Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice-for the Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the standing committee on printing, viz., Messieurs Barry, Bertrand (Laurier), Cassel-man, Chevrier, Damude, Davidson, Denis, Douglas, Dussault, Elliott (Kindersley), Esling, Evans, Perron, Fleming, Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemount), Gauthier, Green, Hansel], Hurtubise, Husliion, Jean, Kirk, Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane), Leduc, Lennard, Little, Maclnnis, MacKinnon (Edmonton West), Mae-Lean (Prince), McGregor, McIntosh, McKenzie (Lambton-Kent), McNevin (Victoria, Ont.), Marsh, Marshall, Mills, Moore, Mullins, Muloek, Mutch, Pinard, Purdy, Reid, Ross (St. Paul's), Ross (Middlesex East), Rutherford, St-Pere, Taylor (Nanaimo), Thompson, Tucker, Tustin, Veniot, Weir, and Winkler, will act as members on the part of this house on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ernest Lapointe: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the Hon. the Speaker and Messieurs Abeam, Blackmore, Blair, Blanchette, Bonnier, Bothwell, Bouchard, Bradette, Brasset. Cameron (Hastings South), Casselman, Clark (York-Sunbury), Duffus, Emmerson, Fournier (Maison-neuve-Rosemount), Grant, Green, Hamilton, Hyndman, Johnston (Lake Centre), Kuhl, Lennard, Maclnnis, MacKinnon (Edmonton West), MaeLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria), Mac-Lennan, MacNeil, Macphail (Miss), McCallum, Mallette, Martin, Moore, Mutch, Parent (Quebec West and South), Raymond, Reid, Rennie, Ross (St. Paul's), St-Pere, Spence, Walsh, Winkler and Young a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ernest Lapointe: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and Messieurs Barber, Bertrand (Prescott), Fafard, 51952-19$
Fraser, Gray, Hill, Landeryou, Maclnnis, MacMillan, Macphail (Miss), Moore, O'Neill, Pinard, Purdy, Rheaume, Roberge, Sinclair, Spence, Taylor (Norfolk) and Tustin, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: May
I ask the government a question based upon a brief dispatch that appears in to-day's Toronto Globe and Mail, dated Washington, February 8:
Claims Canada Waived Water
Cleveland A. Newton, general counsel for Mississippi Valley Association, emphasizing navigation and sanitation reasons for diverting 5,000 cubic feet of water a second from Lake Michigan through the lakes to the gulf waterway, urged approval of the Parsons bill.
He dismissed the international question with the contention Canada conceded in a 1910 treaty the United States right to divert Lake Michigan water.
The question is: Is there an international treaty of 1910 between Canada and the United States in which Canada waives any rights pertaining to lake Michigan water?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend is an
older man than I am and he ought therefore to know the terms of the treaty to which he refers better than I do. I cannot tell him offhand if there is in the treaty any provision capable of the interpretation he speaks of. I should be surprised to learn that there is.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: With reference to the observations
made yesterday by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) with respect to the icy condition of the grounds and sidewalks on parliament hill, I may say that in 1934, by order in council P.C. 865 of May 21, the care of the grounds, driveways and walks around parliament hill was transferred to the federal district commission and the attention of the commission has been called to
The Address-Mr. Perley

the hon. member's remarks. I may add that one must make allowance for the exceptional weather conditions which have prevailed during the last few days.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 8, 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. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: When the house adjourned yesterday evening I was about to quote from press reports from Saskatchewan with respect to stock mortality. I was invited to read some of the reports and I shall now take a moment or two to review some of them. I have before me an extract from The Indian Head News of December as follows:
Stock Mortality Matter of Alarm in Municipality
Actual Facts Show that Hundreds of Horses Succumb
Deaths among farm horses of this municipality run into the hundreds, due to lack of feed, . . . The situation is acknowledged as extremely acute by the R. M. council, . . .
Reeve S. W. Nichols, in touch with the actual situation, informs The News that the rural council is doing all it can to cope with the problem. The mortality rate is very high among the district's horse population, with some farmers losing over fifty per cent. One farmer, he told The News, had lost four out of seven of his horses.
Another one from the Regina Star of December 1 reads:
Horses Dying in South for Lack of Feed
Snow and Steady Diet of Russian Thistle Proves Fatal to Animals
Notices in post offices and other public buildings stress the necessity of disposing of stock owing to the acute shortage of feed. Farmers are being requested to budget their feed quota and dispose of the surplus animals lest the retention of live stock result in heavy losses this winter.
Lack of feed has already brought reports of horses dying in the south country.
Among the cases cited is that of Elmer Mithog of Verwood district,_ 70 miles south of Moose Jaw, who has lost eight horses . . .
Last night I referred to a resolution passed by the Grenfell board of trade and I wish to quote more extensively from it now:
And whereas the dairy farmers themselves, as well as the businessmen, of the town of Glenfell view with alarm the apparent necessity of cutting down the size of their herds fully realizing as they do that many of them will be forced upon public relief while at the some time their herds will have been cut to
IMr. Rinfret.]
such an extent that in many eases it will be impossible to rebuild them again during the farmer's lifetime:
Now therefore be it resolved that the government of the province of Saskatchewan, in view of the alleged supply of feed within reasonable transportation distances of the province, should forthwith take such steps as are necessary to insure the dairy farmers of sufficient feed for their herds for the winter of 1937-38.
After this resolution was passed, a letter from the Broadview board of trade was read asking for support along those lines.
Another dispatch by the Canadian Press reads:
Thirty Per cent of Horses in Southeast Dead or Dying
Saskatoon, January 8.-Thirty per cent of the horses in the Macoun, Midale, Halbrite and Goodwater districts in southeastern Saskatchewan are either sick, dying or dead of starvation.
Another dispatch states:
Horses Dying in Kronau District.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Who is responsible for the report from Midale?
Mr .PERLEY: That is a report in the press, issued by the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section.


Mr. GARDINER:: What is the date?


Ernest Edward Perley: The dispatch is dated January 8. I have another one which is a little different, and it may explain why feed was not secured earlier:
Farmer Charges Deliberate Delay in Hay Payments
Charges that the Saskatchewan administration was deliberately holding up payment for hay sold for relief purposes to that government by Manitoba farmers, was made to the Free Press Friday by F. G. Louth, a farmer of the Roseisle and Stephenfield districts, who, at present, has a government hay deal on his hands.
In a letter to the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan, dated December 23, Mr. Louth warned that, unless some action was taken for payment of hay delivered from the Stephenfield district to the drouth area about two months ago. following inspection by Saskatchewan agricultural representatives, the matter would be taken up with Premier King and the federal Department of Agriculture.
Investigation by Mr. Louth, be says, reveals that many other farmers are in the same position, and he openly charges that the Saskatchewan government is "stalling" in order to save interest on funds.
Despite the fact that his ears of hay were inspected by a government official, and the bills of lading forwarded with the cars to the various points in the dried-out areas, continued requests have been made for further bills of lading, and these were forwarded. Then, the "stall" continued, according to Mr. Louth,

The Address-Mr. Perley
when the government officials demanded originals, which had already been sent with the cars. . . .
Later, a request for weights was made, which had gone forward with the cars.
The weights had already been supplied.
Dealing with a government, I figured I was dealing with a body I could count on. . . . Consequently I paid out $140 for baling and loading. Exactly what the trouble is I do not know. . . .


James Garfield Gardiner: Will my hon. friend give the date?


Ernest Edward Perley: It is the Winnipeg Free Press of December 27. One cause of the difficulties the government had is the fact that a lot of the hay secured for the winter of 1936-37 was not paid for until late this fall. As late as December last farmers and municipalities in Manitoba were complaining that the hay they had supplied had not been paid for, and they refused to ship more hay until the government had paid for that previously supplied. That is no doubt one of the difficulties. I know the reeve of one municipality who went to Manitoba and was told by the reeve of a municipality in that province that several thousand dollars were owing to the municipality for hay shipped during the previous year. The whole matter should have been handled by an independent relief commission. If that method was not followed the government should have considered accepting the offer they received from the pool, of which mention has, I think, already been made. I have before me a statement of the president of the Saskatchewan pool, citing what they offered to do. The pool offered its facilities to the provincial government, and in coopenation with the pools in the provinces east and west to secure supplies and distribute them, and practically all the government would have had to do would be to set the price. The pool offered their facilities at a minimum fee of seventy-five cents a ton plus 3 per cent interest on cash outlay.
I know what the answer of the minister to that will be, because the president of the pool sets out in this statement that he replied that there was nothing to prevent the pool from going into the fodder business if they so desired. But that was not the question. Under the present system we have the inspectors to whom the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) referred the other night; I think the forty-five he mentioned were inspectors. If the farmers there were asked what they think of these inspectors the report would be a very interesting one.
If my time were not so short I should like to have referred to the Turgeon commission. However the report of that commission will be presented in due time and I shall have something to say then with respect to the evidence taken, particularly that of Mr. Murray, and some of his actions. I agree with the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) in what he said yesterday, that the great majority of farmers are demanding that the Canadian Wheat Board Act be put into operation, with representation of the farmers on an advisory committee. No matter what the report is I think that will be demanded. Last year I referred to certain losses that had taken place. I now have reason to believe that the figure I gave was well within the mark and that I should have stated a larger figure. If in the report on the final disposal of the wheat taken over from the McFarland board or the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited a profit is shown, the Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited should be reimbursed to some extent for the services they rendered during three or four years.
After listening to speeches of some hon. members opposite in the last few days I am confirmed in my view that the Liberals have failed and have betrayed the people of Canada. We need reforms. Why are we to-day considering the amendment of the constitution? Because we are now in the year 1938 and the problems confronting the Canadian people to-day are not those that confronted them fifty years ago. To-day we are concerned about such matters as debt, public and private, interest, taxes, freight rates, production and marketing. What we need is dominion control of the grading and marketing of "'anada's primary products in order to control the price in the domestic market. Agriculture is our greatest industry; then why not have boards to control it? We have a board controlling the railways, a board of directors controlling the central bank, power boards and the radio corporation, on which some discussion has already taken place in the house.
With respect to the latter corporation I have received protests from people in my constituency and other parts of Saskatchewan against the increase in the licence fee. There are hundreds, yes, thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan who have no other enjoyment these long winter evenings than listening to the radio broadcasts, music, hockey, sports, and getting the world's news daily. These men cannot even pay for a weekly paper, let alone a daily, so it is a great convenience
The Address-Mr. Perley

for them to get the news of the world by radio, and I think their protest against the increase is valid. I for one would be in favour of abolishing the licence fee altogether for a time at least. We have these various boards; why not have a board to control wheat and other primary products? Later on this session we shall have opportunity to discuss these questions in detail when they come before us in the form of resolutions or bills, and I shall have some questions to ask.
Briefly, in conclusion I say that the government have failed in many respects to meet the demands of the Canadian people, and to relieve the people of the burdens under which they labour at the present time. I propose to vote for the amendment.


Mr.   BOSS@Moose Jaw: Before the hon. member finishes might I ask him what he means by the proposed charge of seventy-five cents a ton by the Canadian wheat pool on feed? Do I understand that he means that they offered to bale and deliver feed for that price?


Ernest Edward Perley: I thought I made it plain enough; the offer was that they would place their facilities at the disposal of the government and use them for the purpose of purchasing feed, arranging for the baling, shipping and distribution to the farmers in the dried out area at the rate of seventy-five cents a ton. As the question has been raised I would say further that we would like to know the commission that was paid to some individuals in Regina for their services in going to Minnesota and gathering up this feed, rather than having it handled through the pool on the offer they made. They offered to do this for seventy-five cents a ton.


James Garfield Gardiner: Anyone would do it for fifty cents.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with those who have preceded me in this debate in complimenting the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the able manner in which they discharged the duty which was committed to them.
It is not my purpose to discuss in detail the matters mentioned in the speech from the throne. As I propose to confine my remarks chiefly to matters concerning the Department of Trade and Commerce referred to in the debate, I am sure the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) will not take it amiss if I do not follow him in the matters which he discussed just now. He did raise some points in the latter part of his address

which might call for some comment, but perhaps it would be better to leave that to a more convenient occasion.
In the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) reference was made to the functions or respective jurisdictions of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. He expressed' concern that there was perhaps some overlapping or possibly even differences of opinion with regard to the matter. Then at the last, in a somewhat jocular vein, he added that my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) was in possession of some sort of magic wand with which he might wave some of us, and perhaps particularly the Minister of Trade and Commerce, into nonentities. That, I think, is the word he used.


Mr. BENNETT:: Not "nonentity", I think.


William Daum Euler: That is the word that was used, but I am quite willing to use some other suitable word. Perhaps "oblivion" would be better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps coming events cast their shadow before.
Mr. -EULER: In reply to that, and in exactly the same spirit as that of the right hon. gentleman at the moment, and perhaps also at that time, I would merely say that the practice which existed under the former regime of one minister interfering in the department of another, or perhaps I should say one prime minister interfering in all the departments, was discontinued shortly after the election of 1935.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I can afford to let that go without an observation.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend has quite correctly said that the functions of the Department of Agriculture and of the Department of Trade and Commerce are controlled by the statutes under which those departments operate. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech on the address described pretty accurately the line of demarcation which separates the functions of the two departments when he said that the Department of Agriculture concerns itself with the production, grading and preparation generally of agricultural products for the markets of the world, seeing to it that those products reach those markets in the proper condition; but that after those products reach the overseas market the work of promoting their sale, as well as the sale of other products, falls strictly within the domain of

The Address-Mr. Euler
the Department of Trade and Commerce. That, sir, has always been the case, and I can assure my right hon. friend and those other members opposite who expressed some concern with respect to the matter that this situation will continue. Not only that, Mr. Speaker; perhaps in contrast to the condition of affairs prior to the coming into office of the present government, it is the intention of the two departments to cooperate in every way to promote the interests of the producers of agricultural commodities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Shaw report looks like that.


William Daum Euler: I propose to-day to deal particularly with the various phases of the export trade of this country, more especially with regard to the value of that trade, which seems to be questioned by certain members of the house, including my friend the right hon. leader of the opposition, especially when he said-I am sure to the amazement of this house-that freer trade was apt to predispose nations to war. That is a doctrine that so far as I know has never been enunciated by anyone else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has not read Mr. Keynes, then.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps not, but I am using my common sense in these matters, and I am very sure that hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as the supporters of the government on this side of the house, believe in their hearts that the more business we can do with our neighbours in a mutually advantageous way, the better it is for the peace of the world. I need only draw to the attention of the house one very outstanding example which disproves this new theory, which by the way has obtained the support of a new ally in the person of the leader of the social credit group, that freer trade fosters war. For the last two years we have had a reciprocal trade agreement witli the United States, and I will leave it to the people of this country to say whether in the whole history of this continent the relations between the two countries were ever any more cordial than they are at this moment. It is fair to say also that a great deal of credit attaches to the efforts made by the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States in this direction.
My right hon. friend, as I said before, seemed to question, very much to my surprise, the advantages of export trade.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker; he did not question the value of export trade
at any time. What he did say, and he repeats it, was that it is not a cure for the conditions that exist in this country.


William Daum Euler: I am very sure that that statement came from my hon. friends in the far corner and not from my right hon. friend, but I quite agree with it. This government, or the supporters of this government, never advanced the thought that by the extension of export trade, by trading more with the countries of the world, we would find a panacea for all our ills, social or otherwise. I do not believe that. I do believe, however, that the promotion of export trade is a mighty factor in bringing prosperity to Canada or any other country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: My right hon. friend is now
consistent with what he said in the city of Montreal, I think in the year 1933, when he was given a banquet by the board of trade of that city upon his return from Great Britain. He said then, and I shall not give the full quotation because I do not desire to embarrass him-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on; do not stop on
that account.


William Daum Euler: plus and import those things which we do not produce ourselves, or do not produce to advantage. I have no particular fault to find with that argument. I think that is exactly the line upon which we are proceeding to-day. With our great natural resources, Canada must be a trading nation. With our resources of the farm, the forest, the mine and the fisheries we produce a great deal more than we can possibly consume at home. What would happen to our population if the men now engaged in farming, the thousands of men engaged in our mines, those employed in cutting timber in our forests and sawing it into lumber in our mills, our fishermen in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, found that because we could not sell our goods they were out of employment? So I say that in a country such as this, where we have great natural products, upon which are founded other industries as well, it becomes an absolute necessity that we find markets in other countries, because of our surplus products.
The complement of that, of course, is that if we expect to sell these goods in other countries we must also expect to buy, and we do buy. We do not produce cotton, rubber, tea, coffee, spices, or even sufficient iron or petroleum, among many other things, and of necessity we are obliged to import these into Canada. But as a general thing I think it is true that Canada is producing, and not importing to any great extent, the things it is best equipped to produce. She exports the surplus, and imports the things I have mentioned.
In developing export trade, this government, as did the previous government, has had to contend with a great many obstacles. Unfortunately, soon after the war, and perhaps more particularly in the last seven or eight years, certain countries, especially European countries, in order to prepare themselves and to make themselves self-sufficient in the event of another war, have tried to produce some of the goods which we sold them formerly. To a very great extent our wheat market in continental Europe has gone by the board, and we have been reduced to the necessity of selling our wheat largely in Great Britain. So, in order to bring about what might be described as an equilibrium of trade, whereby we can sell our goods to other countries and in turn receive commodities from those countries, we have found it necessary to try to arrange trade agreements.
What do we find to-day? Not only are there high tariffs against us but, what is

perhaps even worse so far as obstructions to trade are concerned, we have exchange control by which a citizen, we will say of Germany, might desire to buy a Canadian commodity, but cannot do so because he is not permitted to send money out of the country.
Then, we have to meet the system of quotas, as it is found in Switzerland and some other countries, which brings about an absolute limitation upon the quantity of goods which may be imported into that country. We meet also government monopolies, which operate in the same way. Thus, if we desire to establish markets in these other countries, and not be at a disadvantage with our competitors, it has been necessary for us to arrange trade agreements.
I believe we have been fairly successful in this endeavour. Perhaps some credit belongs to the previous administration because of some of the trade agreements they made. I do say however that we have been successful in promoting a very heavy export trade. As hon. members are no doubt aware, Canada now holds fourth place among the countries of the world in the value of her export trade. Our foreign trade, both buying and selling, is over two billions of dollars, and we had a trade balance-perhaps this is more interesting to the right hon. the leader of the opposition than it is to me-of some $315,000,000 in the past year.
Although I have not the exact number, nearly thirty such agreements have been consummated. We hope to make additions to that number. There has been difficulty in getting into the markets of some of the smaller countries in eastern Europe, and at the present time negotiations are proceeding with respect to them.
I should like to discuss for a few moments a question which has been raised by certain hon. members, namely that of the value of the policy of freer trade. The statement has been made, and perhaps more particularly by our friends to the right, that the recovery Canada is experiencing is not attributable to government policy, but is merely something which is occurring in all other countries. Their suggestion is that all other countries are recovering, and that Canada is sharing in this general advance. I am afraid that suggestion does not hold good when it is submitted to the test of fact. For the information of hon. members in the corner of the house may I place upon Hansard a few figures. In 1935 the increase in world exports was only 2-2 per cent, while the increase in Canada's

The Address-Mr. Euler
exports was 7-1 per cent. In 1936 world export trade increased 8| per cent, while Canada's export trade increased 23 per cent.
Again let us consider our agreement with the United States. Our exports in 1937, over those of 1935-I am taking the period in which the agreement operated-increased 28-2 per cent. I would ask hon. members to consider a further point of first-class importance in judging whether or not the trade agreement had anything to do with the increase in our exports. The increase in exports of products to the United States, on which the tariff was reduced as against Canadian goods, was in those two years 80-8 per cent. On those items which were already free, and which were bound so that the United States could not increase the tariff, the increase was 46 per cent. Those facts become really significant when I say that the increase with respect to items not covered by our trade agreement with the United States was only 7-1 per cent. If that is not an absolute proof that we profited, so far as exports were concerned, by our agreement with the United States, I know of no better method.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask a question, without disconcerting the minister?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister must realize, I think, that the items which were not affected by the agreement at all, namely, those which were free and on which there is no change in the tariff, are responsible for the greatest part of the whole increase. All you have to do is to count them, as I did the other day.


William Daum Euler: I will not make that concession.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, all you have to
do is to count them.


William Daum Euler: As a matter of fact, in those two years our exports to the United States increased from 8359,000,000 to the huge total of $470,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Correct.


William Daum Euler: Then, we received another advantage, through our trade agreement with the United States. Of late that country has also established the practice of entering into trade agreements with other nations. In our present trade agreement with the United States there is a clause giving to Canada what is known as most favoured nation treatment. I need not explain the meaning of that term more than to say that the practical result is that if the United States makes a trade
agreement in which she gives concessions to other countries, Canada automatically receives the same concessions. Of course, that is reciprocal and applies also in the event of our giving most favoured nation treatment to other countries.
I might give another example to show where trade agreements have been beneficial. Something over a year ago we made a trade agreement with Germany. Through that agreement our trade with Germany has increased almost one hundred per cent during the year in which it has been in operation, namely from $6,759,820 to $11,771,565.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister
would tell us what the exports were; that would be very interesting.


William Daum Euler: Yes, I think I can give my right hon. friend the list, although I have not the complete list in front of me. I was going to come to that later; I will deal with it in a moment or two. I thought I might be interrupted with a statement that the exports to Germany consisted of metals and raw material, and other articles to be used in the preparation of war munitions. It is true that when the agreement was made the German representatives did wish to import into their country more of the raw material, including metals and some others, which they did not produce. But we did not agree to make that kind of arrangement. We insisted, and succeeded in having Germany agree to our stipulation, that 63 per cent of the credits which she will allot for the purchase of Canadian goods must be in the form of other goods, such as wheat, and. to a great extent, other agricultural products.
Perhaps I should give my hon. friends opposite some credit for the arrangements which were entered into with Australia and New Zealand. Our agreement with Australia has been renewed and slightly modified and during the last year our exports to that country increased to something more than $30,000,000.
I should like to deal for a few moments with another criticism to which I have just made casual reference, to the effect that the increase in our export business is due largely to the export of commodities which go into the manufacture of munitions. That is not the case. It would be idle for me to deny that with the speeding up of rearming in Great Britain and other countries there has been some effect upon the exports to those countries, but the exports for munition manufacturing purposes are not by any means the chief factor in the increase of our total exports.
The Address-Mr. Euler

Let me try to give some proof of that statement. Our agricultural exports did drop last year, due almost entirely to the fact that we had a drought in western Canada and made only a small exportation of wheat. Our exports of animal products increased from $97,000,000 in 1935 to $144,000,000 in 1937. It can hardly be said that that increase was due to demands for munitions purposes. The exports of wood and paper products increased from $176,000,000 to $263,000,000. There again it can be said that the increase was not due to munitions needs. It might be said ordinarily that iron and steel products would be used for this purpose, but as a matter of fact our exports of iron and steel products consisted largely of farm implements, machinery and automobiles.
As I mentioned a moment ago, in this two-year period our exports to the United States increased from $359,000,000 to $470,000,000. The United States were not concerned to any great extent in the making of munitions in those two years so that one can hardly attribute this increase to munitions manufacturing. Perhaps at this point I could give my right hon. friend the list of commodities which we export to Germany that he asked me for. The sixty-three per cent of the exchange which is allotted by the German government for the purchase of Canadian goods must be in wheat, asbestos, apples, seeds, lumber, fish meal, salmon, wood pulp and a number of other minor articles. I submit that none of those articles can be said to be used in the making of munitions.
I should like to say a few words with regard to nickel, perhaps a dangerous subject. It seems to be the general impression that our exports of nickel are used entirely for the building of war vessels and making of munitions generally. That is not the case. Some hon. members of this house, certain newspapers and organizations and many citizens of Canada have advocated that Canada should prohibit entirely the export of nickel, especially to those countries which are at war at the present time. I will not yield to anyone in or out of this house in my abhorrence of the outrages that are taking place in countries which I need not name. If, by the total prohibition of the export of nickel and some other commodities, it would be possible to stop the wars in which certain countries are engaged, I would be entirely in favour of such prohibition. That may be a compliment to the hearts of the Canadian people, but I question if upon further consideration it would be considered as a compliment to sound reasoning.

I desire not to be misunderstood on this point. I would not advocate for one moment that because we can make money out of the export of nickel we ought to be willing to export something which might cause the shedding of blood of innocent people with all the horrors attending modern warfare. Let us examine the matter for a moment. In 1910 the total world production of nickel was
25.000	tons. In 1916 and 1918, the war years, this production had risen to 52,000 tons. In 1921, the war being over, it had dropped to 9,100 tons. Then in the succeeding eight years up to 1929, when there were no wars and no great preparation for war, it rose to
62.000	tons, greater than it had been even during the war years.
The fact is that the companies in this country which produce nickel finding that that there was no longer a war demand for their product began extensive scientific researches, the result of which was that this metal was adopted for a great many uses other than for war purposes. Canada produces about ninety per cent of the world's nickel, the other ten per cent being produced largely in New Caledonia, one of the colonies of France on the other side of the world. I have it on very good authority that of the total production of nickel, only ten per cent, or perhaps a little more at the present time with all the war preparations, is used for munitions purposes. Therefore even though we discontinued entirely the sale of nickel there would still be sufficient produced in other parts of the world to supply war needs.
What would immediately follow would be a greater development of fields which are now not profitable to work in competition with the cheaper production in Canada. Substitutes would be discovered immediately, as was the case in Germany during the war. Perhaps I should not say this, but I may as well be frank. Should this country prohibit the export of nickel to Japan, unless the same prohibition were applied to exports to the United States, to Sweden and to other countries, there would be no doubt that nickel would reach Japan just as though it had been exported direct from this country. Perhaps I might offer this final observation. Those of us who have seen the stupendous and humiliating failure of the League of Nations in applying sanctions in the case of the Italo-Ethiopian war perhaps would hesitate before committing Canada to experimenting with sanctions on her sole account.
With the facts I have given to the house I think it may fairly be claimed by the government that at least some of the ex-

The Address-Mr. Euler
pansion in our export trade is attributable to the trade policies followed by this government.
I should like to make reference to certain statements made on Monday by my very good friend, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol). He told the house that last summer he visited the Welsh coal fields and found that whereas in the previous year Canada had taken from Great Britain something like 1,640,000 tons of anthracite, these importations had decreased by about half a million tons. That is the fact. But my good friend goes on to make this remarkable statement, and it is for this reason alone that I refer to the matter. He says, on page 212 of Hansard:
For the life of me I cannot see what the government expects to gain by reducing our importations of anthracite coal from the United Kingdom by 500,000 tons and then going all over the face of the earth, to countries to which we cannot possibly ship our farm produce, in order to bring in 500,000 tons of coal to make up the difference.
The only inference that can be drawn from that statement-in fact the hon. member makes the direct charge-is that we are travelling all over the world in order, as he says, to induce other countries to send us their anthracite coal and displace coal from Great Britain. I have a high regard for the hon. member for Davenport; usually he is very moderate in his statements and shows good common sense in what he says, but I cannot, to use his own words, "for the the life of me" understand how, with the knowledge which he must have, he could make a charge such as that. We have made no agreement with any other country to bring in anthracite coal. As a matter of fact the policy of this government so far as anthracite coal is concerned is exactly the same as it was under the government which he supported. In 1932, when the Ottawa trade agreements were made, my right hon. friend who now leads the opposition put a duty of fifty cents a ton on hard coal from all countries other than Great Britain, from which country coal imports to Canada remained free. That is the position to-day. We have made no change in that respect in our agreements with these other countries. From Germany, from the United States, hard anthracite coal still pays a duty of fifty cents a ton.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I ask the minister
a question?


William Daum Euler: Yes, certainly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are the conditions prevailing to-day with regard to the importation of Russian coal into Canada the same as they were under the previous administration?


William Daum Euler: I will deal with that immediately. When the previous administration went out of office there still remained an embargo against practically all Russian products. This government felt that it was not right or wise that we alone of all important countries should refuse to do business with Russia. For that reason we removed the embargo against Russian goods, thus placing ourselves in exactly the same position as Great Britain, the United States and most other countries. We made no trade agreement with Russia; there is none to this day. Not only that; whereas some feared that there would be heavy importations of anthracite coal into this country, the Russians voluntarily consented to limit their exports to Canada to 250,000 tons annually. As a matter of fact they have never taken advantage of that provision, and all they have exported to this country is something like
150.000	tons. Imports of Welsh coal have sunk by half a million tons, but let me tell the hon. member this with regard to the various countries which were exporting anthracite coal to Canada:	shipments to
the extent of 141,000 tons which formerly came from Indo-China, the Netherlands and Belgium have practically ceased. In a former year we received from Indo-China 88,000 tons. That has been reduced to nothing in the last year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The minister means, by
" a former year," 1936?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Under the present government?


William Daum Euler: Exactly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: But not under the Bennett government.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but we made no new arrangement with these countries. Let my hon. friend observe this too, that if it came in under the present government in 1936 it also went out under the present government in 1937. From the Netherlands we had purchased
16,000	tons, but it. paid the fifty cents a ton duty the same as Indo-China did. Now there are no imports whatever from the Netherlands. Imports from Belgium of 44,000 tons, upon which fifty cents per ton duty was paid, have now sunk to slightly over 8,000 tons.
The Address-Mr. Euler

As I said, we took from Russia 154,000 tons, but exports from Great Britain of Welsh coal dropped, as my hon. friend said, by something like half a million tons. Why? The explanation is very simple. It is not because this government went out and induced nations in all parts of the world to send us anthracite coal. One reason is that, as many hon. members know, ocean freight rates have risen tremendously. The other and perhaps the better reason is that there has been an enormously increased demand from the continent for Welsh coal. For some reason or other the British coal operator produces anthracite coal in large sizes, or rather he leaves it in large sizes, and he can sell that coal at good prices in the European market. The Canadian consumer of coal likes the small sizes; and Germany, which has increased her exports of coal to this country, although not nearly enough to make up the amount which has been dropped by the Welsh exporters, supplies us with the small sizes of coal. I know it to be the fact that there was always considerable trouble in connection with importations of Welsh coal because they were sending in the larger sizes, and I believe it to be a fact that in Montreal the importers of Welsh coal were obliged to erect breakers to reduce it to the dimensions which Canadian consumers would accept. That is the position with regard to Welsh anthracite. This government has not altered its policy one iota with regard to the importation of Welsh coal. "Welsh coal has the same advantage on the Canadian market that it had when the former government was in office.
I regret that I have held the house at such great length. It was not my intention to do so. But I wished to make reference to some of the statements that have been made throughout the country, and more particularly by the leader of the opposition, with regard to the negotiations now proceeding with the United States for a new trade agreement.
I regret that, more particularly in the Victoria by-election, the leader of the opposition inoculated, if I may use the word, the people of this country with a fear that in these negotiations the interests of Canadian producers would be sacrificed. I do not know where he obtained his information. If I had the full facts with regard to the negotiations I would not be permitted, of course, to give them to the house.


Mr. WALSH:: Does the minister realize that the premier of British Columbia was also " inoculated," and that he inoculated the members of the legislature of that province?


William Daum Euler: Well, I should think that that was the direct result of the speeches made by the right hon. gentleman.
LMr. Euler.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no; he commenced them before I went there.


An hon. MEMBER:: You must have telegraphed.


William Daum Euler: This fear of the consequences of the negotiations is not a new thing. To my mind it is very regrettable, whether it was the premier of British Columbia or the former prime minister of the Dominion of Canada, if either of these gentlemen by speeches or addresses, without any real basis or cause, increases and accentuates that fear of the future which already is in the minds of many people. In my opinion one of the chief reasons we have had recession in this country is that very fear and lack of confidence on the part of our people. We heard the same expressions of alarm when we proposed to make the first trade agreement with the United States, but the result has shown that there was no cause for them and that the consequences have been mutually satisfactory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You did not make it. It was all done when you came into office.


Mr. DUNNING:: Why did you vote against it, then?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why? For that reason-[DOT] because you gave more than we wovdd.


William Daum Euler: When I made that statement I was not particularly attributing anything to the leader of the opposition. There was, however, a fear throughout Canada that the industries of the country would be sacrificed. Well, that did not happen, because the agreement was mutually satisfactory and advantageous. There was the same fear when we proposed to make a new agreement with the United Kingdom, but that agreement seems to be working satisfactorily. In a minor way we had the same fear when we made the agreement with Germany, and there has not been one word of complaint with respect to it. Again we have the fear on the part of our industrialists and agriculturists as well-and it is fostered by my hon. friends opposite- that we are going to sacrifice the interests of Canadian producers in our negotiations with the United States.
Let me say this in conclusion. I say it in all sincerity and as emphatically as I can, and I believe that in this I shall have the support of the Prime Minister and all my colleagues. This government is not so inept, so unwise or so unpatriotic as to sacrifice the interests of the producers of Canada, whether they be agricultural or industrial, for any reason whatsoever.

The Address-Mr. Mitchell


Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: I have listened with interest to many of the speeches that have been made during this debate, but it was the address on Friday last of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that inspired me to take part. I should like to say to the Minister of Justice through you, Mr. Speaker, that one remark which he made struck me very forcibly, and that was when he told the house that he was concluding his thirty-fourth year of continuous service to the Dominion of Canada. At the time the right hon. gentleman first took his seat in this house I was not very many months old, and so, in my mind, his name is linked with the traditions of Canada as one of Canada's elder statesmen. I wish to congratulate him upon his long service and to wish him thirty-five years more of similar service to the country.
During these thirty-five years, however, tremendous things have been happening in the world and the tempo of living has speeded up considerably, especially during the later years since the great war. Whereas it used to be very true to say that life on this planet depended upon three essential elements, air, water and food, that now has changed with our industrialized and very highly developed civilization, so that the truth is now that the three elements required to sustain life and to enable one to enjoy all its privileges on this earth and in this civilization are, air, water and money. Without money it is not possible in this complex civilization to obtain even food. I wonder how many of us would have our dinners to-night if we did not have the wherewithal to pay for them. And if that is true, and in all common sense it is true, then surely somewhere in this problem of money lies the key to the answer that we look for to solve the problems which we are trying to solve with trade and commissions and one thing and another.
Any man's property and civil rights, his ability to live and to enjoy living in the world, are closely linked up with his ability to pay for what he needs, and to pay with money, because to-day men do not tender bags of wheat and fleeces of wool in payment for what they consume; in this country they tender dollars. The grim spectre of want disappears just as soon as money is available, and it so happens that it is of enormous importance not only in a nation's life but in the life of the individual-no less in my life than in the life of Canada. It is because of the need for money in order to have the right to live that men steal, lie, cheat, fight, murder, and die. They do all these things for money because of what money gives them. It is fair
to say that if you are looking for the devil incarnate, the father of lies, you will find him somewhere around money. And so the remarks of my right hon. friend on Friday last made me feel like saying in this house that what is being done in Alberta is being done for the first time in history, and that is that a government elected democratically has undertaken to challenge the authority of those who control the supply of money-not lumber and wheat and coal and all these things, but money, which is necessary for the exchange of them. It has never been done before, but the challenge has not yet been sustained. It has been made, however, and this is something of the procedure that was followed.
Rightly or wrongly it is a fact that the government of Alberta ultimately went to that system in which all money originates, the banking system, and said to them: Here is a problem. Here is a naturally productive and wealthy area, extremely productive, which is not overly populated, and the people are not able to consume to the limit of their appetite all the things they are able to produce. In effect the Alberta government said to the banks: If all that the people of Alberta are able to produce were in one end of the province, and the people with appetites to consume were in the other end, and the problem was then a transportation problem, we would not approach you, the bankers, at all; we would approach a transportation company and ask it to perform the function for which it exists in the state. But of course it is not a transportation problem. The problem is that while the people are able to produce they are not able to consume, not for lack of appetite but for lack of money, which you and you alone now control. So the Alberta government said to the banks: Will you admit your responsibility in this connection and set about righting this difficulty as quickly as possible? That was the purpose of the letter sent by Hon. Solon E. Low to the branch banks in Alberta. Or failing that, will you admit, if that is the case, that you do not know how to solve this problem of money? Will you admit, for instance, that there has been built up a Frankenstein which has got out of hand, if that is what you think? If you admit that you do not know how to solve this problem, there are men who say they do know how; so employ them, bring them in with you and attempt to solve the problem together. If they fail fire them and get others, until the solution is found. The banks replied that they were willing to cooperate within the bounds of this act and that and so on, which was all very fine. A questionnaire was sent out as a feeler to find
The Address-Mr. Mitchell

out how much cooperation could be expected. It asked for the names of certain people. No replies were forthcoming, which showed the amount of cooperation that was available.
Then a third course became necessary, if the source of money would not admit its responsibility and set about correcting the evil, or in the alternative admit that it did not know how and acquire assistance in effecting a remedy. In that case it becomes necessary for the Alberta government within its own limits to pass such legislation as will demonstrate that the institution which now has the monopoly of banking does not intend that the problem should be solved, nor will it relinquish that monopoly. That is the meaning of the legislation which was passed by the Alberta government. Personally I think mistakes have been made; any government, being human, makes mistakes. But I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hvndman) a day or two ago, that in Alberta they are at least attempting to do what needs to be done and therefore are to be admired.


Mr. MARTIN:: Will the hon. member permit me to ask what names were wanted from the banks?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Merely a list of employees, a very simple matter. I wonder why it is so difficult for people to recognize that there is an acute problem in connection with money. Perhaps an illustration such as this may be helpful. As a farmer I am able to produce certain goods. When I sell them for money I take that money just as much for granted as I do the goods. A government-this or any other-is not able to acquire money in any other way than by taxation or by borrowing. Those are the only two ways, according to the statutes now in effect. For that reason the policy of any government must of necessity be satisfactory to those who provide the means of payment.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Does the hon. member refer to Canadian national money or to Canadian government money or to bank money or to any money, money as such?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: I do not follow the
the question, but I think perhaps my meaning will appear as I proceed.


Malcolm McLean: What type of
money does the hon. member refer to?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Anything that pays
for goods and services is money.


Malcolm McLean: At any rate?


Archibald Hugh Mitchell: Yes. This government
has given the banking system-the Bank of Canada now-the right to decide on the amount of money that shall be in circulation. Any time that the Bank of Canada sees fit to increase the amount of money in circulation it may do so, and any time it sees fit to decrease the amount it can do so. That includes both paper money and credit money, money of all kinds. Now there are only two ways of doing that. Suppose money has to be issued or the amount in circulation increased, the only way a bank can put out money is to spend it or to lend it. It does not matter who creates it. it can only got out by being spent or lent. The great flow of money from the banking system into public circulation is in the form of principal lent cooperatively to borrowers, and the demand back is in the form of principal plus interest. In any year if the interest on loans made is greater than the amount that the banks themselves spend on services, it is physically impossible to meet the interest, and debt naturally and normally must pile up. Of course over the long period of years that Canada has been in existence it has been necessary many times for the dominion to borrow money, because the tax income was not sufficient to meet the expenditures. So bonds were floated at different times. Those bonds are not repayable in lumber or wheat or coal or any of the commodities that we the people of Canada produce; they are repayable only in dollars, and dollars are produced only by the banking system. That being the case, whatever government is in power, it has to meet its obligations with a medium which is supplied by only one institution. So, until a third way of getting money into circulation is found, until this is done by means of a money technique which comprehends existing facts, and puts into circulation sufficient money to reflect accurately physical truths as they exist, our accounting system certainly needs enlarging.
Because control can be exercised by those who provide the means of payment; because this government must necessarily borrow in order to meet its obligations, and because in order to borrow it must be not necessarily friendly with the banks but at least in a relationship satisfactory to the banking system; I am sure its policy must be agreeable to the banking system. This will be true until such time as the government-that is to say, the people-recognize the subtlety of the control over their very right to live, as exercised through money, and demand that

The Address-Mr. Esling
the government of the day remove that anomaly and that monopoly from existence. Then, and not until then, will it be possible for the people of any society, in Canada or in Alberta, to produce and consume to the limit of their appetite and exchange the surplus after they have satisfied themselves. Then trade will really enter into the picture; but until we do that, trade alone, or any of these other palliatives that we are attempting, will not and cannot possibly solve the problems of unemployment and poverty. Until such time as this complex system that is ours, which requires men to depend upon money as much as they depend upon air and water, which has had that control of money handed over by the people, through their successive governments, to a private monopoly, has been altered, certainly we cannot expect that any of these problems of unemployment, poverty, debt and want will be solved. We may tinker with them, but if the system does not collapse under the weight of its own debt then we shall have found a way of preventing it from doing so by devising another method of bringing money into circulation to enlarge the methods we now employ.
So, Mr. Speaker, I did not wish to make any attack on the government, nor did I wish to defend everything that has been done by the Alberta Social Credit government. I simply wanted to point out to all earnest members present that Alberta is not playing a game. We are not playing a political game. Premier Aberhart and his ministers are genuinely and actually tackling a problem which, if civilization is to survive, must be solved; that is, the problem of making what is already physically true-that is, plenty-become financially true so that the plenty can be consumed by the people.
Mr. W. K. ESLING (Kootenay West); Mr. Speaker, in the debate on the address it is customary, desirable and practical for members to present such matters as are of immediate importance to their constituents, with the thought and hope that the government will deal with them, either by legislation or by regulation as the matters suggest.
Conditions to-day present a tragedy for youth. Thousands of boys approaching manhood graduate from high schools each year, and each year thousands are added to those unemployed. In the speech from the throne the announcement is made that the government proposes to extend the scheme for the training of unemployed youth, and certainly it will be interesting to us to learn just what that scheme may be.
In my opinion there is nothing that can contribute as much towards the relief of the
existing situation, so far as our young men are concerned, as the apprenticeship system. I believe that if the government would endeavour to cooperate with industry in order to bring about the taking on of apprentices, a very great deal of good would result. Thousands of young men would gladly take advantage of an opportunity, for example, to become apprentices in airplane construction, in piloting airplanes, and in the work of engineers, mechanics, groundmen or any other line of aviation. There is no doubt in the world that the government could contribute to that end. Why not persuade Trans-Canada Air Lines to take on so many apprentices? Why not endeavour to persuade other industries to do their share towards helping young men to fit themselves for work?
I suppose, Mt. Speaker, hon. members will think I too often bring up conditions in Trail, but there we have the plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, and it would be a good thing if the heads of other industries would follow the example that has been set by Doctor S. G. Blaylock in connection with apprentices. Doctor Blaylock is the man who put soul into industry, and that is what industry needs to-day more than anything else. There the sons of employees are given an opportunity to enter various departments of the plant, and to-day seventy apprentices are receiving instruction in twelve different trades. To further that instruction the best available instructors have been secured to drill and coach the boys in matters relating to their trade, taking them beyond the high school standards in mathematics and science, so that in the end they will be not only journeymen of their crafts but also efficient employees.
There is one more situation with which I think the government could deal in order to aid in the relief of unemployed young men. I refer to a class of young men who are handicapped, who have not even the opportunity to obtain relief through pick and shovel jobs. I have in mind particularly young men who are handicapped by lack of sight. The Canadian National Institute for the Blind is appealing to this government, to the various provincial governments and to the owners of large office buildings, for permission to install in various buildings concession stands to be operated by blind young men. These concession stands would not in any way mar the appearance of the building. They would be constructed along plans to be approved by the chief architect of the dominion. The woodwork and the tile work would be fitting to the surrounding conditions in the building. First of all, these stands are supplied with
The Address-Mr. Esling

The Address-Mr. Esling

it. He then received a letter, which I ask permission to place upon Hansard, as follows:
McCrossan, Campbell & Meredith,
Barristers & Solicitors.
Hull Building,
Vancouver, B.C.,
April 10, 1937.
Mr. D. St. Denis,
Nelson Civic Commission,
Nelson, B.C.
Dear Sir: -
Re Canadian Radio Patents, Ltd.
Further to our letter to you of the 24th ultimo we beg to advise that we have now been instructed by our clients that in view of the fact that the receiving set which you purchased was for personal use only and apparently done in ignorance of our clients' rights we are prepared to waive our demands that you execute a formal undertaking.
We have, however, been instructed to point out that payment made by you was merely in the nature of nominal damages and that in the circumstances of the case our clients have endeavoured to be lenient with you. We have been instructed also to advise that any repetition of your infringement will necessarily be followed by appropriate action to protect our clients' property rights. We might say that our clients have the right to require surrender of infringing sets for destruction. It will, therefore, be obvious to you that our clients have acted in a most lenient manner.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) McCrossan Campbell & Meredith, Per K.M.B.
This letter informed the importer that the holding company had been very lenient. In view of the fact that the radio was to be used for his own personal use, they stated they would refrain from further action. They told this gentleman that had they chosen to do so they could have demanded the radio from him and destroyed it.
This is a serious condition to have existing in this country. The twelve manufacturers of radios in Canada have turned over the patents which they own to a holding company, which in turn issues licences to manufacture radios. The owners of the patents are really leasing the patents to themselves through the holding company. What is the result? The result is that the manufacturers combined can charge what they want to charge for radios. They can reduce the output of certain lines or increase the price on others. But the public has to pay for all this.
I induced a radio builder to give me certain particulars of the cost of radios. This man is not an amateur, he builds perhaps larger radio sets than anyone else in Canada for commercial purposes. He is thoroughly familiar with the industry and knows the cost of the different parts which go into a 6et. He told me that a six-tube radio which

costs $99.50 in Canada was being sold at a price sixty-seven per cent higher than in the United States. A 15-tube radio which was selling in Canada for $310 was selling just thirty-four per cent higher than it was in the United States. A 16-tube radio which was made by the largest company in Canada and which sells for $339 was selling only nineteen per cent higher than in the United States. The assumption was that modesty prevented them from tacking on the duty and the ten per cent royalty, or damages, as they call it.
Apart from all this the fact remains that this corporation has a strangle-hold on the people of Canada. Things have reached a stage where a Canadian citizen cannot bring a radio into the country, cannot have one in his possession or cannot use one without the permission of this corporation. When such a situation exists I submit it is pretty fair evidence that we are being absolutely dominated and controlled by a syndicate to an extent far beyond the conception of the general public.
I should like to cite one case in British Columbia. A dealer brought in thirty radios which were particularly adapted to the needs of his district. After he had sold these he was pounced upon by the Canadian Radio Patents Limited for damages to the extent of $2,500. This man had paid the duty on the radios and the natural supposition was that he was justified in selling them, since the federal government had accepted the duty. To cite another case, a well known firm in Winnipeg brought in a shipment of radios upon which they paid the duty. They were also pounced upon by this Canadian Radio Patents Limited and compelled to sign an undertaking similar to the one I have placed on Hansard. They were compelled to pay ten per cent damages, or royalty, plus legal fees, and they undertook not to bring in any more radios.
It is quite right to encourage Canadian industry, but it is not right to be dominated by a super-monopoly of this kind. It is not necessary for the government to take such a matter as this to the courts. Under the Patent Act, whenever the minister has an intimation that the production of anything is being restricted because of a patent or because the price is unreasonable, he can cancel such patent immediately if it has been in operation three years. The ordinary patent is valid for seventeen years, but what happens? It is well known in connection with these radio patents that the moment one of them expires it is again registered, but with another and more intricate description, so that it passes for a new patent. The government is not responsible for this

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
condition, but it enables those who are inclined to monopolize and to get all the money they can to take advantage of an opportunity afforded them by the Patent Act. It is the business of the government to stop it; for the bill is being paid by all the people of Canada. The sales production alone for the last twelve months of radios in Canada, without counting retailers' profits, was 823,000,000. It has been reliably estimated that the retail sales price will increase that amount to $38,000,000. To the cost of these radios they have added the duty and other things, including no doubt the ten per cent, and these charges are coming out of the pockets of the wage earner and everybody else in Canada who purchases a radio.
Another super-monopoly to which I want to call attention is under the Copyright Act. T commend the government for having appointed the appeal board, which has done pretty fair work; it would be willing, I am sure, to go further if it could. Remember that the government is interested in this business, for the reason that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pays to the Performing Right Society $32,000 this year for the privilege of putting music on the air. To showr that this super-monopoly is not so conscientious about its charges, that at least they are very elastic, I may mention that its charges to the broadcasting stations of Canada for 1938 were $145,000, but the appeal board reduced the amount to $83,000, so it is evident that the board must have been satisfied that the Performing Right Society was not too particular about what it charged.
However, the point I wish to make is that the broadcasting stations pay for this music, and that the $83,000 which they will pay this year covers only radios for domestic service, radio sets in homes; it does not cover radios in hotels, in restaurants, in skating rinks, in stores, in cabarets or even in boarding houses. They all have to pay a minimum of five dollars, and they are required to make periodical reports, upon which increased charges are based. I am sure that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) will be pestered with protests against the increased charge of fifty cents, but apart from that, let me ask what use is a radio if these small users cannot get the music without paying an additional fee to the Performing Right Society. They have purchased their radios; they have paid to the dominion government the fee of two dollars or two and a half dollars, as the case may be, for the coming year; and then 51952-20i
this Performing Right Society pounces upon them for an additional amount. I ask in all fairness every hon. member who has in his constituency-and they all have-a band, an orchestra, an hotel, a boarding house, or any kind of institution or public place in which music is performed, to give consideration to the unfairness of this levy of tribute by this additional super-monopoly.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government w'ill give some consideration to what I have suggested for the benefit of the taxpayers of this country.
Mr. ELIE O. BERTRAND (Prescott) (Translation.): Mr. Speaker, may I add my own congratulations to those that have already been tendered to the hon. members who proposed and seconded the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. We are most happy to welcome in our midst the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fran-cceur) and the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren). The experience these two members have acquired as representatives of constituencies in their respective legislatures and their knowledge of their province will be a great help to us in the consideration of the matters of national interest which come before us.
This being the first session of this house since the coronation of our new sovereigns, I wish to assure Their Gracious Majesties King George the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth of the loyalty of the French-Canadian minority of the province of Ontario. We trust that their reign will be a long one and that it will be a reign of justice and peace for every one of the citizens of the empire.
May I also pay a passing tribute to the fellow-members who have died since last session. Three of them belonged to the Liberal party, two to the Conservative party and one to the Social Credit group. To the bereaved families I offer my sincere sympathies. I should like to make special mention of Sir George Perley. Although situated in the province of Quebec, his constituency was separated from mine only by the Ottawa river. The late member for Argen-teuil gave twenty-five years of unselfish service not only to his constituency but to the whole country. He enjoyed an enviable reputation in this house and in the whole empire. His constituents, whom he served for so long a period, held him in high regard and were deeply affected by his death. May I offer my sympathies to Lady Perley and to the people of Argenteuil county.
308	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
I do not intend to take up all the points raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling), but I should like to refer to that part of his speech where he states that the taxpayer does not realize how much he is paying until he becomes overburdened with taxes. I am greatly surprised to hear such a statement made by the hon. member for Kootenay West, for was it not the administration which he supported from 1930 to 1935 that added during that short period nearly one billion dollars to the national debt? I say that the taxpayers are now conscious of the enormous sums taken from them in federal taxation. Indeed, one reason why the Liberal party obtains such easy victories at every byelection is that to-day the people realize that the Conservative administration of 1930 to 1935 was a nefarious administration. They are therefore glad to return to the policy of the Liberal party which better understands the needs of the taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I read with great pride in the speech from the throne of something which we have noticed ourselves in the past two years or more: the business improvement and the return of this country to prosperity. Any one of us can see in his own neighbourhood that business is better, that the people are recovering from the distressful state they have been in for some years past. Prices of farm products have increased; our trade expansion has assuredly stimulated lines of activity; the farmer's position is certainly better than it was a few years ago, although he is still confronted with an extraordinarily difficult problem to which I shall refer presently. In spite of the return to prosperity, I must say that the problems of the farmer and the workman are still most serious. I listened with pleasure to the plea made a few days ago by the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Deach-man) on behalf of the farmers. The hon. member described the economic situation of the farmers of his district. I had intended to speak at length on that subject, but after what he and other speakers said about it during this debate, I shall only say that, according to the census of 1931, the average Ontario farmer owns a farm of about 120 acres worth about $7,000. This average farm yielded in 1930 products valued at $1 ,585 gross, that is without deducting operating and living expenses. This represents the value of farm products available for the markets or for the farmer's own consumption. In 1932. that production value had fallen to $964, which means a decrease of $621 in two years.
In 1936, when took place the return to prosperity to which I referred a moment ago,

the value of our agricultural production stood at $1,335, which was still a decrease from 1930, but a substantial increase of $370 as compared with the low level of 1932. Even with that increase the farmer remains in the red and the problem still calls for our serious consideration.
If we take the costs of farm production and submit them to the same analysis as that of farm income, we find that operating expenses, including interest on mortgages or on capital investment, amount to $973 a year. A survey of the 1931 census figures, as revised up to 1936, shows that the Ontario farmer is earning less than a dollar a day, both for himself and his family, and that his working hours are exceedingly long. His working hours are not controlled by any provincial or federal regulation. He must toil from sunrise to dusk, and in many cases, has to go on working late in the evening until forced to quit by darkness.
If we concede that agriculture is our chief industry, we must also admit that the farmer's services are the most underpaid. Such conditions exist throughout the country. Agriculture is therefore in a most deplorable state, as I have just shown and as statistics prove beyond possibility of contradiction. I should certainly not attempt to hold the government responsible for it. The present government has already done a great deal towards bettering agricultural conditions, but in order to have a united Canada, equal treatment must be dealt to every class of the population, and all should be afforded the opportunity of obtaining an adequate reward for their work and efforts so that they may secure a more or less equal share of the benefits accruing from our national wealth.
I could not stress the point any better than the hon. member for Huron North did, last Tuesday, and I would like to join him, as well as other hon. members of this house and the members of the provincial legislatures, in their endeavours to get that agricultural problem solved by the government, so that our farmers may have a larger share of the prosperity which now obtains in Canada.
Now just a brief reference to the unemployment problem. The commission appointed by the government, the so-called Purvis commission. certainly achieved an excellent task in gathering important statistics throughout the country to show the scope of the problem, to what extent each class of unemployed is being affected at the present time, and the obstacles, heretofore unknown, that we shall have to face in dealing with that problem. Nevertheless, as it is stated in the speech

The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
from the throne, there are many of our people still unemployed, and that will have to be considered by the government for some time to come.
With regard to the constituency that I have the honour to represent and more particularly the city of Hawkesbury where 50 per cent of the people are affected by unemployment-people who would be glad to work and to support their families-I would ask that they be afforded some relief by way of employment, so that instead of depending on public support they may earn their own and their family's living, and be once more in a position to live through their labour rather than be on relief.
I was interested in reading the following paragraph in the speech from the throne:
In view of the success which has attended efforts to assist in the training of unemployed young people, it is proposed to extend the scheme during the coming year.
What has been done for the training of our young unemployed by way of vocational courses and technical schools with a view to fitting them for the future, ought to be appreciated by all our people. We are certainly happy to hear that the government will continue to assist, again this year, in the training of our unemployed young people. Whatever we may do for our youth will be that much that we shall leave them. It is absolutely necessary further to assist these training schools and prepare our young people for future years. Of course that will cost some money, and I hope that during this session means will be taken to ensure the continuance of this technical training by voting the necessary appropriations for the expansion of such useful work. Then we shall be able to place them in their proper sphere where they will be in a position to provide for their future and assist in the development of this country.
It is not a question of dealing with the immediate unemployment problem, but with the problems of the future generation who, before long, may enjoy the benefits of such training, for they will have the means to cope with their own requirements and take care of those who wish to establish a home.
You may have read also with some uneasiness the following words in the speech from the throne:
The international situation generally continues to give much ground for anxiety. My ministers have endeavoured, as opportunity has afforded, to promote international understanding and good-will. They have sought to join the efforts of Canada to those of other countries
which are seeking by cooperation and conciliation to effect a settlement of questions and issues which concern the world's peace.
I am certainly happy to say that the Canadian people have some reason to be less anxious. The message of peace brought last summer by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to the empire and to the countries of Europe certainly honoured us and evidenced the interest 'taken by Canada in the question of world peace. We are grateful to them, and the whole population of Canada agrees -with them that peace must prevail as far as this country is concerned, even should other parts of the empire at any time become entangled in European or world wars.
May I state, as it has already been mentioned by several hon. members who preceded me in this debate, that one way to remain on friendly terms with other nations of the world is to try and extend our trade relations with them. That is not the only way, but it is one which will benefit our population.
The hon. Minister of Commerce (Mr. Euler) and the bon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) have already submitted statistics; however, I should like to submit more figures in order to establish a comparison between our imports and exports for the twelve months ended November 30, 1935, and the twelve months ended November 30, 1937. Those figures show that our trade with the United Kingdom has increased by 33 per cent; with Australia, by 45 per cent; with South Africa, by 42 per cent; with New Zealand, by 121 per cent; and with the British West Indies, by 83 per cent.
Let us now consider the expansion of Canadian trade for the same periods with the other countries of the world. Trade increases were as follows: United States, 64 per cent; Japan, 70 per cent; Belgium, 98 per cent; Germany, 89 per cent; France, 8 per cent; Argentine, 104 per cent; Netherlands, 33 per cent; China, 16 per cent; Italy, 20 per cent; Brazil, 25 per cent; Norway, 31 per cent; Cuba, 60 per cent; Dutch Indies, 43 per cent; Poland, 93 per cent. I could go on indefinitely giving similar figures for many other countries.
An outstanding fact is that in its policy of trade expansion the government fostered particularly the development of our primary industries rather than that of our secondary industries. As a result, we find that for the twelve months ending with August, 1937, our grain exports increased by 42 per cent as compared with the twelve months ending with August, 1935. Other increases in our exports for the same period were as follows:
310	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Bertrand (Prescott)
cattle, 105 per cent; cheese, 111 per cent; fish products, I am sorry to say, the increase was only 16 per cent; cured meats, 71 per cent. Our lumber and paper exports increased by 71 per cent and 43 per cent respectively. The export figures for nearly all products of our primary industries show somewhat similar increases.
These increased exports have certainly contributed to the development of our primary industries, which are entitled to our greatest consideration because they give employment to the largest number of people. They are the foundation of our prosperity and will continue to contribute in the greatest measure to the expansion of our trade.
In developing our trade, not only are we fostering more friendly relations with foreign countries, but we are also providing employment for Canadian workingmen, and helping in the solution of the unemployment problem and in the rehabilitation of the farming community. While there is absolutely no question about that, it is nevertheless true that the problems I have already referred to are still before us, owing to the conditions which confront the farmers and the workers in several parts of our country.
We have no Canadian merchant marine for carrying our goods; consequently, in order to ship them to foreign countries we must use the merchant ships of Great Britain or of those other countries which are willing to trade noth us. A thorough analysis of the figures I have quoted will show that, with the exception of the United States of America, the increase in our trade has been largely with overseas countries, or with countries quite remote from Canada. Consequently, we must necessarily ship those goods from our harbours to the farthest corners of the world. Many of those countries have not the same mentality as we have; each one of them is keeping close watch on the others with a view to its own protection. Such countries have raised walls for the defence of their territory, their people and their trade, and to ensure such protection these walls are watched by soldiers equipped with guns and other weapons. When such countries are making agreements for the purpose of increasing their trade with us, their viewpoint is not the same as ours. We are living near the United States, quite a peaceful country which is not trying to extend its territory, and which has no reason to fear our enmity. When those countries wish to trade with us, they are also desirous of being afforded, in our harbours, such protection as may enable them to enter them safely. That is why I say that we need a national defence

not only to protect our people, to preserve order, peace and good government in our country, but also to protect our trade. If a certain sum is to be appropriated for the improvement of our national defence, it will be used, among other things, for motorizing our transportation facilities so that they may be available in all parts of the country. If we spent money last year and if we spend some more this year on our coast defences, it is not because we expect the attacks of any enemy, not because we fear to become involved in war, but in order to show to the whole world that we are in earnest, that we are willing to trade with all nations, and are ready to give them the assurance that our harbours will be protected, that their ships may safely enter them and unload their goods in exchange for ours. It is not a national defence in terms of military operations, but a defence for the purpose of enabling us to increase our trade; it is not a defence for purposes of war and conquest but solely to protect our people and secure our own prosperity in this Canada of ours.
I should now like to say just a few words about our constitution. In the speech from the throne there is one paragraph which reads as follows:
The cooperation of the provinces has been sought with a view to an amendment of the British North America Act, which would empower the parliament of Canada to enact forthwith a national scheme of unemployment insurance. My ministers hope the proposal may meet with early approval, in order that unemployment insurance legislation may be enacted during the present session of parliament.
The speech from the throne, as every one may ascertain, clearly states that the government has endeavoured to secure the cooperation of the provinces with a view to amending the British North America Act so as to empower parliament to enact forthwith a national scheme of unemployment insurance. That necessarily means that if the British North America Act is to be amended, the amendments must be concurred in by the interested parties. At the present time, we notice in the press of our country comments of a most diversified character. In a certain part of the country, comments just as varied are made about what could be done in the way of an amendment to our country's constitution. Such amendment gives rise to comments that are quite conflicting. Unemployment insurance is a problem which deserves the attention of the government, and the latter should consider not only present but also future needs. In order to afford Canada the best possible protection against unemployment, there is nothing better than

The Address-Mr. Donnelly
unemployment insurance, just as life insurance affords protection for the dependents of policyholders, and just as fire insurance protects against fire losses. That is an important problem which claims the attention of the government.
The cost of unemployment relief is now borne by the municipalities, the provinces and the federal government. Should the latter accept the unemployment problem as its own, I think that no province would refuse to leave it entirely in its hands or to admit that it should be the object of federal legislation. Provided the federal government takes over the entire unemployment problem, I submit that there would be no objection to a national unemployment insurance scheme-but that would be an essential consideration. Otherwise, the constitution of our country must not be amended without the consent of all the contracting parties, and without the proposed amendments being approved by all of them.
The present government, under the direction of the right honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King, has certainly not shown any dictatorial attitude in the past; they have always been willing, under all circumstances, to give due consideration to local and national problems, and I say frankly that in the present instance also we have no fear. We know that every one of the problems of the day will be considered and solved by this parliament with proper regard to all classes of citizens.
For all those reasons I intend to vote against the amendment of the leader of the opposition and to support the present government so that it may continue to solve the problems of our country and to give the people the administration they want in this period of difficulties.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with others who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. These gentlemen have performed their allotted task with credit to themselves and their constituencies, and they should be a valuable addition to the debating ability of this house.
One of the first paragraphs that attracts my attention in the speech from the throne is that which refers to the recovery which has taken place in the Dominion of Canada. It reads as follows:
It is gratifying to note that, during the past year, there has been a further substantial advance in Canada's economic recovery. Revenues have reached new levels. Trade with other countries has materially expanded. There
has been a general increase in employment and a marked decrease in the numbers receiving unemployment aid.
I have verified this statement not only by looking over statistics but from my experience since coming east. I have talked to members from different parts of the dominion, and each has told me that conditions in his district are better than they had been for many years. Conditions are and have been improving, practically speaking, all over the dominion, with the exception of the district which I have had the honour to represent during the last few years. For nine years in that district I have referred in this house from time to time to the condition that has prevailed-we have been suffering from a terrible drought, which last year reduced crop prospects to nothing at all. I contend, as other members from that district contend, that nothing whatever is wrong with the district from which I come except that we need rain; we lack the moisture necessary to produce a crop.
Some time ago, looking over the Regina Leader, I noticed an article written by Grant Dexter from the Leader-Post London bureau. In that article Mr. Dexter refers to a man named A. G. Street, who has been giving lectures and speaking over the radio in England. I should like to read one paragraph from the article written by Mr. Dexter:
Street, in his articles and over the radio, painted conditions on the prairie in sombre colours. He mentioned the lack of rainfall but attributed prevailing conditions chiefly to selfish, short sighted husbandry. He indicated that the west's troubles were largely of its own making. Prairie farmers were condemned because it was suggested that they have mined the land, taking the good from the soil and putting nothing back into it.
No article could be more misleading. The farmers in western Canada are as good as the farmers in any other part of the world. In western Canada we have farmers just as industrious, just as hard working and just as intelligent as the farmers in the east, in any other part of the British Empire or in the United States. For a man to sit in his office in England and write a speech such as that, without ever seeing the conditions or knowing anything about them, is misleading and most unfair.


Mr. McINTOSH:: He ought to be chloroformed.


Thomas F. Donnelly: He is absolutely wrong in making such statements. There is nothing wrong with farming conditions; there is nothing wrong with our prairies or with the people on the prairies. All we need is rain. No
The Address-Mr. Donnelly

government can give us that, and we realize it. It is not the government's fault, but rather an act of Providence. Nothing can help us until Providence smiles upon us again and gives us rain. We believe that time will come.
The farmers in my district have been trying to grow wheat, but they have not had enough rain to grow it. When there is not enough moisture to grow wheat you cannot grow any other kind of grain, because it takes less rain to grow wheat than to grow any other crop. Therefore when we cannot produce a wheat crop we cannot produce any crop.
Let me point out that the drought area is not confined to Canada. It is roughly oval in shape, comprising about eight states and portions of nine other states of the American union. The southern part of the oval reaches Mexico, and the northern part of it extends into western Canada, taking in a large portion of Saskatchewan and parts of Manitoba and Alberta.
In the past year the drought area has been somewhat reduced. There has been some restriction along the edges, and the result is that in the past year we found practically no drought in Manitoba. But the central part of the drought area, found in Saskatchewan, is more affected than it has ever been. Conditions have -been so extreme that there have been no crops at all. In other years there had been a little crop, here and there, but in the past season there was practically no crop in Saskatchewan.
Then, there has been, a restriction in the affected areas in the United States. There has been some change along the edges and we believe the drought area is being brought back to a state of cultivation. The moisture which has fallen during the past winter and autumn leads us to believe that during the coming year there will foe a still greater reduction in the area, and that eventually we ' will reach a condition where we will have rains and crops.
The area from which I come was opened up in 1908 and 1909. Ninety per cent of the settlers in the district came in without any worldly goods. They farmed there from those years until about 1929, and during that twenty-year period they had pretty fair crops. In 1929, fifty per cent of those people had assets valued all the way from $10,000 up to as high as $100,000 and $150,000. The men who homesteaded in those early days have now reached ages of forty-five, fifty-five or sixty-five years. It is quite impossible to expect them to leave the good homes they have built, to leave the outbuildings on their properties or to leave the land, which lacks nothing but moisture.

We must not expect them to go out into the bush to carve out new homes for themselves. They simply cannot be persuaded to go. And in view of the good crops they had during a twenty year period, they cannot believe that Providence will not smile upon them again. They still have faith in the country, and so have I.
I believe we will have crops in there again. But in all fairness, I must say to the government, that while I believe it is justified in helping the old settlers to remain on their land, it is not justified in helping young men to settle there. They must differentiate between the young men who want to start farming in the district and the old settlers who have been in there for some years. Young men should be discouraged from settling in that area, and should be encouraged to begin farming in other districts where conditions and prospects are better.
I should like at this point to refer to what has been done for the people in that section of the country, but as the time before adjournment is getting short I should appreciate it if you would permit me, Mr. Speaker, to adjourn the debate.
On motion of Mr. Donnelly the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 5.46 p.m.
Thursday, February 10, 1938