 750 schools in which the average attendance is less than ten, and I venture to suggest that my hon. friends will appreciate how extremely difficult it is to provide the same high standards of education in such schools as exists in city schools, which have the advantage of better equipment. Inevitably, where there is a decline in rural wages, the earnings of the farmers, the standard of education will decline, not because the people want it to decline but because there is not the economic capacity to pay teachers.
I come to the question of remedies. I shall not discuss this question, because all I want the house to do is to realize the problem. I should like hon. members to appreciate the problem from the economic standpoint and to give full consideration to this fact, that if the entire rural population of Canada, or of the province of Ontario, must expect a low level of recompense for its work, then it follows inevitably that the burden will be felt by industries which will lack purchasing power; it will be felt by the railways; it will be felt in every phase of our life in Canada.
It is exceedingly difficult to obtain the facts. The story I have given to-day is not very clear, it is not very definite, because the facts are not available upon which to base a conclusion. Do hon. members realize that the latest available record of earnings of
51052-6A
farmers goes back to 1920 when the index of prices was 160 as against SO to-day? There were some reports prepared in 1931-32 by the Ontario Agricultural College. I endeavoured to get these reports but have not yet been able to obtain them as their circulation was banned by the government of Ontario at that time because the story they told was too tragic. They did not want the facts to be known. The same thing has occurred in the United States; when they start to investigate the living standards of the farmer the investigation collapses before it gets very far. But I contend that we ought to have these results.
Many will dispute these contentions in regard to the condition of the farmer. Some say: After all, the farmer is not trying to make a living; he is trying to live a life; he has a house of his own and all that. But I ask the government to give some time and attention to the problem. Let us make an analysis of the earnings on one hundred sample farms in Ontario, and a number of farms in other provinces. Let us take a fair selection, get the record and examine the facts. This would be a simple matter; we could use the facilities provided by our district agricultural representatives. It is possible to adopt a simple form of accounting and find out what the farmer earns. With a record like that, continued over a number of years, I am positive that we would have sufficient facts to convince any party or any government that the big problem before the people of Canada to-day is not, as some people say, the railway problem; it is not the unemployment problem; it is none of these problems-the real problem is to bring the standards of agricultural life up to such a point that when this nation goes forward-under a Liberal government, I hope, if a Liberal government is faithful to its trust, but otherwise under some other government-it will go foiward by a united movement all along the line, not simply raising by artificial means the reward of the few. while others are compelled to pay the added cost. I read from the address of the Hon. W. D. Herridge given in Toronto recently. I cannot agree with it. I do not think the problem can be solved in the way Mr. Herridge suggests, by a fixed price for agricultural products. There is no hope that way. I believe the movement should be towards freedom. Emerson said:
The basis of political economy is non-interference. The only safe rule is found in the self-adjusting meter of demand and supply. Do not legislate. Meddle and you snap the sinews with your sumptuary laws-give no bounties.

The Address-Mr. Deachman
I pass that on to my friend the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore).
Make equal laws and secure life and property. Open the door of opportunity to talent and virtue and they will do themselves justice and property will not be in bad hands. In a free and just commonwealth property rushes from the idle and imbecile to the industrious, brave and persevering.
I would not subscribe to all that; yet it is a safer, surer guidance than sumptuary laws, planned economy, fascism, communism or any other ism. But with a measure of freedom, helped to some extent by the correcting influence which government can exert, I am sure that standards of living for the farmer can be raised and he can be brought to an equality with the rest of the people of the dominion. If we fail in accomplishing this we have not solved the one great problem facing Canada. It must be settled or life itself has failed in this great nation.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I do that because I noted in their tones an undeniable conviction, and at the same time great fluency of delivery, which I think merit praise even from a humble member of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
In the months preceding the opening of parliament the speech from the throne has been awaited with a good deal of eagerness by the people of Canada. During the first session of this eighteenth parliament the government was to a large extent finding its feet. In the second session its eyes and those of our legislators in general were turned chiefly towards the coming coronation and the imperial conference which came directly after it. But this third session, and the program of governmental legislation presaged in the speech from the throne, provide a real test of the government of the day.
In my first speech in this chamber and in some other addresses I made here I expressed my desire to be helpful in connection with legislation coming before the house from time to time. I think hon. members cannot complain that I have been narrow or bitter or unfair in my criticism of governmental legislation, nor have I any intention of pursuing a different course in my remarks to-day. I believe that criticism of a government's program should be of a constructive nature. Our duty as legislators, representing our constituents, is much broader and goes much further than a mere attempt to make political capital or to seek tactical political advantage.

I think I echo the feelings of most people in the country to-day in saying that. Wherever I go I find a growing feeling that the work of this house and the legislation it enacts are of much greater importance at this time than ever before, and call for the undivided attention and patriotism of men on both sides of the house to make that legislation workable and beneficial to our citizens. The spectacle of governments assailing governments, section fighting against section and men manoeuvring for political advantage may make front page news and be a great "break" for the papers in some respects, but it does not come within hailing distance of a real attempt to solve the great problems which face our country at this time. There is much talk of national unity, but I should like to see more work towards that end as well. I sometimes fear that by so much talk we may talk ourselves into nine different countries instead of working ourselves into one. I leave that suggestion with hon. members, because after all our talk will not avail much unless we work towards that end.
My purpose this afternoon in dealing with the speech from the throne is to stir this administration into producing more far-reaching and effective legislation on behalf of the great masses of our people. I do not think the speech from the throne can be regarded as of a kind likely to bring much sunshine and happiness to the great mass of Canadians. Like my right hon. leader I feel that surely something can be done within the precincts of this house by the administration now in power towards attempting, in any event, to bridge the gap between plenty on the one hand and poverty on the other. I am not taking a defeatist attitude in this regard. I have confidence in our Canadian people, whether they be Liberals or Conservatives or belong to some other group represented in this chamber. I am confident that what I suggest is the desire of the Canadian people, though sometimes we may disagree as to the methods which should be employed in attaining that end. By delay and overcautiousness in this country are we not contributing to the growth of radical thought and feeling? In order to do a proper job in a country such as this, in my opinion governments must keep abreast of the times. They must not go further than public thought but neither must they lag behind the general feeling that exists in the country over which they govern.
With regard to one of the major points dealt with in the speech from the throne,

The Address-Mr. Graydon
unemployment insurance, may I say that I doubt if there is one man-or one lady-in this chamber who is not fully in accord with the introduction of unemployment insurance to help our workingmen. I doubt very much if the sentiment of the house is not overwhelmingly in favour of unemployment insurance, but may I suggest with all deference, Mr. Speaker, that this question has been before the people of Canada for a great many years. I was not so active in public life when the Liberal platform of 1919 was drafted, but in that platform I read a reference to social legislation such as unemployment insurance. It would appear to me that the years of prosperity in this country between 1921 and 1930 was a period when unemployment insurance could have been inaugurated. If that had been done it would have worked out to the great benefit of the working people of Canada. I make that suggestion for this particular reason that after all the working people become annoyed from time to time at the delays which occur, from whatever causes.
During the very difficult years following 1930, when the depression was nearing its end, an attempt was made by the previous administration to introduce an unemployment insurance measure. After it was brought in, as hon. gentlemen are very well aware, its constitutionality was questioned by the then opposition. Shortly after the measure was enacted the Conservative administration was defeated at the polls. Now we are in the third session of this parliament and only now are we getting the legislation which, in my opinion, we should have had many years ago and which, if it had been brought into being at that time, would have built up a fund which would have been immensely worth while to the working people.
Now I should like to add a word of counsel, of caution and of warning to the government of the day. In all fairness and all friendliness may I suggest that they should give right of way to the unemployment insurance legislation at this time, putting it ahead of all other types of legislation, so that not one more minute may be needlessly wasted before we do something for the working people.
In the speech from the throne I notice some mention of economic recovery. It is true that Canada has shared in the general world movement during the last few years, but I think we should be cautious in our remarks with regard to the betterment in economic conditions, because, to my way of thinking at least, to some extent our increased trade rests upon the temporary foundation of world war
preparations. Suppose the war preparations should cease; just what provision is this administration making for the protection of the people of Canada if that trade should disappear to any great extent? Those are some of the matters which this government should take into very careful consideration, so that we may survive if at any time in the near future this trade stimulus should decline.
I should like to say also that we cannot risk our entire economic future upon outside markets, important though they may be. After all, the home market is also important, especially for those of us who represent agricultural ridings. The home market for the producers must be protected, and a national policy of self-preservation must, in my opinion, be inaugurated in order that the dangers I have pointed out may not have to be faced. In the last three months we have seen how quickly this country reacts to outside influences and how sensitive is our national economic set-up to conditions prevailing across the border to the south. So I say that we should make every effort to put our own house in order first. Then, when that has been done, we may seek those stimulants to trade which will bring to our people a greater prosperity in the years to come.
In the speech from the throne-and I should like to address myself particularly to the western members in this regard-mention is made of the activities carried on under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. During the past year many western farmers and their families have come to the county of Peel, which I represent in the house. Without any flattery whatever I should like to say that one would have difficulty in finding a finer type of rural Canadians or better farmers than these western people who have come to our county. On many occasions I have heard members from the west rise to great heights of oratory and enthusiasm, as only a western member can, on behalf of the men and women whom they represent. After having seen these migrants to our county may I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that they well deserve all the praise that has been given them in the house. I believe also that this movement has created a new understanding between the east and the west. So far as my personal knowledge goes, it has done more to create a real national unity and an effective interprovincial understanding than all the words that have been uttered in this house and the other legislative chambers in our country. May I express the hope that government activities under this act will not be necessary after this session has been closed, and that good crops and the necessary moisture will be found in those dried out areas
The Address-Mr. Graydon

of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba. I trust that 1938 may be a banner year for the great grain growing population of western Canada.
Mention has been made in the speech from the throne of the training of unemployed young people in Canada, such training to be conducted under the Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act of 1937. It will be recalled that on September 14, 1937, an agreement was made between Ontario and the dominion under the youth training scheme, and $90,000 was made available for the training of young men and women in agriculture or allied pursuits. Five hundred young men were taken as a maximum for the purpose. When they went to the farms they were paid S10 per month, and .the farmers who took them in and gave them board and lodging received the same amount. This was to be continued for six months.
Anything I may have to offer with regard to the scheme will be by way of helpful suggestion to the government, and could not be regarded as a definite criticism. I would address my observations particularly to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), under whose supervision the operation of the act comes. However there have been some minor criticisms which possibly should be brought to his attention for correction, in the event of the same condition arising in the future. There is no profession, vocation or calling in connection with which applicants must be chosen with greater care than in that of farming. Farming is a most difficult type of profession. Only those of us who have come from the farms and understand farm problems can realize -the full importance of what I say. To a great extent one must have industry, perseverance and a genuine desire to be a farmer, if he is to succeed in the training. All those factors are most important. Although the Minister of Labour is not in his seat, may I say that the greatest care must be taken in choosing the young men who are to train and thereafter may be expected to take their part in the future agricultural life of Canada.
Every farmer member must know of instances where urban dwellers have gone outside the cities to attempt to do farm work. Some of them have been good farmers. As I stand here this afternoon I can remember several young men, Englishmen, Irishmen and Scotsmen, who have worked for us on our farm from time to time and who to-day own their own farms in Ontario, and can be classed as good farmers. On the other hand there were others who came to the farms who wished only to fill in time until they

could obtain other jobs within the town limits or within the limits of a city corporation. May 1 repeat that we must be careful in our choice of the men who are to be trained to do this type of work.
Some men have come out to the farms in the years gone by to attempt to learn farming, and even after years of experience they have been known to commit that unpardonable sin of hitching the tugs to the double-tree before the wagon tongue goes in to the neck-yoke. I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) laughs; perhaps he has never committed that unpardonable mistake.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have, and I have done it on a cold morning, too.


Gordon Graydon: On the other hand, there are those who have come to the farms with scarcely any experience, but have had a great desire to be good farmers and who, by using their own common sense, have known enough even to turn a scotch collar upside down before putting it on over a gelding's head.
I mention these points simply to emphasize to the Minister of Labour the great care which must be taken in connection with choosing the young men who are asked to learn this most intricate of professions. May I add that, in my view, so far as possible friction should be avoided between those young men who come to the farm under a scheme such as this and the elder, more experienced and skilled labourers who have spent all their lives on farms, sometimes earning not much more than the young men who are about to study the art of agriculture. Tire general scheme of youth training must however commend itself to all of us.
For some reason or another the demand for unskilled labour seems to have diminished to some extent. No doubt many hon. members have had the experience I have had in attempting to place men in different jobs. At times we find it difficult to fit men into jobs because they lack some kind of technical training. Attention should be turned not only to the question of youth training, but, so far as finances permit, to the training of other people who may be fitted into the various niches of industry or other places in which, by virtue of their present lack of skill, they are not able to be absorbed.
Representing one of the greatest agricultural sections in Ontario, the county of Peel, I am interested in the Shaw report on overseas marketing. That report opened the eyes of many farmers in Ontario and, no doubt, in the other provinces. I shall not attempt to deal with the publicity which has attended

The Address-Mr. Gray don
the publication of that report. Not only does it reveal the faults in the present system but, more important to the farmer, it shows the definite possibility of future overseas markets. After all there can be no question that for the farmer the United Kingdom offers one of the greatest markets in the world.
I would ask the government so far as possible to assure us of some aggressive scheme for the standardization of products, and of an equally aggressive campaign for selling our products overseas. I do not know whether it is general in all constituencies, but there is a feeling among farmers, one which has been expressed to me on many occasions, that perhaps less money might be spent by the government in some other departments and that a little more might be spent in the Department of Agriculture. The view is held that greater expenditure might be made in connection with the extension of domestic sales as well as the sales of products in other parts of the world.
We have read in the paper where congress voted almost a million dollars for one particular type of advertising in connection with one class of farm product. All hon. members know what the citrus fruit advertising has done for the growers in California and other states. In this country I believe we might reduce the estimates of other departments of less importance, and allocate more money to advertising the products of the farm in our domestic as well as in our overseas markets. We should show people that for deliciousness and general food value our Canadian farm products outclass anything in the world.
The speech from the throne has dealt with the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act. The last report brought down made some mention of the imperial veterans. I should like to suggest to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) that he might find it profitable to arrange for a conference between officials of the Ministry of Pensions in the United Kingdom and the department here. Out of such a conference might come something which would improve the status of the imperial veteran in this country.
I was interested to note the extensions which are to be made in the trans-Canada air service. We are fortunate in the county of Peel in having the village of Malton picked as the site for the Toronto auxiliary airport. We had a feeling in that county that when the authorities were looking for something good, they would come to our constituency. They have not failed us in that regard. We
are hoping to be on the direct line of transoceanic traffic in the years to come and I believe that the choice of Malton for an airport was a wise one.
Mention is made in the speech from the throne of a revision of the trade agreement between Canada and the United States. As the provisions of the new agreement have not been definitely decided upon I should like to make two or three suggestions to the government, which might be kept in mind when negotiations are in progress. There are a considerable number of fruit and vegetable growers in my riding and these men are much concerned over the possibility of the lowering of the tariff or the relaxation in the imposition of the regulations with respect to added value for duty. These people have suffered to some extent-perhaps I should say to a large extent-because of the agreement which went into effect on January 1, 1936.
The figures show that as between 1935 and 1937 there has been an increase of 50 per cent in imports of fresh vegetables from the United States. Our growers can supply the Canadian demand. They are not asking for special privileges, but they feel they have made a greater sacrifice in promoting freer trade between these two countries than any other industry in this dominion. Imports generally from the United States increased 30 per cent in the period 1935 to 1937, but imports of vegetables increased, not 30 per cent but 50 per cent. I cite these figures to show that these growers are entitled to some consideration. The tariff as it stands at present is not sufficiently protective and they are anxious that by the new agreement no additional burden shall be imposed upon their business.
According to the latest statistics, there are more young trees planted for orchard purposes in the county of Peel than in any other county in Ontario. This means that the orchard men of Peel are planning for the future. They are counting on a continuance of the preference which they now have in the overseas markets. I ask the government to exercise every care and caution to see that nothing is done to interfere with the preference which our fruit now enjoys.
In my closing remarks I should like to refer to three types of taxation, all of which are regarded as important in the riding which I represent. During the regime of the previous administration, a two-eent tax was placed upon sugar. That tax met with some outcry, especially from hon. members who now sit on the government side. In the next year

The Address-Mr. Graydon
the tax was reduced by one-half, but the one-cent tax has remained in force ever since. I submit that we do not give enough consideration to the effect that such taxes have upon the women of our country. After all the housewives should be considered. This tax is actually a burden upon the housewives of the dominion. Last year I suggested that this tax should be removed and I hope that I shall not be a lone crusader this year when I ask the government to consider this matter when the budget is brought down. This one-cent tax should be taken off sugar in order that some relief may be given to the housewives of our land.
The county of Peel is the home of the greatest cut flower industry, not only in the dominion but I think I am safe in saying in the world. No sales tax is imposed on agricultural products, but the full tax of eight per cent is imposed on horticultural products. This tax must be very difficult to collect because of the great number of small growers. The result is that it is to some extent discriminatory in its application. I suggest that this tax should be eliminated. I make this plea, not only on behalf of the large concerns in Brampton and elsewhere, but also on behalf of the workingmen who are engaged in this industry in great numbers. They are anxious that it shall prosper in order that they may derive some benefit from that prosperity.
I should like to bring to the attention of the house a matter which has not been referred to so far. I refer to the increase in the cost of radio licences. With all fairness to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) and to the general manager of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for both of whom I have the greatest respect, I make the plea that there should be no increase. I sat in at one meeting of the special committee which dealt with radio broadcasting in 1936. I was elected to take the place of the late Mr. Plunkett, the former member for Victoria City. It may be that I did not know the general set-up of radio broadcasting, but at that time I felt that an opportunity should be given to the nationally owned broadcasting corporation to justify its existence. The report of that committee was concurred in unanimously by the House of Commons.
There has been, however, a growing discontent with our national broadcasting corporation. Whether or not this is justified, is not for me to say at this time. The people are now to be asked to pay an increased licence fee, not only on the sets upon which they previously paid a fee but upon the radios in their cars and any additional sets they might have in their homes. There has been a storm of indignation over this increase and I think it 
should be brought to the attention of the government, if they have not already heard the rumblings in the press and from other sources.
I trust the government will take an early opportunity to remedy this matter. If our national broadcasting system is to be a success we must first gain the confidence of the radio listening public in this dominion. We must be careful not to impose what people are apt to regard as nuisance taxes. Speaking for myself, I would rather pay $70 in gasoline tax, which I do every year, because I seem to notice it less, than be asked when the 31st of March comes round to pay the radio licence fee. That may seem peculiar, but human nature is human nature, as someone said in the debate yesterday. I would urge upon the government the importance of maintaining confidence in our nationally owned broadcasting system, and may I suggest that the raising of the licence fee will not tend in any way to increase confidence in the system. I ask the government at this time not only to refrain from increasing the licence fee by fifty cents, but very earnestly to consider wiping out the fee altogether and raising the funds required from some other source.
May I just say in closing that while the speech from the throne foreshadowed a number of very important projects which will be under consideration by parliament this session, undoubtedly it left out one very important matter, and that was any reference to legislation which would tend to bridge the gap, that inequality between incomes in Canada, which I mentioned in my earlier remarks this afternoon. Surely this great assembly of men and women representing all parts of this dominion, coming here with one idea in mind, that of bettering the condition of our people, can find in the legislative machinery at hand a powerful and effective instrument for bringing about a greater equality of income in this country at this session of parliament.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. ARTHUR J. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I shall make my remarks brief, in order not to delay the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I wish first to offer my warm congratulations to the honourable, members who moved and seconded the motion." I was delighted to hear these speakers express themselves with such ease, eloquence and precision.

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
The third session of the eighteenth parliament has just opened in an atmosphere of confidence and optimism. Instead of the disquieting situation in which the country found itself under the former administration, we are able to note today remarkable progress in all fields of national activity, thanks to the present government's policy built on common sense and cooperation.
In spite of the acrimonious remarks of the right honourable the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), many of his friends cannot help admitting that we are today on the road to true restoration, with all due deference to my honourable friend from Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). As the right honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said last night in the course of a speech for which I wish sincerely to congratulate him, there is still much to be done; important problems remain to be solved, but I honestly believe that the Liberal party has reason to feel proud of what it has accomplished during the period of slightly over two years that has elapsed since its accession to power.
Among the difficult problems awaiting solu

 tion there is that of the anxious and bewildered young people of this country who, during the past six or seven years, have seen the collapse of their ambitions and the vanishing of their fondest hopes. Today practically all avenues are closed to youth. Every position is filled, and when perchance a vacancy opens there are hundreds of applicants for it. I know many heads of families who have made great sacrifices to educate their children. Some of them spent nearly all their savings to give to their sons an education that would permit them to attain in due course to important positions. All that is left to them now is the consolation of looking at gilded diplomas hanging to the walls.
I know of no spectacle more tragic and distressing than that of our idle young people who, because of their idleness, are exposed to many dangers. The depression has affected the morale of the younger generation and I look upon the problem of youth as the most pressing one that we have to face. Indeed, the delay in solving it may lead to the most disastrous and irreparable consequences.
Since a nation's youth constitutes one of its most valuable assets, governments have in that regard duties and obligations which they cannot avoid. I wish however to congratulate the honourable the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for the action he took last session in having one million dollars voted to assist the youth of the country. It
is a most worthy object and I was happy to note in the speech from the throne the government's intention to continue this wise policy this year. I hope that even more will be done.
As the representative of a rural constituency, I wish particularly to draw the attention of the government to the distressing situation of the young people of the rural districts. During the two years or more that I have had the honour of representing the electoral division of Matapedia-Matane in this house, I have received over five thousand applications for positions and assistance of all kinds, a large number of which came from sons of farmers. It is because I understand the deep distress of the young people from the country communities that I appeal to this house to-day on their behalf. I venture to hope that my appeal will be heard by those who are charged with the responsibility not only of the future and the welfare of our youth, but of the progress of our agricultural population as well.
In spite of a substantial improvement there are still in each parish of my constituency from 75 to 150 young men of an age to establish a home of their own, but who for lack of resources are unable to do so. Their fondest desire would be to follow the example of their parents and become useful citizens earning their living by their labour. Instead of that they have become a heavy burden and an object of anxiety for their parents.
People seem to forget that agriculture is Canada's basic industry, and I am under the impression that we have too often, in the past, neglected it for the benefit of other large industries, which resulted in drawing a large number of our rural youths to the cities, attracted as they were by the prospect of an easy life and by the mirage of delusive pleasures. But scientific endeavours with a view to improving our machinery soon brought about overproduction, and, therefore, unemployment. To-day, it seems to be an established fact that our factories, with their improved equipment, when they are running full time, are able to manufacture in a few months what we can consume in a whole year. Therefore the manufacturers will be more and more inclined to reduce their employees, and the cities will require a lesser number of workingmen. Consequently, there is an urgent need of directing our young people toward another sphere.
Desertion from the land has caused great social unrest, and, to a large extent, made for the economic chaos from which we have so much suffered for the last few years.
90	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
According to the statistics, the population of the province of Quebec, at the time of the census, on June 1, 1931, was 2,874,255, or 27-7 per cent of the total population of Canada. People residing in the 25 towns of more than
10.000	inhabitants made up 46-26 per cent of the total population. By adding the residents of incorporated villages of more than
1.000	inhabitants, the percentage of the urban population would be 54-51. And if you add to that the population of all our rural municipalities of less than 1,000 inhabitants, the percentage would then be respectively 63-1 for the towns and 36-9 for the countryside. Our rural population, in the province of Quebec, has been steadily decreasing for the last sixty years. According to the census of 1871, there were, then 80-5 per cent of the people on the land, and 19-5 in the towns. In 1931, the percentage of the rural population had dwindled to 36-9. However, during the ten years between 1921 and 1931, the population of the province of Quebec had increased by 21-76 per cent. Where did the surplus of our rural districts go? They helped to swell the number of workers in the cities, and Later the number of unemployed on relief, which meant a burden for the government, instead of an asset to the country.
Mr. Speaker, such conditions cannot last much longer without necessarily endangering the economic future of this dominion. I humbly suggest that the best way to put an end to these unfortunate conditions would be to improve the lot of our farming class, and to assist in establishing our farmers' sons, either on old farms which could be parceled out, or by opening new rural districts. Some time ago, the very eminent bishop of Rimouski, Mgr. Courchesne, pointed out that our forests that had for years supplied the mills in the Matapedia valley would soon be depleted, and that the people would of course have to go back to the land. Even if the keeping of our youths on the land must entail great sacrifices on the part of the nation, we should make them. It shall be the salvation of our young people. As I look all around, and as I endeavour to see through the future, I see no other means of really improving the conditions.
Undoubtedly, I realize that the young people in our rural districts may not all feel the call to the land, but I know a large number of young men in my county who would be anxious to get established as farmers, provided that the conditions were more favourable, and that they w-ould get the necessary assistance.
The Auger-Rogers plan disclosed at first great possibilities for the province of Quebec, but we soon realized that the rural districts

could not easily avail themselves of that plan, because the municipalities are too poor to contribute their share. Although it was stated that the Quebec government would assume the share of those municipalities which would be unable to pay, I believe -that in our rural districts there were very few people who could avail themselves of that plan, and the towns seem to be the only ones to benefit by it.
Mr. Speaker, w-e do not seem to realize the actual conditions which obtain in the rural districts. While we grant the cities millions of dollars for public works and relief, our unemployed in the countryside must, most of the time, depend on public charity. Anyone who will look through the list of relief works undertaken this year in the province of Quebec under the Tremblay-Rogers agreement will notice that outside of a sum of $1,000 granted the constituency of L'lslet, not a cent was provided for the counties east of Levis. Not that I wish to blame the hon. Minister of Labour, who sits in front of me for I know that the choice of these undertakings is left to each province; but I would like, however, that it be well understood that the cities of Montreal, Quebec, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke and Levis are not the only spots in the province of Quebec where there is unemployment.
1 shall now turn back to the main object of my observations. In the previous speeches which I had the privilege to make in this house, I always advocated a back to the land movement, because I thought, as I still think, that it is the best way to solve the unemployment problem in our rural districts. In this respect, however, I am in perfect agreement with the bishops of the province of Quebec, who have just made a stirring appeal for land settlement.
I had much satisfaction in learning, through the press, that in April next a great radio campaign on agricultural training will be launched in the province of Quebec by "Le Reveil rural," whose chief founder and energetic president is my esteemed fellow member from Kamouraska (Mr. Bouchard). No better qualified man could have been selected as the head of that organization than the author of Vieilles choses et vieilles gens, who for nearly a quarter of a century has laboured so heartily on behalf of the farming community. Some people will no doubt claim that the back-to-the-land movement, the land settlement policy has not always yielded satisfactory results. Possibly, but we should also bear in mind the mistakes which were made in the past and could be avoided in future.

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
In order to promote the development of new land settlement districts, it would be necessary, at the outset, to provide adequate means of communication with the older centres, instead of letting the poor settlers flounder over wretched roads. Again, those worthy people would have to be paid more regularly the salary and the bonuses to which they are entitled, instead of having to wait several months for them. I think the federal government should, along with the Quebec government, assume the whole cost of carrying out the Auger-Rogcrs plan, and that municipalities should not be called upon to contribute. In my opinion, under such circumstances, that plan would be an ideal one. Greater care would also have to be exercised in the selection of lands for settlement, and more attention should be given to the choice of settlers. In the past, farmers' sons have all too often been overlooked in land settlement schemes, while settlers were being looked for among the cities' unemployed. The latter, not all but a good number of them, had no natural turn for farming. They were not, either, prepared for the hard work and the numerous hardships that are part of a settler's life. Many among them had no greater ambition than to escape for a time their wretched conditions and take advantage of the opportunities offered by the governments. That is why, after a year or two, and in some cases after a few months only, they flocked back to the cities.
Before thinking of getting rid of the cities' unemployed by putting them on uncleared lands, let the authorities first put a stop to the migration of people from the farms by giving our farmers' sons practical help in becoming settlers. These young men are better aware of what is expected of them. For many years, they have, under the supervision of their parents, become acquainted with farming. They know that the constant and persevering exertions of a courageous settler are nearly always rewarded, even if in some cases results only come after a long time. In the province of Quebec, especially, if farming seldom brings wealth to those who make it their life work, it does, at least enable courageous and persistent people to live in easy circumstances, while bringing them independence, quiet, peace and happiness.
I am pleased to say that most of the settlers in my constituency have displayed much courage and perseverance. Thanks to their unremitting efforts land settlement has had a wonderful progress in our district. A few
newly-established parishes will soon vie with the older ones. In these troublous times, when people are more interested in enjoying themselves and leading an easy life than in making sacrifices, these worthy settlers, true to ancestral traditions, did not hesitate to plunge into the forest in order to establish a home and make room for their descendants. These unheralded heroes deserve our admiration since they are thus promoting the development and the greatness of our country.
When, looking over the map of my constituency, I notice a vast district, comprising the townships of Laverendrye, Catalogue, Gravier, Clark, Casault, Lagrange, Bontet. Duniere, Richard, Cuocq, Leclerc, Joffre and Baribault, which have never been opened to settlement, I cannot but think that all the unemployed of my constituency could find work there. I reflect that there would be good prospects for all courageous and proud young men who are not afraid to face those hardships and sacrifices which, sooner or later, must be the lot of those who wish to succeed in life. I reflect that there would be good prospects for all our spirited young men in whose veins is still flowing the blood of the early settlers who opened to civilization the shores of the St. Lawrence. And I know, Mr. Speaker, that these young men are still numerous in my constituency, but they are awaiting the time when the government opens the way to those areas and helps them to make a start. Let us not ^ forget that the future of our country is in the hands of our young people. And it seems to me that we would be remiss in our duty if we did not do everything in our power, if we did not take every means at our command for the salvation of our youth.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude, since I staled at the outset that I would not speak at any length, but I do hope that the government will consider my suggestions.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address upon their efforts to paint a silver lining in a murky and heavy cloud. During the past few months I have listened to many speeches by prominent Liberals, including members of the Liberal cabinet, and perhaps I might be pardoned if I termed the majority of those speeches as of a vainglorious nature. My reaction, and I believe the reaction of an ever-increasing number of people in Canada, is a feeling anxiety, bred by the belief that this much vaunted
The Address-Mr. Quelch

prosperity rests upon a foundation which is not only unsound but altogether undesirable. It appears to me to be a lamentable state of affairs when the prosperity of a country such as Canada should have to depend to such a large degree upon the volume of our export trade rather than upon the demand of the home market.
The excuse, of course, is offered that in Canada, where we have a comparatively small population, that population is not able to absorb the total production of the country. However that argument can be tenable only if the present population are having their wants adequately met. Would anyone in the house suggest for one moment that the domestic and social requirements of the people of Canada are being adequately met to-day? Would anyone suggest for one moment that the masses of the Canadian people are receiving a sufficient quantity of food to afford them a decent standard of living? Would anyone suggest, for instance, that the masses of the Canadian people possess a sufficient quantity of clothing? I refer especially to children in the rural areas, who in many cases have to travel two, three and four miles in sub-zero weather wearing clothing totally unsuited to withstand the rigours of this climate. Once more, would anybody in this chamber suggest .that the housing requirements of the people of Canada are being adequately met? It is not necessary to travel very far from this chamber to find people living in very undesirable quarters, and in this dominion I have seen people living in hovels that would make the pigsties at the central experimental farm here look like palaces. Tha-t being the case, Mr. Speaker, there can be no justification for our exports exceeding our imports to the extent that has been the case in the past.
Some people take the stand that our main trouble arises from the fact that we have a small population, and they advocate that we should have increased immigration. But recent statistics show quite clearly that an increase in immigration does not necessarily mean an increase in population. It stands to reason that unless we are going to make social conditions in this country of a desirable nature, people are not going to stay. In that case the result of immigration is merely a floating population, with people coming in one door and going out the other. Then, again, if we are going to bring industrial workers into this country, those industrial workers, utilizing the modem equipment available in Canada to-day, will be able to produce goods greatly in excess of those

their purchasing power will buy, so that the demands of the home market will not be increased in relation to the production of the country. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that foreign, trade and immigration will not solve the problem, we once more stress the fact that we should stimulate the home market so .that the people of Canada may be able to consume to the utmost of their desires or to the full capacity of industry to satisfy those desires, whichever may come first.
I do not wish it to be thought that I am denouncing the value of foreign trade. As the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) has already stressed, we realize full well the value of foreign trade, but what we criticise is the policy of this government with regard to foreign trade. The Liberal party appear to take the stand that they are willing to allow a low standard of living in Canada in order to make available a greater quantity of goods for export. I do not say that this is the deliberate intent of the Liberal party, but this appears to be the result of their policy. We take the stand that the correct function of foreign trade is the exchange of the surplus of those goods that we can produce most economically for the surplus goods of other nations that we cannot produce economically or in sufficient abundance.
Why is it that the home market of Canada does not create an effective demand for the production of Canada? We have stressed the reason on several occasions in the house and no doubt will continue to do so in the future. The principal reason we have emphasized is that the producers of consumer goods are not able to create an effective demand for the total of their production. Therefore it becomes essential that additional purchasing power shall be issued outside industrial systems in order to make up that deficiency. The first time I spoke in the house I referred to the fact that a definite relationship should be maintained between the production of capital goods and the production of consumption goods, and I pointed out that this relationship should be so adjusted that salaries, wages and dividends paid out in the production of capital goods would be equal to the deficiency of purchasing power that existed as between the total prices of consumption goods and the total effective demand of the people. Perhaps I might quote from a very interesting article that appeared in the Canadian Business magazine, entitled Is A Major Depression Ahead, because it carries out what I have just been saying. At page 18 the article states:
At the beginning of this article, we mentioned that it was difficult to foresee what

The Address-Mr. Quelch
would check the present downward spiral of decreasing purchasing power. . . . Until now, the disequilibrium between revival in the capital goods industries and those catering to a consumer demand has been one of the stumbling blocks to sound prosperity.
It is quite evident that the necessary relationship is not being maintained to-day, and until steps have been taken to increase the purchasing power of the people it is quite obvious that the people of Canada are being deprived of the goods that are available or that can be made available.
What is mainly responsible for the present partial recovery? On this question I think it is only right that we should be perfectly frank and face the situation as it exists. As some members have already stated, the main reason is the fact that the major nations of the world are spending millions upon millions of dollars on armaments. Here I should like to refer to the October letter of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. Referring to this question the letter points out that this foundation is not only unsound but is also undesirable. I quote:
Moreover, it had become increasingly apparent that most nations were drawing heavily upon their immediate and future resources to engage in rearmament. This program, though giving an immense impetus to world business, must eventually result in a substantially increased financial burden. With world armament expenditures estimated this year at the colossal sum of 15 thousand million dollars, and fully half of European industry devoted in varying degree to armament activity consequent upon the 8 thousand million dollars apportioned for this purpose by five major powers, world industrial production soared in recent months above that of 1929, while international trade rose practically to the level of that year. Yet, as will be seen from the following account of economic developments abroad, strains and stresses have become more evident, and have had something to do with the recurring "incidents" and "crises" which recently brought people everywhere to the most anxious frame of mind in many years.
Following that argument I do not think anyone would try to say that our prosperity today is based upon either sound or desirable foundations. I listened with a great deal of interest to a speech made a few months ago by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I had the opportunity to hear his voice from the screen of a moving picture theatre. On that occasion he indulged in the common practice of throwing bouquets at the Liberal party, and he pointed out that the prosperity and partial recovery in Canada was to a great extent due to the fact that the mining industry had considerably increased production and export. I believe his figures indicated that the production of minerals had increased in the last two years from $190,000,000
to about $350,000,000. At the present time I believe the figures are considerably higher than that.
As has been pointed out in the Bank of Commerce letter, the present prosperity in Canada has been brought about to a large extent by the armament programs of foreign nations, and those programs have accounted for the marked increase in demand for our minerals. Those increased demands are due entirely to the warlike activities of foreign nations. The inconsistency in the minister's speech, so far as I was concerned, was when he said, in order to round out the picture: "Let us pray for international peace." If international peace comes the market vanishes, and down we go into the depths of depression. So much for the Liberal party's policy of increased foreign trade on that basis.
We are well aware that at the present time a wave of horror and repugnance has swept across the civilized world because of the actions of Japan in committing atrocities in China. That reaction has become evident through the demands by many organizations and individuals that boycotts be instituted against goods imported from Japan. Yet we in Canada are today supplying the major portion of certain essential minerals Japan is utilizing in the production of those armaments which are creating destruction in China.
The hon. member for Lethbridge quoted figures to show the amount of minerals being exported today from Canada to Japan. It seems to me that we are taking a most , inconsistent stand. In view of the fact that we are deliberately aiding and abetting Japan in her actions through the export of tremendous quantities of minerals, we are not in a position to criticize the action of Japan in China. It has been said that if we were to place an embargo upon the minerals to be exported to Japan there would be a danger that that country might declare war on Canada. I am glad to say that New Zealand has had the necessary courage to take that very action, and has placed an embargo upon the export of scrap iron. I realize that the amount of minerals exported by New Zealand may be small, when compared with Canadian exports. No doubt that is the reason why we are not prepared to place an embargo upon these exports. Apparently we are more interested in the profit derived by these industries than we are in helping to save human lives.
I believe an ever increasing number of people are beginning to realize that the prosperity of Canada should be based not
The Address-Mr. Quelch

only on a sound but on an honourable basis. We cannot be proud of a prosperity brought about by the export of minerals to a country such as Japan., in the light of her activities against China today. I would suggest that Canada should lead the world by putting her own house in order.
Let us briefly review the situation. To-day there is a chronic shortage of purchasing power in the hands of many Canadian people. Second, our potential production is considerably in excess of the present effective demand of the people; it is not in excess of the physical demand, but it is in excess of the physical demand backed by money. Third, a large number of national projects are sorely needed throughout the dominion. Then, one might well ask why in the name of common sense and Christianity, in a democracy such as this, we do not put those national projects into operation so as to make certain necessary services available to our people, and thereby distribute the purchasing power so sorely needed to make an effective demand against the goods available in Canada to-day.
I was interested in a statement by G. D. H. Cole, Professor at Oxford university, which appeared in the Sunday Pictorial. He was referring to conditions in England which. I suggest, are applicable to Canada, and stated:
Nevertheless, despite rearmament, there is a danger of employment falling oft. House building is past its peak. Traders in many lines are carrying very heavy stocks.
I would refer particularly to the last sentence, in which reference is made to stocks carried by traders. There are people who say, when it is suggested that social credit proposes to put purchasing power into circulation, that there would be no goods to meet the demand. I would point out that, as Cole says, the traders are carrying heavy stocks of goods. He continues:
It will not do to be overconfident, as the government appears to be, that rearmament activity alone will be enough to prevent a slump from happening. What, then, ought to be done? The answer, I think, is simple; and I shall proceed to set it out here.
I suggest that the answer might well apply to Canada.
Keep money cheap and plentiful . . . get plans ready. Prepare and have ready to start without any delay plans for house building, school building, road making, electrical development, and so_ on, so that these schemes can be used to provide employment and put money in the consumers' pockets the very moment there is any sign of the demand for labour falling off.
I suggest that we might well take that advice and prepare a plan to put national projects into operation in Canada, not merely for the
[Mr. Quefch.f
purpose of producing work but for the sake of providing services required. Then the money paid out through these projects would help to make up the deficiency of purchasing that is so chronic to-day.
Last session the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) stated that in his opinion public works were not a permanent solution. Of course hon. members in this section of the house readily agree with him in that statement. They cannot be a permanent solution, because eventually all necessary works will be completed. Then, whether one likes it or not, the inevitable solution must be a social dividend paid as a supplement to wages. That is, as the hours of labour are reduced, as eventually they would have to be, reduced wages can be made up by a social dividend, or by a reduction in price, through a price discount financed by the federal government.
Of course the question immediately arises: How will these projects be financed? I would point out that that question does not come very well from the present Liberal government. Hon. members in this corner have stressed time and again how we believe those projects should be financed, namely by the use of national money. Two years ago hon. members in the group to which I belong refused to support an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) because that amendment involved a vote of want of confidence in the government. At that time the Liberal party had made certain definite promises with regard to monetary reform, and w*e thought that if those promises were implemented a considerable improvement could be brought about in conditions throughout the country. Therefore at that time we refused to support the amendment. To-day we find a very different situation. After two years not only has the Liberal party refused to carry out its promises but, in a statement he made last year, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) showed clearly that what he actually meant was not what the people thought he meant. Therefore we shall take great pleasure in supporting the present amendment of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett).
What was the statement made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign? What was the statement that echoed from one end of this dominion to the other? What was the statement that was hurled as a challenge from eveiy Liberal platform? I think that statement is within the memory of all of us; it was, "currency and credit in

The Address-Mr. Quelch
terms of public need." The Liberal candidates in that election did not leave the people of the country in any doubt as to what was meant by that expression. They told the Canadian people how national projects would be put into operation throughout the country and how those projects would be financed by the national credit. The Prime Minister has since shown quite clearly -what was in his mind when he made that statement. I refer hon. members to page 3806 of Hansard of 1936, as follows:
. . . there will be employment for all provided out of funds which this bank, by some mechanical process or other, will turn out. I want to make perfectly clear that that kind of thing has never been expressed by any person speaking with authority on behalf of the Liberal party.
A large number of Liberal candidates in the last election told the people that that was exactly what the Liberal party proposed to do, and yet the Prime Minister states that no person had any authority to make a statement of that kind on behalf of the Liberal party. It would appear that a number of totally irresponsible Liberal candidates were running around during the last election and some of those candidates are now members of the house. I am not saying that they are irresponsible; I am simply taking the statement of the Prime Minister that any Liberal member who made that statement is irresponsible.
The Prime Minister has not been very clear in his definition as to what currency and credit in terms of public need actually mean. However we find that during the election he made this statement on a number of occasions, to be found at page 3805 of Hansard:
A central bank is necessary to determine the supply of currency in relation to the domestic, social and industrial requirements of the Canadian people.
Does any hon. member suggest for one minute that that is being carried out today? Would any hon. member suggest that the domestic and social requirements of the Canadian people are being adequately met? That is what was promised by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. As those promises have not been implemented, we urge the government that they be implemented immediately in order that national projects may be started adequately to take care of the domestic and social requirements of the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister evidently anticipated a certain amount of difficulty in implementing this promise because, as has been referred to
by the leader of the opposition, he has said that Canada is faced with a great battle between the money powers and the powers of the people, a battle that will be waged in the next parliament. We in this corner of the house have been waiting patiently for that battle to materialize.
On behalf of this group I can promise that if that battle should ever materialize the government will have our full support.
Instead of such a battle materializing it would appear that this government has been engaged in a love feast with certain financial powers or money barons of this country. This would seem to be borne out by the action of the government in running to the assistance of the bankers in Alberta when certain legislation was passed. That action is especially strange in view of certain promises made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. I should like to quote from a speech which he made in Saskatoon in 1935, as follows:
In Alberta at the present moment the government was launched on the experiment of social credit. "I hope with all my heart that they *will be successful," said Mr. King, assuring the audience that if he -was returned as Prime Minister of Canada, Alberta would be assured of the greatest freedom in carrying out its experiment under the Liberal policy of not interfering with the rights of the provinces.
That was the attitude of the Liberal party during the election campaign. Apparently that was still the attitude of the Liberal party prior to March 30 of last year, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) made the following statement in reply to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) regarding the padlock law:
If, as the hon. member suggests, it is ultra vires, then the courts will so rule. The courts will declare that it is ultra vires, and it is better that the courts declare than that the Minister of Justice do so because there would be no appeal from disallowance by the minister.
Many people in Alberta believe it is a great pity that the Minister of Justice and the government have not continued to think as it was evident they thought on March 30 of last year. One wonders why there was a sudden change in policy on the part of the Liberal government with regard to Alberta. That change apparently took place shortly after the members of the cabinet returned from the coronation. It makes one wonder whether that change was the result of the delegates to the coronation absorbing some of the atmosphere of financial imperialism which they
The Address-Mr. Quelch

encountered in England. It makes one wonder whether that change was the result of their rubbing shoulders with Hitler in Germany.
We in this corner are not in a position to know just what was the reason for that change in policy, but we are in a position to judge what the results have been. One of the results of that change has been a distinct discrimination against Alberta. This discrimination is resented by the people of Alberta all the more because it comes as a culmination of many previous acts of discrimination against their province by this government. Perhaps I should review briefly some of those acts of discrimination.
I should like to take hon. members back to April 1, 1936, when Alberta defaulted on certain maturities. It will be remembered that Alberta asked financial assistance from the federal government in order to meet certain maturities. Certain other western provinces also asked for assistance and the federal government agreed to give this assistance provided the provinces became a party to a loan council. It was generally recognized at that time that should the province of Alberta become a party to a loan council, all chances of putting social credit into effect in that province would be killed.
I have referred already to the statement of the Prime Minister that he hoped from the bottom of his heart that Alberta would be successful in that experiment, and that nothing would be put in the way of Alberta to prevent it from succeeding. In view of that statement it seems strange that shortly after, the government should try to saddle a loan council upon Alberta, knowing that if the province accepted such a council it would be impossible for social credit to succeed. That does not appear to be a consistent or sincere attitude.
The premier of Alberta realized only too well that if the province became a party to the loan council it would be impossible to proceed with social credit. The government of Alberta had been elected on the definite understanding that they would try to implement social credit, and therefore when the federal government issued their ultimatum that the province would have to support the loan council in order to receive financial assistance, Mr. Aberhart had these two alternatives before him: Either he had to default or else he must betray the people of Alberta who had put him in power. I think he is to be congratulated, Mr. Speaker, upon having [DOT]had sufficient courage to refuse to betray the people of Alberta and to follow the course he did.

Now on the question of discrimination, where the discrimination comes in is this: Shortly after Alberta had defaulted, the loan council plan was modified and again submitted to the provinces of this dominion. Some of the western provinces had refused to become a party to the loan council as it was first proposed, but after it had been modified they agreed to become parties to it. The point I want to stress is this, that Alberta was never given a chance to become a party to the modified loan council before she defaulted, and that is where the rank discrimination comes in.
Second, we all realize to-day that had Saskatchewan and Manitoba received the same treatment that Alberta received, both those provinces would have been forced to default. There is no question about that.
Third, there is the question of the Quebec padlock law. When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the government to disallow certain legislation of the province of Quebec, we were told that the government did not consider it advisable to disallow that legislation, that it was better to allow the courts to decide upon it. Yet when the Alberta legislation came up for review, this government evidently decided that it was wise to run to the rescue of the bankers rather than allow them to fight their own battles.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: It all depends whose
chickens are stolen.


Victor Quelch: Yes, one was the social
credit province of Alberta, and the other was a Liberal province.
I should like now to say a few words about the Rowell commission, because there again we consider that rank discrimination has been shown against the province of Alberta. The Rowell commission was formed for the purpose of trying to bring the provinces closer together, and it was essential for that purpose that an impartial body of men should be appointed to the commission. But what do we find so far as western Canada is concerned? Two western men were chosen, Mr. Dafoe and Mr. Angus. Mr. Dafoe has consistently attacked the principles of social credit, and has made slanderous and libellous attacks upon Major Douglas, Premier Aberhart and members of his cabinet. Mr. Angus was employed by the so-called Economic Safety League during the provincial election to attack the social credit candidates who were running in that election. Was it likely, therefore, that these two men would command the confidence of the people of Alberta?

The Address-Mr. Quelch
Is it likely that they will be able to deal impartially with evidence that comes before the commission from that province?
Before closing. Mr. Speaker, I should like to touch very briefly on a subject that I had not intended to deal with tonight because I had not thought I would have the time, and because it can be dealt with better and in more detail upon some other occasion, and that is the question of feed in the drought area. 1 see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his seat. I had quite a bit of correspondence with him on this subject. While fully realizing the magnitude of the problem he is trying to handle, I deeply regret that the federal government should have considered it necessary to impose the restrictions they did regarding the supply of feed relief in the drought area at this time.
We know that in many parts of the drought area-I am especially familiar with conditions in the constituency I represent-many farmers, particularly in the eastern part of my constituency, are no longer farming land. They dare not plough up the land on account of soil drifting. They have succeeded in keeping off relief by keeping five or six milk cows, and that is practically all they have to depend upon for a living. They are raising no crop, and they deserve to be congratulated upon having kept off relief in the past. But to-day many of them find themselves without any feed, and they have had to apply for assistance. They were told that they could not get any assistance unless they cut down their small herd of cows to two, if they have a family of two children, or three or four if they have three or four children. The result has been that these farmers have been thrown on relief, and it is very hard to see how they will ever be able to get off relief.
I know the reason has been given that there was not a sufficiency of feed to make it possible to carry a greater quantity of stock, but I am satisfied that when the spring comes we shall find thousands upon thousands of tons of straw that have never been used. Why? Because the amount of money allowed in payment for that straw is not sufficient to cover the cost of baling and hauling the straw to town. All the farmer is paid is $3.50 a ton.


Mr. GARDINER:: 


Victor Quelch: The farmers who live quite a distance from town cannot bale the straw and haul it to town and cover the cost of handling it. They are better off keeping the 51052-7
straw at home. I have spoken to many farmers with a large amount of straw, and they have told me they have not been offered a price for straw which would pay the cost of handling it, that they could not possibly handle it at the price offered.


James Garfield Gardiner: The provincial government are handling that.


Victor Quelch: It has to be financed by the federal government, and the federal government will not pay more than that. Again, some of the farmers have Russian thistle which will do for cattle that are not milking, and if the federal government had made money available to buy grain, there is plenty of grain available. It is not as if this condition had arisen just this year or last year, because, Mr. Speaker, in the constituency I represent it has been necessary to give drought relief in every single year since 1918.


James Garfield Gardiner: If the hon. member will permit me, the regulations he refers to are the regulations which were presented to us by the provincial government.


Victor Quelch: I understood that there were definite regulations laid down by the federal government as to the conditions upon which that money would be granted.


James Garfield Gardiner: The terms of the agreement are that the regulations shall be made by the provincial government and be approved by us.


Victor Quelch: And what were your
regulations?


James Garfield Gardiner: They made the regulations and we approved them.


Victor Quelch: Did you leave it wide open?


James Garfield Gardiner: We did not do anything about the regulations except to approve them.


Victor Quelch: In that case you must accept the responsibility. But I received information from the minister of agriculture in Alberta, from which I understood the conditions were quite different. I shall not go further into that matter now, because a better time will be when the estimates come up and the matter can be discussed in greater detail. I shall then be prepared to discuss it at greater length, and there are many questions I should like to ask.
We are supporting the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition because we feel this government has had plenty of time to implement its promises of



The Address-Mr. Senn
monetary reform and yet has failed to implement them. The Prime Minister has definitely told us that what the people thought he meant is not what he meant, and we know now his real stand also on the question of currency and credit.


Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, following the example of those who have already spoken in this debate, I wish to offer congratulations to the mover (Mr. Francoeur) and the seconder (Mr. Warren) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, upon the acceptable way in which they discharged the task which was assigned to them. Both of them referred to the second paragraph of the speech from the throne, which mentions the coronation of their majesties, and I concur most heartily in the sentiments expressed by these lion, gentlemen and others regarding that happy event, and desire to express my own hope that their majesties' reign may be a peaceful, happy and prosperous one. The participation of so many Canadians in the coronation celebrations, both at home and abroad, would seem to be an indication to their majesties and the world that Canada is proud of her position within the British commonwealth of nations and that she is ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with other parts of the empire whenever difficulty or danger may threaten.
I listened this afternoon with a good deal of interest to my hon. friend from Huron North (Mr. Deachman) as he described what he conceived to be the conditions in agriculture to-day. He painted a dismal picture, but I am certain that that picture was not too harshly presented, and later on in my address I shall discuss this matter at greater length. Before doing so, however, I should like to say a word or two about a matter that was mentioned by the seconder of the address (Mr. Warren), namely, the benefits that Canada has derived from the trade agreement with the United States, which went into operation two years ago.
Many of our Liberal friends are taking great credit for the beneficial results of the agreement, particularly in regard to agriculture. It cannot be denied that in certain lines of agriculture our exports to the United States have greatly increased. This is particularly true of cattle, our exports of which have more than doubled in the two year period. To say, however, that this increase was due wholly to the one cent reduction in the tariff on our cattle seems to me to be scarcely correct. Owing to certain policies which were followed by the present administration in the United States in curtailing production, a scarcity of cattle ensued in that country in the past 
two years, and this scarcity has caused the price of cattle across the line to rise to an exorbitant figure; so that even if we had not enjoyed the one cent reduction in the rate on cattle entering that market, I am sure that there would have been a very large increase in our exports. During the last few months, however, the price of cattle in the United States has dropped off to a great extent, and there has been a corresponding reduction in our exports. I fear that there will be a corresponding reduction next year, and that our exports will be disappointing in that respect.
I have before me a list of some fifteen farm products which enjoy a lower rate of duty than formerly in the United States tariff. The exports of every one of them increased during the year 1936; but of the fifteen, the exports have been reduced in the case of ten during 1937 as compared with 1936, and it seems to me that the same condition is responsible in this case as in the case of the falling off in cattle exports during the past few months; that is to say, the price in the United States has dropped in these particular lines of products. As time goes on and another year is passed we shall find that the exports in these particular lines will have been very disappointing indeed.
For the first thirty years of this century, in our dealings with the United States we had an unfavourable balance of trade of approximately five and a half billion dollars. This is a vast sum of money; it is greater than our national debt, and about five times the total agricultural production in the dominion last year. This flow of money out of the country has greatly retarded our progress, and it has had a grave effect upon our economic and industrial life as well as upon the population generally. When the change was made in the tariff in 1930 this unfavourable trade balance began to improve, and it gradually dwindled until in the years 1934, 1935 and 1936 we had a favourable trade balance of some $120,000,000. Immediately after the present trade agreement with the United States went into effect, however, a change became apparent, and in 1937 we had again an unfavourable balance of trade of some seven or eight million dollars. The significance of these figures cannot be overlooked. The effect of the tariff changes in 1930 was to discourage imports and to keep our money in our own country, whereas the effect of the present agreement has been to encourage imports again so that once more we are facing a definite flow of money across the border.
I would refer to paragraph four of the address, wherein reference is made to a substantial advance in economic recovery in

The Address-Mr. Senn
Canada. Everyone, regardless of his party inclinations, should, and I believe will, rejoice in every evidence of returning prosperity. Expanding revenues and increasing trade are desirable, and to the extent that they are a reflection of better times everyone should be gratified. It is impossible, however, to agree with the contention of many government supporters, which is so often expressed, that the depression was due to Conservative policies and that any recovery which is now taking place is to be ascribed to Liberal administration. The downward trend in business and revenues, in employment and trade was not confined to Canada but was world wide and was well under way before the late government took office, just as the upward swing began before the change of government in 1935.
The conclusions that are so often voiced by supporters of the present administration with regard to better times in consequence of expanding revenues and trade seem to me to be too optimistic when we consider conditions that prevail in Canada. There is still an abnormal number of people on relief; unemployment figures are still very great; agriculture is in a lamentable state of insecurity, and the prosperity about which we so often hear seems still to be lurking around the corner.
I wish now to devote a few moments to a discussion of the position of our great basic industry, agriculture. The seventh paragraph in the speech from the throne reads:
The Department of Agriculture has been reorganized and its services consolidated along lines designed to improve the standard and acceptability of Canadian farm products.
This is the only reference in the speech to agriculture and it is significant that no mention is made in this paragraph of any betterment of conditions in the agricultural industry. When the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) announced last year that he was going to organize a marketing division in his own department, many people were hopeful that some good would be accomplished, but I am afraid that their hopes have been more or less shattered in the last few days.
I had the privilege and the pleasure the other evening of listening to an address delivered by the Minister of Agriculture before the Canadian Council of Agriculture and broadcast over a nation-wide hook-up. In the course of that address the hon. gentleman said that the marketing division in his department had now been organized and that the government's marketing policy had been formulated. I am glad to see that he is in his
seat, so he will understand that I have no desire to misquote him. He outlined his policy to the gathering that evening, saying it was fourfold in its nature. First, he announced that the government would give assistance to and cooperate with the provinces to improve production. Departmental activities, both provincial and federal, have been directed chiefly towards this very object for many years past, and, I may say, with good results; so it was only to be expected that the department would continue its activities in this direction, although sometimes farmers say they are surfeited with pamphlets and advice some of which is not too practical. Secondly, the minister stated that the marketing division intends to extend and improve the grading of farm products for export. Once again may I say that such a course was only-to be expected, because there has been gradual advance along those lines for many years. His third idea was to adopt a national mark for Canadian products which are to be exported. I am free to say that I believe this is a step in the right direction. Lastly, he stated that an agricultural commissioner is to be sent to London to further sales of Canadian farm products and to provide information to Canadian exporters.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not use the word
"sales."


Mark Cecil Senn: Well, at least to provide information to exporters. Is that a fair statement? It seems to me this will be a duplica- ' tion of services which are already provided by the Department of Trade and Commerce, that department having had representatives in England for many years.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that, as he knows, I read the speech the other night; it is all in print and there was nothing at all said about sales or promotion of sales.


Mark Cecil Senn: Well, at least I understand there is to be a commissioner sent to London for certain purposes.


James Garfield Gardiner: An agricultural commissioner.


Mark Cecil Senn: To provide information, as I understand, to Canadian exporters regarding marketing matters in the mother country.


James Garfield Gardiner: No, I said to the Department of Agriculture.


Mark Cecil Senn: Very well. I listened carefully to the whole address. I could not grasp it all because the minister was talking very rapidly, but I saw a report of his speech in
The Address-Mr. Sewn

the newspapers and I can say that as far as the sales part of his remarks is concerned I took that from the report in the newspaper. It is very disappointing to me, and I know to others, that nothing further has been formulated in this respect. The policy as announced by him I think would not justify the organization of a marketing division, or accomplish much in solving the farmers' chief problem, to which I shall presently refer.
At this point I should like to say that when discussing this question I am not speaking of the wheat farmer of the west. Frankly, I do not understand his problem. Wheat growing stands, almost alone as a branch of agriculture in Canada, because a large proportion of our wheat crop must be exported. In all other lines of farm production the great bulk of our goods is consumed in this country. I wish it understood that I am referring to those other lines of agriculture rather than to the problems of the wheat grower.
Standards of living on the farm have gradually changed during the past thirty years, and I am glad to say that the change has been for the better. The average farmer today enjoys many of the advantages of city life, while escaping some of the disadvantages. With the coming of the motor car, of hydro, af rural mail delivery, with the building of oetter highways and the installation of labour saving machinery, living conditions on the 'arm have naturally improved. But this has resulted in a corresponding increase in outlay. In addition, due to various causes, the farmer's cost of production has increased materially. Unfortunately the revenue derived from the average farm to-day has not increased to the same extent as has the farmer's cost of living. For years many farmers have been forced to live beyond their income in a vain attempt to keep pace with changing conditions.
It is often said that a farmer, like anyone else, should live within his income. This should be so. but if the average farmer is to keep his boys and girls on the farm he must see that they enjoy the same privileges as the young people of other classes in the community. The farmer in Ontario and the eastern part of this country too often has had to deplete his resources or perhaps to go into debt, hoping vainly from year to year that times would improve and that there would be a change for the better in farming conditions. As a result of this the census of 1931 showed that there has been an exodus from the rural parts to the city, and that our urban population now exceeds our rural population. But. more serious still, during the same period there has been a gradual and alarming depre-

ciation in land values, amounting in some cases to as much as 50 per cent. Many farmers who a few years ago were fairly well-to-do have found their equity in their holdings partly or wholly wiped out, while others who have grown old and have been forced to retire from active work find that the income from their holdings today is not sufficient to provide for their old age.
I now intend to make a statement which may be challenged by those engaged in other lines of industry, but I am sure my friend the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) will agree with it. It is this; The prices realized by the farmer for his products today do not bear a fair relationship to other commodity prices. Occasionally scarcity has raised the price of farm products to high levels, but generally speaking when there is a surplus in any line of farm production prices fall to an unprofitable level. Price fluctuations are very rapid and violent, and a proper equilibrium has not been maintained between prices realized by the farmer for his products and prices he has to pay for other commodities and for labour. There seems to be also a gradual widening of the margin between prices received by the farmer and those the consumer has to pay for his products. The result is that farm revenues have not kept pace with production costs and the increased cost of living and the additional expenditure necessary to maintain the newer standard of living to which I referred.
The other night the Minister of Agriculture in his address made another statement with which I entirely agree; in fact, I intended to make use of it myself before hearing him. He said that the new wealth created each year by primary production helps to maintain the buying power of the country and is in large measure the controlling factor of distribution. Now the farmer is the greatest producer of primary wealth in Canada, so it is important that his revenue should be as great as possible in order that he can purchase his share of other merchandise. It is most necessary that a proper balance should be maintained between farm and other commodity prices, but I fear that balance will not be maintained so long as the law of supply and demand has full scope in determining farm prices. As I have already said, rapid and violent fluctuation in farm prices has been the rule rather than the exception.
The farmer has to make his plans many months before he places the finished product

The Address-Mr. Senn
on the market. A year must elapse from the time his wheat is sown until it is ready to harvest and market, and the same or even more time is required to produce and market almost any of his other products. During that period prices fluctuate and even the greatest prophet cannot foresee price levels a year or more ahead. Moreover much of the farmer's product is perishable and must be marketed when it is ready, regardless of what the price level may be. So whether prices are determined by the law of supply and demand or by manipulation, as some people say they are, the revenue of the farmer is most uncertain and bears little or no relation to his cost of production.
This fact has been recognized in many countries, several of which have made attempts to stabilize and maintain farm prices at reasonable levels. Under the present administration the United States made the experiment of curtailing production in order to overcome surplus conditions and raise prices, with at least some temporary success. Australia put into effect what is known as the Paterson scheme, bonusing exports in order to maintain a reasonable level of domestic prices. Great Britain established the quota system in order to maintain prices by means of quantitative regulation of imports. France, Germany and Italy have bonused the production of cereals within their own countries and have erected impassable trade barriers with beneficial results so far as production and prices are concerned.
In Canada the former administration took action to halt the downward trend of wheat prices. It was only an emergency measure, but it was successful in returning many extra millions of dollars to the pockets of the western farmers. The Natural Products Marketing Act, which was condemned by the Liberal party when in opposition and which lately has been declared ultra vires by the courts, was devised for the purpose of assisting cooperative marketing, and it cannot be denied that some of the schemes operated under this legislation were highly successful, notably in raising prices to tobacco growers of Ontario and Quebec and the fruit growers of British Columbia.
Many lines of industry in Canada, with the exception of agriculture and other primary industries, have adopted some method of price maintenance. No doubt my hon. friend from Huron North, who spoke this afternoon about the condition of the farmers, will not agree that this is a sound practice, but I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not finding fault with such a system. I believe it is here to stay and nothing can
be done that will change the situation as it presently exists. Labour has its union scales of wages and its hours of labour. Civil servants and employees drawing salaries have fixed incomes. Lawyers and doctors have schedules of fees which are more or less rigidly maintained. Prices of manufactured goods bear a close relationship to the cost of production. We have minimum wage laws. We have a railway board which sets the rates charged by our public utilities, having regard to cost of operation. There are fair wage clauses in our government contracts, but I should like to direct the attention of the house to the fact that there is no provision that fair prices shall be paid for farm products purchased by public institutions.
It is only reasonable to suggest, therefore, that agriculture stands alone in that its price structure is not constant and is determined by factors which the individual farmer cannot control and which are too often unsatisfactory and unfair. The policy of relying upon foreign markets as a solution for the problems of the farmers in my judgment can never be successful. With the exception of wheat and cheese, from 85 to 95 per cent of all Canadian farm products find a place in the domestic market and are consumed here. It seems to me the domestic market is the farmers' most valuable asset. The price realized in foreign markets for the small remaining surplus that must be exported determines to a large extent what our domestic price shall be. Unfortunately in foreign markets our products come into competition with goods produced in other countries where climatic and other conditions ensure a low cost of production. Therefore we cannot expect that a fair or satisfactory price structure in Canada can be maintained upon this basis.
Personally, Mr. Speaker-and I am speaking for myself alone-I see no reason why farm prices cannot be regulated in this country along the same lines as the prices are regulated in other industries that I have mentioned. It is already being done in the fluid milk field in a number of provinces and in the tobacco growing areas of both Ontario and Quebec, and has been successful in both cases. It is worthy of note that those engaged in the collection, grading and resale of " fluid milk and tobacco have not suffered in any way by the stabilization of prices to the grower. Different schemes, of course, will be necessary to stabilize prices in different lines of agricultural production, but I am confident that by experiment and study such methods can be devised. It is needless to say that such schemes would be impotent unless the farmers' home market were safeguarded from exploita-
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

tion through the influx of foreign goods. I repeat that the domestic market is the farmers' most valuable asset. It can remain such only if it is carefully preserved and if some reasonable and stable price structure for farm products is devised.
These are the reasons why I was disappointed with the policy of the new marketing division, as outlined by the Minister of Agriculture. I am not condemning these policies merely for the sake of fault-finding. I believe other policies could have been adopted which would have been much more satisfactory and worth while. May I say to 'the house that I am making these proposals simply because I believe they constitute the only constructive remedy for the stagnation which exists in the agricultural industry of Canada at the present time.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a good deal of misgiving that I rise to make a few observations. When I entered the house this session it was with a feeling of reverence and awe that I looked to my left, to see vacant seats formerly occupied by men for whom I had high respect, who are now in another place. Somebody asked who was going to be next. Well, after all, it does not matter who is next. When men have served their God and their country and are busy doing good things it does not matter who is next. So it is up to us to see that we do the things worthy of the highest -and best in manhood.
My first impression of the speech from the throne was very fine. As I stood in the senate chamber and tried to hear the governor general deliver his speech my first impression was that it must be a veiy fine one because there was not a senator in the chamber who shook his head nor was there a beautifully adorned lady who was not enjoying it to her heart's content.
However, as I listened later to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) my impression was to some extent changed. I thought it could not have been such a fine speech after all. I find that the right hon. gentleman is reported as follows at page 25 of Hansard: "We have retained the three cent postage rate." I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman or any other hon. member wants to reduce the rate. If he does, then there is one very good way to do it, one which I suggested last year. Let us begin at home, and reduce our franking privilege. I do not think there would be a dozen men in the house who would wish to do it.
I must say that I commend the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) for his hearty cooperation with us at the head of the lakes in striving

to improve our rural mail delivery, and to extend it so that men will not have to travel ten miles to get their mail.
What I have to say will be in the form of a few suggestions to some of the ministers. First, I should like to commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for the way in which he has stuck to his task. I commend him, first, because the relief camps have not been reopened. To my mind those camps were only an emergent measure and they had long outlived their usefulness and had become a curse. When I saw a young university student who had passed with honours in his second year engineering course receiving only twenty cents a day in Thunder Bay district, or anywhere else in Canada, I realized that an improper condition existed. I believe the propagation of communism was removed when those relief camps were put out of business.
May I point out to the minister, further, that many hon. members have had delegations wait upon them from the youth movement of Canada, impressing upon us the necessity of continuing the training of our unemployed youth. I hope the minister will not permit anything to come in the way of continuing that training, so that they may be fitted for worth while tasks.
I should like to make another suggestion to the Minister of Labour. While I know it is not within his sphere to curtail the hours of labour, and while I know that is a matter within the control of a provincial government, yet I do believe that the hours of labour must be cut down. If a man working in an office from nine o'clock to twelve o'clock earns a half day's pay and if by working from one o'clock to five o'clock he earns another half day's pay, I say the blacksmith, the sheet metal worker, the machinist, or the paper worker should have his hours of labour cut down accordingly, because it is just as necessary that he retain his health. I would suggest that all unorganized labour should work no more than eight hours per day, and that unorganized labour should have the right to organize anywhere without the danger of losing their jobs. I am sure the Minister of Labour will agree with the statement of the President of the United States that low wages are suicidal, and he would also agree with the hon. member for Fort William that unemployment is slow murder.
May I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the provision in the speech from the throne for an unemployment insurance measure. We hope before very long there will be a measure providing for state medicine, something about which we shall hear more a little later on. It is true that many attempts have been made to pass

The Address-Mr. Mclvor
this kind of legislation, but I do not think there is any hon. member who will doubt the sincerity of the Prime Minister in his efforts to have unemployment insurance provisions made effective. Had he been otherwise disposed, he would not have brought the matter before the house so early in the session.
Unemployment insurance affects keenly the workers at the head of the lakes who are connected with operations of the board of grain commissioners. There are grain samplers, weightmen and other employees of the board who cannot make a decent living because they are given three months holidays or more without pay. Those men are not receiving any more than a living wage at any time, and because of their enforced idleness they suffer undue hardships. They are returned men.
May I mention one example respecting a man who was laid off because of only seasonal employment. The man's wife had baked a ton of flour the previous winter, but this winter she has not been able to bake, and he has had to turn in and do the housework. I do not believe the government wants our returned men to live in other than comfortable circumstances. I believe if the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) would keep an eye on the board of grain commissioners he would get food for thought.
I am sorry the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) is not in his seat. I shall not say he is in a better place, but I do know that he is in a very fine place, because he is helping the Canadian Legion in convention in the city of Fort William. There are one or two points I should like to direct to his attention. Some returned men have found it very difficult to get a proper pension. I do not speak without facts. I visited Ottawa and in particular the Department of Pensions after the session closed. I was well treated, and when the facts were placed forcibly before the department the pension in which I was interested was increased. Unfortunately before the man received his first increased cheque he had passed on to his great reward.
I could give the story of another man who lived on Empire avenue. Although he had no difficulty in securing jobs he could not hold them, because he was not in fit physical condition to work. I visited him daily in the hospital and I know he was a beaten man. We have good doctors in Fort William, just as there are in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. One of our doctors made the diagnosis that the man in question was suffering from abscesses on the liver, caused by shrapnel. The doctors in another city laughed at him.
When the man passed on I advised his widow to have a post mortem performed, and on performance of that task shrapnel was found in the liver. He did not receive a decent pension, and as a result he, his wife and family were forced to live in poverty. I am going to place the case in the hands of the Minister of Pensions and National Health because in my view she should receive some compensation for the hardships she had to endure during those years when her late husband should have been on full pension. I feel this very keenly. These returned men are wards of the dominion government. If they cannot obtain a decent job with a living wage they should receive an adequate pension.
I know another man who because of his war wounds and the number of operations he had to undergo never was able to have a really comfortable moment. At the time of his death this man was receiving a pension, but this was cut off w'hen he died. His widow and four children are finding it extremely difficult to get along.
I view with alarm any action taken by any province to curtail the freedom of the press or freedom of speech. I -think we have a right to keep our eyes open. I do not think any press can be kept provincial in scope. I speak from experience because at the head of the lakes we gave a welcome to two communists. I am far from being a communist, but I believe in freedom of speech. The city council of Port Arthur permitted one of the leading communists of Canada to speak in that city. I do not suppose anyone who heard that man speak was not disappointed. He got off a lot of wise cracks, but those who went expecting to hear a great speech delivered were disappointed.
The city council of Fort William permitted a leading communist from the Clyde to speak. Many in that city threw up their hands and said we were doing a terrible thing. The worst thing that could be said about this man was that some people could not understand his Scotch burr. Again many people were disappointed because they expected to hear some great things. Instead of that man propagating communism, he did the very opposite. As I said a few moments ago, one of the principal causes of communism in our part of the country was the relief camps, but they have since been abandoned.
There are a few things of interest to us art the head of the lakes. I am not a free trader, although I come very close to being one when tariffs affect us at the head of the lakes. We suffer because of the coal subventions. There is a large plant at the head of the lakes which cost about $3,000,000. To-day that plant is
The Address-Mr. Mclvor

hardly operating and the employees are on part time. While I live in the east I am really a westerner. I know something of Alberta and Saskatchewan, but although I love the great west and the breezes of that country thrill me to the core, I do not like to see western coal coming down to within a few miles of Fort William to the detriment of our workers. I believe I can trust the government to right this matter.
Another difficulty with which we are faced is the freight zoning by the railways. I do not know much about this matter, but I am told that the flour mills at Winnipeg can ship their product to Toronto and the east just as cheaply as the mills in Fort William. I expect that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) will see to this matter in the future. I believe he will remedy it if it can be remedied; if not, he will be man enough to tell us.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario, the Hon. Mr. Heenan. He has done much to solve our unemployment problem. Three years ago I led nearly 600 unemployed from the labour hall to the relief office in Fort William. Last year I stood and watched 1,500 men, most of Whom were previously unemployed, heading for the dining-hall of a pulp and paper mill.
I should like .to leave one thought with the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). I should like to think that I shall be living fifteen years from now so that I might see the iron mines of my district pouring forth their precious ores. It is not generally known that iron ore that can be very easily mined is .to be found in large quantities at the head of the lakes. I am not saying this in an endeavour to have hon. members invest in these mines any loose cash they might have. If hon. members have any spare money, the best thing they can do with it is to support some decent church .that is serving this country or to put their money in a bank where they may be sure of getting it back again.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in connection with the large Canadian nickel. This coin should be made either smaller or larger so that it will no longer look like a quarter. I have heard it described as the great deceiver. I asked a porter on a Toronto train how he liked this nickel and he told me he would rather have a quarter any day, that he got too many nickels.
I have another suggestion to make which perhaps may not get very far. Some hon. members have been in .the house for a long time, but there is no more chance of their getting to the senate than there is of my

visiting the moon. My suggestion is that a pension should be provided for those who have served their country faithfully. I believe that members of the house have as much right to a pension as any other civil servant.
I believe the Prime Minister was wise in not granting a licence for the export of power and thus giving people the chance to ask why he did not get something for the campaign funds. I believe he is right in allowing this parliament to have its say. If it has its say, then it must accept the responsibility.
I think it is our duty to endorse any group of workers who are making an effort to make better citizens of Canadians. I want to pay a personal tribute to the Oxford group. During the Christmas season these workers put out a magazine entitled The Rising Tide. They have shown that if a man places his trust in the almighty dollar, he will soon bow to the power of that dollar, but if he places his trust in the Almighty, he will be in the rising tide and of some use to the country.
On motion of Mr. Coldwell the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 9.43 pun.
Wednesday, February 2, 1938