[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. REID:: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to amend the Railway Act so as to give to the people of British Columbia equal treatment with respect to rates on grain and grain products to that enjoyed by the people of Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. It is the same bill that I have introduced into this house in each of the past four years.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



THE NEW TESTAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Has the government any statement to make regarding the refusal of the authorities to permit

Validity of Quebec Statute
officials of the Baptist church to distribute copies of the New Testament in the city of Quebec, and particularly with reference to the statement by Superintendent H. R. Gagnon, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who is reported as having said, "The general practice is to withhold permission."


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should merely say that the government has no statement to make with regard to the matter, but obviously my hon. friend is actuated in directing his question to me because the name of Superintendent Gagnon, of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is mentioned. Superintendent Gagnon is now Chief of Police of the city of Quebec. Under an arrangement between the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the city of Quebec, he has been lent for a certain time for the purpose of reorganizing the municipal police force. He is paid by the city of Quebec; he is a servant of the city, and does not take any direction from the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police so long as he is acting in his present position. The matter to which my hon. friend has referred is obviously one of municipal regulations, and Superintendent Gagnon has acted, no doubt, under instructions from the city.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask the government a question in reference to the dangerous condition of the sidewalks and roads, and of the rink, in front of Parliament hill. Members have some privileges, and the men and women who use this building should be afforded some protection. We are not all good skaters, like those on the front benches opposite. We have a fifteen million dollar building, and there seems to be only a few dollars to spend on sand. I would ask what action will be taken by the government to remedy the present dangerous conditions. Anybody who gets injured will have no action for damages sustained on crown property. It is disgraceful.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have no information to give to my hon. friend at the moment, but I shall look into the matter and give a reply to-morrow.


Thomas Langton Church: Why not distribute some skates and skis and toboggans?
51952-16i


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, with your permission, that if the hon. gentleman would give notice of his questions in advance, he would stand a better chance of getting an immediate reply.


Thomas Langton Church: Everybody is not a Canadian hockey player.



VALIDITY OF DOMINION ACTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) if there is available in his department a shorthand report of the arguments before the privy council on the hearings of the several statutes passed in 1935, and if so, would it be convenient for him to lay that report on the table of the house? If that is not deemed expedient, perhaps he would make the report available to me and other members who care to read it.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I believe we have in the department a shorthand report of the argument on all those cases. I shall be pleased to arrange for my hon friend to see it.



VALIDITY OF QUEBEC STATUTE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: I desire to correct a statement which I made in the course of my remarks on Friday. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked me when would the year expire for possible action by the governor in council on a certain Quebec statute, and I said, "at the end of March." I had in mind that the statute was assented to at the end of March; but under the British North America Act the delay starts only from the reception by the secretary of state of an authentic copy of the provincial statute, and that was received on July 8.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Perhaps the minister will permit me to ask him a question arising out of that. I think he will find that it is a year from the date of the reception of the statute b}' the governor general, the words "governor general" being substituted for the king and a secretary of state. But the question I desire to ask is this. Would the minister
Validity of Quebec Statute

or the government be prepared to hear representations, either to the cabinet as a whole or to a committee of the cabinet, by way of argument as to why the legislation should be disallowed?-and the government at Quebec could probably be afforded an opportunity to present any arguments it might desire to make contrary to that contention. That has been done frequently with cases that were of great importance and highly controversial; the government usually has set up a committee presided over by the Minister of Justice, with the legal members of the cabinet, to hear argument for or against the disallowance of the legislation in question. I just ask the minister if he sees any reason why that should not be done in this case, but perhaps it is not fair to expect him to answer at the moment; he might desire to look into the precedents.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He may treat this ns
notice for that purpose. I had intended speaking to him about it, but I heard that he was going to make a statement, so I did not do so.


Ernest Lapointe: As far as my own experience is concerned we have always declined to receive delegations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, not delegations.


Ernest Lapointe: These
matters have been dealt with on written brief and representations sent to the Department of Justice. However, I shall be pleased to look into the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to the remark of
the right hon. gentleman with respect to a delegation, that was not at all what I had in mind; it was a question of receiving arguments from counsel for or against disallowance, based upon the question of legality on the one hand and policy on the other. That was done to my knowledge in one case with which I am familiar, and, I think, in another as well, the committee which heard it being, if my memory serves me, the lawyers of the cabinet, presided over by the Minister of Justice.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. N. Francoeur 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.
,
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: I rise to take part in this debate for the purpose of correcting various misstatements that have been made by a few hon. members in discussing radio broadcasting, and to answer unfounded statements that are being currently circulated inside and outside this house.
All hon. gentlemen are well aware that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an autonomous body created by act of parliament. The corporation has full authority to plan and carry out policies within the scope of its act and within the funds which by the act are placed at its disposal. The Minister of Transport is designated by the act as the means of communication from the corporation to the government and to parliament. I think it is unfortunate in many ways that a member of the board of governors of the corporation cannot himself be the spokesman in parliament, but as this is impracticable, I assume it to be my duty to correct misstatements as they occur in this house.
It is a happy reflection on parliament that the subject of radio broadcasting has never been used for purposes of party advantage. There have been three committees of parliament on this subject, and the findings of all three were unanimous. Two bills affecting radio broadcasting have passed the house, in both cases unanimously. In the debate which instituted broadcasting as a public service, hon. members in all parts of the house took part, and all favoured the bill.
Perhaps I can summarize the purposes which promoted the founding of public control of broadcasting by reading short extracts from two or three of the speeches made on that occasion. The first is from the speech of the then prime minister, which summarized admirably the reasons why legislation for public ownership was adopted:
No other scheme than that of public ownership can ensure to the people of this country, without regard to class or place, equal enjoyment of the benefits and pleasures of radio broadcasting. Private ownership must necessarily discriminate between densely and sparsely populated areas. This is not a correctable fault in private ownership; it is an inescapable and inherent demerit of that system. It does not seem right that in Canada the towns should be preferred to the countryside or prosperous communities to those less fortunate. In fact if no other course were possible, it might be fair to suggest that it should be the other way about. Happily, however, under this system, there is no need for discrimination; all may be served alike. Equality of service is assured by the plan which calls for a chain of high power stations throughout Canada.

The Address-Mr. Howe
The opposition spokesman was the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who said:
I just wish to endorse the views expressed by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, to say that I am in full accord with the principle embodied in this bill. I have been supporting this principle from the first, more particularly after the work of the Ail'd commission, but I knew the difficulties in the way and the strength of the propaganda carried on to prevent the woi'k of that commission from having the results which we have witnessed to-day.
I am pleased with the work which was done by the committee which has been studying this question, and I congratulate the members of that committee on the excellent work which they did. I congratulate the house upon having this bill introduced at the present session, and I congratulate the people of Canada on the principle which is represented in the bill.
The third party was spoken for by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who said:
I should just like to associate myself with the last speaker (Mr. Lapointe) in congratulating the Prime Minister on his promptness in bringing down this bill to implement the report which has been unanimously adopted.
Perhaps I may take two or three moments to give a brief outline of the development of public broadcasting in Canada. At the time the Aird commission was appointed to study the matter, about fifty per cent of the broadcasting strength of Canada was represented by four privately owned stations, two in Toronto and two in Montreal. Each of these stations was attached to a United States broadcasting chain, and the programs broadcast over them were almost entirely of United States origin. Apart from these cities very few communities were served by radio. The Aird commission, composed of Sir John Aird as chairman, and Mr. Augustin Frigon and Mr. C. A. Bowman, made a thorough investigation of the whole situation. The commission took evidence in Canada and in the United States and travelled in Europe, and after much study brought down a comprehensive report. The recommendations of the commission were, briefly, that the control and operation of radio broadcasting in Canada be made a public utility, and that the government should estab-ish its own high power broadcasting stations so that complete coverage of Canada would be obtained by this means.
The report was brought in too late for the then government to implement it, and it was not until 1932 that a parliamentary committee was set up to review the subject again. That parliamentary committee brought down a report which was the basis of the broadcasting act of 1932. In 1934 a second parliamentary committee studied the question and again brought in a report, suggesting revisions of
the commission plan of management and a return to the basis recommended in the Aird report. However, no change was made at that time. In 1936 a third parliamentary committee studied the subject and brought in a unanimous report which was made the basis of the present broadcasting act. The act now in force was studied by that committee and recommended by it to this house after it had unanimously approved the draft bill.
The revenues of the corporation were provided, at first, by a licence fee of one dollar, which was in force for the period prior to the establishment of public broadcasting, and the proceeds of which were used for a very important service that is apt to be forgotten now-the elimination of interference with broadcasting. A considerable expenditure, some $300,000 I believe, is made each year on this service, and I can tell the house that without the abolition of interference with broadcasting there would be very little reception in any part of Canada to-day, even in the large cities. It is a most important work, and if the service were relaxed for two or three years broadcasting would rapidly become impossible.
The Aird report recommended that revenue to carry out the public ownership program should be provided, first from a licence fee of $3 per radio set, second, from advertising revenue to the amount of $700,000, together with a grant from the dominion government of $1,000,000 per annum. It was estimated, I believe, that the funds from these three sources would amount to about $3,500,000 per annum. As I stated, a radio fee of one dollar was put into effect in the initial period. When broadcasting was set up as a public service the fee was raised to two dollars and at that figure it has remained.
During the current fiscal year about 1,150,000 persons will pay licences of two dollars, and the sum realized, less the cost of collecting these licences, that will accrue to the broadcasting corporation from this source, will approximate closely $2,000,000. The corporation will earn this year about $350,000 from all commercial sources, and that is the highest level of commercial revenue that the corporation has received to date. It is not the desire or intention of the corporation at any time to obtain a revenue of over $500,000 from commercial sources for reasons that are obvious.
The mandate given to the broadcasting corporation set up by the last broadcasting act was detailed in the report of the committee on radio for 1936. It recommended (a) "that a public corporation, modelled more closely on the lines of a private corporation,
The Address-Mr. Howe

but with adequate powers to control, for purposes of coordination, all broadcasting, both public and private, be set up to replace the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission;" (b) "that this corporation be known as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, to be managed by a general manager as chief executive, and an assistant general manager, and directed as to policy by a non-partisan board of nine directors or governors, chosen in order to give representation to all parts of Canada;" and (c) "that the corporation immediately consider ways and means of extending national coverage."
It is that last mandate to which I wish to call attention. One of the first acts of the newly constituted broadcasting corporation was to make a coverage survey of Canada. That coverage survey disclosed that less than fifty per cent of the population of Canada had adequate coverage from existing sources. The corporation had certain funds at its disposal under the broadcasting act; it had also the privilege of borrowing from the dominion government the sum of $500,000 as a repayable loan. With that amount and with some $200,000 saved from current revenues, the corporation set about carrying out its mandate to establish high-power broadcasting stations. Two of these stations have been built, each of 50 kilowatt capacity, one near Montreal and one near Toronto. These stations were undertaken first because, through them, efficient coverage could be provided for a maximum number of listeners.
The corporation wishes to continue to carry out its mandate and establish adequate coverage by building two more stations and improving certain other properties where equipment is obsolete. With that in mind its governors have recommended to the government that the radio fee be now increased from $2 to $2.50, and that fees be collected for each radio set rather than from each owner of one or more radio sets. The main purpose, as I say, is to provide revenue sufficient to justify the expense of establishing two high-powered stations in sparsely settled areas of this dominion. In addition to the fifty cent increase in licence fee, another repayable loan of $500,000 will be required. In reviewing the work of the corporation and the results accomplished to date it seems to me that the request of the corporation is a reasonable one.
Also let me say that there is an urgency for the completion of coverage which it is well to draw to the attention of the house. In 1932 the distribution of wave lengths between the countries of North America was considered by an international conference. A division was made by which Canada received

the use of six exclusive wave lengths; the United States received certain others, as did also other countries. In addition to these exclusive wave lengths Canada secured the partial use of other wave lengths, suitable for low-powered stations. Within a year or two broadcasters desiring to establish high-powered stations and not able to obtain wave lengths in the United States discovered that Mexico was not a party to this international agreement, and that the Canadian channels were not being used by high-powered stations, so these men simply moved over to Mexico and established high-power stations there using exclusive Canadian channels. The result has been that not one of the six channels allotted to us is free from interference from Mexican sources. The interference from Mexican sources conflicts seriously with the coverage of the Canadian stations using those channels.
As a result of this interference Canada has protested vigorously to the other countries which are parties to the convention. Preliminary conversations were held with our near neighbours at a conference at Havana some months ago, and about six or seven weeks ago a full conference of all American countries was held at Havana. At that time a new allocation of wave lengths was made. Instead of six clear channels Canada secured seven, and also secured a more favourable distribution of partly used channels. But this stipulation was made, and I think for a good reason, that unless Canada would proceed to establish on each of these exclusive wave lengths a radio station of at least 50,000 watts power the other countries would not guarantee that that wave length would remain exclusive to Canada. It was pointed out to our delegates at that conference that Canada was at fault if its exclusive wave lengths had been interfered with, because Canada had not made anything like adequate use of them. Therefore the matter is urgent because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is under compulsion to complete the establishment of its high-powered stations on the newly acquired wave lengths. The corporation has laid down the policy that if funds can be made available the high-powered stations necessary for complete coverage will be built within the next year. It has shown to me conclusively that the funds from the sources I have mentioned will be adequate to complete the work, and no one can see any reason! to anticipate that funds from any source other than those mentioned will at any time be required to enable the corporation to carry out its functions in the years to come.
I wish at this time to discuss a matter which has been the subject of much mis-

The Address-Mr. Howe
representation both in the house and outside, the use of American programs. I shall tell you how the ninety-eight hours of operation per week of the network are divided. Let me say that a sustaining program means a program devoid of advertising-having no advertising of any kind, direct or indirect; a commercial program means a program which contains advertising in varying amounts. Of the ninety-eight hours broadcasting on the network, fifty-seven and one quarter hours are given up to Canadian programs free from advertising, three and one-quarter hours are occupied by commercial programs originating in Canada, and seventeen and one-half hours are devoted to American programs free from advertising. Programs originating in the British Isles, and free from advertising, account for twelve hours, a German program occupies half an hour, and advertising programs originating in the United States occupy eight and three-quarter hours. The total percentage occupied by non-advertising programs is 87-8. The present American commercial programs have for some years been distributed in Montreal, Toronto and Windsor.


Mr. LAWSON:: Would the minister be good enough to identify the week of which he is giving an analysis?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is any week within the last five. I am speaking now of the chain.
There has been a good deal of misrepresentation about the distribution over station CBL, so perhaps I might give the distribution there. CBL is an individual station operated by the corporation, forming part of the chain of the corporation, but of course it operates for longer hours than the chain. The network operates twelve hours a day, and this station I suppose is on the air some eighteen or twenty hours a day, therefore it has more advertising programs than the chain. However, the total commercials on GBL (Toronto) represent thirty-five per cent of the total time of that station. American commercials represent eighteen per cent of the time, and Canadian commercials seventeen per cent.
In one of our great financial journals there was published a chart showing the American programs, and at the bottom of this chart there appeared the words "The flood of American advertising coming into Canada." It stated that forty-three per cent of the programs on CBL are American advertising programs.


Mr. DUNNING:: Where is station CBL situated?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At Toronto. The fact is that American commercial programs make up
eighteen per cent of the. time and American sustaining programs twenty-five per cent of the time of that station.
Now let me say something about these American programs. As you know, a sustaining program is one put on purely for entertainment purposes. It carries no advertising and mentions no sponsor, but is simply put on for the benefit of the listeners; and, as I say, some fifty-seven per cent of the programs over the Canadian chain are of this type, made in Canada. But may I say that each of the three commercial chains in the United States produce sustaining programs for their listeners. For example the National Broadcasting Company pays the Metropolitan Opera Company a very substantial sum for the privilege of broadcasting the Saturday afternoon performances of that company, The Columbia Broadcasting System pays the New York Philharmonic orchestra a very substantial sum in order to broadcast the performance of that orchestra for two hours on Sunday afternoons. Similarly the Mutual chain supplies certain sustaining programs to please its listeners.
The competition for quality in these sustaining programs is strenuous. A recent development has been that the National Broadcasting Company has retained the services of the great conductor Arturo Toscanini to form an orchestra of his own, to be composed of the best musicians obtainable in New York and that vicinity, to broadcast a series of ten concerts exclusively for the radio. I was told by the president of the National Broadcasting Company that his company is paying Toscanini and his artists 8450,000 for organizing this orchestra and presenting these ten programs exclusively for radio broadcasting.
This type of programs makes up the seventeen hours of sustaining programs that we obtain from the United States. The Metropolitan Opera broadcast takes about three hours a week. The broadcast of the New York Philharmonic on Sunday afternoon takes about two hours. The Toscanini program on Saturday evening takes about one and one-half hours, and any musician will tell you that in the matter of perfection of technique the Toscanini program is the finest musical feature that can be heard anywhere on this continent and perhaps anywhere in the world.
These American sustaining programs are for the most part musical programs. Since when was music anything but international? When we listen to the Metropolitan Opera what artists do we hear? Are they American? Yes, a few of them are, but we hear also Italian, German, French and perhaps Brazilian
The Address-Mr. Howe

artists as well; we hear artists from every corner of the world. Is the music they play
American music? No, it is probably German, Italian, French or Spanish music, with an occasional American composition. So I ask if bringing in the music of the Metropolitan Opera can be called flooding Canada with American propaganda. What nonsense I
We listen to the music of the New York Philharmonic. Who is the conductor of that orchestra? The regular conductor is John Barbirolli, who came to America from Leeds, England. Only a few Mondays ago as guest conductor of the Philadelphia Symphony I heard our own Sir Ernest MacMillan, and at other times we hear distinguished guest conductors from every part of the world. I ask if there is anything offensive to Canadian listeners in accepting that kind of program from the United States? I could go on and give other examples, but I do not think I need labour the point. However, I do say that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation makes no apologies to the Canadian people for bringing them these seventeen hours of American sustaining programs.
One other point I think should be cleared up now. I noticed a question on the order paper asking how much Canada pays the United States for the programs brought into this country. That question of course will be answered in the usual way, but I can say now that Canada pays nothing at all in dollars and cents. No single dollar of ours goes to pay for a program brought in from the United States. But we are not accepting favours from the United States in taking those programs. We have an exchange arrangement with each of the great national chains, which they are just as glad to make as we are, under which those United States chains take our sustaining programs in exchange for their own. I checked up the hours of Canadian programs taken by the great United States chains, and I find they just about equal the hours we take from them. Last night we heard a peroration which concluded with the statement, "the United States speaks; Canada listens." That is true of certain hours. Of certain other hours it is equally true that Canada speaks and the United States listens. I am sorry that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Marsh) spoiled a very fine maiden speech by ending with such a phony peroration.
Now I come to the commercial programs. As I say, we take eight and three-quarter hours of commercial programs from the United States over our national chain, broadcasting from coast to coast. For broadcasting these programs we receive a gross payment of about

8200,000, of which we pay about 880,000 to the stations that make up our chain as payment for the time used, and we net about
8120,000	to the broadcasting corporation. The programs we take are chosen for their entertainment value, and I may add that we have been offered and have refused additional commercial programs for chain broadcasting which would have netted our corporation an additional amount of over 8250,000. We refused them for the reason that they did not have the class of material that we cared to carry on our Canadian network.
The programs we do broadcast are the most popular programs broadcast in the United States as commercial features. The Charlie McCarthy program, to which reference has been made in this house, is considered the number one program over any American chain. Checks are made of the listeners to individual programs, and it has been shown that the average audience listening to that program whenever it is broadcast exceeds 33.000,000 persons. The cost of building that program, which lasts for one hour each week, is more than the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can spend on its fifty-seven hours of sustaining programs. In other words more money is spent in building up that one program than we can spend in building up fifty-seven hours of broadcasting. It has been suggested in the house that we should build up a program to put on as a sustaining feature at the time the Charlie McCarthy program goes on. Who would listen to it? We have been doing that for years. The listeners insist on Charlie McCarthy, as has been demonstrated by the listener check-ups that have been made. The material used in the Charlie McCarthy program is, I think, to most people, exceedingly amusing, and therefore we carry that feature on the chain. By doing so we save the cost of building a program which otherwise would have to be provided for that hour.
It has been said that in connection with the cost of carrying programs we are discriminating in favour of United States advertisers. That is absolutely untrue. Rates for chain broadcasting are on the card and apply to any Canadian advertiser who wishes to obtain chain broadcasting privileges, just as they apply to United States sponsors. The rates for chain broadcasting are slightly lower than those applying to the individual stations. However that is only the wholesale rate as against the retail rate. May I say that from the point of view of financial returns we prefer the chain broadcast to the broadcast from an individual station, because the chain

The Address-Mr. Howe
broadcast relieves us of the cost of building a sustaining program for the same period. The rates charged at each station are based on the coverage of that station, and rates in Canada generally, on the basis of coverage, are somewhat higher than those charged by stations in the United States.
For a moment let us look at the broadcasting situation from a common sense point of view. Anyone who has a family knows that, where radio is concerned, there is a wide variation in tastes. One man's radio meat is definitely another man's radio poison. For my own experience I draw on my own family. Occasionally all of us listen to the radio. I like almost any kind of music, provided it is played softly so as not to interrupt whatever else I may be doing. My wife prefers the operatic and symphonic concerts, My two boys, aged fifteen and twelve, go for the sports broadcasts; I refer to the broadcasts of hockey and football games and boxing matches. Those are the sports in which they take part and in listening to the play by play or blow by blow descriptions of the contests they get the same thrill as though they were participating. My two younger girls like the vaudeville. They would have been shocked had they heard the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hyndman) refer to Bill Penner; they would have corrected him instantly, and he would have been told that it was Joe Penner. My older girl of fourteen years has graduated from the class which like vaudeville. She has moved in with her mother, and likes the better class of musical programs. For that I believe I owe a debt to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which makes it possible for us to have the variety of cultural and first class musical programs which come in over Canadian broadcasting stations.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: It will cost you $2.50, though, for each different taste.


Clarence Decatur Howe: To work out our family situation I may say that it is necessary to have three radios in our house; otherwise there would be a conflict of interest. However, I will pay those three licence fees cheerfully, and I feel anyone else who wishes to avoid conflict at home might do likewise. I have always regarded the system which charged a two-dollar licence fee on a cheap crystal set, parts for which can be bought for fifty cents, and charged a similar fee for a householder owning four radio sets in his house, and one in his car, as one which discriminated in favour of people of ample means as against those of only limited means. I believe hon. members will agree with me that there would be greater justice in taxing the sets, rather than the houses in which the sets are contained.
The present attacks on the principle of public ownership are being made not because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a failure but because it is a success. The listening audience in Canada are turning their dials to programs of the corporation. I believe the reason is apparent, and can be readily demonstrated by any hon. member who wishes to try the experiment. If one were to leave his dial turned to a corporation station for the full twelve hour period of broadcast he would find a better average program than he would find if he turned on any other station for a similar continuous period. On that corporation station one finds the programs of ever increasing excellence built in Canada by the corporation. One finds, too, the best programs of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which, broadcast in the evening in England, are received here in the afternoon. We find the best of American sustaining programs, built in the United States, and such few United States commercial programs as have the highest entertainment value.
Naturally when the listening public turns to the publicly owned stations, the privately owned stations fight back. That is what is happening to-day. The fact that the chains are carrying a few of the outstanding advertising programs has caused certain newspapers and periodicals to fear the loss of national advertising revenue. Some of those papers are voicing severe criticism on their editorial pages. It is striking, however, to find that even where severe criticism of the policy is written on the editorial page, the radio page, either full or half size, carries a description of radio programs, and almost invariably those descriptions feature United States commercial broadcasts. So much for consistency in our press.
However, radio in Canada will not be judged by speeches made in parliament, nor will it be judged by the editorials written in our newspapers. It will be judged by the programs that come daily into our homes from the publicly owned stations. Of the verdict, I think, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation need have no fear. In advocating the carrying out of the recommendations of that corporation in the direction of the additional revenues they require to complete the plan of nationalization of radio started in 1928, I have every confidence the people of Canada will approve the recommendations I am making to the government of which I have the honour to be a member.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the speech just delivered by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), and in my opinion it was timely and effective. The most amazing
The Address-Mr. Heaps

thing to me in the whole controversy with respect to the fifty cent increase in radio licences is the fact that when the public are receiving something in return for a fee, and they are asked to pay an increase of twenty-five per cent, there is a great howl from certain quarters, but when, on the other hand, the government levies an indirect tax which takes many dollars each year from the pockets of individuals, we never hear a murmur. This shows the difference in effect between direct and indirect taxation.
I wonder whether those who to-day are criticizing the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are entirely disinterested in their criticism. I had no intention of speaking on this question, but I do appreciate the great improvement that has taken place in the programs and service which have been given to the Canadian public since the present corporation took over the management of our radio broadcasting. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity of hearing, over the service provided by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the inaugural speech, known as the message on the state of the nation, delivered by President Roosevelt at the opening of congress. I listened to it most attentively, and had the service not been provided by the corporation I might have missed that splendid opportunity. As I listened to the President of the United States speak to congress on the state of the nation, just prior to the opening of our parliament here, I wondered whether our own government or our own Prime Minister would deliver as definite or as conclusive a speech on the occasion of the opening of our parliament.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if I do not refer at greater length to the remarks of the minister (Mr. Howe) he will forgive me, because I did not know that I was to follow him in this debate.
When I read the speech from the throne, which was delivered in the other chamber, the thing that struck me most was its barrenness, its nebulous character, its lack of definiteness as to what was in the mind of the government regarding what they were going to do for the people of this dominion.
In the main, Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne contains references to commissions that have been appointed by the government, to the trade agreements which the government have in contemplation, and to the expansion of our foreign trade. In fact our government takes the stand that in the conclusion of trade treaties and the expansion of our trade with foreign nations lies the solution of our problems. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot agree. Members who 
have been in the house as long as I have will know that at all times I have supported any government that has reduced the tariff. I have always supported the Liberal party in its reduction of tariffs just as I have always opposed the Conservative party in its tariff increases, but I have always taken the stand that moving the tariff up a little or down a little will not provide a solution for our national problems. To-day the bankers of the world are shouting from the roof-tops that the trade of the world should be liberated, that tariffs should be reduced, and I have been wondering since when have the bankers of the world or of this nation become the champions of the ordinary farmer and working man. We should indeed be in strange company if we were found in the ranks of the bankers agreeing with them that a policy of lower tariffs would solve our economic problems. If I thought that that was the solution, Mr. Speaker, I would hold up both my hands immediately for such a reduction and so end all our troubles; but even in low tariff countries to-day, just as in high tariff countries, they have exactly the same problems to face as those by which we are confronted in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but he is repeating what many on the other side have already said, and which is not correct. He is saying that the government takes the position that by furthering international trade it is doing the only thing that it considers necessary to solve existing problems. The speech from the throne is quite specific as to the government's view on international trade. It states that:
The government is convinced that, in seeking to cooperate with the United Kingdom and other countries in efforts to promote international trade, it is pursuing one of the most effective means of ensuring economic security and progress in Canada, and the betterment of conditions in other parts of the world.
One of the most effective means-that is the position of the government. It is not that the government holds that international trade is the solution of all ills, but that it is one of the most effective means of ensuring security and prosperity.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am very glad to have that statement from the Prime Minister, but I have spoken for only two or three minutes, and probably if I had gone on a little longer I should have dealt with some of the other statements made in the speech from the throne, as I intend doing before my time expires. I am glad the Prime Minister takes the position that in international trade is not

The Address-Mr. Heaps
to be found a complete solution of our national problems. We must bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that every nation to-day is anxious to find export markets. In that we are not alone. In fact, since production became simplified and the nations learned to produce with an ease that we did not know fifty or a hundred years ago, practically all nations have had exportable surpluses, and it is because of these exportable surpluses that competition among the nations for foreign markets is becoming keener and keener, while at the same time there is a lessened demand from the nations of the world for the importation of commodities as compared with the demand that existed twenty-five- or fifty or seventy-five years ago.
I maintain that it is not necessary for us to look first of all to foreign markets. The first thing for any government to do is to satisfy the home demand. Can anyone give me a logical reason why we in Canada cannot consume the goods we produce here in such abundance, or why we must not consume them until Japan, China, Germany, Italy and other countries have first been supplied from our production? The people who have first claim on the productive capacity of the dominion are the Canadian people themselves. When we find ourselves with a surplus of commodities, then let us by all means find export markets to take our surplus. But no government has ever yet attempted adequately or even reasonably to satisfy the demands of the Canadian people. Have the demands .of the Canadian people been legitimately met? Certainly not. In this country hundreds of thousands of people, some of them out of work, some of them working part time or full time, are living on the borderline of poverty, and until we have satisfied their legitimate demands their needs should receive first consideration, and foreign countries second. I remember in my school days reading in a history of India the story of the people of India famishing while India was exporting her wheat. We here are doing very much the same thing; we are exporting so-called surplus commodities while hundreds of thousands of Canadian people are in dire want.
The government might claim that as a result of the trade agreements they have made with the nations of the world our trade has increased, but I will not subscribe to that assumption because in all parts of the world trade has increased, and although the tariffs of this country have decreased by only a comparatively small amount during the past two or three years, our imports have jumped up. If tariffs are a hindrance to international trade I would like to ask this question of
economists, who may be able to answer it in a simple way: Why is it that in spite of high tariffs, quotas and other trade restrictions in all parts of the world, there has been this great jump in international trade in the past two or three years? It is quite obvious that this has happened not because of important tariff reductions, -but because there has been an effective demand in certain countries for a certain class of commodities, and the nations of the world have been trying to satisfy that demand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There would have been a bigger jump had it not been for these restrictions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is merely an assumption. We can take one view or the other; we cannot be sure. If we were, of course we could deal with this question in a more definite way than we are doing. All I say is that in spite of high tariffs the world over, there has been a considerable increase in international trade during the past three or four years. From the standpoint indicated by the interruption of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), if an economist to-day attempts to deal with the cycles of trade during the past few years, say from 1929 to 1938, how will he chart them? He will begin the cycle in 1929, when we had the peak of trade, and continue down to 1932, and then he will take the upward period from 1932 to 1937. So far as Canada is concerned we find that those years cut right across the political complexions of the governments in office during that time, indicating quite obviously, I think, to almost everyone that the tariff structure of the country had very little significance with respect to the flow of trade so far as Canada is concerned. Our curve upwards commenced in 1932 and continued until the end of 1937; that is, the upward trend prevailed in 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937. During that period we were under a Conservative government about the same length of time as we were under a Liberal government. Consequently I say that our tariff structure is not the fundamental factor in trade that we thought it was many years before.
It seems to me that there are features of our trade relations which are akin to the situation of the two families who used to take in each other's washing in order to try to keep themselves busy. If we thought a little less of trade treaties, many of which are entirely ineffective, and attempted to create a higher standard of living based upon the production of which we are capable in this dominion, our energies would be turned to much better advantage than they have been
The Address-Mr. Heaps

in the past. Although I favour treaties and would be glad to support those which have for their purpose the lowering of tariffs, I will not regard them as a panacea for the ills and ailments of the present time.
When my right hon. friend opposite and other Liberals tell me that they are the party that is in favour of freer trade, of unrestrained trade, I am afraid I cannot accept that statement as entirely in accordance with the facts. For the last two years or so that they have been in office our tariff structure has been changed very little from what it was prior to that time. The Prime Minister, when he was sitting here as leader of the opposition at the time the empire trade agreements of 1932 were under discussion, stated that when his party came into power one of the things he would do would be to cut these tariffs in half. I think my memory is correct on that point. Well, at the rate we have been going these past two years I wonder how old the Prime Minister will be before the tariffs are cut to half what they were when the agreement was adopted in 1932. We have practically as many restrictions now as we had five years ago. The tariff has been reduced very little. We still have-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend a moment? He quoted me as saying that I would cut the tariffs in half.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, a fifty per cent cut
in the British preference.


Mr. BRADETTE:: He said "in half."


Abraham Albert Heaps: I said, the tariffs as enumerated in the empire agreements of 1932.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The expression my hon. friend used was that I said that I would cut the tariffs in half.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is what he said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
my way of speaking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the general tariff.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am speaking specifically
of the empire trade agreements of 1932. If I am wrong I will certainly withdraw the statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure
that never in my life have I used in tariff matters the expression of cutting anything in half.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the Prime Minister
say that he promised to reduce the tariff by fifty per cent?
[Mr. Heaps.l


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I do not
believe I said that. But if my hon. friend can show me my statement, from an authoritative source-


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have not the statement
before me, but in view of the interruption of the Prime Minister I will say this, that I still have to learn what is the difference between fifty per cent and cutting in half.


Miss MACPHAIL:: The "half" is easier to remember.


Abraham Albert Heaps: To show that the Liberal party are not as earnest in their desire to reduce the protection that we have at the present time I will read a little circular that was brought to my attention. It deals with the textile industry. It was sent out by the Department of National Revenue, dated "Ottawa, 3rd December, 1937," and is numbered "Miscellaneous No. 14." It is as follows :
Upon checking the values of some recent importations of cotton yarns and cotton fabrics from the United States, it has been ascertained that the home market selling prices are less than the actual cost of production plus a reasonable advance for selling cost and profit, and it is therefore clear that in such cases the provisions of section 36 of the Customs Act have not been observed.
You are therefore instructed to accept entries of such goods imported from the United States at invoice values, only with an undertaking in writing from the importer or his agent to amend the entry if called on to do so should this be found warranted upon examination of the documents here in the department.
Many manufacturers engaged in our secondary industries have complained bitterly to me about the action of the Department of National Revenue in preventing them from purchasing textile goods in the United States at the same prices as those at which United States manufacturers can purchase them. Indeed it seems to me that there are some officials of the department who sit up nights trying to find ways and means of giving protection to the textile industries of this country. But what I want to point out is that these dumping duties, which were inveighed against by my hon. friends of the Liberal party, are being enforced by the Department of National Revenue just as vigorously to-day as ever they were in the past.
As I have heard some hon. member speak in different parts of the chamber I have wondered what the policy of the Liberal party is. Yesterday I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch). He was anxious that the government should do something; he felt very much disappointed because the government had not taken some

The Address-Mr. Heaps
definite line of action regarding the problems which confront us. Also I heard the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) urge the government to be true to the ideals of its past, or to the ideals of Liberalism. You have on the one hand a man who is an absolute free trader. You have other Liberal members from the west who also are anxious that the government do something towards reducing tariffs-a policy in which the farmers place so much faith. The fact is that if one looks carefully at the very large following of the Liberal party in this house one must be driven to the conclusion that there is in that party, as indeed there is in other parties in the house, no true alignment of political thought or expression.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a little bit of that among yourselves.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am free to admit that; I said other parties as well. There is no true alignment of political thought in the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why should there be?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, I was always under the impression that the only thing that should hold a party together was a common allegiance to a common purpose, in following an ideal; and where there is no such allegiance and no common purpose a group or party cannot be held together. So far the Liberal party has held together pretty well; I am free to admit that in the by-elections the people in certain parts of Canada have given them a majority of their votes. But a majority of votes in the country or a majority of members in this house means nothing in itself. The question is, for what purpose is the majority being used? For what purpose is the majority of the Liberal party in this house being used at the present time? In my humble opinion, the party cannot have a purpose, and cannot give permanent expression to an opinion, because there are too many opinions in the party. On the one hand we find some members declaring themselves in favour of retaining the padlock law in the province of Quebec, and on the other hand there are those who are opposed to this.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is why it is a Liberal party.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If that is Liberalism, then I say it is absolutely bankrupt.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And has been bankrupt for a long time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If it is Liberalism to be_ in favour of having the police and other officials going into the homes of men and women and confiscating literature that can be found in
any library in the country, police breaking into homes and threatening people with arrest, then I say that that is a strange sort of Liberalism. Is this Liberalism in 1938? Is this what the Liberal party is doing?


Charles Avery Dunning: No Liberal government is doing any such thing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We have a Liberal government that could have disallowed that legislation if it had wanted to; a Liberal government has allowed it to remain on the statute books of the country.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is not on the statute books of this country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is on the statute books of the province of Quebec, and I have an idea that the province of Quebec is still a part of the dominion.


Charles Avery Dunning: Only a part.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is just as much a part of the dominion as Alberta is, no more and no less; and if the power of disallowance can be exercised in one part of the country it can be exercised in another to safeguard the liberties of the people. But it is because there exist these contradictions within the ranks of the Liberal party that there is no definite policy on their part. I suggest that one of the main functions of a party in power is to hold its members together, to prevent the party from falling to pieces. But if the Liberal party took a definite stand on the tariff, for instance, what would happen? You would find those in favour of a low tariff fighting those who want a high tariff; you would find those who are in favour of the Quebec padlock law in conflict with those who are opposed to it. There are these teeming contradictions within the ranks of the party, and it takes an extremely careful and clever leader to hold all these divergent elements together.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: He is so busy doing that, he cannot do anything else.


Charles Avery Dunning: What do you do with, the fellows that disagree in your party?


Abraham Albert Heaps: We have differences in our party, but those who have differences have the good sense to get up and say so. In the ranks of the Liberal party, however, there is always something dangling in front of members to keep them in the fold. Sometimes it is a judgeship, sometimes a senatorship, or sometimes perhaps a secretaryship such as was foreshadowed in the speech from the throne a few years ago-something not yet carried out. I presume that at the time there
The Address-Mr. Heaps

were so many applications for these secretaryships that the government adopted the usual Liberal policy of doing nothing about it.
An hon. member has just pointed out to me a passage in Hansard of October 17, 1932, in connection with the Ottawa conference. At page 264 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made this statement:
May I go a step further and say in connection with that, so that there can be no mistake as to where we stand in the matter of British trade, and the British preference, that we would undertake to give to the trade of the United Kingdom, where goods are imported through Canadian ports, a British preference averaging _ fifty per cent of our general tariff. If there is anything in this particular agreement that is comparable to that of advantage to ourselves and to British peoples in trade, I hope we will find it out before this discussion is over.
What is mentioned here is a British preference averaging fifty per cent of our general tariff. Is that not one-half of the general tariff? The Prime Minister did not recollect having made that statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That statement is all right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to know what difference there is between a fifty per cent reduction and cutting something in half.


Charles Avery Dunning: As a matter of fact that promise has been pretty well carried out.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Here we are in the third session of this parliament and the people are still looking to the government to do something definite to ensure security, and freedom from the feeling of uncertainty that is to be found in practically all parts of Canada. It is true that in certain industries there is much greater production than a few years ago; we are free to admit that. But can anyone in this house tell us how much of that increased productivity is due to war preparations that are taking place in practically all parts of the world? We have never yet been told that. All we have been told is that there is an increase in production and in employment. Certain steel mills in this country are producing steel rails to send to South Africa. Why is it possible that we in Canada can produce steel rails and send them there in competition with Great Britain, Germany, Belgium and other countries which for many years have specialized in that class of material? The answer is obvious; those countries to-day are so busy in the production of munitions of war that they have not time or facilities available to execute orders for South Africa, with the result that the orders 
are coming to this country and providing work here. But who knows how long this state of things is going to last?
In the speech from the throne we are told that-
The government is convinced that in seeking to cooperate with the United Kingdom and other countries in efforts to promote international trade it is pursuing one of the most effective means of ensuring economic security and progress in Canada, and the betterment of conditions in other parts of the world.
Are we really doing what this sentence states? I doubt it. Does anyone here mean to say that we are promoting more friendly relations with the people of China when we send to Japan munitions with which to slaughter the Chinese people? Is that something of which we can be proud? We have heard in times past about our neutrality in respect to Spain, but when it comes to Japan and China we are free to break that neutrality and with materials that we produce here help to slaughter innocent women and children in China. Is that promoting better international relations? Are we promoting better international relations when indirectly the rebel forces in Spain can procure through intermediate sources munitions of war partly made in this country? Do hon. members think that the government of Spain will have a kindlier and more friendly feeling towards us on that account?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What about the intervention of the Russian government?


Abraham Albert Heaps: My hon. friend who is interrupting can make his own speech.
When we are told that by sending goods abroad we are promoting goodwill between the different peoples of the world, I question whether that is an accepted fact. Once having taken a neutral position in regard to the Spanish situation I would think it preferable that we take exactly the same position in regard to the Sino-Japanese situation. It is just as logical in the one case as the other. There is nothing to be said in defence of our action except that those who produce munitions of war will profit by the action of this government in allowing munitions to be shipped from Canada to Japan. And when attention is invited to the condition of so-called prosperity I am inclined to look more closely to find out what it really means. It is true that there are more men at work at the present time, thanks to the preparations for war going on in various parts of the world. But suppose before very long the nations which are preparing for war catch up in the

The Address-Mr. Heaps
armament race, what is going to happen to the tens of thousands of workers in this country who to-day are working on preparations for war? In a year or so from now Great Britain will perhaps have caught up in the armament race; the money she is spending in Great Britain and which indirectly finds its way to this country will cease to flow here, and we shall be faced with a slump probably as great as if not greater than that which we experienced in 1929-30.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: It is not always safe to prophesy.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There was a time when my hon. friends opposite were not so anxious to interrupt what I had to say, when I would get more applause from them than I am receiving to-day. But I can tell them that I am just as honest in my convictions to-day as I was twelve years ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear. That is
better.


Abraham Albert Heaps: This parliament has a grave responsibility. It can sit idly by and, Micaw-ber-like, hope for something to turn up. But I claim it must deal definitely and effectively with the problems that confront us. We must realize the changed world and changed conditions in which we live. Recent years have completely revolutionized the social and economic structure. We cannot deal with present day problems on the basis of ideas that may have served in the nineteenth century. There is no stronger aid to fascism and all that it stands for than to create the impression that parliament is either unable or unwilling to deal effectively with present day economic conditions. I know the great and powerful forces of an economic nature that often stand between a government and needed reforms, but if parliament is all-powerful, as it should be and could be, then such forces as stand in the way of needed economic changes must be swept aside, and the will of parliament and the people must prevail.
In my opinion the masses of this country, in spite of the results of by-elections, still feel that the government of the day is not coming to grips with the real problems that confront us, the paramount one of course being that of economic security. The search for mythical markets abroad may sound alluring to some, but that is not an effective means of remedying conditions at home. There is no reason why in order to distribute amongst our own people the goods produced in Canada we should depend on foreign countries. Must
we tell our people that before we can consume the goods that we produce here we must first find export markets? I think we all realize that our distributive system is out of harmony with the times in which we live. It is not a case of tariff adjustment one way or the other, it is a definite clear case of giving to the Canadian people the fruits of their own enterprise and energy so that they may enjoy the products of their labours.
The time has arrived when hon. members must shed their party labels and think more of their constituents than of the party whips.
I can think of no time when the responsibilities of members of parliament were greater than they are to-day. Throughout the world far-reaching changes are taking place. In all parts we see social and economic upheavals; even in Canada we cannot escape their effects. Under these circumstances it is the bounden duty of parliament so to shape the destiny of this dominion that our people will have grounds for hope that parliament is earnestly dealing with the pressing problems of the day. I am afraid that there is no such impression at present. We are not dealing effectively with the problems of poverty or insecurity. If to-day I ask the house to give some real lead in regard to these social problems it is only something that I have been doing for the past twelve years.
So little encouragement, I regret to say, is afforded in the speech from the throne, that I cannot vote in favour of the address. But it is my earnest hope that the government will yet give the nation a lead, that instead of continuing to be one of the backward nations of the empire in matters of social progress we shall take our rightful place at the head of those countries which are leading the way towards a more just and better social era.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, this would seem to be an appropriate occasion for me to give expression to a few thoughts I have held for some time, and in doing so I want to follow the good example of toleration and moderation that has characterized this debate thus far. It has been quite a contrast with the debate following the election of 1925, much, I think, to the credit of the present debate. It also has been worthy of note how much of our time during this debate has been spent in discussing fiscal matters, which naturally would be expected to follow the budget. Experience has proved, however, that if you want any changes of a major nature made in the budget you must have them made in advance of the budget speech, because seldom are any but minor
The Address-Mr. Motherwell

changes made after the budget is brought down. Another reason, perhaps, why we have taken so much time in discussing fiscal matters is that we are all concerned with home budgets; hence we are talking about them here in a national way.
The thoughts I have had in mind are expressed to some extent in a statement that has been prepared by the appropriate department showing the fluctuations in our tariffs during the past sixty years. Do not take alarm; I am not going to dwell on each of the sixty years, but I would like to point out the little progress we have made in either direction, up or down-and especially down- during those years. I am going to mention a number of elections which were fought primarily on tariff matters, and when we consider these figures, which I obtained from an accurate source, those of us who believe in low tariffs must ask ourselves if we have been talcing the best possible way to get the greatest results.
In the year of confederation the general tariff on major commodities in which farmers are interested was 15 per cent, and a large number of items are given in the statement I have before me. That situation continued until 1878, when Alexander Mackenzie's administration went out of office. Then and there followed the first battle of tariffs of which I am aware, between the government of Alexander Mackenzie and the party under the leadership of Sir John Macdonald. The former, heading a low tariff party, was defeated; the latter came into power with a high tariff policy which was brought inter force in 1879, when tariffs were shot up pretty generally, almost as they were in 1930.
Later on, in 1891, the Liberals went to the country on a tariff policy of unrestricted reciprocity. Sir John A. Macdonald was still in the saddle. The Liberal policy practically meant a reversion to the old conditions of reciprocity which obtained between 1854 and 1866, but, as might have been expected, our opponents took advantage of the opportunity to alarm the people as to what unrestricted reciprocity would mean, although it had been in force for twelve years. They raised the cry of annexation. So thoroughly was that campaign carried on that I almost voted Tory myself, because I did not at all like the idea of annexation, and if unrestricted reciprocity meant that, then I did not want any of it. We are not so scared by these cries now as we were in those days, although the fact that Edward Blake resigned the leadership of the Liberal party at that time because he thought unrestricted reciprocity would lead in that direction, gave some colour to the cry raised
rMr. Motherwell.]
by our opponents. Seeing that they are so prolific in the production of cries of that nature I am not so much surprised that they took advantage of that opportunity, and, as already stated, almost converted your humble servant to their way of thinking.
That was in 1891, and that was a terrific battle of tariffs. Then in 1894, when Sir George Foster was Minister of Finance, a considerable reduction was made. You will remember that period, I think; he was going to lop off, and did lop off, the mouldering branches of protection. Consequently there was a considerable reduction in that year, especially on farm implements. That did not save the government of that day from defeat. I have found that death-bed repentances on the part of governments, in connection with tariffs or anything else, do not amount to very much. They are not very effective. By the time that active repentance comes along the mind of the people is pretty well made up and you might as well save your last moment repentance, because you are going to get it in the neck anyway.
Following the election of 1896 there was a considerable reduction of tariffs, though the reductions were not so great as they would have been if Sir George Foster had not anticipated it and reduced tariffs himself, although without any beneficial results to his party. In 1897 again there were considerable reductions, though not nearly what we had hoped for. Anyway, we kept on living in hope, until finally in 1911 the great proposal for freer trade with the American republic was brought down in the form of what is known as the reciprocity agreement.
On that occasion again our friends of the Conservative party excelled themselves in propaganda as to the horrors that this would lead to, in the matter of annexation. I do not want to picture this too vividly; that seems to be their major cry in any campaign and especially with respect to tariffs and treating our neighbours more generously. The election of 1911 resulted in the defeat of the Liberal party. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that inasmuch as the Liberal party, with Sir Wilfrid Laurier at its head, sacrificed its political life on behalf of Canadian, and particularly western, agriculture, it always seemed to me most ungrateful that a third party should spring up at a later date, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was still available for endorsation. Let me repeat that. The Liberal party went out of power in 1911 fighting on behalf of Canadian agriculture, particularly in the west.

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
Then in 1917 there was another general election. The less we say about that election the better. It was not on tariffs; it was on a lot of other things, the War-time Elections Act and such like. Then in the latter part of 1921 the first King administration came into power, and our policy was to reduce tariffs by "easy stages" of about two and a *half per cent at a time. I think it was my hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) who coined that phrase when he wanted to allay the fears of the protectionists, when he was at the head of the Progressive party. I am afraid my own leader adopted it later on. Those easy stages, I think, are sound economically, but they are absolutely no good politically. You nip off a little bit here, a little bit there and a little bit somewhere else, but the aggregate is not nearly so apparent as when you take it and cut it in two. So I would in a friendly way warn the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) not to be too easy in his stages of tariff reductions. However in 1930, when the Dunning budget was brought down, in justice to my own party and my own leader I was proud-and am still proud-to say that we had the lowest tariff since confederation on implements of production. But the issues of high or low tariff do not seem to figure very much in a campaign in which the tide is either for or against you. For instance, the low tariff province of Saskatchewan split nearly even in 1930. Only eleven Liberals were elected out of twenty-one and the rest were either Conservatives or members of some other adverse group.
Then, in September of the same year, after the Liberals had been condemned for low tariffs by a province which should have known better, the people voted for a party which shot up the tariff, not by easy stages, but like a sky-rocket. All that happened despite the fact that tariff was not the predominant issue of the election of 1930. We will remember that butter figured far more conspicuously than the tariff did. Nevertheless the right hon. the leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Bennett) on that occasion lived up to his promises and, in a twinkling, gave us higher tariffs throughout Canada. I do not know whether that was the right way to do it, but it did not work out very well for his party.


William Earl Rowe: It worked well for the country.


William Richard Motherwell: The people soon changed their minds. Hard times steadily grew harder, and by 1935 we did not hear any more talk about high tariffs; the leader of the 51952-17
Conservative party then wanted reciprocity with the United States. That was a remarkable conversion, in some respects almost greater than that of St. Paul. I do not think there was ever a more zealous campaign against any issue than that which was lodged by the present leader of the opposition throughout Canada against reciprocity in 1911. But, presto chango, we find him going down to Washington to try to consummate a treaty, with the words "no truck or trade with the Yankees " still echoing throughout the country.
That brings us up to the 1935 election. I think I shall have to confess that I was just as rabid in my determination to get lower tariffs for the west as were my opponents to get higher tariffs. Looking backward I do not think we went about it in the right way at all. How can we expect a minority in the west to overcome, overpower and overdominate the great industrial majority in the east? It is not democratic. At all events, it is not representative government and in my estimation it is not the right way to go about it. In the last sixty years, as the result of these periodical battles we entered into with such ardour, what have we got but a lot of turmoil and a lot of good time spent-worse than wasted-and a great deal of ill feeling engendered between the east and the west? In the end we got very little, anyway, that remained permanent.
I believe the Minister of Finance should face the fact that there are many items which still bear duties from twenty-five per cent to forty-five per cent, and in making up his budget I would ask him to give particular attention to them. No matter how much we in the west or others in low tariff provinces have the tariff reduced, it will still be higher than we want. In other words, no common tariff has yet been devised to suit all parts of Canada, and particularly to suit the western provinces. What are we going to do or say about it?
I wish to thank the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for using the words "compensatory adjustment" in his excellent address of yesterday. I believe they are better than the word "compensation," which I had intended to use, but they mean the same thing. We have been barking up the wrong tree in our proper efforts to get lower tariffs. Even if we get it right or nearly right, as we did in May, 1930, in the Dunning budget, the electors may take a notion that they want it up again. That is futile. I have too few years longer to live to spend them in that kind of everchanging thing. I want to try the principle of compensatory adjustment as suggested by the Minister of Labour.



The Address-Mr. Motherwell
Well, what does compensatory adjustment mean? Let us first consider my own word, compensation. When confederation was established the maritime provinces were a little leary about coming into it. They thought they were so small territorially and so small numerically, although giants in other respects, that their weight would not properly be felt in the parliament of Canada. For that, they were given a compensatory adjustment by way of larger representation in the senate. Because of the grievances they had advanced, I think there was some ground for that action. But what I want to bring out is this, that whether the principle was right or wrong, it was endorsed and applied.
Then later, when the new prairie provinces came into existence, inasmuch as we had no debt-that would be a fine thing to be able to say to-day-a special grant was given to us in lieu of debt, to put us on a basis of equality with the other provinces. As may be recalled, the original four provinces absorbed the provincial debts of those respective provinces. The western provinces coming in, and having no debt, were, as already indicated, given grants in lieu of debt. There is the principle of compensation, and it has been recognized ever since.
Later on the Conservative party of 1931, which I thought was at that time doing everything in the worst way possible, adopted the policy of compensation through the five cent bonus on wheat. I believe, at least, that the idea was that of compensation. By that compensatory provision they gave about $12,000,000 in bonuses to farmers who needed it least; I never knew how they compensated the poor fellows who had no crops. Those moneys were paid entirely on a bushelage rather than an acreage basis.
I believe however that I am wandering away from my point. It is that the principle of compensation has been recognized by all parties since confederation. It must be recognized in our homes and our respective occupations. Not a day passes but what some kind of compromise or compensation is made everywhere, from the state right down to the honest peasant in his home. There would be no such thing as living peaceably together unless there was a great measure of compromise and compensation.
I do not need to elaborate upon the soundness of the principle. One must wonder, however, how it will work out. As the Minister of Labour pointed out in his memorandum, what are we going to get in lieu of the high tariffs? Certain injustices are bound to arise in a high tariff policy imposed upon rural Canada. Do we wish to keep the provinces suffering in perpetuity those injustices in that

condition, or are we going to respond to the disciplining effect of the times in which we are living, when the international situation seems bent on self-destruction, and when the whole world may be thrown into the vortex of war in the twinkling of an eye.
The dogs of war may be unleashed at a moment's notice. I do not wish to anticipate it, but we must remember that we ought to be in the best possible shape to meet the worst which may develop. We ought not to be caught unprepared. The way to be prepared is to look after our own home affairs; we ought to have them working as harmoniously as possible, and not go into war in the midst of national turmoil at home, as we did the last time in 1914. It is bad enough to go into it, and in all conscience I hope we may never have to, but let us anticipate possibilities. I am not making these statements because I happen to belong to the party in power; as a matter of fact, sometimes I would like to be in the opposition for just a few minutes. I am not pleading for conciliation or toleration because I fear that somebody will attack the government; not at all; but it is better for the state and for everybody that we should live as harmoniously as possible during these perilous times. This method of lowering and raising tariffs is sometimes called scientific, but it is nothing of the kind. It is based largely on the exigencies of the occasion. I say that we should not waste our energies in the manner I have described. What kind of compensation do I refer to? What are we to get in lieu of this high tariff that has been imposed on us during all these years? Before entering on that, may I condense into a few short sentences what I have tried to say in a somewhat rambling manner?
Every legitimate and reasonable effort should be made to reduce the customs tariff, particularly on the implements of production, consistent with revenue requirements. So long as the middle west's interests continue to be largely agricultural and its representation in parliament so relatively small, and the central east so largely industrial and its representation in parliament so relatively large, no common tariff can be devised that will satisfy both, if we are to preserve the principle of majority rule and representative government. On the other hand, neither should the majority impose upon the minority in Canada a high protective tariff that has been so burdensome to agriculture, particularly in the prairie west, as to cause constantly growing feelings of resentment against such transparent injustice. While our customs tariffs have varied in height from time to

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
time, depending upon which party was in power, no tariff has yet been devised that has proven satisfactory to the middle prairie west, nor is it likely to be in the immediate future unless some method of compensation for losses sustained by such minority already alluded to be adopted and put into equitable operation.
Now I will give the house what I have in mind, and I am giving only my own thoughts; I do not represent anybody except my constituents, and I am not sure that I represent them all the time, because when I talk about compensation, their idea may be to keep on fighting wildcats all the time. At my years I am just a little bit out of that class; but I intend to persevere, first, in getting the tariff down as low as possible by every reasonable and honourable means, and then let us make up for the deficiency by some form of compensation. I have two suggestions in that regard. First, we want, not a wheat board, but a grain board. We want one that is selfsustaining and non-hibernating, if you can guess what kind that is, and the implications involved. I use that word so that a lot of people will have to look up their dictionary. I repeat that the grain board should be selfsustaining and non-hibernating. This is not the appropriate time, I realize, to go into the grain marketing problem, because we have a competent and capable commission studying that question and the country is now anxiously awaiting its report. Pending its arrival I shall have to pass on, somewhat regretfully, to the other compensation that I have in mind!
Shortly after the west began to be settled in the early days-that is, exclusive of the old Selkirk settlement and the settlement around Portage la Prairie-the Hudson Bay railway became a live issue. Cruel people say that it always was used as an election football. Well, maybe it was. Those forty miles of rails that ran north of Winnipeg never got us anywhere, except that they were to somebody's advantage-I do not know whose. But it was a live issue all through the years since 1880. We were just like other countries similarly situated. There is a feeling in the breast of every nation that makes them seek the shortest route to the sea. That was the case long years ago, long before Solomon, whether it was by caravans over the desert or by the seven seas. There has always been that inherent instinct in the human breast to reach the seaboard by the shortest and safest possible route. That is what we were desirous of in the west, but it took us a long while to attain it, until at last Sir Wilfrid Laurier, coming back from a trip in the west, was again prepared to make
the sacrifice largely for the west, because naturally there was not much love for it displayed in the east.
In the city of Hamilton in 1908 Sir Wilfrid Laurier pledged his party to tire construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Then the matter hung fire for a while, but not long afterwards the bridge over The Pas was under construction when a change of government took place. Contracts were let to a point called Split Lake for the construction of the road, and then again we had a change of government at a critical time. But the new government carried on the construction of the road, and headed it for Port Nelson. I am not going to enter into the old story of how the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), then Minister of Railways, in a most expeditious way, as soon as he got the report of Sir Frederick Palmer, changed the terminus from Port Nelson to Fort Churchill. There you have a real port. I do not know for sure who it was that had blundered in choosing Port Nelson, but I know that the whole undertaking was pretty nearly ruined and would have been ruined if the road had run into Port Nelson. Well, we now have this port at Fort Churchill, and it is not doing very much. How could you expect it to do much at the beginning, when the insurance rate on the Hudson Bay route was eight times as much as on the St. Lawrence route? You could not expect traffic to seek the Hudson Bay outlet with such an enormous handicap in the matter of marine insurance.
And there was always something happening to injure the route. We know the story of the Bright Fan and its drunken shipmaster. That was all brought out in evidence. I do not know whether he ever got a certificate again for running a boat across the Atlantic, but he never should have received a certificate in the first place to shipmaster a boat through the, to him, strange waters of Hudson strait, where people's lives and property, and the reputation of the route were at stake.
But now we have the Hudson Bay railway; we have a good roadbed; we have a good port, and we have a good elevator. Of course, with our restricted crops, the traffic must be meagre for some time, but I was wondering if we could not get some kind of move on in anticipation of better crops. One of the difficulties with the Hudson Bay route, we are told, is the short open season, and that is one of the difficulties; but so far as good water is concerned and so far as safety is concerned, many shipmasters who have taken cargoes of wheat out of Fort Churchill declare that it is just as safe a route as any other in Canada with seasonal ports. I
The Address-Mr. Motherwell

am not a nautical authority at all, and I do not pretend to be ; but I know that good water, lots of depth and width, is absolutely necessary to successful navigation, and I know that Captain Bernier gave evidence before the grain commission in 1925 in the province of Quebec with respect to his experience on this route. I have not a copy of his evidence with me, but if anybody wants further information on the matter, any member of that grain commission, and particularly the chairman thereof, will be able to confirm everything I say regarding Captain Bernier's evidence.
He was master, or second master, of a ship when he was only seventeen years of age, and he traversed those northern waters almost continuously in the employ of the government until he was seventy-five years old. I had the privilege of meeting him here in the Chateau Laurier about four or five years ago, when we went all over this evidence that he gave, and he reported that he was more than ever firmly convinced that what I am going to mention would be the proper course to pursue. The present period is too short for the route to be open to provide it with a sufficient volume of business, and without volume hardly any business can be profitable. You cannot grow one acre or even twenty acres of wheat and equip yourself with machinery and make the operation pay. So it is with this new outlet; we must get the volume in order to do a reasonable proportion of the business which will be available when our crops come back, as they will do sooner or later.
Captain Bernier testified before the grain commission in 1925 in the province of Quebec, and took the ground that not only was this a possible route, a workable route, but that it had a great future, and that the proper port was Churchill. Not only that, but he observed that the greatest handicap would be the shortness of the season, and he advocated that the government provide the necessary boat equipment, strengthen and reinforce it, to take care of new ice conditions in those northern waters. As hon. members know, when the ice is forming in the fall of the year, Fort Churchill can be kept open two weeks later by Ihe use of a boat that would not be called an ice-breaker but could open up the way during at least the formation of ice in the early fall and at the same time could be used for transporting grain. I am not an authority; I am quoting Captain Bernier, who said that a number of suitable reinforced boats which would stand considerable pressure of ice could be used for transporting wheat and at the same time for keeping that route open .two weeks earlier in the spring and two weeks
IMr. Motherwell.]
later in the fall. That makes a month and would give us a maximum period of four months' safe transportation over that route to the world's markets. This evidence was taken a long while ago-thirteen years-and I have scarcely heard of it since. I do not wish to magnify anything I have done, but I think I did contribute a little towards getting that route built to the right port.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very much.


William Richard Motherwell: Alone I certainly could not have done it. I do not know whether my good friend and old colleague wishes me to extol him for the masterly part he played in a crisis, but I can assure him the people of the west give him full credit for it. One way to compensate us would be to see whether somehow or another that period of safe navigation could be lengthened. As far as I know there has been no attempt to do this. We have suitable direction-finding stations established, and if these shores were lighted and appropriately equipped as those of the St. Lawrence, this would add considerably to the safety of the route. I admit freely that considerable progress has been made in the above direction, but now is the time to consider whether that route is built for ornamental purposes or for practical use. I think decidedly it could be made fit for practical use. I do not like to suggest any expenditures at this time, but the subject should be carefully studied. Look up and study Captain Bernier's report. If you cannot get it, consult the chairman of the commission before whom his evidence was taken. Possibly the report is in the archives of the university of Saskatchewan. Governments cannot keep all these volumes of evidence indefinitely, but we will try to find it.
I hope that our eastern friends, who naturally are interested in eastern ports, will consider the question we have been discussing. A member of the government has suggested that we have "compensating adjustments." Will hon. members adjust their views regarding this matter and permit us to have the natural, inherent instincts of the human breast gratified by reaching tidewater with our exports as quickly and as safely as possible. That is one of the long heart's desires of the west. Alberta is not much interested, if at all. British Columbia had not always the Panama canal; it had not always the Crows-nest pass rates extended to the Pacific. I think fellow Canadians from other parts of Canada can join with us and be tolerant of our little ambitions and nostrums-if you like to call them that. The Hudson Bay railway is a reality. We have now to see whether we can

The Address-Mr. Lawson
make some practical use of it, and this is the way I respectfully suggest that it should be gone about.
I believe I have covered what I wanted to say at present; in any case my forty minutes are almost up. There are a number of other problems I should like to speak about, but they will be more properly said later in the session, after the various reports have been tabled.
Hon. J. EARL LAWSON (York South) It is not my purpose this afternoon to discuss fiscal policy, so I shall not attempt to follow the remarks of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) but rather devote my attention to those of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe).
When the Minister of Transport started his address this afternoon I came to the conclusion, after his first few sentences, that he was performing the painful duty of answering for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the House of Commons; but before he finished he left no doubt in my mind that he as a responsible minister of the government was approving their actions and approving their recommendations that the licence fee should be increased from S2 to $2.50 per annum, and that each individual radio should be licensed. The minister pointed out that the two bills previously passed in the house in connection with radio broadcasting were passed by a unanimous vote. Lest the impression should have been left that those of us who did not vote against the measure therefore spontaneously approved it, I should point out that we who did not agree in all its details with that measure merely followed the unanimous recommendation of a committee of the house, which recommendation, for reasons that I shall state in a moment and that were then presented to the house, we did not see fit to oppose.
The minister said this afternoon that he was willing to pay for three radio licences at the increased rate. Possibly he and I can well afford to do so, 'but that does not lend any weight to the argument on this question. The vast majority of radios in this country are owned by people whose incomes are so meagre that it is a burden to pay $2, much less S2.50 for a radio licence.
I want to make it clear at the outset that the present Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is not the tribunal which was set up by the original radio act passed by the former government in 1932. That was all scrapped with the advent of the Liberal party in 1936.


An hon. MEMBER:: In 1935.


James Earl Lawson: The legislation was introduced in 1936. The advent of the Liberal party was in 1935, but so far as this house was concerned the government introduced its legislation in the session of 1936, and the present act is their responsibility. The present Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was set up by this government.
No law is any better than its administration, and where the administration of a law does not work for the benefit of the people of Canada, then, under our democratic system, the responsibility devolves upon the government of bringing in a measure to change that law. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), who spoke this afternoon, expressed a view that, coming from him, was rather a surprise to me, to the effect that he had a suspicion that those who opposed the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its activities had some interest or ulterior motive. Let me say to him that I have no financial interest of any kind in any radio station, in any magazine, in any newspaper, in any interest that conflicts with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, nor in my professional practice have I any client who has such an interest.
The minister spoke of the committees which heard evidence on radio broadcasting prior to 1932. How well I remember the one that was not a parliamentary committee. Prior to 1932 a committee was set up, and represented upon it were the business element, the church element, the labour element, charitable and philanthropic societies, every phase of Canadian activity. That committee made a recommendation in favour of the nationalization of the radio. But why? With the object primarily of promoting Canadian unity. We in this house were told that the Americanization of this dominion by United States programs was the dominant factor behind the decision of the committee and of the parliament of that day to bring in a broadcasting act, and that another primary purpose was to develop in Canada all the varied resources of radio entertainment, in other words, that we might develop Canadian talent. We were to provide work for Canadian musicians, Canadian playwrights, Canadian actors, Canadian singers and Canadian technicians. Any members who were in the house at the time will remember that we were to limit advertising. We were told that it was this advertising which was so reprehensible to Canadian listeners, and all this boon we were to receive for the small sum of $1 per licence.
The radio commission was established in 1932 and struggled during its existence to improve Canadian programs, and I am not going
The Address-Mr. Lawson

to suggest that that commission or the one which is now in existence has not made some improvement in Canadian programs. I remember that one of the early acts of the old ' radio commission was to limit advertising on the air to the maximum of five minutes to the hour. Well, we had the advent of this new Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 1936. We were told that in accomplishing our purpose it was going to be far superior to the old commission. It was to have a board of governors, upon which there were to be astute business men, and it was to be representative of all phases of Canadian activity. A new era was to dawn. After two years it has dawned, and it has dawned with a huge increase in United States advertising.
I have spoken of the representations made in this parliament as to the Americanization of Canada through the penetration of United States advertising. The minister in his speech to-day repeated the figures given by the chairman of the broadcasting corporation when he delivered an address a while ago in which he told us about the number of hours-eight and three-quarters out of ninety-eight-that were given up to United States advertising. He said:
Advertising programs originating in the United States occupied eight and three-quarter hours of the ninety-eight hours broadcast weekly over the CBC network.
I do not know whether that gentleman, and the minister this afternoon, intended to create the impression, by that statement which has gone abroad, that eight and three-quarter hours constituted the only United States programs we were receiving, because what he meant and what the minister meant was that out of ninety-eight hours the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were being paid for only eight and three-quarter hours of United States programs. If you take the very schedule produced by the chairman you will find that the total United States programs, in whatever week he took, amounted to twenty-six and one-quarter hours out of ninety-eight hours of broadcasting. Bear in mind that I am speaking now of the penetration of Canada, of the Americanization of Canada by United States programs. I quite agree with the minister that music is international, and unfortunately, not being on the investigating committee, I have no means of access to the records of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I have some familiarity only with the station in the neighbourhood from which I come. But hon. members will notice that when I asked the minister this afternoon as to the number of hours of United States broadcasting we have from CBL, the new

50.000	watt station near Toronto, which gives broadcasting coverage for the whole province of Ontario. I found that there was thirty-five per cent of commercial broadcasting, eighteen per cent of which is commercial United States broadcasting, which the minister explained meant paid advertising. I could not do anything with the figures he mentioned, because I do not know the week to which they relate.
The radio corporation sends out a bulletin issued in advance showing its programs for each week, and I took the trouble to have made, from the bulletin they turned out for this week, commencing with February 6, a chart which I now show to the members of the house. Every space marked in red on the chart is broadcasting in Canada by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of a program originating in the United States. What proportion of them is paid advertising I have no means of ascertaining without having access to the records of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
The minister says that the total radio broadcasting by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is ninety-eight hours. That again may apply to chain broadcasting. I am referring to CBL. But bear in mind that when I refer to CBL I am dealing with one-third of the population of Canada-I shall prove that before I finish. According to the bulletin turned out by the broadcasting corporation, from which that chart is computed, of 112J broadcasting hours during this very week, 48 hours are occupied by United States programs. Again I cannot say what proportion is United States paid advertising. Now percentages sometimes are deceptive. When the minister tells us that eighteen per cent of the time of CBL is taken up with United States advertising programs that does not give a correct picture, because we must bear in mind that the most advantageous hours of broadcasting are recognized to be from eight a.m. to eleven a.m. and six p.m. to eleven p.m., with the exception of Saturday night. Let me turn back to that same chart, so that the house may have a picture of the position from eight a.m. to eleven a.m. every day of this week, everything shown in red being United States programs. The result is that on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, you have one hour of Canadian programs between eight a.m. and eleven a.m., and on Saturday only half an hour.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask a question?


James Earl Lawson: Yes.

The Address-Mr. Lawson


Mr HOWE:: Are the hours between eight a.m. and eleven a.m. the advantageous hours spoken of?


James Earl Lawson: So I am told by broadcasters.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is very interesting.


James Earl Lawson: The largest audience is reached between eight a.m. and eleven a.m. except the audience reached between six p.m. and eleven p.m.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I wish you were our salesman to sell that time.


James Earl Lawson: Apparently the corporation is not having any difficulty in selling it, in view of the cut rates. I shall come to that before I finish. Now, referring to the hours between six p.m. and eleven pm., the choicest hours of all with the exception of Saturday night, by observing that chart one will see that there are more United States programs than Canadian programs during those hours. With what result? With this result, that as the greatest number of listeners are reached between the hours I mentioned, the Canadian-sponsored broadcasts can be had only at the off hours, and the consequence of that is that the entertainers engaged for Canadian-sponsored programs receive small pay. In fact the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation pays singers and entertainers for broadcast programs |5, $7.50 and $10 per performance. Is that the encouragement we were told was to be given to Canadian talent in this country? The minister mentioned Sir Ernest MacMillan. Sir Ernest MacMillan heads one of the finest musical organizations in the country, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, an orchestra which is maintained in large measure by public subscription, and which, in order to exist, has employed some of the finest musicians in this country at salaries so meagre that hon. members would find them incredible. Sir Ernest MacMillan was considered such a great Canadian musician and composer that he was knighted by His Majesty the King. May I ask why we have never had the Toronto Symphony Orchestra broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a sustaining program? If Canadians are anxious to listen to Sir Ernest MacMillan leading the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, how much better it would be if Americans were listening to Sir Ernest MacMillan leading his own symphony orchestra in Canada. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) spoke of the joy he had in hearing the opening of the United States congress. I sincerely hope he was able to hear it through to the end, because I was listening to a broadcast of
His Excellency the Governor General of Canada addressing the Scottish curlers when they were here, and it was cut off in the middle in order to bring on the Packard Motor Car program from the United States.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask the hon. member to what station he was listening?


James Earl Lawson: I am sorry I cannot tell.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member was listening to a private station, for that could never happen on a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation station.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was listening in and I heard every word of the governor general's speech from beginning to end.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: So did I.


James Earl Lawson: In that event the Prime Minister must have been listening to a different station.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a CBC station.


James Earl Lawson: May I say to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) that I understood the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation not only operates stations but controls all stations in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member is entirely wrong.


James Earl Lawson: Pardon me, I am entirely right, and I shall read the statute if I have time left before I sit down.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Read it now.


James Earl Lawson: I am not going to read it now because I have much more important things to say than reading a statute at this moment. This is the development of Canadian talent and Canadian ideals which we are getting from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; this is the policy for which we are asked to pay increased licence fees. To those who may be labouring under the belief that programs now being heard are of an essentially educational and inspirational nature, designed to create and inspire a clearer concept of Canadian ideals, one has but to listen to the programs broadcast from time to time. It may be that there are those who like blackface comedians and Charlie McCarthy and the Stroud twins; I listen to it myself. Like the Minister of Transport and the Board of Governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, those who wish can now get a twenty-inch high cardboard facsimile of the dummy Charlie McCarthy by buying four pounds of dated coffee and sending in the coupons.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Made in Canada.
The Address-Mr. Lawson


James Earl Lawson: No, no coffee is made in Canada; it comes from Brazil. What happens is that Chase & Sanborn ship the beans in here and grind and package them in Montreal for Canadian consumption.


John Gordon Ross: Have you any objection?


James Earl Lawson: I think we may well ask in all seriousness what educational programs, what rich incidents of Canadian historical drama, what cultural aspects of Canadian life, what encouragement to Canadian practitioners of the arts have found a place in the program planning of the great Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Make no mistake, I am not objecting to the broadcasting as sustaining programs of Charlie McCarthy or United States programs of any kind. But I am objecting to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation prostituting the purposes for which it was created by statute and charging the Canadian listeners increased licence fees for doing it, while our United States cousins can listen to it all and pay not a cent for it. That is the thing to which I am objecting.
Now I said I would come back to advertising. I said that formerly the Canadian radio commission placed a maximum limit on advertising of five minutes to the hour. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation when it came into power immediately doubled the maximum, making it ten minutes to the hour. Then recently they brought in a new policy, which is to solicit and sell to United States advertisers broadcasting time over our air channels in competition with the private stations which I again say the corporation has power to control.
Now let me come back to the chart for a moment. I stated that I had no means of knowing what percentage of the total of the United States programs was paid advertising. I have to accept the statement made by the chairman of the broadcasting corporation in this speech, in which he tells us that the revenue of the corporation from this source for this fiscal year will be about $400,000, and they want to reach a total of $500,000. If they are to obtain $500,000 net, Mr. Speaker, by the time they pay commissions to advertising solicitors and the different commissions paid to the stations they will have to raise at least $750,000 gross. While I am talking about paying I should like to know who paid the broadcasting corporation for this national broadcast by the chairman of that corporation? If it was paid for with the money of the people, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I want to know if anyone

who is opposed to the policy of that corporation, as now accepted by the minister, is going to be given an opportunity of presenting the other side of the case. If not I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we will set up in this country a bureaucracy which ultimately will destroy this parliament if we put into the hands of any small group of men the power to broadcast their views with the cost paid by the people, raised in taxes, while they charge me $3,000 an hour for a coast to coast broadcast in order to give some picture of the other side of the question.
We are told by Mr. Brockington that he only wants advertising revenue up to $500,000 from this new scheme of selling advertising to the United States, and he says he only wants that until we are self-supporting from other sources. What are the other sources? The moment he ceases to take that advertising the only other source is the poor Canadian taxpayer who is going to have his radio licence fee increased not by fifty cents but by five dollars in order to raise the money required. Mr. Brockington says he only wants to sell this advertising until such time as he attains that happy position. That tempts me to repeat some comment I read in some paper, that it was exactly similar to a bank robber saying, "I only want two more hold-ups and then I will reform. I will have enough then with which to retire and live pleasantly for the rest of my days."
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, by the solicitation of United States advertising, is causing a serious loss to many industries in this country. There is only a fixed appropriation for advertising in Canada. That appropriation must be divided between national magazines, local magazines, weekly press, daily press, signboards and the radio. To the extent that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation participates in that advertising appropriation some other medium must lose. I believe private enterprise is willing to accept competition on an equal basis, but I say the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is using the money of the people as a subsidy to enable it to undersell private enterprise.
Let me show why I say that. In order to broadcast you have to lease wire lines. A private station leasing wire lines has to anticipate the total number of hours it is going to broadcast in any one day. Obviously it cannot get sponsored programs for the whole of the day. Therefore it has to pay wire charges for hours from which it gets no revenue. Consequently in fixing its prices



S, 1938

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Lawson
for time on the air it has to take into account the hours during which it is using sustaining programs. The broadcasting corporation also has to lease wires for the number of hours it is going to use them during the day. But when it comes to fixing the price which it is going to charge the advertiser on a sponsored program for any hour, it does not have to make the rate as high as the private station, because the corporation says: Oh, the advertiser is paying the rate for that hour, and the money we raise from the people of Canada by taxation is paying for the other hours.
To-day the minister said there was a standard rate and that anybody could buy time on the air at that rate. I challenge that statement. I have in my hand a comparative schedule published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the costs of each station, beside which I have the standard rate which I am asked to pay if I go to a private station. Again I will take the station I know best. CBL in Toronto. The published rate of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for one-half hour over CBL is S180. The standard rate-
Clarence Decatur Howe: Is the hon. gentleman reading the rate for CBL as part of the chain or individually?


James Earl Lawson: I am reading it as part
of the chain.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Then may I point out that the hon. gentleman is comparing two things which cannot be compared. If he will read the tariff for station CBL as a single station he will have something comparable with a private station.


James Earl Lawson: All right; I am only talking about the private station as a private station. I have no chain figures available. The rate for CBL, as published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for one-half hour is $180. The standard rate, based upon a private station cost plus five per cent, is $165. As I stand in the house at the moment making this speech there sits in the Chateau Laurier a man with a contract in his pocket for a halfhour over that station at $120 less ten per cent, less fifteen per cent. That is why I challenge the statement made by the minister this afternoon.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I ask if that last price was for a chain broadcast or an individual broadcast?


James Earl Lawson: An individual broadcast.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend is very careless with his figures here. I hope he can substantiate them.


James Earl Lawson: I seldom use figures I
cannot substantiate. Give me a committee and the opportunity to substantiate them and I shall do so.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend asks for it I shall give it to him now.


James Earl Lawson: In connection with this
sale of United States advertising the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has established an attractive range of discounts, which pyramid as more stations are used, in order to attract that United States advertising. The Canadian stations cannot even arrange a chain of stations among themselves without going to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for approval.
I am told that within the last few weeks a dozen contracts have been signed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for choice hours, such as I outlined to-day, and the Canadian advertiser has to take what is left.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me demonstrate to the house what our United States cousins think of their new privileges over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation chain. I am sure the initials N.B.C., meaning the National Broadcasting Company, are familiar to every member of the house, since that is one of the greatest corporations in the United States. They have produced an attractive advertisement, of which I hold a photostatic copy in my hand, designed to get business from United States advertisers over Canadian stations. On the front in large white letters on a black strip we find the letters NBC. Then, opposite the letter "N" we find the letters "ow," opposite "B" we find "etter" and opposite "C" we find "overage," the whole reading "NBC, Now Better Coverage in Montreal and Toronto." Turning to the inside page we find across the top "New NBC Canadian supplementary facilities in Montreal" and "in Toronto."


William Earl Rowe: CBC?


James Earl Lawson: No, this is NBC. Then they go on in these words:
Two major Canadian radio stations, CBM and CBF, in Montreal, joined NBC networks on November 14, 1937.
Then further down:
CBF:	French-language station, full time,
50,000 watts, clear channel, 910 kilocycles, owned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, is available (alone, or in combination with CBM or CFCF) to advertisers using either the basic blue or the basic red network.
The Address-Mr. Lawson

Then, the next paragraph refers to Ontario:
NBC service in Ontario has just taken a big step forward. Station CRCT, NBC affiliate in Toronto, has increased its power-
And so on. Then they go on to say:
This is a clear-ehannel, full-time station operating on a frequency of 840 kilocycles. It is owned by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Then, on both sides I find notices as to the market, and it is stated that by using the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's station in Toronto one may reach the province of Ontario, with thirty-three per cent of the population of Canada, and that by using the station in Montreal one reaches twenty-seven per cent of the population. In other words, by using these two supplementaries to the national broadcasting chain the broadcaster reaches sixty per cent of the population of Canada-and the people of Canada have just paid, out of their licence fees to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, for completing these two new 50,000 watt stations.
What is the result of all this? The result is unemployment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Earl Lawson: Yes, more unemployment to Canadian singers, Canadian musicians and Canadian technicians. Every time we take business from magazines and newspapers, by broadcasting United States advertising, we are putting printers, typesetters and other workers out of jobs. May I say to the hon. gentlemen who just said "Oh, oh," that that was not my expression. I am simply repeating a resolution passed in Toronto by the Trades and Labour Council. That resolution was passed within the last week, and published in the newspapers.
For the privilege of maintaining the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, created by this Liberal government, and maintaining the policies I have outlined, several branches of Canadian industry must be taxed to subsidize unfair competition with themselves; Canadian radio owners are being compelled to pay increased licence fees. I protest. On behalf of those associated with me in the Conservative ranks in the House of Commons, who have not yet had an opportunity to speak for themselves, I protest. On behalf of the people I represent in this chamber, I protest.
I promised the hon. member I would read the statute. If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker. I should like to be given an opportunity to lay my hand on the section stating that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has control over private stations. I am sorry

that in the short time at my disposal I cannot put my hand upon it, but if hon. members interested-


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because it is not there.


James Earl Lawson: -will read chapter 24 of the statutes for 1936 they will find set out the power and control held by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation over private stations. If I might cite one instance of control, may I ask who it was that imposed the censorship about which I complained last year? Was it a private station or was it the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? If they cannot control what was broadcast over a private station, how do they censor the programs which go upon the air?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Because the act gives them that privilege, but it does not give them the privilege to say how private stations shall run their programs.


James Earl Lawson: I did not suggest that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: What the hon. member stated is not the fact; why not say so?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as I sat in the house when it opened at eight o'clock I was of opinion for a little while, when I saw so few members present, that my remarks this evening might take the form of a rather intimate conversation between yourself and myself, but I am happy to note now that the house is not quite so sparse as I thought for a moment it was going to be.
I regret that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) is not in his seat at present because, with most of the other members of the house, I listened before the dinner recess with a great deal of interest to what he had to say. I felt that whatever his case was with respect to radio he was certainly presenting it very well, perhaps making the best of a bad case, but at all events presenting his ideas with some force. That aspect of radio criticism which has to do with, shall I say, the permeation of Canada with American ideas is one which interests me particularly, and I recall that the hon. member for York South did not seem to fear nearly so greatly the permeation of Canada with American ideas when he was the sponsor, if I remember correctly, of the "Mr. Sage" campaign which was carried on in 1935. Apparently in 1935

The Address-Mr. Maybank
the belief must have existed, as I have said once before in the house, that the Canadian people were hardy enough to stand any such onslaught on their national thought and life; but apparently the situation is a little bit different now. At that time I remember we were a little afraid that the Conservative party had gone Yankee, but I was glad to note from the way the hon. member spoke this afternoon that if he ever had any such intentions he has recanted, retraced his steps, and is now facing in the other direction.
I also regret the absence from the house at the moment of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) because, in common with most hon. members, I listened the other day with considerable interest to his offering, if we might call it that, in this debate. During the recess we have all had an opportunity of noting in the various journals of the country that, what they were pleased to call the political truce existing between the leader of the opposition and the government, was going to come to an end, and we have all been on the qui vive to observe what would be the form of behaviour of the leader of the opposition in signalizing the end of that truce. It may have been observed that these journals to which I have referred made no mention, in speaking of the truce, and the ending of the truce, of the right hon. gentleman's party. Rather it was always said that the truce which "the leader of the opposition" had permitted to continue would come to an end. All these journals realized, in their references to the great Conservative party, that He was It, and It was He; that all the members of that party were comprehended in the term, "the leader of the party"-all except its organizer, who, it seems, will not go to work until the party gets a new leader.
We have now had an opportunity of observing the manner in which the truce came to an end. We have heard the theme song, one might say, of the right hon. leader of the opposition in the new play that he proposes to enact in Canada. I read over his speech very carefully, and I think most people will agree that, aside from captious criticism, from what in the language of the street we call just mud-slinging, there was very little in the speech at all. The theme song of 1930 was "Promises" and the play was entitled, "A pledge for every Parish." That yields place now to this new opera.
Very soon after commencing and being rude to a new member of the house, after first misrepresenting what that hon. member had said, we found the leader of the opposition going on to discuss the actions of the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as though the Prime Minister had been a Roosevelt agent, or at any rate he allowed that inference to be drawn.
Then we had this great hint of corruption. That is the second offering we have for 1938 -the hint of corruption-but so far the fear of making direct charges has restrained him.
There was also an attempt to make capital out of imaginary grievances supposed to exist somewhere in the cabinet, when such difficulties do not apparently exist at all.
Next we had an attack made upon men who are earnestly engaged in an important task throughout Canada, the important task of trying to lay the groundwork for greater unity and a greater degree of harmony in this country, something we all have known for a long time was necessary if this dominion was to endure. It would seem almost as if the leader of the opposition was afraid something was going to be accomplished. It would seem as if he wanted to render nugatory the work that any person else might attempt. The work of that royal commission was misrepresented. Surely it was a misrepresentation to suggest that its business was to amend the constitution of Canada. That was his suggestion. Indeed the words he used very clearly stated that the commission was engaged in amending the constitution, when as a matter of fact there is in the terms of reference to that commission no foundation whatever for any such suggestion. But it would seem that to state the case thus would engender fear in the country. It would seem as though, adopting the words of the speech from the throne-"the strains and stresses" of confederation-he had taken for his motto:	If
there are not enough strains and stresses in this confederation now, I will put in a few more.
Then there was his attempt to turn the east against the west, and city against city, saying that certain things had been promised in the St. Henry by-election, and that if Montreal can get such and such a promise why cannot Calgary get it, why cannot Vancouver get it, why not Edmonton, why not Winnipeg? But when you come to look at that a little more carefully, you will find that they can get that promise, that they have had that promise. It has been implicit all along in all relief arrangements, that what was indicated in the St. Henry by-election had been the order of the day in all these other places. As the right hon. gentleman puts it himself, it was said: "If local government fails, the central government will not fail". That, Mr. Speaker, has always been understood, and there has never been any
2G8
The Address-Mr. Maybank

difficulty about it. The only difficulty there has been was whether or not the local governments would get 'to the point of admitting complete failure.
The real difficulty about relief is not that. The difficulty we have here in the matter of sharing relief costs is, in my opinion, that the central government has never taken its full share, the share it should have taken, of this relief expense. But at that, the present handling of the relief problem is immeasurably superior to what it was over the five long years between 1930 and 1935. We have here, however, an attempt to set one section of the country against another by suggesting that one section can get what another section cannot. That, decidedly, is not the case, but it apparently suits the right hon. gentleman's convenience to speak that way. I would not say that he is malevolent, that he definitely wishes ill but his approach to this particular problem could hardly be different if he were malevolent. He would create two stresses where there was only one before, and two strains where there had been only one.
I wish also to put on record again, what most likely all have noticed, his misrepresentation of the position of Canada in the money market. It was said that the position of Canada was inferior to that of Australia, and facts were given to bear out this conclusion. A comparison of an Australian loan with a Canadian loan was made. Of course we know that what was stated was not true. Next day the inaccuracy of these remarks was exposed. Then, if nothing else had occurred, it would be our business to consider whether the right hon. gentleman knew of the untruth at the time he stated it. He tells us, however, that he had in mind a former loan of Australia, that he got the facts respecting it and then compared that former loan with one of the Dominion of Canada which was a current loan, and, thus endeavouring to compare things which were not comparable, he concluded that Canada's position in the money market was inferior to that of Australia. Since he asks us to believe that is what he did, of course there is not any question about its being believed. But if a little more care had been taken, the critique in his main speech would not have gone out to the country in the way it did; and when you publish a statement throughout the country, any amount of explanation afterwards will never quite overtake the misrepresentation originally made.
I remember a story about a clergyman who, being slandered, went to the woman who had slandered him, and explained the situation to her. She promptly accepted the explanation

and made an apology. But he conducted her to a high place and gave her a cushion or a pillow or a bag of feathers and asked her to scatter the contents about. This she did, and he then said to her, "Now just put them back in the bag." Of course she could not do it. The clergyman realized that no further explanation was needed to demonstrate to her the impossibility of catching up with a false statement when it had once been made. In this particular case we have, either a deliberate attempt-and that must be ruled out-to misrepresent the position of Canada, or negligence in the discovery and presentation of facts; consequently there is a misrepresentation of Canada's position, and so the situation is just as bad as if it had been deliberate.
In going over the speech of the leader of this once great party I find in it only one concrete statement of political philosophy, and that, it would seem, is just a little bit more absurd than any other declaration he has ever made. That was the declaration that free trade makes for war. I do not propose at the moment to pursue the general idea of tariff making and the philosophy underlying tariffs, because I believe there will be plenty of opportunity at a later time. But I wish to remark at this time that this question of high tariff and low tariff should not be regarded as an east versus west proposition. It seems to me that the concept which better pictures this problem is that of primary producers paying by way of taxes and higher prices for processes; it is the concept of the primary producer versus the processor. Perhaps, in view of the fact that the proportion of primary producers in western Canada is larger some people there get into the habit of looking upon this particular controversy as one of west versus east. But I think we should not allow ourselves to fall into that error, because decidedly it is not the true nature of the issue.
But revert for a moment to the "Free Trade Brings War" doctrine. Here you have it that Peel and Canning caused the Crimean war when they reduced duties on a large number of articles, and particularly when, after Canning's death, Peel became in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws and brought about almost complete free trade. As a matter of fact the right hon. gentleman, I believe, particularly mentioned the Crimean war and related i't to these particular acts of these English statesmen. So all British wars thereafter up to the time of the great war appear to have been caused, on this theory, by the free trade policy of Great Britain. And further, in view of the fact that no nation in the world except Great Britain practised free

The Address-Mr. Maybank
trade before the great war, the responsibility for that war must also rest almost entirely upon the shoulders of Great Britain. That is the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman. It is a proposition so absurd that one wonders how his mouth could have framed the words.
A few years ago, when he went to England and endeavoured to persuade them to adopt a protective policy his speeches were denominated by a member of the British cabinet, and have been known from that time until now, as the "Humbug" speeches. Apparently, although Jimmie Thomas called his talk "Humbug," what the right hon. gentleman was really doing, was persuading the people of Great Britain to become peaceful and to adopt protection, for to adopt protection would be the same thing as to turn their faces in the direction of peace. Also, since the world war, when economic nationalism seems to have run riot, the fact that every nation in the world has gone in for protection to a greater or less degree is apparently the reason why the world has been so peaceful. After the nations adopted the policies of the leader of the once great Conservative party peace descended upon the world, not exactly like a dove but more like a flock of bats. I do not suppose the world has ever had a worse time from the standpoint of peace and war than in the years since the treaty of Versailles.
There is the only concrete proposition that has been laid before the house by the leader of the opposition in his lengthy speech. We have some criticism; we have harmful criticism ; we have stress creating criticism; we have strain creating criticism; and conjoined with these we have the one proposition that if you do not go in for more and more protection you are likely to be drawn into war. There we have his whole contribution, and I wish to make record of it in the house at this time in order that there may be no mistake about it.
As for myself, I wish to introduce one or two declarations I have to make with reference to the speech from the throne by asserting again, as I have often asserted before, that I do not belong to any party of a fascist or communistic nature and that I do not rest under any iron heel of discipline. Nor, since we are talking about political parties, do I answer to the crack of any party whip; in fact, I have never heard of any whip to the crack of which anyone else had to answer. I work and do my thinking in the genial warmth of the Liberal party, in which there is freedom of expression, freedom of expression as in Tennyson's England, where a man might speak the thing he would.
I realize that I am often impatient, but I believe that in the long run greater advancement will be made by working from within the party where one can find kindred spirits, than by any other means. Greater progress has been made in that way in the past, and that will hold true in the future. Of my friends who are called left-wingers, I often think that if one-tenth of the energy they devote to the organization of more extreme party forms were spent in working with, shall I say, the more impatient ones within the Liberal party, ten times more progress could be made than by the method they are pursuing. However, I have no wish to push my own ideas down anyone else's throat; everyone has his own way of working.
I propose, as my conscience from time to time directs me, to express any thoughts that occur to me, whether they are completely in consonance with the ideas of my party, or to express views not yet having gained status by an ex cathedra utterance. I feel that in doing so I would not be in any way like the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hyndman) who, a few days ago, when he expressed willingness to see factories in Windsor and Oshawa closed, butted his revered and honoured leader in the stomach-metaphorically speaking, of course. The right hon. gentleman must have been astounded by that blow.
It is sometimes said that the government does not move fast enough, and we have before us at the present time an amendment to that effect. As I have already indicated, I have a fellow feeling with healthy impatience; but there are two points to be noted in that connection, and they stand out in bold relief. In the first place, you cannot very well say about the government that it is not doing this and that; that it is not advancing this and that measure, and every other proposal put up to it, and at the same time accuse it of being a mere vote-catching administration. You cannot have it both ways. The second point that stands out is this. When you bear in mind the tremendous increase in the mortgage debt of Canada which was incurred in the last five years before this government took hold, an increase approaching a thousand millions of dollars, you are bound to realize that, with the extra burden thus imposed, many plans which one would desire to attempt-[DOT] costly plans-cannot be immediately proceeded with. And I say that, in spite of the fact that I myself am impatient. I think, however, that when people are impatient they should try to cool themselves so as to be just.
Personally I regret the absence from the speech from the throne of any specific reference to the question of aid to low cost hous-
The Address-Mr. Maybank

ing plans. I realize that this may not mean its exclusion, and no doubt a further opportunity will be afforded to deal with the matter. I should like to observe, however, that assistance to the construction industry, which seems to be about the most depressed of all, would break the back of unemployment, and I hope to see something of that sort introduced into the house.
I welcome the references which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has made to the padlock law of Quebec. I must say candidly that if statutes are to be disallowed, I believe that statute should be disallowed. I apologize for not having said so last year; I should have made that statement then. I feel very strongly about this matter. I believe that if any statute should be disallowed, that one should be; it should not be allowed to stand. The reason I did not express this opinion last year was that I thought the law would be a dead letter. I was wrong, and I now endeavour to make amends for my failure on that occasion. Mind you, I am in favour of all necessary safeguards against subversive action, but they must be safeguards and they must be necessary.
Turning for a moment from that subject, may I say how welcome to me is the reference in the speech from the throne to unemployment insurance. I am not one of those who expect too muCh from any statute of that sort. I believe it is probably only one of the steps that will have to be taken in an endeavour to end this scourge of unemployment. No laws that we can enact could be perfect, and I should expect that any law would have to be amended almost as soon as it became operative. I certainly commend the wisdom of seeking to obtain .provincial approval of any such amendment, but I hope that lack of complete provincial approval will not hold up the address of this parliament to the British parliament asking for the amendment of the British North America Act, because it would seem to me that we must get the law operating soon, in order that we may acquire the experience necessary for further advance in an endeavour to wipe out what seems so far at any rate to be an inherent defect in the system under which we live.
I am glad to see this unemployment insurance proposal for another reason, namely that it marks the adoption of the principle of greater responsibility of the central government in respect to unemployment. I should have been glad if that principle had been adopted a little more definitely with reference to the relief difficulties that we have had in Canada for the last several years. Last year I had an opportunity of saying to the house something about the plight of the cities and

the heavy load they are made to carry. I feel that the division of the cost of unemployment relief which results in putting more than one-third upon communities which can obtain money only by direct taxation, and that upon a very narrow base, mainly real estate, is not fair. I am not saying for a moment that I believe the central government should carry the whole burden, but I say that when a division is made which results in a city such as that from which I come being forced at certain times to carry well up to fifty per cent of the total load, that division is not fair. At the present time my city is being forced to find somewhere in the neighbourhood of
SI,500,000	for this year, with all avenues of taxation already exhausted-a well nigh impossible task. I suppose there will be not more than 30,000 people upon whom the necessary levy can be made in order to obtain that large sum of money. The situation in Regina, Vancouver, Edmonton, Saskatoon and most other cities is substantially the same, according to the information which they severally have given to me.
Touching further upon this unemployment problem it seems to me that the two most important aspects of it, if you can single two out from many, are those of the soldier veteran and the youth of the country. As to the former I understand a special opportunity will arise later when we come to consider a report; therefore I need say nothing about it at the present time. But, sir, it is impossible to overstate the importance of youth training and youth reclamation work. If the government of the day had done nothing else, its advance upon this problem during the recess would be sufficient to entitle it to the continued confidence of the people. What has been done is not so much in itself as an earnest of what is to be. Now, according to the speech from the throne the work is to be continued and the plan enlarged.
I have kept in very close touch with youth, both employed and unemployed, and I believe there is no sadder sight, and one could not have a sadder experience, than to find young men and young women hopeless because jobless. We seem always to be in danger of falling into the needless use of superlatives in discussing problems of this sort; yet even at that risk I say that I do not believe any country has any other assets quite equal in value to its youth. Continuing the thought of the youth of our country being wealth, I think I am justified in saying that youth is the greatest jewel of the country. And to permit idleness among youth, to such an extent at any rate as to sap their morale or begin to render them incapable of seizing

The Address-Mr. Walsh
opportunities when they arise, is comparable with throwing your jewels into the sea. No price is too great to pay to prevent this from happening, and no price that can be paid hereafter will restore our loss if we permit it to happen.
Now, as I have already indicated, there is much that I should like to see done. I have expressed dissatisfaction with some things; I have failed to express the satisfaction that I feel with many other things, but time does not permit. While I have various aspirations and aims and ideals I would sacrifice them all and accept anything if I knew that the young people of the country were being saved for the country; that they were going to get their chance. As far as I am concerned everything else may go by the board if youth gets its chance. And observing what has been done and realizing that more is now to be done in the way of training and reclamation of youth, I feel that in this respect at any rate I should be content. There is more hope in that one section of the speech from the throne than in any other part of it.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: There is no doubt in my mind that the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne have been amply congratulated by hon. members of the house. I would not wish to make the expression commonplace by repeating it; nevertheless my feelings are just as sincere towards those two gentlemen as the feelings of those who have already expressed them in more graceful language. I know that the task committed to the charge of those two newly elected members was a delicate one, and involved a rather heavy responsibility. The government could have made their task more pleasant, more enjoyable and more satisfactory if they had brought before the house something of a more commendable nature by way of an address. Very unfortunately the newly elected members had rather a bare bone on which to chew. It was unfortunate for them that they had to make their initial speeches under such circumstances; nevertheless even under those circumstances they acquitted themselves well, and I add my congratulations to those already extended.
I should like also to pay my tribute, humble but sincere, to the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on an honour that has come to him in recent months. It is an honour well deserved, and I am sure that there is not a member of the house, on either side, who is not sincere in expressing his congratulations to the right hon. gentleman. I hope he has a long life still ahead of him
in which he may enjoy the full vigour of health, so that in due course we on this side will have the privilege of addressing him, sitting to the left of the Speaker, as the right hon. former Minister of Justice.
May I express the hope that the mover of the address has left behind him a certain atmosphere which must have accumulated during his long term of service in the legislature of Quebec, and particularly during the last few years of that service, when he had the misfortune to be a member of the now famous Taschereau regime. I am hoping that in the pleasant surroundings of this house, with the congenial companionship that he will find here on both sides, he will soon learn that he has migrated to a vastly different atmosphere, and that anything he has said or done in the past will be completely forgotten. I followed the campaign in Lotbiniere with some degree of interest, for it has been my privilege to know the newly elected member for that constituency for a number of years. I remember him in Quebec in 1917, during rather troublesome times, rather hectic days in that province, when the lives of certain politicians of a certain faith were not worth a great deal. I remember him. as a member of the legislative assembly, rising in his seat and moving a resolution which I desire to read. I am sure hon. members will appreciate this reference, which will enable them better to understand the antecedents from which the hon. member has graduated. At that time the hon. gentleman was a member of the Quebec legislature for the constituency of Lotbiniere, the same constituency which he now represents in this house. This is the resolution he moved;
This house is of opinion that the province of Quebec will be disposed to accept rupture of the federal pact of 1867 if in the opinion of the other provinces it is believed that the said province is an obstacle to the union, to the progress and the development of Canada.
Unfortunately they do not keep a record of the proceedings in that legislature such as we have here. Otherwise I should have had an opportunity of reading some of .the choice phrases then used by the hon. gentleman in support of this resolution. That, however, indicates the atmosphere which the hon. gentleman has left, and I wish him well in the atmosphere he is now enjoying.
I should like also to direct the attention of the house to the misuse of the result of that by-election in Lotbiniere. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) characterized it, in his usual manner, as another evidence that the people of this country were well satisfied with the policies of the present government. You will excuse me, Mr. Speaker,

The Address-Mr. Walsh
for using the word "policies"; I use it because the Prime Minister also used it. For my part I fail to see any policy that the present government has, but those were the terms the Prime Minister saw fit to use. I want to point out that the policies of the present government were not discussed during the by-election in Lotbiniere. I should like to quote a statement by the present member for Lotbiniere. who was the candidate representing the Liberal party in that by-election. This statement appeared in L'Action Catho-lique, which is published in the city of Quebec, and which certainly is not a Conservative paper:
The victorious candidate expressed himself as "flatly opposed to our spending one single dollar, one single cent, to equip and send one sole soldier to a war foreign to Canada."
I compared that with the statement made in Paris by the Prime Minister, and I could not, understand how the right hon. gentleman could suggest that the success of his candidate in Lotbiniere indicated the goodwill of the people towards the policies of the present government. This is the statement made by the Prime Minister, and I contrast it with the statement made from a public platform by the present member for Lotbiniere:
Some people have been implying since the imperial conference that Canada wished to withdraw more from the affairs of the commonwealth of British nations. This is entirely untrue. We like to manage our own affairs, but any threat to England would immediately bring Canada to her side.
That is a quotation from the London Times. It is, I should say, rather opposed to the statement by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
I should like to emphasize the point I am making, namely that the election of the hon. member for Lotbiniere was no vindication of the policy of the present government, by quoting again from L'Action Catholique:
It appears that in certain circles the great victory of the Hon. J. N. Francceur in Lotbiniere is interpreted as an approbation of a policy of armament.
There should not be a mistaken idea on this point. Inasmuch as the electorate of Lotbiniere endorsed the present armament policy it was with the condition that these armaments serve exclusively for the defence of Canada. To pretend that Lotbiniere expressed its willingness to give a blank cheque for armaments would be going pretty far.
If Mr. Francoeur and Mr. Lapointe had showed themselves less hostile to participation in imperialistic wars, the result would have been quite different, even in a county that is Liberal by tradition. . . . The vote in Lotbiniere is a frankly anti-imperialist vote.
I want the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) to note that state-

ment, because he was given to making certain misstatements in the by-election in Victoria which would lead the people in that section of the country to believe that the present government was very much pro-imperialistic.
While we are on the subject of by-elections may I for a moment digress to speak about the by-election in Victoria. I feel that the manner in which that by-election was conducted, from the Liberal side, was a disgrace to the public life of Canada. I consider that if there is any justification for the formation of fascist and communist organizations in Canada, they will find a certain justification in the statements made from public platforms by men who are presumed to be enjoying public confidence and to hold responsible positions. The people are losing confidence in those men in high office. They are losing confidence because of the rash, ridiculous statements these people make to win by-elections.
May I draw to the attention of the house a statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in support of the expenditure of certain moneys at the Pacific coast for armament and defence I quote from the Victoria Daily Times of November 19, a paper which is probably more pro-Liberal than any other paper in Canada:
The minister referred to the appropriation for this purpose, for British Columbia increased from the 1935-36 total of the Bennett regime of $1,916,000 to $5,817,000 with an additional $2,346,000 for air equipment. This was a program for the Pacific coast from Prince Rupert to Esquimalt, including points at Vancouver and Vancouver Island which could not be completed until 1940.
"If I am here," said the minister, "not as a Liberal or as a politician but as Minister of National Defence, who has had some difficulty in this program to ask you to indicate to the government do you approve of these policies of security for the Pacific coast, or do you not?"
Mr. Mackenzie mentioned he had had some difficulty in securing these estimates and urged Victoria electors to give their endorsement by sending to Ottawa a man who could assist him.
Mr. Mackenzie pointed out the naval magazine in Esquimalt had been condemned as far back as 1905 but nothing had been done about it until the Liberal government did it, and told how Canada's forces had been starved to deterioration during the depression.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the house, this question: Does any man with a high sense of public responsibility feel that under the circumstances those statements by the Minister of National Defence were justified? I ask hon. members to consider those statements carefully. We voted to his department the sum of $35,000,000 to be used for purposes of national defence. That was to be administered as a sacred trust fund by the Minister of National Defence, through

The Address-Mr. Walsh
the department over which he has control. But instead of administering it as a sacred trust he saw fit to bring it on to the political platform, to parade it before the electorate of Victoria and to state to them, " In view of the fact that through my department I have spent $5,000,000 or $6,000,000, therefore you should support the Liberal candidate." Appeals of that nature are most degrading, and are not in any way uplifting in the minds of our people. Sooner or later such appeals are going to undermine the democratic principles we enjoy. I make that statement without animosity, feeling that I am speaking in the public interest. I say it because I feel that every man and woman in Canada with any understanding of the responsibility of that minister feels that he no longer is justified in holding his present position and in asking for a further appropriation of about $30,000,000 to be spent in a similar manner during the coming year.
I would develop the point at greater length, but I notice the time is slipping by. I had intended, however, to refer to the statements made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard, when in the course of the by-election he took advantage of a last minute broadcast, so that no reply could be given. In that broadcast he made statements which were justified neither by fact nor even by possibility of fact. In putting before the public certain information which he must have known would not bear close scrutiny, and which he knew would not receive close scrutiny, on account of the fact the contest was almost at an end, I believe he transgressed even the ordinary rules of debate. In one part of his observations he said this:
The real issue in Victoria's by-election that has been made by Mr. Bennett is: "Are you in Victoria going to support the government of Canada going along with Great Britain and other nations of the empire in working out a world trade policy, suitable to the needs of 1937, or are you going to stay with Mr. Bennett on his ' Canada First ' program of 1930," said Mr. McGeer. " Are you going to vote for the empire and empire unity, or are you going to vote for Mr. Bennett's condemnation of the empire policy developed at the imperial conference in 1937."
I have not seen tabled in the house any report of an imperial trade agreement or an imperial policy embodying a trade agreement, as a result of the imperial conference of 1937, and neither has the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard. The policy he was enunciating there is a direct development of that policy enunciated in 1930 by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and the direct result of the empire trade agreements reached in this building in 1932. Yet in a last minute broadcast the hon. member 51952-18
for Vancouver-Burrard would wish the people of Victoria to understand that those trade agreements were the result of the imperial conference of 1937, and that the present government should take credit for development along those lines.
The hon. member went even farther, and made a comparison of figures. Of course he was most happy in his choice of figures. It was his desire to suggest that the trade agreement with the United States had shown a very favourable trade balance in favour of Canada. In giving the figures he stopped where it was convenient for him to stop, namely, at the end of August. He failed to go on to give the figures for September, October and November. If I may be permitted to do so I shall now set them out. For September, October and November of 1936 we had a favourable Canadian balance of $25,366,000. That is the figure arrived at after comparing the imports of Canada from the United States with the exports of Canada to the United States. For the same three months of 1937, however, we find a favourable United States trade balance of $19,597,000. Hon. members will recall that when we were discussing the agreement the leader of the opposition and his colleagues suggested that the market in the United States was a most uncertain one, and that we in Canada should be dependent upon the more certain market offered in Great Britain. This is proven by the figures. The trade balance is now against us and in favour of the United States and is likely to continue so.
Just one more reference to the Victoria byelection. The premier of British Columbia gave vigorous support to the Liberal candidate, and assured his audiences during the campaign that they need fear no contamination from a Liberal candidate being elected for Victoria. He expressed the feeling that the government would see that the beneficial results of the British Empire agreements were consolidated and retained so far as Canada was concerned. On more than one occasion he assured his audiences that such would be the case. After assuring them during the course of the by-election that that would be the case, why did he do a loop-the-loop act in the provincial legislature in order to bolster up his own position in the province? After assuring audiences in Victoria that they had nothing to fear from the present government so far as empire trade agreements were concerned, listen to this motion which was moved

The Address-Mr. Walsh

early in December by the premier of British Columbia himself and forwarded to the government at Ottawa:
This house favours the principle of empire prt ferenees and urges upon the dominion government the great importance to British Columbia of the maintenance of existing markets in Great Britain and other parts of the empire.
After deceiving the people of Victoria, telling them they had nothing to fear, he brings forward this resolution in the legislature at Victoria requesting the present government at Ottawa to safeguard what the previous Conservative government had won in 1932.
I was going to refer to the St. Henry by-election, but that has already been referred to. Lavish promises were made in that campaign by ministers who are at present members of this house. I want to read a statement made by the member-elect, now the member for St. Henry (Mr. Bonnier) shortly after his election. It shows a very high standard of public idealism. The member-elect was interviewed, and this is the substance of the interview. He was asked if he was going to retain a double mandate, namely, the honour of being alderman for St. Paul ward in the city of Montreal as well as being member of parliament for St. Henry, and he assured them that such was his intention:
" Why not," answered the councilman for St. Paul ward. "The people in my district have given me their confidence. I am ready to fulfil a double mandate and remain on Parliament Hill as well as at the city hall-"
I want the house to notice what follows:
"-to get public works which had been promised for my division."
What high idealism! He comes here to help solve our national problems, and here we have his reason for being in this house supporting the present government-to get public works for his division. What public works? The interview continues:
First, a tunnel under the Lachine canal. Then the abolition of railway tracks and level crossings in St. Henry. This would come with the construction of the Canadian National Railway station at the site of the big hole on Dorchester street. I also figure on getting a bridge to link the down-under division with the Notre Dame de Grace area. After his federal division gets these, he'll say good-bye to Ottawa. Concordia is enough for him.
We welcome, Mr. Speaker, to this house the hon. member for St. Henry, who will be of considerable assistance to both sides in bringing to bear important opinion upon our great national questions. Does the house realize that what has been promised in St. Henry involves the expenditure at the very

least of $50,000,000? Is one by-election in St. Henry worth the price of $50,000,000? And, remember, the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) said that this would be done before the next election. It is not worth it, and it lowers the standard by which public life is viewed by the public of Canada when we have statements of that kind from our public men, seeking to come here to help solve our great national problems.
I was going on to relate other incidents, but I shall close that part of my remarks.
I was going to refer to the Taschereau government in Quebec that is now out of office. Many of the supporters of that government are now supporting this government. I assume they are glad to get away from the kind of atmosphere which prevailed down there. They have a better atmosphere in that province now. The only comparison I was able to find in Canadian history with the Taschereau government, defeated in the province of Quebec in 1936, was the famous "Hug-the-machine" Liberal government in the province of Ontario. Every time I look at Canadian history from the point of view of standards of public life it seems that it is generally, if not always, a Liberal government which is involved in conditions of the kind to which I have made passing reference.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the Roblin government?


William Allen Walsh: For every Conservative gov- [DOT] eminent that can be named, I can name two or three Liberal governments that fell, and fell far more badly, from grace than any Conservative government ever knew how to fall. That brings to my mind a conversation which took place on the train between Montreal and Ottawa. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) will remember a very pleasant trip we had in the fall. I was talking to a gentleman on the train coming here to do business, or at least he thought he was going to do business, with the Department of National Defence, and he wanted to know where the department was. "Do you know," he said, "what I am going up for? For thirteen years my firm has had regular business from the department, and now I have not heard from them for over a year." I said, "There must be some mistake. You will find them pretty nice fellows over there." I came back on the train with him and asked him how he had got along. "Not so good," he said. "What happened?" I asked. He told me he had asked them why he had not received any inquiries or any orders, and he said they told him, "Well, you do not manufacture your

The Address-Mr. Walsh
goods in Canada." "Oh, yes," he said, "we do. We have a big plant in Montreal, and all our material, containers and everything else, is made in Montreal." Well, that did not go over so good. They said to him. "Your name is not on the list." "What list?" he asked. They said, "The patronage list." "Oh," he said, "I did not know there was any such list." "Oh, yes, there is," they told him. "Then by what means do I get my name on that list?" he asked. "I am afraid you will have to see the patronage committee in Montreal," they said.
Now that is a fact, Mr. Speaker, and that is what I understand is regularly taking place in a great many departments of the government at Ottawa. There, at any rate, is one illustration that I know is an absolute fact.
I was going to speak of the attitude of the present government towards provincial legislation. I was going to ask why they had not done something about the Ontario legislation and the so-called padlock legislation referring to communists in the province of Quebec, but I see my time will not permit. In passing let me say that I do not agree with the padlock law. I agree with the object which the premier of Quebec has in view, but I do not agree with the method he is pursuing by putting that statute on the books. I want to say in justification of the premier of that province that he is no separatist. He is not trying to bring about disunion in Canada. Listen to these words of Premier Duplessis, spoken at Longueuil on January 15:
No separatist spirit can prevail in the province of Quebec, for the province intends to remain an integral part of the dominion.
That is his attitude, and that attitude he will maintain. Although we find him opposed to changes in the British North America Act, there are good and sufficient reasons, for he belongs, so far as the dominion is concerned, to a minority race. In that province I myself belong to a minority race, and I am in agreement with him and with my friend the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that there should be no changes in the British North America Act but that we should endeavour to meet conditions as they arise by some other method than that proposed by the present government.
I was also going to refer, if time would allow, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but that matter has already been amply covered. I only wish to say that I am in entire disagreement with the policy which is being pursued by this government. Naturally I disagree with the increase in the licence fee from two dollars to two and a half dollars, 51952-184
but that is of minor importance. I disagree with the principle of their policy. You cannot have growing up in this country a publicly owned institution along with a privately owned institution of the same nature. Either you have to adopt the British broadcasting system or the system in the United States. The institution should be either publicly owned or privately owned. It cannot be jockeyed midway between the two. It is not fair to the privately owned stations or to the ratepayers of this country to put the corporation in competition with regular business. As hon. members know, one of the principles of government is that the government should not engage in business but should strive to regulate business. I believe the radio is of national and international importance, and for that reason it should be put on the same basis as the post office, on the same basis as the telegraph and telephone systems of Great Britain, and made a public utility supported by the government for the convenience of the people living within the dominion.
I also intended to refer to the Americanization of our purchasers in this country, but that has already been satisfactorily covered.
As regards the railway situation, I can refer to it because in the speech from the throne it is covered by a negligible quantity of words, in fact no words at all. There is no reference to what the government proposes to do to solve this great problem. It is on our hands. It is not of Conservative creation. I do not intend to review the history of this problem; it is sufficient to say that it is of such magnitude as to require immediate attention. Liberal members when they were sitting on this side of the house urged the then Conservative government to deal courageously with this matter. Have the Liberals dealt courageously with it? What have they done since coming into office towards solving the railway problem? They have done two things. First, against the express recommendation of the Duff commission they did away with the trustee system and established a board of directors. Second, they introduced last year Bill No. 12, to create a new financial set-up for the new Canadian National Railways, thereby taking away from the railway's statement that which meant anything to the citizens of Canada, in that it showed them exactly what that system meant financially to this country. I have in my hand a resolution which was passed by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, at Vancouver, requesting the government to take "resolute and constructive action to solve the railway
The Address-Mr. Walsh

problem." I have another resolution from the Federation des Chambres de Commerce de la province de Quebec. After reciting their reasons for making the resolution for presentation to the government, it continues:
Be it resolved, that representations be made to the government of Canada urging the pressing necessity of adopting effective measures to secure the most economical operation of Canada's railway systems, in order not only to eliminate the deficits of the Canadian National railways, thereby reducing the drain on the federal treasury, but also to improve the financial position of the privately-owned railway whose good credit means so much to Canada as a whole.
These organizations represent a large body of public opinion. Yet the present government are giving no lead in the direction of a possible solution of this gigantic problem. I trust that during the course of this session we on this 3ide of the house will be given ample opportunity to discuss the possibilities of a solution. Mr. C. H. Carlisle, president of the Dominion Bank, says that the country's great railway problem would be the more speedily and efficiently settled were it free from party politics. I quite agree. I suggest that it can be settled by the present parliament. In this house are hon. members who are conversant with that problem, public spirited citizens representing all parties, and if a special committee of the house were appointed and the government bound themselves to accept a unanimous report from that committee, I believe that in sitting around a table and forgetting our politics we would soon reach an agreement and a settlement that would be advantageous alike to Canada, to the Canadian National Railways, and to the privately owned corporation, the Canadian Pacific railway. I am not advocating unification, but I do believe it is the only solution so far presented which merits some consideration. I am prepared to receive other suggestions and give them equal consideration, but I honestly believe that a select committee of the house could settle this problem during the course of the present session and relieve Canada of the financial milestone which hangs around her neck. Do hon. members realize that, of the total debt of the dominion, namely $4,750,000,000, over fifty per cent is directly chargeable to the Canadian National Railways and to our venture into public ownership? When hon. members are confronted with facts of that nature they will readily understand why I feel, as others do, that it is urgent that the present government and the present parliament should tackle the problem involved in

our railways in the courageous manner suggested by an hon. member, a Liberal member, when he was sitting on this side of the house.
One last word. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has placed before parliament the main estimates for the coming year. They amount to $418,968,899, and compare with estimates last year of $410,465,397, representing an increase of $8,503,502. The supplementary estimates are still to come. Is it not unfortunate that, knowing that the people of Canada are overburdened with taxation, the present government cannot see its way clear to reduce rather than to increase expenditure? To that total of $8,503,000 I want to add this figure: During the year there was saved by the present government through a policy of conversion the sum of $6,000,000. That has also been spent, so that the total increase this year over the same estimates of last year is $14,503,502, a tremendous increase, a stupendous amount of money for the parliament of Canada to be spending on a population of eleven million. I leave it to hon. members to figure out the per capita of that expenditure; I leave it to them to say whether such an increase is at all justifiable;
I leave it to them to say whether they are playing fair with the people of Canada in increasing rather than reducing government expenditure.
The present government came into office on promises to reduce expenditures, to reduce taxation. Have we seen any material evidence of action in that direction? The first step this government took was to increase the revenue by increasing the sales tax from six to eight per cent Their next step now is to add a further burden of fifty cents a set on radios and to extend the fee to all sets which anyone may have within the precincts of his home. What other steps are going to be taken by the government to increase taxation still further it is hard to say, and probably only one with a vivid imagination can guess what expenditures will be required by them before they leave office.
Is there anything of political significance in the increase in the amount of money required by the present government as shown by the estimates? Do they contemplate an election? Do they contemplate fulfilling some of the rash promises they made in Victoria, St. Henry, and other parts of the country? I would ask the hon member for St. Henry to go through the estimates carefully. If he does so he will not find in them any reference to a tunnel under the Lachine canal; he will not find any reference to the removal of railway tracks from his division of St. Henry;

The Address-Mr. Tucker
he will not find any reference to an appropriation to be used to fill the hole on Dorchester street; nor will he find anything that will lead him to believe that the present government is going to build a bridge from the lower St. Henry division to the section of Notre Dame de Grace.
I leave these thoughts with hon. members and with the government, and ask them to look at the facts from a non-partisan point of view, so far as expenditures, radio and railways are concerned, and to give the public for once in their lives a really square deal.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: My first words in this third session of the present parliament will be those of congratulation to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the way he represented our country at the coronation of the king and queen last summer. I am sure the whole of Canada was delighted with our representation at that time. My next words will be those of congratulation to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on the honour conferred upon him in being made a member of the British privy council. Regardless of race or creed, Canadians of all classes from one end of the country to the other, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, regard the right hon. the Minister of Justice as a great Canadian. My next words will be those of congratulation to the mover (Mr. Francoeur) and the seconder (Mr. Warren) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It would be presumptuous on my part to emphasize that because they are both older parliamentarians than myself. I can only express the hope that they will both be long spared to serve the country in this house.
I do not intend to follow the last speaker (Mr. Walsh), but there are one or two remarks which I think I should make in reference to his speech. He suggests that in some way Liberals are inclined to be more corrupt than Conservatives; in fact, he seems to think the Conservatives are so virtuous that they can afford to point the finger at us. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that the people of Canada are tired of mud-slinging between parties; what they want to know is what we are going to do to solve some of their problems. Furthermore, we do not need any lessons in virtue or political honesty from the Tory party.
May I express the appreciation of the people of Saskatchewan of the aid given them in the greatest calamity that has ever befallen any province in the history of Canada. First of all, we appreciate the voluntary aid so
generously extended by all parts of the country, especially by the farming population, many of whom were not in any too good shape themselves. We realize that now more than ever, since hearing the speech of the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). In order to help us, many of these people filled cars with the produce of their own labour, which produce they could ill afford to give away. It showed a magnificent spirit of Canadian fellowship. Let me also, on behalf of Saskatchewan, exprpss appreciation of the generous aid given by the government of Canada. It was no more generous than the situation demanded; nevertheless we were glad to know that in our troubles the rest of Canada had no objection to the government coming to our aid. I wish to say how much western Canada appreciates also the energy of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who went there and covered the ground by automobile, making a thorough study of the situation. I believe, as most of the people of Saskatchewan believe, that on the whole he dealt effectively and satisfactorily with the greatest problem which any minister of the crown will probably have to face during the time this government may be in office. The task needs only to be seen to be appreciated. It is the greatest problem that has ever faced any government in connection with drought in our history.
Let me now pass on to some remarks that have been made arising out of that help, which we think had a great deal to do with demonstrating the essential unity of confederation, and the fact that we are consciously a nation. Incidentally, before I forget, there is one thing more I would say to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. He seemed to suggest that the people of Quebec, the people of Lotbiniere, were unique in being inveterately opposed to purely imperialistic wars. My father was born in Ontario of British stock; I was born in Manitoba, and I do not think anyone in Quebec is more opposed to imperialistic wars than I and those like me of British stock, the young people of Canada, from one end of the country to the other. Does the hon. gentleman suggest that he is favourable to war as a part of imperialism? If he does, he should belong to another age. Wars of imperialistic conquest in democratic countries should be a thing of the past, especially since we have seen something of the horrors, the miseries, the frustrations and the unutterable unhappiness caused by war-and I have seen a little of it all myself. In the
The Address-Mr. Tucker

face of all this, no one in this house should condemn anyone for saying that he is opposed to imperialistic wars.


William Allen Walsh: Would the hon. member permit me to say that I am in hearty agreement with what he has just said.


Walter Adam Tucker: I am glad to hear it, Mr. Speaker. The verdict in Lotbiniere should not be regarded as an endorsation of imperialistic wars. I do not think anyone ever thought it could be so regarded.
The suggestion has been made by some people in the central part of Canada-I am glad to say I do not think they are in the majority; in fact I hope they are only a very small group-that the west is becoming too great a burden and that it would be a good thing for the east if they could get rid of the burden of the west. To us in the west that suggestion came as a great shock. We in western Canada have felt that we have suffered more than any other part of Canada through the tariffs and fiscal policies adopted by Canadian governments. The attitude of western Canada has been that the people of those plains were being exploited as no British people had ever been exploited before; but in spite of this, they never suggested that they wanted to break away from Canada or cease to be part of the Canadian nation. Now in the time of our need, to be told by some people in eastern Canada that they would like to secede from us, after the patience that we feel we have shown with the rest of Canada, comes to us as a great shock. In that connection I should like to read some words from the foreword written by Premier Patterson of Saskatchewan to the brief presented to the Rowell commission, which I think indicate the attitude of the people of Saskatchewan towards Canada and towards the disabilities under which we suffer. He said:
We realize that confederation was established for the good of all Canada and that each province must be prepared to make its contribution to the common good. . . . We believe it essential that a united Canada should be maintained as a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and are prepared to devote every effort to that end.
That, I think, is the attitude of ninety-nine per cent of the people who inhabit western Canada. They believe in Canada as their country. But they say to their fellow Canadians from one end of Canada to the other, We expect to be treated as well as are the people in any other part of Canada. If, fot example, we can show in connection with

our educational system that we have not the money to bring up our young people properly and educate them as good Canadians, we expect you will do enough to enable us to maintain at least a minimum standard of Canadian citizenship; in other words, that you will not drive us down to a peasant level. That is the attitude the people of western Canada take, that all that is necessary is to lay the facts before the people of Canada, as is being done in connection with the Rowell commission, and then we have only to sit back and confidently expect that the people of Canada will do us justice. That is one of the reasons I intend to vote for the motion and against the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). This government has given western Canada a chance to lay its grievances before a tribunal which will make a finding on those grievances, and thus some hope is held out that some of the disabilities under which we have suffered for many years will receive attention and redress.
I intended to go into some figures indicating how important western Canada is to the rest of the country, but I do not think I should do that here because I am sure that everyone in Canada, from the lumbering industry on the Pacific coast to the manufacturing industries of eastern Canada, realizes that the building-up of western Canada and the production of immense wealth there made a great contribution to the upbuilding of Canada as a whole. I might give one figure. The value of grain production in the prairie provinces in the twenty-seven years from 1910 to 1936 inclusive was $10,278,465,000. That in very large measure went to increase the wealth of the central part of Canada-goodness knows we do not have it now in western Canada.
A charge often brought against the people of western Canada is that their governments have been extravagant and that is why we are in our present difficulties. In answer to that let me say that so far as Saskatchewan is concerned, in 1929 when the government led by the present Minister of Agriculture went out of office the debt in Saskatchewan was only slightly over $63,000,000. It was one of the lowest per capita debts in the whole of Canada; I think only Quebec and Prince Edward Island had a lower per capita debt at that time than Saskatchewan. Since then we have had to spend vast sums on relief, to advance moneys that the banks had to pay in respect of pool guarantees, and other things arising out of drought and low prices for our products

The Address-Mr. Tucker
which have increased our debt to almost $200,000,000 to-day. But I ask hon. members to remember that we provided our legislative buildings and everything we had in the way of capital equipment prior to 1929 with a debt of only $63,000,000, every cent of which was represented by actual physical assets in the way of public buildings, roads, bridges and so on. That hardly bears out the charge of extravagance. What has happened since has been no fault of ours.
Then we hear the charge that the people of the west are extravagant. Every farmer has a carl Well, some figures have been given here as to the kind of houses that most of the farming people in the west have to live in; I do not intend to deal with that. But I wish to give some figures bearing on this matter, and I hope I shall be pardoned if I take Ontario for comparison, because I do not wish to burden the house with too many figures. Comparing farmers in each case, I find that in Ontario the proportion of farmers having motor cars is 65-4 per cent. What about the extravagant farmers of Saskatchewan? Only 47-7 per cent of Saskatchewan farmers had motor cars. That was in 1931; since then of course the proportion of Saskatchewan farmers having motor cars will be very much less.
Then in regard to telephones, in Saskatchewan the proportion having telephones is 34-2 per cent, while in Ontario it is 54-1 per cent. If there is a place where telephones are needed it certainly is Saskatchewan. Just yesterday I received a letter from a doctor friend of mine in Rosthern. informing me that in a village about fourteen miles distant there was a woman very sick. Last year the municipality had a municipal doctor not very far away, but on account of their financial difficulty they could not keep him. In the middle of the night in forty below zero weather this doctor was called to attend that woman. They had trouble on the way with their snowmobile, and by the time the doctor got there the woman was dead. Such things are not uncommon occurrences in Saskatchewan where doctors live too far away to be obtained quickly. When we see our people forced through poverty to endure such things, is it any wonder that we come here and ask that you give us all the consideration you feel we deserve as Canadian citizens? Certainly we need telephones in Saskatchewan, but in 1931 only 34-2 per cent of the people had them.
Only 20-2 per cent of the farmers in Saskatchewan have radios; in Ontario the percentage is 21-5. Gas and electric light in the home- 16'8 per cent in Ontario and only 2-8 per cent in Saskatchewan; piped water in the
kitchen-10-4 per cent in Ontario and only 1-4 per cent in Saskatchewan. What, then, about this charge of extravagant westerners? As a matter of fact I was born and brought up in the west, and from what I know of the way our people live out there I say they live just as close to a minimum standard of living as any people in the whole of Canada.
I hope no one will object to my giving my next figures, but in doing so I have in mind some remarks made by some public men in Ontario. Take the figures in regard to the sale of liquor. In Saskatchewan in 1929, receipts from the sale of beer were $4,262,000. By 1934 they had decreased by about two-thirds, or to about $1,422,000. Receipts from the sale of hard liquor had decreased from $3,339,000 in 1929 to $S40,000 in 1934. What has been the history in Ontario? In the year ended March 31, 1937, in Ontario I understand some $72,000,000 was spent on intoxicants. The gallonage of spirits increased by 71 per cent; of wine by 31 per cent and of beer by 211 per cent in a period of two years. In saying that I am not finding fault with the people of Ontario. If they want and can afford to enjoy their beer they are lucky; but I ask them, when finding fault with the extravagance of the people of western Canada, to remember that while they were drinking many times more beer than they were two years ago, our people were drinking just one-third as much.
What has brought about the position in which western Canada finds itself, if its people have worked hard and have not been extravagant either individually or in their government? Well, I wish to indicate in outline some of the reasons why we find ourselves in our present position.
In the first place we are in the centre of the continent. Practically everything we sell must be sold on the markets of the world. The price we get in those markets is brought back to us less the amount necessary to send those goods to market. Take wheat, for example. The average cost of sending wheat from Saskatchewan to the world market is about 35 cents a bushel. We get what is paid in the markets of the world, less 35 cents. On almost everything we buy we must pay the freight to bring it to us. For example, a person buying a cheap car in Ontario pays $124 less in freight on that car than we pay in Saskatchewan. In other words, we are caught in regard to freight in both shipping out and bringing things in.
If anyone is interested in this question of freight, a study of the Saskatchewan brief presented to the Rowell commission will indicate that in western Canada freight is charged
The Address-Mr. Tucker

on a higher basis than in eastern Canada. In other words, freight seems to be based upon what the traffic will bear. In Ontario, with water transportation competing, the railroads have had to keep freight rates down. Our only protection has been the Crowsnest pass rates and if you study rates you will find that western Canada is paying more for freight than is being paid in eastern Canada, over equal distances.
Another thing that has injured western Canada is of course the tariff policy. Something has been said about the figures given by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) before a commission investigating the matter in Nova Scotia. There is no question, I believe, in the mind of any thinking man but that the tariff must operate against the primary producer in western Canada. The price of everything he sells is fixed in the markets of the world, where he is competing with agriculturists all over the world. I do not care how low their standard of living may be, the western Canadian farmer has to compete with them. Then he is forced to buy the things he has to purchase in one of the most expensive markets in the world. That may have been all right, Mr. Speaker, when there was a vast amount of new land available which cost the farmer very little, but the time has come when the fact must be faced that the western Canadian farmer cannot bear that burden any longer. It may be all right to say that we need this protection in order to make sure that large profits can be made in our textile industiy; in order that our automobile industry may have large profits; in order that we may pay large salaries to the executives of automobile concerns, and so on. If we could afford that luxury it would not be so important, but the time has come when the house must choose between not driving the western farmer out of existence and those other things I have mentioned. It is no longer a matter of argument; the western Canadian farmer has reached a point where, if you do not give him relief by way of reduction of tariffs he cannot carry on.
That is the question which must be faced by the house. Any study of the present position of the western Canadian farmer must lead anyone to that conclusion. Consider, for example, the load of debt. We had last year $525,000,000 approximately of private debt alone in Saskatchewan. There has been a reduction of that debt. That reduction in regard to mortgages and agreements has amounted to $26,000,000; in regard to taxes, $22,000,000 and in regard to relief write-offs, $31,000,000, or a total of $79,000,000. Then

there was a reduction in 1937 under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act amounting to another $3,000,000. Under private arrangement there was a reduction of about $1,000,000, and last year there were payments of taxes, debts and so on amounting to about $12,500,000. That means that we can deduct about S95,500,000 from that amount of $525,000,000. But last year we had interest on agreements for sale, mortgages and other debts amounting to at least $25,000,000; municipal tax levies totalling another $12,500,000 and relief advances of $15,000,000, bringing the debt, in spite of all that has been done by way of debt reduction, back to about $482,000,000, or $15 per acre on all the crop land To have paid interest alone on this debt would have taken nearly two-thirds of the cash receipts from wheat available for sale in almost every year since 1930, and municipal taxes would have taken the rest.
Can anyone tell me, then, that we can carry on if we must bear one cent more of burden than we should be carrying? If we are to compete in the markets of the world our only hope is to say to the Canadian farmer, "You have a load on your back. You must compete with some of the lowest paid agricultural workers in the world, and the only way you can do so is by being enabled to buy the things you need in the very cheapest market." That is the situation, whether we like it or not, and if you do not want all the western Canadian farmers being forced to come east to try to get on relief in your cities you will deal with that problem.
As a matter of fact, what has happened in that very connection? Our natural increase, that is, the excess of births over deaths, in Saskatchewan from 1931 to 1936 was 70,000. Immigration to Saskatchewan during that period amounted to 3.500. What is the actual situation to-day? What do we find, after having had an excess of 70,000 births over deaths and 3,500 people coming into the province? There are less males in the province to-day than there were in 1931. We find that the actual increase, including males and females, was only 9,108. In other words, we find that largely of her native born sons and daughters Saskatchewan lost over 64,000. I ask people from the maritimes, Ontario or Quebec if it is a proper condition when we find that 64,000 of our best young citizens are driven out to seek their living elsewhere. That is what is happening in Saskatchewan.
Let us now consider the value of farm property. In 1921 tlhe value of the average farm, with equipment, was $13,814, while in 1936 that value had shrunk to $7,185. The number of farms owned by those farming

The Address-Mr. Tucker
them provides an interesting comparison. In 1911, 91 per cent of the farms in Saskatchewan were owned by those farming them.; in 1921 the percentage had dropped to 80-5 per cent: in 1931, to 70-5 per cent, and in 1936. to 65-2 per cent,-and so it goes on. How long are we going to sit idly by and permit that condition to prevail?
Before leaving the question of debt reduction may I say that the present board of review operating in Saskatchewan has brought a measure of relief very much appreciated and very necessary to the people of our province. But it cannot keep up with the work coming in. I suggest that in order that it may perform that work at least one more board of review should be set up to deal with the accumulation of cases, and that it should act under the direction of the present chairman of the board. I know that people in other parts of Canada have found fault with the act. I would suggest that if people in Ontario or Quebec find the act is not working out satisfactorily in those provinces an amendment might be made whereby any province might exempt itself from its operation. Provision might be made in an amendment to the act whereby any provincial legislature might pass a resolution to the effect that that province need not remain under the act, and that thereafter it stand repealed in that particular province. I have no doubt as to the constitutionality of such a move, because in connection with the criminal code we find that different parts apply differently in different sections of the dominion. So long as we have jurisdiction to deal with the matter I submit there could be no doubt that we could make it apply in one province, and not in another


Richard Bedford Bennett: It came into force by proclamation in every province.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, it came into force
by proclamation in every province. As a matter of fact I believe there is provision in the act whereby, unless she desires, the act shall not apply to British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And all the provinces are in the same position.


Walter Adam Tucker: May I place before hon. members the history of interest in Saskatchewan. In that province we had mortgages bearing as high as ten per cent interest. Although it is provided in the Bank Act that banks shall not charge more than seven per cent we had banks closing their eyes to that provision and charging as high as nine per cent. I believe I noticed in the headlines of the papers as I was entering the building to-night that the banks have this year made
half a million dollars in increased profits. I suggest that it be ascertained how much the banks have taken in interest from the people in western Canada, over and above the amount of seven per cent to which they were entitled, and that that amount be set aside to provide university scholarships for the children of the people they have overcharged.
We find that this year, the fiscal year 1937, the interest on the governmental debt of Saskatchewan will be $7,039,000, constituting the largest single item in the whole of the expenditures of that province. What can they spend on education? They can spend $2,876,000 -and yet they must spend $7,039,000 for interest. They can spend $5,169,000 on public welfare, but they must spend $7,039,000 for interest. To-day debt charges amount to 49 per cent of ordinary expenditures and 52 per cent of ordinary revenue. It is the considered opinion of the provincial government that they cannot service that debt, unless they get further help from the dominion.
I suggest that in view of the great increase in private, municipal, provincial and dominion debts, when suggestions are made for some improvements or some change in public financing they should be given consideration, and should not be dismissed as though the last word had been spoken in regard to carrying on matters of public finance. It may be that the last word has not yet been said on the subject. It may be that it is possible to improve on our present system. In the past we have had cases where people, in their day and age, took the attitude, "We are the people, and wisdom will die with us." They took the stand that there could be no improvement in what they had conceived, or what had been conceived prior to their day and age. I submit that in connection with this question, likewise it is possible to have improvement in our way of handling public finance. I suggest that if failure to solve the question of public finance is weighing the people down so that they cannot attend to education, so that they cannot attend to public welfare, then it is high time that we looked into the matter very seriously.
What is the situation with regard to education? Let us consider for example, the university of Saskatchewan. I have been told by more than one professor of that university that he has received offers to go elsewhere, on much better pay, but that he hated to leave Saskatchewan in her hour of need. If there is one thing more than another that we need in Saskatchewan, it is the best scientists Canada can produce to study the means to
2S2
The Address-Mr. Tucker

cope with drought, grasshoppers, smut, and all other pests and drawbacks the western farmer has to meet. The best scientists should be in the university of Saskatchewan, but we have not the money to pay them and keep them. Their salaries have been continually reduced, and we are asking them to work for mere pittances.
What is the position with regard to children who wish to have secondary education? The government in the province has done the best it can. It has used the radio; it has set up correspondence courses and has tried to cope with the situation. The fact remains however, that most of the children in the province -would like to have secondary education, but have not the money to spend in boarding in town or to pay the cost of reaching town.
Coming to the public schools we find that while in 1931 public school teachers received in salaries 86,695,000, in 1936 they received only $3,973,000. Those of us who live in Saskatchewan know of teacher after teacher who is working for no more than $300 a year. We know lots of them, young girls and young men, the finest Canadians one could find anywhere, who are teaching for less than enough to pay for board and lodgings and buy clothes for themselves, let alone books or magazines which would permit them to keep abreast of developments in education in other parts of the world. That is the way we are treating those people who are in charge of training the youth in Saskatchewan.
I suggest that it is highly dangerous to tell those teachers that all we can pay them for looking after our young people in Saskatchewan is sometimes as low as $300 a year. They hear, for example, that the dominion collects over $100,000,000 in income tax on a rate which is not high. They know, therefore, that there must be people in Canada who are receiving large sums of money from industry. They have heard about the textile inquiry; that five people each put $200,000 into a project and that those people got their money back, and in addition that during the thirty-one years that the project has been in existence they have each received an average annual income therefrom of over $97,000. They have been drawing that money right along, because they invested in a highly protected industry which used its tariff protection to overcharge the people. Some of them were prominent bankers. Perhaps they loaned credit to one another and invested no money of their own. The fact remains that they got their money back in about four years, and they have been drawing tuat average annual income ever since.

Put yourself, Mr. Speaker, in the place of a young woman out west whose duty it is to teach the children that this system of ours is fair and just; that the democratic system is better perhaps than the system they have in Russia or Germany; that it is fair; that it is the system the children should uphold and admire-a teacher who has an abiding conviction of the injustice and unfairness of the present system which practically condemns her to work for nothing, while other people, as she knows, on account of special privileges such as tariff policies are drawing money they have not earned in thousands and thousands of dollars. I ask, how can you expect her to have an influence favourable to our system on the children in her charge? When you mistreat in that way people who are in charge of the youth of the country, you can well expect that the young generation, when they grow to adulthood, will not have an abiding conviction in the fairness of democracy, and things may happen that we would shudder to see if we could only see them from this distance. The sooner we deal with that important problem the better for democracy in Canada. There is $900,000 in arrears of salary owing to these teachers, poorly paid as they are. Why? Because we have not the means of paying them. The government of Saskatchewan have struggled with that problem and the whole problem of carrying on our government under present conditions like veritable heroes as no one from another part of the dominion can ever appreciate, but they have not the financial means of dealing with it, and we in this house should take that into account.
I should like to deal shortly with the question of unemployment. There are many other things I should like to deal with, but I do not want to presume too long on the time of the house. In the information service for November, 1937, that was sent out by the national employment commission-this has been sent out, I suppose, to everybody, and so I am not guilty of any breach of confidence in reading it-I was surprised to find this statement:
In dealing with the problem of unemployment certain preliminary but essential steps have been taken.
Preliminary steps!
Relief has been "unscrambled" and clarified. Registration is revealing accurately the extent and nature of the problem.
This was in November, 1937. It goes on:
The migraney problem has been analysed and remedies suggested.
Thus the -way has been cleared for an attack on unemployment itself. The real problem of obtaining jobs for the employable unemployed, of which those on aid numbered 143,745, according to August registration returns, emerges. How is it to be met?

The Address-Mr. Tucker
Now how is it to be met? Two years after our party finds itself in office, after declaring that unemployment is Canada's greatest national problem, we are apparently still asking ourselves, how is that problem to be met? This is what I suggest, and I make the suggestion not with any desire to criticize the government but simply to help as a member of the Canadian House of Commons. The policy of the government with regard to trade is gradually solving the problem of unemployment; but if after two years in office we find that there are 143,000 employables still out of work and on aid, then I suggest that we should do something, while long range policies are absorbing them into industry, to look after these young fellows, to give them a chance to make a contribution to our national development in the meantime.
I was amazed, "floored," as a colleague of mine said, in the words of Mr. Micawber, when the last speaker was making some remark, when I read in the interim report of the national employment commission, at page 14, these words:
With the rapid improvement taking place in employment conditions in private industry, the commission decided to recommend that, at this stage of the recovery, not only should there be no expansion in public works programs, but that there should be a very substantial contraction in the total governmental expenditures for public works projects.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Let him finish.


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


Walter Adam Tucker: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is a part of it.


Walter Adam Tucker: Yes, it is a part of it, but to-day not only is Germany rearming on a scale unprecedented in the history of any European nation but she is embarking at the same time on a program of building roads and public buildings, and land reclamation, for farming purposes, on a scale that Germany has never seen before. If Germany, hemmed in by the problems which face her, and rearming on a scale the like of which probably no European nation formerly ever saw, can find the means for a really comprehensive building program, can construct buildings which will stand as monuments for all time to the Hitler regime, can proceed with a vast program of public roads, can carry on important land reclamation schemes-if she can do these things after going through a tremendous war and all that it entailed, why is it that we in the Dominion of Canada cannot handle our small unemployment problem? Why is it that we are content to tell these young people, year after year, " We are registering you, and our long range policies will ultimately take care of you?" We believe they will; I believe they will; but I say in the meantime, supposing it requires another two or three years to develop those policies, should we not give them a chance to do something for the development of their country in the meantime?
The Address-Mr. Tucker


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: The mover and seconder of the address acquitted themselves, I think, very well upon their first attempt in this honourable chamber. Of course they endeavoured to give credit to the government for any improvement in Canada and particularly for any increases in trade. Supporters of the government are prone to do this kind of thing, and in doing so, to make comparisons between the years 1935 and 1937. In my opinion any credit for increases in trade and improvement in our general condition is due to the former government, and particularly to the United Kingdom agreement which was passed under that government, and if hon. members would go back and examine what happened in 1933-34 and 1934-35 they would find that a normal increase started at that time and that what we have had in the last year or so is only what might have been expected. I believe, however, that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) would compare, as regards our trade with the United States, what happened in November, 1936, with what occurred in November, 1937, he would find something to give him cause for a little alarm.
We have listened during the last few days, and particularly to-day and yesterday, to some very interesting speeches. With reference to the speeches made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutoh) and the one to which we have just listened by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), as well as the references that have been made to the brief presented by the province of Saskatchewan to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, I do not believe that any greater evidence could be produced than is to be found in these speeches, of the failure of the Liberal party, both in the dominion and in Saskatchewan, since 1921.
I say that for this reason. From 1921 to 1930 the Liberals were in power in the federal arena, and since Saskatchewan entered confederation as a province the Liberals have been in control there except from 1929 to 1934, the most critical period in that province. In the federal field the Conservative party was in power from 1930 to 1935, another very critical period so far as the dominion is concerned. Apart from these two periods the Liberal party has been in control. Why then has it not done the things which these gentlemen tell us should have been done? They had an opportunity to do them. The hon. member for Moose Jaw, in particular, if he is so widely at variance with his party, might have moved an amendment or perhaps might have formed a new western party to bring about the results he would like to see attained. But he admitted that he had not accomplished very much here.
There are two or three paragraphs in the speech from the throne to which I should like to refer. The first is with reference to the proposed amendment of the constitution to provide for unemployment insurance. Had the government been as anxious, when they were in opposition, to see an unemployment insurance measure enacted and put upon the statute books as apparently they are to-day, when they would like to see all parties in the house in support of such a measure, we would have had an unemployment insurance scheme in operation to-day.
The next point to which I would refer is the reorganization of the Department of Agriculture. As we all know, agriculture is our most important industry. Production, processing and grading, and the marketing of our primary products-these are the all important things. The Department of Agriculture needed reorganization, and to prove that, I could go back to 1930 and quote the words of the then Minister of Agriculture, the hon. member for Melville. At that time he said that a new foundation would have to be laid for agriculture if we were to save the towns and villages of the west. I believe that some progress was made, certainly in the way of improving some of our products-cattle, bacon and certain other products that I could enumerate. Obstacles were removed and there was vast improvement during the period from 1930 to 1935. I am in accord with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his efforts to reorganize the department in order to advertise our products and put them on the markets of the world in better condition. I am all for that.
2SG
The Address-Mr. Perley

Speaking on Thursday last, I believe, the Minister of Agriculture made one or two statements that were rather uncalled for and I am going to take a moment or two to correct a misunderstanding that was created. As reported at page 150 of Hansard, he said:
I had occasion to call attention to the fact that on every one of three occasions on which the former federal government came into Saskatchewan to deal with labour questions the result was that certain persons were taken to the graveyard, others to the hospital and still others to gaol.
In that statement he tries to place the responsibility for what happened with respect to certain riots which took place in Regina, and that responsibility he lays at the door of the federal government of that day. That is a wrong impression, for if any government is to be charged with that responsibility it is the government which was in power in Saskatchewan at that time-and the present Minister of Agriculture happened to be the head of that government as premier. His government at that time encouraged the rioters, the trekkers, to proceed to Ottawa, and when the order was issued prohibiting them from going further he took strong exception to it. In proof of that I would refer to the report of the commission that was set up to investigate the Regina riots. The report was released on June 16, 1936, by the Hon. Mr. Estey, acting for the attorney general. The finding of the royal commission is given, and the personnel of the commission is set out. I need not go over that. The commission's finding was to this effect. They declared the leadership of the trek to be definitely communistic. The commissioners found that the federal government was quite justified in halting the march at Regina, because it would have menaced the peace, order and good government of every town or city in which they stopped. The number of trekkers increased as they moved eastward, and had they reached Ottawa unopposed, "their number would probably have increased to at least 5,000," the report states. It goes on to say:
On arriving at Ottawa, unless their demands had been fully met, one can readily surmise the danger involved. It probably would have been necessary to call out the militia.
I submit, therefore, that the finding of the commission, appointed by the province of Saskatchewan itself to investigate the matter, establishes the fact that no responsibility can be laid at the door of the federal government of that time.

Another paragraph of the report states:
In reference to disputes between the Saskatchewan and dominion governments over the right of the dominion to halt the trekkers in [DOT]Saskatchewan and to assume full authority to instruct the police, it is not for us to pass judgment upon the validity of the protests made by the provincial government in either of the matters complained of.
The fact is that the provincial government appointed the commission, and the commission's report exonerated the federal government.


Mr. GARDINER:: What did they say
about stopping them before they reached Regina?


Ernest Edward Perley: I have not the full report
before me, but the report is very short. There was some discussion at the time.


James Garfield Gardiner: They should have been stopped at Vancouver.


Ernest Edward Perley: It was impossible to get
a sufficient number of mounted police at that point to stop them and it was decided that they should be stopped at Regina. What about the cost? It cost Saskatchewan $30,000 odd to discover that the responsibility was not the federal government's. I have under my hand the journals of the provincial house for the session of 1937 and at page 206 I find set out the cost of the commission. These are the figures:
The Hon. Mr. Justice Brown, honoraria, $4,000.
The Hon. Mr. Justice Martin, honoraria, $3,000.
His Honour Judge Doak, $3,000.
His Honour Judge Doak, subsistence and travelling expenses, $1,617.
G. H. Yule, KjC., counsel to commission, $3,000.
L. Tourigny, counsel to commission, $3,500.
F.	J. G. Cunningham, defence counsel, $4,500.
G.	H. Yule, K.C., subsistence and travelling expenses, $1,100.
L. Tourigny, subsistence and travelling expenses, $1,326.
That is a total of $30,000 odd, and I might say that B. D. Hogarth, who put in an account for some $100 a day which I believe was disputed-there is no record of it here- is the gentleman before whom most people in Saskatchewan if they want a job with either the federal or provincial government have to run the gauntlet and get his o.k.
Now there has been some discussion concerning the functions of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. I am not going to take time to

The Address-Mr. Perley
deal with that to-night; we may have opportunity to say something about it later. However, if Dean Shaw's report has done nothing more than bring a statement from the government as to the functions of these departments it will have served a useful purpose, for I think that should be set out and overlapping done away with.
Now I want to come to the conditions that prevail in Saskatchewan. The minister described the conditions there and I do not think he painted too dark a picture, because they are the worst we have ever had in that province. It is, I admit, a difficult situation to handle. There are practically 400,000 people on relief. Here again I want to join with other hon. members in expressing the appreciation of the people of Saskatchewan who are in that dire distress, of the splendid gifts of vegetables and fruit and goods sent from the east and the west. No language can express adequately our appreciation. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) mentioned the fact that many farmers from Saskatchewan had migrated to Ontario. Many of those men and women are sons and daughters of the pioneer stock that settled in Saskatchewan; they are a fine type of agricultural people, and our loss of them will be Ontario's gain; I wish them all success. There is no doubt in my mind-and other hon. members have expressed themselves to the same effect-that Saskatchewan will come back.
The hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) referred to-night to the wealth that has been produced in that province since 1920. That province has produced in the past and will in future produce more new wealth in one year than any other province in the dominion. I am not fearful of its future. In taking care of the situation that exists out there I will grant that the Minister of Agriculture-for it seems to be more or less his responsibility as far as this government is concerned-has a difficult task. He referred to the old relief commission system and the system in vogue to-day. I might explain for the benefit of hon. members who may not be familiar with it that from 1930 to 1934 the federal government approved the provincial government setting up a relief commission. The personnel of that commission I think was given here the other night, four business men and a woman representing the farm women of Saskatchewan, who by the way gave their services without pay other 'than living expenses, as the woman in particular had to come to Regina to live. They appointed as manager Mr. Daniels, and he set up a staff which was housed on the second floor of the Regina Trading Company building. I believe he did a good job. There has been very little criticism of it. He did it
at a minimum cost to the government, and no farmer was asked to reduce his herd. The federal government had an auditor on the job who approved the accounts as they were passed by the provincial treasurer.
But in 1934 we had a change of government in Saskatchewan, and as the minister stated the other night, the new government dismissed the commission and since then relief has been administered through a department of the provincial government and the municipalities. I may say that in the last two years there has been nothing but criticism of that system, criticism with respect to political patronage, loss to the government and lack of fodder, particularly this year. If we compare the criticism of the commission managed by Mr. Daniels in the four years in which he was in charge I am sure there was not as much criticism in those four years as there has been in the last two months, December and January. The public press is a pretty good criterion, and a search of the press will prove this statement. The present government set up this new system. The Minister of Agriculture in his speech the other day, whether he intended it or not, gave an impression which is not correct. He said that the relief commission had employed 839 people, while they are now doing similar work with a staff of 45. I quote what he said as reported at page 155 of Hansard.
I do think, with the system we have now under which this government is paying, when we are at the peak of our movement, forty-five men, our administration, in matters of cost at least, compares very favourably with the eight hundred and thirty-nine that the leader of the opposition had through the province in charge of relief at the time he was in office.
That statement leaves the impression that forty-five men are now doing the work that was done by 839. I made some inquiry as to the number employed under the former commission and I have a statement before me. The relief commission in 1930 to 1934 had at the peak about four hundred employees. Latterly the number was reduced, to one hundred. It is estimated by those who are well informed as to handling of relief in Saskatchewan that the inefficiency of the present system and the lack of control are costing that province somewhere about $2,000,000 annually more than the cost under the other system. The public accounts of the province for 1936-37 show that the administration cost
S450.000	for that year, and on top of that they were paying the salaries of over two hundred municipal clerks.
What have we to-day? We have in the Regina Trading Company a staff set up by
The Address-Mr. Perley

a branch of the Department of Agriculture; they are in the same building and on the same floor, the second floor, and there are just as many people pounding typewriters and clerks checking applications as there were under the relief commission managed by Mr. Daniels, besides which they are paying some two hundred municipal clerks about 8100 a month, as I am told by one clerk who is drawing this salary, and he said it is common. But the minister would lead us to believe that forty-five men are doing this work. Forty-five men could not check the applications alone, and thirty men were not able to cut the cheese fast enough to get it distributed in order that there would be no demurrage to pay on the cars which were being unloaded.
I want briefly to compare the efficiency of the two systems. I do not care to dwell too long on this matter, but the minister made it an issue the other night. Under the management of Mr. Daniels in the previous three years, according to the public accounts there was a profit of $50,000. That is not a statement of my own; it is in the public accounts of the province of Saskatchewan. Then the system changed and the provincial government took over, under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture here to a certain extent, because this government was paying the bill. In the first four months, when they employed Mr. Gordon Brown to secure the seed and feed oats for them, they lost $300,000, and Mr. Brown received $4,500 for his services. It was admitted by this government last year, and it is admitted by the provincial government, that there was a loss of at least $165,000, and that loss was made the subject of a reference to the Turgeon grain inquiry.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask the hon. gentleman if it is not a fact that the figure of $300,000 was only a paper loss at that time, and that $165,000 was the final loss?


Ernest Edward Perley: The final loss is not yet known; the evidence given before the Turgeon commission in Winnipeg has not settled what the loss really was, and certainly it has not been settled as to what government is responsible. Mr. Gordon Brown is endeavouring to place the responsibility with the government or with Mr. Mclvor or Mr. McFarland; it does not matter who, as long as Mr. Brown is not made the goat. The provincial government is endeavouring to make Mr. Gordon Brown responsible, and he does not propose to accept that responsibilit}'.


James Garfield Gardiner: The loss is $165,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: I said there was a loss of $300,000, of which $165,000 is admitted. This has been made an order of reference to the Turgeon commission. The balance was hidden, as the hon. gentleman has just stated, and covered up by profits made in some other way.


James Garfield Gardiner: If I might be permitted to say so, there was no loss established at any time. The loss was calculated from time to time on the basis of the price of oats from day to day, and the final loss was $165,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: Then there is a final loss admitted of $165,000, and I think if a proper search were made of the records and accounts it would be found that there was a further loss of $140,000 which has been covered up, and which could be uncovered if a proper opportunity were given.
However, Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the efficiency of the two systems. I have before me the journals of the provincial legislature of 1937. Take the matter of oats, and I am now referring to page 164 of the journals. Car number 242617 was shipped to Buffalo Gap. The cost of that car is given as $1,186.43, and the loss amounted to $693, or more than fifty per cent. There are several cars mentioned in connection with which I might give the particulars. Another one is car number 407470, shipped to Rouleau. This car was purchased from the Federal Grain Company and cost $864.32. On that car there was a loss of $361. Another car, number 196050, was purchased from the Searle Grain Company. That car cost $863 and there was a loss of $342. There are several such cars, showing losses in the neighbourhood of fifty per cent. That is how many of these losses were made, and I leave it to the house to decide which was the most efficient system. I think if the farmers were asked which was the most satisfactory there would be no question as to what they would say.
The minister made reference to the cheese, fish, beans, fruit and vegetables distributed in the west this fall. I think it was a splendid gesture on the part of the government to send those things to the people in the west from the people in Canada, and I have only two criticisms to offer. The first is that there was mismanagement in regard to shipping in the cars. They arrived in such numbers that the freight sheds of the railway companies could not handle and unload them. In the city of Regina, for instance, only one cartage company was used, the Regina Cartage Company, and by December 1 the demurrage on these cars amounted to $3,700. What the demurrage amounted to in all we may be able to find out some time later on.

The Address-Mr. Perley
I should like to make a reference to the distribution of the vegetables and fruit sent to the west. I have before me a letter from the clerk of two municipalities, a man who is well known to the Minister of Agriculture. I do not care to mention his name, since the letter is more or less confidential; but under date of November 6 this is what he says:
To date, two cars of apples, one car of carrots, one car of cabbage and one car of turnips have been shipped to Davidson for the two municipalities. Davidson is on the line between R.M. 252 and 253 and both offices are in Davidson.
Before the cars reached us, we were advised from Dr. Stapleford's office of the population of the two municipalities and also of the urban centres within these two municipalities. The letter also stated that, "The Minister of Agriculture, Hon. J. G. Gardiner, under whose department this is being operated, is anxious that practically one hundred per cent of the rural dwellers participate, those on relief, as well as those not on relief, and that residents of towns and villages should be covered where a real need exists."


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask what the
hon. gentleman is reading from?


Ernest Edward Perley: From a letter I received from the secretary treasurer of two municipalities. I do not care to have this man's name go on Hansard, but I shall be very pleased to hand the letter to the minister as soon as I have finished with it and he can read it for himself.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think I saw all the circulars that went out, and I do not remember seeing any circular containing any statement such as that.


Ernest Edward Perley: This is a letter from the secretary treasurer of two municipalities.


James Garfield Gardiner: Telling you what he
thought about the matter?


Ernest Edward Perley: Telling me that he received a letter from Doctor Stapleford to the effect that the minister, under whose department this was being operated, was anxious that practically one hundred per cent of the rural dwellers should participate, those on relief as well as those not on relief, and residents of towns and villages as well. Then he goes on to tell how these goods were distributed on a population basis, three-fifths of a box of apples to each person; fifteen pounds of carrots, fourteen pounds of cabbage, fifteen pounds of turnips, and so on. Then in the last paragraph he says:
The idea of a general distribution to everyone makes a joke out of relief, as so many are taking it, not because of necessity, but because it is offered to them; and many who are in need of relief are not getting sufficient in the way of clothing and other necessities.
That is the criticism I have to offer. The amount given those who did not need it lessened the quantity that was given those who were in need and, as this gentleman says in his letter, quite a number of people refused to accept these articles for that reason.
The question of feed and fodder is one that I know has given the department a great deal of trouble. I am ready to grant that it has been a difficult situation, and the minister and his government have had difficulties in dealing with that situation. They have approved a policy of reducing live stock to a minimum. That policy was outlined by the minister the other night and I am not going to take time now to go over it again. I will say, however, that the live stock and dairy industry of that province has been struck a blow from which it will not recover for ten or fifteen years. The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) covered that matter very well the other night, and he did not set out the situation any too strongly, because it is very serious. Last fall we experienced a fire sale of cattle; the year before we experienced a fire sale of wheat. I may say that the injury, in particular, is to the small dairyman and cream shipper, not to the large dairyman. I was talking with a merchant in a small town who said he had received and cashed cream cheques amounting to about $200 or $300 per week. Those cheques were small, ranging from $1.50 to $7 or $8. Hon. members will see what it would mean to that district when the number of cattle is reduced to not more than four each person.
I have in mind one man to whom I have talked-I know him well-who in the last five years had built up a herd of seventeen cattle and was milking six or eight cows. He told me that his cows brought in revenue sufficient to cover his grocery and gasoline accounts. Another returned soldier told me that he had received enough to pay his grocery and gasoline accounts and his taxes from a small herd of twenty-nine cattle. All these men were forced to reduce the number to four.
It is not a question as to whether the feed was available. If action had been taken at the proper time, feed was certainly available. When I saw in the press the policy that was to be adopted I immediately got in touch by letter with the Minister of Agriculture, and with the provincial minister. I set out what I thought should be done, and suggested finally, that some system should be brought about, through organization in the municipality, whereby cattle would be shipped to the feeding ground in Manitoba. The municipalities could organize, and two or three hundred cows could have been shipped

The Address-Mr. Perley

from each one. I know that feed was available. Two of my tenants shipped stock there; one shipped six hundred sheep, and the other shipped all his stock, including horses and cattle. All are wintering there. Another man I know well shipped one hundred head to Gladstone, Manitoba, where they are being wintered. This man is well known to the Minister of Agriculture because he was a contractor who, from the government which held office prior to 1929, had received many contracts. He built bridges north of Wolseley across the Qu'Appelle river, and built an overhead bridge at Roche Percee. He went out to British Columbia this year, in company with his two sons and a nephew, and made money. One son told me that his father had drawn $12 a day all summer and that the boys had drawn $7. That man had one hundred and ninety head of cattle, and did not sacrifice one of them. They shipped three carloads, with free freight, to Gladstone, Manitoba, and are wintering at that point.


James Garfield Gardiner: We paid the freight?


Ernest Edward Perley: Yes, you paid the freight; I am glad the minister mentioned that. That man was no more entitled to free freight than the man in the moon. He had been a contractor all his years; he had built the bridge at Roche Percee. He had one hundred and ninety head of cattle, three cars of which he had shipped to market, and certainly was not entitled to free freight on the others.
One point I wish to make is that there has been discrimination. He was refused assistance from the municipality-


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker-


Ernest Edward Perley: He was refused by the
local inspector, but he went to Regina and got it.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question?


Ernest Edward Perley: My time is limited. The
hon. member who spoke ahead of me had an hour, or more, and I have only a moment or two to finish what I have to say. I thought that inasmuch as the minister got a knock-out or so last night, he would probably be quiet when other hon. members from western Canada were speaking.


James Garfield Gardiner: We will have another
knock-out later.


Ernest Edward Perley: If fifty thousand cows
could have been saved to the dairy industry, and particularly the smaller dairymen, what would this have meant next spring when they

were shipped back? Those cows would produce calves, and in addition produce valuable milk and cream next summer.
The minister made the statement that he would rather have feed there in March than in November or December or February. I can tell him that the fact that the feed is not there in these other months will render it unnecessary to have it in March. I have before me a number of newspaper clippings, but I regret that I have not time to read them.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read them.


Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to; I wish I
had the time.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the last one.


Ernest Edward Perley: The reeve of the municipality of Indian Head, for instance, states that the mortality there of horses will be 30 per cent. The mortality of stock in the southern part of the province-


James Garfield Gardiner: It has not been five
per cent to date.


Ernest Edward Perley: The farmers of Grenfell,
through the Grenfell board of trade, according to one newspaper heading, ask consideration for the dairy cattle in their district. Another heading states that there is a fodder and feed shortage in the province. Another states, " Horses dying in Kronau district."
I have dozens of these newspaper articles, but at the moment I have not time to read them. Certainly they supply proof that there is a shortage of feed for horses and cattle, and that stock is dying of-


James Garfield Gardiner: I must ask the hon.
member to read one of them, because I do not think the proof is there.


Ernest Edward Perley: If you will allow me to
adjourn the debate and give me the time which was taken by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) but which was promised to me, as indicated in a note from your chief whip, I shall be pleased to read these articles to the Minister of Agriculture.


James Garfield Gardiner: Go ahead.


Ernest Edward Perley: I will move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Perley the debate was adjourned.


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

Diversion of Water
Wednesday, February 9, 1938