STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence) presented the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Anderson
Beaubien
Bennett
Bertrand (Laurier)
Bothwell
Cahan
Factor
Fleming
Fournier (Hull) Gariepy
Kirk
Kuhl
Lawson
Maclnnis
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre) McCuaig MeLarty McLean
(Simcoe East)
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
McNiven	Sinclair
(Regina City)	Slaght
Massey	Thorson
Mitchell	Turgeon
Pouliot	Veniot
Power	Warren-29.
(Quorum 10)	
RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH	
LINES	
Messieurs:	
Barber	Lockhart
Baubier	Maclnnis
Bertrand (Laurier)	MacKinnon
Bonnier	(Edmonton West)
Brown	MacMillan
Cameron	McCann
(Hastings South)	McCallum
Clark (York-Sunbury)	McCulloch
Chevrier	Me Ivor
Cochrane	McKinnon (Kenora-
Crerar	Rainy River)
Damude	McNiven
Deslauriers	(Regina City)
Duff us	Maybank
Dupuis	Mills
Edwards	Mullins
Elliott (Kindersley)	Mutch
Emmerson	O'Neill
Franeceur	Parent (Terrebonne)
Girouard	Pelletier
Gladstone	Pouliot
Grant	Ross (Moose Jaw)
Hamilton	St-Pere
Hansell	Stevens
Hanson	Stewart
Harris	Streight
Heaps	Sylvestre
Howden	Vien
Hushion	Walsh
Isnor	Wermenlinger
Jean	White
Johnston (Bow River)	Young-60.
(Quorum 20)	
MISCELLANEOUS	PRIVATE BILLS
Messieurs:	
Ahearn	Lalonde
Barry	Little
Boulanger	Lockhart
Bradette	MacDonald
Brasset	(Brantford City)
Brown	MacLennan
Clarke (Rosedale)	Macphail (Miss)
Cleaver	McDonald (Souris)
Cote	McGeer
Deachman	McGregor
Douglas	McPhee
Dubois	Marsh
Evans	Mayhew
Fair	Mulock
F erguson	Parent (Quebec
Ferland	West and South)
Franeceur	Pottier
Gariepy	Robichaud
Girouard	Ross (St. Paul's)
Glen	Senu
Goulet	Sinclair
Howard	Taylor (Nanaimo)
Hyndman	Telford
Johnston (Bow River)	Winkler
Lacombe	Wood
Lacroix (Quebec-	Young-50.
Montmorency) (Quorum 15)	
[Mr. I. Mackenzie.!

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Baker	Lawson
Bennett	Leduc
Cahan	MacDonald
Clark (York-Sunbury) (Brantford City)
Cleaver
Coldwell
Deachman
Donnelly
Dubuc
Dunning
Edwards
Euler
Fiset (Sir Eugene)
Fontaine
Fournier (Hull)
Fraser
Harris
Hill
Howard
Hushion
J acobs
Jaques
Kinley
Kirk
Lacroix (Beauce) Landeryou
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre) McGee r McLarty McPhee Mallette Martin May bank Moore Perley Plaxton Quelch Raymond
Ross (Middlesex East)
Rutherford
Stevens
Thorson
Tucker
Vien
Ward
White
Woodsworth-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Ahearn
Anderson
Barry
Beaubien
Betts
Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon)
Blais
Blanchette
Bothwell
Brooks
Casselman
Church
Douglas
Dussault
Elliott (Kindersley)
Factor
Ferland
Fleming
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemount)
Franeceur
Fraser
Glen
Golding
Goulet
Grant
Graydon
Isnor
Leader
MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) MacNeil McCann
McDonald (Pontiac) McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) McLean (Melfort) Marshall Mullins Needham Patterson Purdy Rickard
Rowe (Athabaska)
Slaght
Stewart
Streight
Taylor (Norfolk)
Thauvette
Tremblay
Turgeon
Wermenlinger
Wood-50.
(Quorum 15)

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Barber	Cochrane
Beaubier	Coldwell
Bertrand (Prescott)	Davidson
Black (Chateauguay-	Donnelly
Huntingdon)	Douglas
Blair	Dubois
Bouchard	Dupuis
Boulanger	Evans
Clark (Essex South)	Fontaine

Standing Committees
Furniss
Gardiner
Golding
Gosselin
Graydon
Hayhurst
Johnston
(Lake Centre) Laeombe Lalonde Leader Leclerc Lennard MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) MacLean (Prince) Macphail (Miss) MacRae
McDonald (Souris) McKenzie
(Lambton-Kent) McLean (Melfort) McNevin
(Victoria, Ont.)
Mitchell
Motherwell
Mullins
Needham
Patterson
Perley
Reid
Rennie
Rheaume
Roberge
Robichaud
Ross (Middlesex East) Rowe
(Duff erin-Simcoe) Senn Spence Stirling
Taylor (Norfolk)
Thompson
Tomlinson
Turner
Ward
Weir
Wood-60.
(Quorum 20)

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

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Black (Mrs.)
Brasset
Brooks
Brunelle
Clark (Essex South) Cote
Farquhar
Ferron
Fiset (Sir Eugene)
Gauthier
Green
Hanson
Hill
Kinley
Lapointe (Matapedia-Matane)
MacLean (Prince) MacLean (Cape Breton N orth-Victoria)
MacNeil
MacNieol
McCulloch
McDonald (Souris)
Michaud
Neill
Pelletier
Pottier
Reid
Rickard
Robichaud
Stirling
Taylor (Nanaimo)
Telford
Tomlinson
Tustin
Veniot
Ward-35.
(Quorum 10)
MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS Messieurs:
Black (Mrs.)	Johnston (Bow River)
Blais	Lacroix (Beauce)
Bradette	Little
Brooks	MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Clarke (Rosedale) MacLennan	
Cochrane	MacMillan
Crerar	MacNieol
Crete	McCallum
Esling	McDonald (Pontiac)
Farquhar	O'Neill
Ferguson	Parent (Quebec
Hamilton	West and South)
Hanson	Patterson
Hartigan	Roberge
Hayhurst	Stevens
Hill	Sylvestre
Hurtubise	Taylor (Nanaimo)
Hyndman	Tremblay-35. (Quorum 10)
INDUSTRIAL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Messieurs:	
Barry	Leduc
Betts	Lennard
Black (Mrs.)	Maclnnis
Blackmore	MacKenzie (Neepawa)
Church	MacNieol
Crete	Macphail (Miss)
Deslauriers	McGeer
Dubuc	McIntosh
Gladstone	Mclvor
Grant	McLean (Simcoe East)
Hartigan	Martin
Hill	Massey
Howard	Mayhew
Howden	Neill
Isnor	Rogers
Jean	Rowe (Athabaska)
Lacroix (Quebec-	St-Pere
Montmorency)	Tucker-35. (Quorum 10) DEBATES Messieurs:
Cote	McIntosh
Esling	McNevin
Finn	(Victoria, Ont.)
Gauthier	Mitchell
Hill	Pinard
Lawson MacKinnon	Pouliot-12.
(Edmonton West) (Quorum 7)	
PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT	
(Members to act	on the part of the Commons' Messieurs:
Barry	Douglas
Bertrand (Laurier) Dussault	
Casselman	Elliott (Kindersley)
Chevrier	Esling
Damude	Evans
Davidson	Ferron
Denis	Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees
[Stage Direction]
Fournier (Maisonneuve-	McNevin
Rosemount)	(Victoria, Ont.)
Gauthier	Marsh
Green	Marshall
Bans ell	Mills
Hurtubise	Moore
Hushion	Mullins
Jean	Mulock
Kirk	Mutch
Lapointe	Pinard
(Matapedia-Matane)	Purdy
Leduc	Reid
hennard	Ross (St. Paul's)
Little	Ross (Middlesex East)
Maelnnis	Rutherford
MacKinnon	St-Pere
(Edmonton West)	Taylor (Nanaimo)
MacLean (Prince)	Thompson
McGregor	Tucker
McIntosh	Tustin
McKenzie	Veniot
(Lambton-Kent)	Weir Winkler

54.
LIBRARY OF	PARLIAMENT
(Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker
Ahearn
Blackmore
Blair
Blanchette
Bonnier
Bothwell
Bouchard
Bradette
Br asset
Cameron
(Bastings South) Casselman
Clark (York-Sunbury)
Duff us
Emmerson
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemount)
Grant
Green
Hamilton
Hyndman
Johnston
(Lake-Centre)
Kuhl
Lennard
and Messieurs: Maelnnis MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) MacLean (Cape Breton North-Victoria) MacLennan MacNeil Macphail (Miss) McCallum Mallette Martin Moore Mutch
Parent (Quebec West and South)
Parent (Terrebonne)
Raymond
Reid
Rennie
Ross (St. Paul's)
St-Pere
Spence
Walsh
Winkler
Young-44.

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


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I gathered
from what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) said the other day that he would make inquiry as to whether the Auditor General's report should not as a matter of course be referred to the committee on public accounts. This question arises out of this motion.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I have looked into the procedure of recent years and I find that in most cases since 1931 the Auditor General's report has been tabled by the Minister of Finance shortly after the opening of the session and that a subsequent motion has been made to refer the report to the appropriate committee after the setting up of the committees. I intend to make such a motion one of these days.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT (Members to act on the part of the Commons)
Mr. Speaker and Messieurs:
Barber
Bertrand (Prescott)
Fafard
Fraser
Gray
Hill
Landeryou Maelnnis MacMillan Macphail (Miss)
Moore
O'Neill
Pinard
Purdy
Rheaume
Roberge
Sinclair
Spence
Taylor (Norfolk) Tustin-20.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) moved tihat the report be concurred in. Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, February 4, 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.
Mr. A. A. BROWN (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, during the week-end while I was home certain merchants and manufacturers in and about the city of Hamilton called upon me, and in the course of our conversation advised me that two of the greatest factors that were contributing to the unemployment situation and to increasing unemployment to-day in that district were, first, that American

The Address-Mr. Brown
goods are being dumped into our markets at much below the selling price in the United States, and, second, that a flood of Japanese goods are being sold in the departmental and retail stores of this country, to an extent which is hardly realized by the general public. The Japanese have gone into making screws, brushes, book-ends, lighters, etc., many of which articles are selling in Canada at much below the cost even of the materials that enter into them. It simply means that these industries in Japan are being subsidized by the people of Canada, and, I repeat, they are selling their goods in this country at a price below or at best equal to the cost of the materials used in producing them.
Before the house adjourned on Friday, I was saying that it seems to me that the government is too well satisfied with the present financial and social conditions in this country. To such an extent is this true that you can read the speech from the throne as often as you like, and you will find in it no indication of any measures proposed to reduce the uncontrollable expenditure, which accounts for some forty cents out of every dollar of revenue collected. No measures are being taken to wipe out the sugar tax, which the members of this government, when in opposition, opposed so strenuously, and there is no suggestion that the eight per cent sales tax is to be reduced, although it is one of the chief obstacles to carrying on business in this country. Nor is there suggested any practical scheme of cooperation with the provinces and municipalities to remove from real estate the tremendous burden of taxation from which it is suffering, and which is the great obstacle to a revival of the building industry. I think if the government would make some effort to cooperate with these other governing bodies it would do much more to help the building industry than the present financial loan arrangements for that same purpose.
Another year has passed, Mr. Speaker, and no measure has been introduced by this government to deal effectively with our railway problem, which has been increasing the national debt by many millions of dollars year after year. The railway problem, I think it is generally recognized, is one of the most important with which this country has to deal, and speaking for myself I do not think we shall have any major degree of prosperity until this problem is solved.
Perusing the speech from the throne we find that the government's idea of a substantial measure of social reform consists of a proposed amendment to the British North America Act which would enable parliament
51952-13i
to enact forthwith a national scheme of unemployment insurance. Such a measure, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most important with which this .parliament could be called upon to deal, and I fear that the government is not attaching to it the importance it deserves. It is a measure that would affect to a very great extent my constituency of Hamilton East. Hamilton is one of the largest industrial cities of this dominion. It is situated in one of the richest fruit and vegetable growing districts, the prosperity of which is dependent upon the millions of dollars paid out annually in wages by the industries in the Hamilton district. There is no part of the country more sensitive to fluctuations and variations in industry than Hamilton and the surrounding district, and uncertainty as to the attitude of this government in the matter of making tariffs and making treaties has contributed to unemployment there.
The government appears to have adopted the attitude that it took between the years 1921 and 1930, when it reduced the tariff, without any compensating benefits to the people of this country, at a time when all the other nations of the world were raising tariffs. When the members on this side of the house complained about the grave injuries that were being done to our industries by these tariff reductions, hon. gentlemen opposite pointed then, as they do to-day, to our huge external trade and to the large revenues that are being collected; they closed their eyes entirely to the fact that hundreds of thousands of Canadians were leaving Canada to look for work in the United States. Following the tariff reductions made during that period, various products that were manufactured in the many branch factories in Hamilton were no longer manufactured there but were manufactured in the main factory in the United States. But when the Conservative party came into power in 1930 and raised the tariff to ensure that our industries would be able to compete on even terms with those of foreign nations, products that had never before been manufactured in the branch factories in Hamilton were manufactured there, and with very little, if any, increase in price to the consumers.
When the Liberal party came into power again in 1935, we found history repeating itself. The government, in its quest for international trade, is making or contemplating making treaties which according to rumour it is hoped will not sacrifice our industries and will be of benefit to this country.
I do not wish the members of this house to think I believe in the tariff as a panacea
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

for all our economic ills. Nor do I believe in high tariffs. I believe that we must trade with other nations, but I contend that a proper protective tariff in order to influence trade balances, to provide work and opportunities for both the farmer and the industrial worker, is the right tariff for a nation such as ours. It is impossible to have any measure of social or economic reform unless all parties in this house agree to the principle of a fair protective tariff.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I am sorry to have to stop the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I find myself in what is no doubt a similar position to that of many other hon. members: we should have liked to see something more in the speech from the throne than there is in it, yet we are not greatly disappointed, because we did not expect it.
But there are certain things that we have a right to expect. This is the third session of parliament since this government came into office, and we have the right to expect that the government, possessing as it does the power, should give effect to some of the promises it made to the electorate before it assumed office. The government should not forget that it is here to-day because of a failure of the former government to deal effectively with the economic situation. It should also be remembered that this government came into office at a very much more favourable time than the former administration. The previous government came into office when the country was going into the deeps of the depression, a depression not peculiar to this country but common to the world at large; whereas the present government came into power when the economic situation the world over was improving. They are therefore more accountable to the people of Canada than was the former government because they have not extended that improvement to a larger section of the population. I am not taking up the cudgels on behalf of the previous administration; we criticized them as we criticize the present one, but there is that difference, and it should be remembered.
It is true that some improvement has taken place since this government came into office, but it cannot be denied that the government is not responsible for that improvement, because a similar process has been going on all over the world, and great as is the power of this government it does not extend much beyond the bounds of the dominion.

In my opinion there is a reason why more has not been done, and until that reason is recognized and considered, very little will be done. It is that, underlying the economic fluctuations of to-day not only in Canada but all over the world, there is a fundamental flaw in the economic system itself. The circumstances and conditions which built up in the past what we were pleased to call prosperity have disappeared and will not return. As I have said, the improvement of which we boast has been world-wide. The depression, of which we already see signs, will also be world-wide. And no country in the world has made less preparation to meet it than Canada has.
When the parts'- now in power went to the people in 1935, it presented a fairly definite program, with planks dealing with various matters of concern to the people. Chief among these was unemployment, and the Liberal party promised to deal effectively with it. The improved economic conditions in the last two and a half years have of course diminished unemployment, but let us remember that in one month alone, last December, over
78,000	were added to the unemployed lists, and there is nothing in the policies of this government that could have prevented that occurrence. Similar increases, brought about by a world-wide situation, may take place in the coming months, and all the improvement, as far as employment is concerned, would be wiped away.
Then we were promised unemployment insurance. I am pleased that the government is taking steps to give effect to that pledge, but I was astonished the other day when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that the actions of the former-Conservative- government were responsible for this delay of five years. Unemployment insurance was a plank in the Liberal party's platform as far back as 1919. If that be so, and it is so, the Liberal government of to-day is responsible for a delay of fourteen years.
We were also promised the liberation of external trade. Trade of course has increased. This government said not only that it would improve conditions by enlarging trade within empire countries but that it would increase trade with all countries. The facts are otherwise. I have before me an article by Courtland Elliott in Canadian Business, the official organ of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. It is pointed out, in an analysis of Canadian trade, that our trade with the United Kingdom is, in percentages, approximately the same as it was in 1932; that is,

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
taking the months January to October, 1932, and comparing them with the months January to October, 1937.


Mr. DUNNING:: Percentages of what?


Angus MacInnis: The percentages of Canadian trade; that is, that part of Canada's trade done with the United Kingdom is approximately the same as it was in 1932.


Mr. EULER:: Both exports and imports.


Angus MacInnis: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes.


Angus MacInnis: I thought I had made that clear; I am sorry that I did not. Our total trade with the United States has increased by some nine per cent. The percentage of our total trade with empire countries, that is the British dominions, increased by a very small amount, but the percentage of our total trade with other foreign countries decreased from 22-3 per cent to 11-6 per cent. That is not extending trade on the basis on which the government promised it would be extended.
Then we were promised control of credit. I have a copy of the Liberal platform, which has a note on the back saying:
The paragraphs above have been extracted from the official report of Mr. Mackenzie King's speech in the House of Commons, on February 27, 1933.
With regard to the control of credit the following statement is made:
The Liberal party believes that credit is a
ublic matter, not of interest to bankers only,
ut of direct concern to the average citizen. It stands for the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank . . .
And so on. In this regard there has been no change that has had any significance whatever; and for that statement I have no less an authority than the hon. member for Vancouver r-Burrard (Mr. McGeer). Speaking at the annual meeting of the Vancouver-Burrard Liberal Association on November 4, he said, as reported in the Daily Province:
" Government control of the Bank of Canada for the benefit of the people has been promised by the Liberal party, said Mr. McGeer, and he for one would not sit idly in his seat at Ottawa without protesting that it be put into effect.
That would seem to be conclusive evidence that this plank at least has not been carried into effect. The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard is an authority on monetary reform. I know he is an authority because he has said so himself. He used to talk a good deal about it and spread enlightenment in regard to this very complex subject, but he does not do so any more.


Miss MACPHAIL:: He went to England.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, he went to England and sat at a banquet at which were present the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir Montagu Norman, and now the hon. gentleman does not speak about money; he speaks about the scenery of British Columbia-a wonderful subject to discuss even if it has not the economic and personal interest that money has for most people.
There was also another great exponent of money in British Columbia-we have more than scenery there, let me tell you. I refer to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I do not know whom he sat with when he went to Great Britain, but he does not speak about money now either. Possibly all that was necessary to stop him was a wink from the Minister of Finance. At any rate, nothing has been done in that connection.
Then there was the matter of the liberation of internal trade:
The Liberal party will seek to end artificial price control and agreements in restraint of trade. Price-fixing by agreements restrict and hamper trade internally. The internal trade of our country has become honeycombed and enmeshed by secret understandings and agreements.
I believe that that is as true to-day as it was true in 1935, but nothing has been done to remedy it; and until we deal effectively with monopoly control in this country we shall not get our people out of the poverty they are in to-day.
There was also a section dealing with the reassertion of personal liberty. I had intended to make some reference to this, particularly as it concerns the so-called Quebec padlock law, but I will not do so, not because something could not be said about it, but the matter has been discussed already; and after listening to the very excellent speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) the other day I decided not to discuss the question. I am not satisfied with all that he said; nevertheless his speech last Friday should be of great interest to the people of Canada.
May I take this opportunity also to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) on the attitude he took in the trouble that developed at Oshawa last year. If we had more of his point of view, more of the understanding that the Minister of Labour showed on that occasion, there would be fewer labour difficulties in Canada than there are.
I intend to support the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett); I shall vote for it, but I should be much
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

more enthusiastic about it if it were more positive and less negative than it is. If it had stated the lines along which the Conservative party would proceed to lay the foundation of an enduring prosperity I would vote for it with far more enthusiasm than I shall when the vote is taken.
Two facts stand out in the life of Canada to-day; we have a country of great potential wealth, vast possibilities, and we have a country in which there is dire poverty. And the poverty of the masses is increasing; the poverty of the farmers, despite supposed improvement in the last few years, is increasing. We should try to find out the fundamental cause of this situation. Surely it is not because the wealth is not here or because our people are not prepared to work and produce wealth; there must be some other difficulty, some other fundamental cause that we have not discovered. There has been, of course, very little attempt to deal scientifically with the economic and social questions confronting us, and I submit they are not incapable of solution if we approach them in a scientific way. The small group to which I have the honour to belong believes that the solution lies in the methods which we have suggested in this house and elsewhere during the last few years. I shall not press that upon the house at this time, although I will call attention to some statements that have been made here during the present debate, statements to which we should give consideration and which every member of this house might very well study closely.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), speaking here a week ago, said:
Why is it that to-day we have such enormous aggregations of capital in the banks-capital unemployed? Why is it that to-day the banks have such enormous investments in our securities? Is there lack of confidence in our ability properly to function as a producing country?
I am not going to answer the questions of tihe leader of the opposition, or take time to disagree with his own answer. The facts of course are as stated by him, and there must be some reason for their being so. Then the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), speaking in the same debate, and referring to the prevailing poverty of to-day, said:
Take the Brookings Institution discoveries. It has found that in the peak of the boom in the United States the people of that country were able to buy only eighty per cent of the productive capacity of the United States.
I presume "productive capacity" as used by him meant the actual production in the United States at the time.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is not what
the Brookings Institution said. "Productive capacity" were the words used by the Brookings Institution.


Angus MacInnis: I am interpreting that expression in the way I think it was used. If it was not used in that way, it has no sense, and I disagree with the Minister of Finance.


Charles Avery Dunning: The report shows very plainly what it means.


Angus MacInnis: Then the 'hon. member for Lethbridge went on:
Now will any member of this house, who thinks he knows, tell us why that was?
Of course my friends to the left would say that it was because we have not sufficient money. I do not agree with that. I believe that the money is here. We have abundance of money to distribute the wealth that is produced in this country, but those who need the wealth have not the money; those who have the money do not need the wealth, and consequently it piles up and we are unemployed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Angus MacInnis: 
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: What
political party was that?


Angus MacInnis: I will mention it by and by. Indeed honesty should go much further. It should cause him to resign his seat and give the people who elected him on the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation program an opportunity to approve or disapprove his
action. However, there was method in his silence. When he left the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation he with a few others formed a new party, the Social Constructive party. He no doubt hoped that when he came here this session he would be able to announce himself as the spearhead of a real socialist political movement in Canada. Things however do not always turn out as we wish. His party was absolutely rejected by the electorate of British Columbia, and no longer exists. He has therefore come to the profound conclusion that he is definitely of the "Liberal structure of mind", and sees no reason why the Liberal party should not open its ranks to him. I agree with him in that respect; I think he is Tory enough to find an abiding resting place in the Liberal fold. But when he says that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in British Columbia is not a coherent group, and no longer represents a truly foundational opposition to the existing so-called capitalist party, I do not agree with him, because the facts are all to the contrary. Despite the opposition of the old parties, and the party of which my hon. friend was a member, we maintained our numerical strength in the British Columbia legislature, and it is an accepted fact that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group was very coherent and the only effective opposition in the British Columbia legislature during the recent session. If the hon. member for Nanaimo does not know these facts he should read the British Columbia press, preferably with an open mind.
With much of what my hon. friend had to say regarding the communist party I agree. That party does try to get into and control other organizations, political, industrial and social. That policy, however, is not confined to this country. The way to overcome the machinations of the communist party is to oppose them, not to run away as my hon. friend did. We also know that the British Columbia section of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation dealt definitely and decisively with the communist party at its last convention in July, 1937.
Why did my hon. friend raise the communist bogey? A short excerpt from the speech which he quoted the other evening, his maiden speech of 1936, will give a clue to what he had in mind. I quote from his speech on that occasion, referring to Hansard at page 182:
But, sir, I do ask this honourable house and its members not to confuse the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group of seven with those who in present day colloquial speech are classed as communists and anarchists. To do that is all too common; but if you must do it, it will not ultimately harm us.
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

May I say to my hon. friend, as he said then, that if he must do it, it will not ultimately harm us. He continued:
Nearly two thousand years ago those who followed the Master heard the term " Christian " spoken in utter opprobrium, and it did not hurt his followers. But these terms are intended by many in the house and all through the country to bring into derision the cause we uphold.
Nothing more need be said in regard to that, but my hon. friend's closing remarks when dealing with this subject the other night were truly pathetic in their transparency. He said, quoting from page 166 of Hansard:
So it is that while still a socialist I declare that I am essentially of the liberal structure of mind, and while my election in 1935 constrains me to call myself an independent for the time being I recognize the weakness to the country and my people in the stand I am constrained to take. I definitely believe that there are many not only potential but essential socialists in the Liberal and Conservative ranks, and I believe it would be to the advantage of the country and its progress if the leaders of the old line parties would declare their readiness to embrace all proper to their particular structure of mind, no matter how their intelligence and purpose may desire constitutionally to vary the country's present economy and economic social system.
Out of this statement the following syllogism emerges:
1.	"I am a socialist of the liberal structure of mind."
2.	"The leaders of the old parties should embrace people of their particular structure."
3.	"Therefore the leader of the Liberal party should embrace me."
As one who is truly interested in the welfare of the hon. member for Nanaimo I hope that party will not turn a deaf ear to his appeal.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, before proceeding to discuss a number of questions which have been raised in the course of the debate I should like to add my congratulations to those already extended by other members of the house to the mover and the seconder of the address. It was quite evident, I think, from the high quality of their speeches, that they will add considerably to the strength of the government benches, and I believe it was equally evident that both the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Francoeur) and the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Warren) will bring honour and distinction to the constituencies which they represent in this parliament.
I hope my hon. friend who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in the course of his argument. I shall have occasion
fMr. Maclnnis.]
a little later to take issue with him in some of his conclusions.
On Monday of last week I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech delivered by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). It did seem to me at the time that this speech was a mixture of righteous indignation and unrighteous criticism. I thought then, and I still think, that some of t'he statements and charges made in the course of that speech went much beyond the amenities of parliamentary debate, and I feel quite sure that members of the house who have had a longer experience of parliamentary discussion than I have had would share that impression with me.
Some of the thunderbolts of my right hon. friend were directed against persons outside of this house, who are not in a position to defend themselves; some were directed against individual members of the government, including myself. In dealing with the subject matter of some of these charges, as I propose to do a little later, I should like to make it quite clear to the house at the outset that I do not do so with any desire for immunity from criticism or with any feeling that any special importance should be attached to questions of personal vindication. Criticism is a legitimate and necessary function of the opposition under our parliamentary system, and it follows as a matter of course that the leader of the opposition must have the utmost freedom in his comments on any and every aspect of government policy. Nevertheless it is equally clear, I believe, that freedom of this kind is almost certain to be abused unless it is restrained by a sense of responsibility, and I do not think it is going too far to say that in the course of his speech on Monday last my right hon. friend did exceed the limits of legitimate criticism.
Perhaps it would be idle to speculate on the motives which led him to indulge in his tirade of suspicion, rumour and denunciation, but it did occur to me at the time that he might wish to create a diversion-I think that is the military term-in order to cover his retreat from Winnipeg to Edmonton; his movement, so to speak, from the old Conservative policy of 1928 to the new Conservative policy of 1938. My right hon. friend has had some experience in changing direction suddenly, but I cannot help but believe that he would wish to execute this manoeuvre behind a smoke screen of some kind, because otherwise it might appear that he, the commander, was some distance ahead of his army, or it might even appear that he had no army at all. But all these are questions, of course, on which I cannot hope to speak with authority.

The Address-Mr. Rogers
Before dealing with some of the charges made by the leader of the opposition I believe it will meet with the wishes of hon. members on both sides of this house if I review briefly the unemployment situation and the figures with respect to relief, in the light of developments which have taken place during the past year. As announced in the speech from the throne, there has been a marked increase in employment and a marked decrease in the numbers of those receiving unemployment aid. I am sure that statement in the speech from the throne was received with general satisfaction. As a matter of fact, I think it is fair to say that it is a very moderate statement of the improvement that has taken place during the past year, and particularly during the six months from April to October.
As members of the house are aware, there has been some criticism in the past owing to the lack of comparability in the figures respecting the number of those on relief. Fortunately we are now in a position where we can say that there is strict comparability, so far as comparisons of last year and the year previous are concerned. The registration conducted by the national employment commission began in September, 1936, and has continued steadily from that time forward. The figures which I propose to give to the house and which will illustrate the improvement which has taken place during the past year are figures from the registration conducted by the national employment commission.
I think it is well to explain that there is an unavoidable time lag in the publication of figures from the registration of those on relief. It will be readily understood that the figures for October cannot be sent in by the municipalities and provinces all across the dominion until after the end of the month or some time early in November. It is equally clear that these figures cannot be assembled and analyzed without some loss of time. At the same time I am pleased, however, to be able to say to the house that the delay has been decreased and we are hoping for a still further improvement as time goes on.
The usefulness of the registration has been amply revealed by our experience during the past fifteen months. For example, it enables us to measure the changing trends in the unemployment situation from month to month. It also enables us to measure seasonal variations with respect to particular sections of the dominion. This has been of considerable importance in dealing with problems of transiency of the single unemployed and also in
the formulation of projects suitable to different sections of the country under the appropriation for youth training. Finally, it has been of great importance in connection with our periodic revision of grants in aid.
Apart from these advantages, which after all concern administration, I think it is fair to say that the usefulness of the registration of the unemployed on relief has become quite evident in another direction. The time was when we were confronted with these staggering figures of millions or hundreds of thousands and were left with the impression that they represented the total of those who were actually employable and unemployed in this country. I have even seen this suggestion in some newspaper editorials and I was very much surprised to note that the actual figures had not been analyzed more carefully before such a suggestion was created. However, through the registration, through bulletins issued by the national employment commission and through press releases, I believe there is now throughout the country a much more accurate appreciation of the problem of unemployment and relief.
We have been able, so to speak, to separate the total problem into its constituent elements of social and economic significance. We now make a distinction in our thinking between those who are receiving agricultural assistance and those who are receiving unemployment aid. We now make a distinction between those who are employable and those who are unemployable. We also make a distinction between those who are dependent and on relief and those who are heads of families or who are individuals capable of employment. As I have suggested, all this has given us a better appreciation of the problem itself and a clearer recognition of the definite progress that has been made, particularly during the past year, in the absorption by private industry of very large numbers of those who were employable and on relief.
I think I can best convey the improvement in the employment situation, and its reflection in the reduction of relief rolls in the industrial areas, by giving a summary of the completed figures of registration for the month of October. As I have suggested, these figures are comparable with the figures for October, 1936. The registration conducted by the national employment commission began in September of that year. I might say that the complete figures for November, 1937, and the preliminary figures for December will be available in a few days.
The Address-Mr. Rogers

First of all, there is the material aid given to persons other than resident farm operators. I want to emphasize the distinction between agricultural assistance and unemployment aid because, after all, agricultural assistance is a different problem. Agricultural distress is mainly due to climatic causes and cannot be attributed in a large way to the operation of economic factors or policies. The reduction in the dominion total of recipients of unemployment aid in October, 1937, as compared with October, 1936, was 44-3 per cent. The decrease in the dominion total of partially employable persons in the same year was 23-5 per cent, and the decrease in the dominion total of unemployables was 9-4 per cent. The decrease in the grand total of non-agricultural aid recipients, including individuals and heads of families and their dependents, amounted to 36-7 per cent.
I turn next to those in receipt of agricultural aid. In the year under review the decrease in the total of farmers and their families, other than in the province of Saskatchewan, receiving aid, amounted to 71-3 per cent. This decrease is a clear reflection of the improvement in crop conditions in most of the provinces of the dominion, and it also brings home to us the serious disaster which
has befallen Saskatchewan during the past year. The increase in the total of farmers and their families in Saskatchewan receiving agricultural aid was 95-3 per cent. The increase in the total for all provinces of those receiving agricultural aid was 22-4 per cent.
I come now to all classes receiving material aid, that is, those receiving unemployment aid and those receiving agricultural assistance. From October, 1936, to October, 1937, there has been a net decrease of 20-3 per cent. Perhaps I might also give a summary of the preliminary figures for November of this year as compared with November of 1936. It would seem that the figures for fully employable persons will still be about 40 per cent below those for November of the previous year. There has been an increase of about ten per cent over October, 1937, in the total number of persons receiving aid, but this change is one that we would have anticipated because of the variations in seasonal employment. There has been a decrease of 15-7 peT cent, as compared with November, 1936, in the total of all classes receiving aid.
With the consent of the house and for the information of hon. members I should like to place on Hansard a number of tables which will illustrate and clarify the statements I have just made. They are as follows:
Percentage Distribution of Population and of Numbers of Persons on Aid, amongst Eight Provinces
Paying Aid in October, 1937
	Population according to the 1931 Census		Total persons on Aid October, 1937	
Number	Per cent of total of 8 Provinces*	Number	Per cent of total of 8 ProvincesPrince Edward Island	88,038	0-9	937	01Nova Scotia	512,846	5-1	6,557	0-8New Brunswick	No	Registration	Quebec	2,874,255	28-9	136,764	171Ontario	3,431,683	34-5	161,959	20-1Manitoba	700,139	70	41,547	5-2Saskatchewan	921,785	9-3	358,385	44-5Alberta	731,605	7-3	52,155	6-5British Columbia	694,263	70	45,584	5-7Total-8 Provinces	9,954,614*	1000	803,888	100-0
'To make comparison, population of New Brunswick is not included, since that province was not paying
aid.
TMr. Rogers. 1

The Address-Mr. Rogers
From the Registration, all Persons on Material Aid, to which the Dominion Government contributed
-	October 1936	October 1937	Net Increase or Decrease October, 1937, compared with October, 1936	
			Percentage	Number
A-All Persons on Material or Agiiculturai Aid-	1,008,796 934 13,828 330,1/6 279,814 58,342 196,498 63,661 65,543	803,888 937 6,557 No Regi 136,764 161,959 41,547 358,385 52,155 45,584	-	20-3 + 0-3 -	52-6 stration. -	58-6 -	42-1 -	28-8 + 82-4 - 18-1 - 30-5	-	204,908 + 3 -	7,271 -	193,412 -	117,855 -	16,795 + 161,887 -	11,506 -	19,959
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
B-All Persons on Material Aid-	729,527 789 13,828 276,161 252,299 51,587 39,493 38,172 57,198	462,050 811 6,557 No Regi 133,131 157,431 40,740 51,804 31,597 39,979	-	36-7 + 2-8 -	52-6 stration. -	51-8 -	37-6 -	210 + 31-2 -	17-2 -	30-1	-	267,477 + 22 -	7,171 -	143,030 -	94,868 -	10,847 + 12,311 -	6,575 -	17,219
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
				
C-All persons on Agricultural Aid-	279,269 145	341,838 126	+ 22-4 - 13-1	+ 62,569 - 19
				
				
	54,015 27,515	No Regi 3,633 4,528	stration. -	93 3 -	83-5	-	50,382 -	22,987
				
				
				
	6,755 4,672 2,083	807	- 88-1 -100 - 61-3	-	5,948 -	4,672 -	1,276
				
		807		
				
	157,005 122,238 34,76/	306,581 180,830 125,751	+ 95-3 + 47-9 +261-7	+ 149,576 + 58,592 + 90,984
				
				
				
	25,489 ll,30o 14,183 8,345	20,558 14,379 6,179 5,605	-	19-3 + 27-2 -	56-4 -	39.8	-	4,931 + 3,073 -	8,004 -	9.740
				
				
				
				
From the Registration Numbers of Fully Employable Persons on Aid to which the Dominion Government contributed
	October 1936	October 1937	Net Increase or Decrease October, 1937, compared with October, 1936	
			Percentage	Number
	214,271 138 4,249 No 83,982 70,884 15,975 8,730 12,410 17,903	119,431 107 1,923 Registration 37,193 36,612 12,104 12,021 8.742 10,729	-44-3 -22-5 -54-7	-94,840 -	31 -	2,326
				
				
				
			-55-7	-46,789
			-48-3	-34,272 -	3,871 + 3,291 -	3,668
			-24-2	
			+37-7 -29-6 -40-1	
				
				- 7,174
				
Above table includes heads of families; individuals without dependents; and dependents (other than wives) who (a) were previously employed but are now unemployed and (b) who are between ages 16 and 29 years and were never gainfully occupied.
Resident farm operators (i.e., farmers) and their dependents are not included in arriving at this classification.
The Address-Mr. Rogers

From the Registration Numbers of Partially Employable and Unemployable Persons on Aid to which the Dominion Government contributed
' -	October 1936	October 1937	Net Increase or Decrease October, 1937, compared with October, 1936	
			Percentage	Number
Partially Employable-				
Dominion Total	33,929	25,963	-23-5	-7,966Prince Edward Island	28	29	+ 3-6	+ 1Nova Scotia	391	107	-72-6	- 284New Brunswick	No	Registration	Quebec	8,354	5,006	-40-1	-3,348Ontario	11,654	8,686	-25-5	-2,968Manitoba	3,071	3,230	+ 5-2	+ 159Saskatchewan	2,759	2,208	-200	- 551Alberta	2,371	2,150	- 9-3	- 221British Columbia	5,301	4,547	-14-2	- 754Unem ploy able-	Dominion Total	19,152	17,344	- 9-4	-1,808Prince Edward Island	157	184	+ 17-2	+ 27Nova Scotia	73	13	-82-2	- 60New Brunswick	No Registration	Quebec	2,794	962	-65-6	-1,832Ontario	9,092	9,694	+ 6-6	+ 602Manitoba	1,111	260	-7o-6	- 851Saskatchewan	1,498	2,824	+88-5	+1,326Alberta	844	75S	-10-2	- 86British Columbia	3,583	2,649	-261	- 934
Above table includes heads of families; individuals without dependents; and dependents (other than wives) who were previously employed but are now unemployed.
Resident farm operators (i.e., farmers) and their dependents are not included in arriving at this classification.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would the minister tell us how the term "unemployment" is defined by his department?


Mr. ROGERS:: In answer to that question, which perhaps I could answer more satisfactorily when the estimates of the department are before the house, I would simply say that so far we have taken, as we have been obliged to take, the returns of the municipalities which have made these returns to us, and there has been a very wide variation in the returns of unemployables from different municipalities. Some municipalities will report the unemployables as representing five per cent of the total, and others as representing as high as twenty per cent of the total. That is the situation at the present time. I might say, however, that in our agreements with the provinces covering the remainder of the fiscal year we are trying to secure some general understanding as to a proper definition of unemployability.
I do not propose to enter more fully at this time into a survey of unemployment and re-

lief, but I sfyall take a very early opportunity to place the whole situation before the house, and also to indicate the success which has attended the various policies which have been adopted by the government in dealing with the several aspects of this problem.
I turn now to some of the charges made by the right hon. leader of the opposition in the course of his speech in this debate. It did seem to me that the most flagrant of those charges was his attack on the members of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. That attack, let it be understood, was not born of impulse. It was not provoked by the cross-fire of debate. It was premeditated and deliberate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Quite so; and it was designed to impair the usefulness of a commission which was asked to conduct the most important investigation in this country since confederation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so.

The Address-Mr. Rogers


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Chief Justice of Ontario and Mr. Dafoe are very well known in all parts of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say directly that there
was no design of that character. It was a criticism against the one type of politician that constitutes that tribunal.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has already dealt very effectively with that point in his speech in reply to my right hon. friend. I might also remind him that in Great Britain, as well as in other countries, it is not the exception but the custom for one who has been attorney general to move from that position to the position of Lord Chief Justice; and the Lord Chancellor, who sits in the Privy Council, has himself political functions to perform and is actually a member of the administration of the day. Surely it is a strange thing to suggest that the chief justice or any other member of our courts is not able to conduct his duties as a royal commissioner with complete impartiality and competence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not the point. The point was there was no representative of other than Liberals on the commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Mr. Speaker, as I have just suggested, the integrity and competence of the Chief Justice of Ontario and Mr. Dafoe are recognized in all parts of this country, and I doubt very much if there are many people who will attach any very great weight to the charges brought against them by the leader of the opposition. Doctor R. A. MacKay is not so well known in all parts of this dominion, and for that reason, in my opinion, the attack upon him was even more inexcusable. Let me give to the house the words used by my right hon. friend in referring to Doctor MacKay, representative of the maritime provinces on the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations. He said:
With regard to the gentleman who represents the maritime provinces, I repeat that for bitter partisanship I have never known his equal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: He went on:
I say further that he published a book recently and sent the proofs of it for revision to many people throughout this dominion, and from beginning to end it was a tissue of misrepresentations and false statements that had to be corrected in order that it might have a semblance of truth attached to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Might I ask my right hon. friend, is a book published when the proofs
are submitted for revision, or is it published when it is printed and distributed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Presumably both. As a matter of law, it is published when the proofs are sent out.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is quite obvious that Doctor MacKay wished to have comments if he sent these proofs to various people, and my right hon. friend himself recognizes that Doctor MacKay was prepared to alter the text before actual publication was made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point was, there is no excuse for a man making false statements for a matter of record.


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is sometimes a matter of opinion whether a statement is false or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no question about it; it is a matter of record-printed record too.	.


Norman McLeod Rogers: As a matter of fact, shorn of some of the extravagant language of my right hon. friend, the substance of his attack on Doctor MacKay is this, that Doctor MacKay wrote a book that the right hon. gentleman did not like, and he joined a commission that the right hon. gentleman did not like. I think that may fairly be said to be the sum and substance of his indictment against Doctor MacKay, and for these offences he is branded as a bitter partisan from one end of the country to the other, in a manner which was calculated to injure him in his profession, and which might well have been actionable in slander if the words used had been used by a private citizen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made them publicly, and I am liable to action if he wants one outside of this house.


Mr. ILSLEY:: You attacked him for being from Ontario, outside the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose that is libellous too, is it? I admit it may be libellous in this case.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have known Doctor MacKay for ten years. He occupies the position of professor of government at Dalhousie university, of which my right hon. friend is a distinguished alumnus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am a governor as well.


Norman McLeod Rogers: May I remind the leader of the opposition, in that event, that to hold the chair of government in Dalhousie one is obliged to agree not to participate in any way in political affairs. Doctor MacKay has never made a political speech and has never appeared on a political platform, and yet my right hon. friend says he is a bitter partisan.
The Address-Mr. Rogers


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I go further and say that
Doctor MacKay enjoys the highest respect throughout university circles in this dominion. He has been active in the work of the League of Nations Society and equally active in the work of the Institute of International Relations ; he was chosen by the Carnegie Foundation of the United States to conduct a very important survey of Canadian and American relations. I doubt very much if the reputation of Doctor MacKay is going to be injured seriously by what the right hon. gentleman has said, but at the same time I do feel that something in the nature of an apology or correction is required in the circumstances.
I now turn from this charge to one which concerns me personally. I refer to the charge brought against me by the leader of the opposition because of certain views I expressed on the incidence of the tariff as counsel for the government of Nova Scotia in the economic inquiry of 1934. After listening very carefully to the leader of the opposition on Monday, I concluded I had just fallen short of committing high treason for having stated in very definite terms that the protective tariff had imposed unequal burdens on the several provinces of the dominion. I had turned east against west, and west against east; I had undermined the foundations of confederation, and I was guilty of some measure of moral obliquity because I had become a member of the Liberal administration that had not abolished the tariff. Well, Mr. Speaker, if all this were true it would be a heavy load of responsibility for one person to carry, but perhaps the leader of the opposition will be surprised, and possibly he will be relieved, when I tell him that I have slept reasonably well during the past week, that I have had no overwhelming conviction of sin-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It took some time preparing the speech, though.
Mr. ROGERS; [DOT]-and my conscience, so far as his charges are concerned, has been quite composed. The basis of these grave charges-and I call them grave even although they were nebulous-was his assumption and his assertion that I had advocated the abolition of the Canadian tariff as the remedy for the maladjustments and inequalities of the protective system in its operation in this country during the past sixty years. My answer is, and I give it in the most definite and unequivocal terms, that I did not advocate the abolition of the tariff, either in the submission made to the Nova Scotia economic

commission or at any other time, and I challenge the leader of the opposition to read the brief and repeat his accusation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will do it later, and in more detail.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, my right hon. friend had the brief in his hand the other day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And he chose simply to quote from it certain isolated extracts which seemed to fit in with what he wished to say in criticism of the government at that time. But I doubt very much if my right hon. friend has ever read the brief from beginning to end, even though he used it as the basis of this charge against me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I have read it, but I have not read it very carefully.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I ask my right hon. friend to read it more carefully, for I concluded as much myself. My views on the tariff can be expressed very simply. The tariff is an instrument of policy. If it is used at all other than for purposes of revenue in a federal state it should be used with due regard to its effect upon the maintenance of national unity. Where you have a situation such as exists in Australia and Canada, where secondary industries are largely concentrated in two provinces and where primary and export industries are largely concentrated in other provinces, you cannot move to extremes in tariff policy without endangering national unity and without undermining the very foundations of federal public finance. A high tariff policy will threaten national unity, and no one ought to know it better than the leader of the opposition. Similarly, whatever may have been possible sixty years ago, the abolition of tariffs at this time would disrupt confederation. In any realistic view of our present situation the course of wisdom is the course of moderation.
But while we retain a tariff system I submit that we should keep constantly in mind that there are seven provinces in this dominion whose income is supplied very largely, in some provinces almost exclusively, by primary and export industries, and we must be willing also to study the unequal incidence of the tariff and be prepared to apply such compensating adjustments as may be practicable. That is the position which I developed before the royal commission of economic enquiry in Nova Scotia. That is the position which I hold to-day. It is a position which, I believe, is entirely con-

The Address-Mr. Rogers
sistent with Liberal policy. It is a position which is entirely inconsistent with the traditional policy of the Conservative party.
In this connection let me remind the leader of the opposition that this present administration has already recognized the claims of primary and export industries in three directions. It has reduced the duties on implements of production. It has concluded a reciprocity agreement with the United States which has conferred special benefits on those provinces which have suffered most from the incidence of the protective system. And it has revised and renewed the Ottawa agreements with the same object in view, even though the negotiation of these several agreements did involve the lessening of protection of some of our secondary industries. Finally, this administration has appointed a royal commission to make a thorough inquiry into the whole structure of federal public finance. If the leader of the opposition has any doubts as to the validity of these conclusions which were presented to the Nova Scotia commission of economic inquiry, I would remind him that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, in their brief presented to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, recognized in effect that the tariff had been unequal in its incidence and suggested the wisdom of some compensating adjustments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So has the Conservative party.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would also remind my right hon. friend that in Australia, where as I have suggested conditions are very similar to those in Canada, there have been careful investigations into this whole matter. The leader of the opposition spoke the other day of Professor Copland, with, I thought, a measure of respect and admiration. I wonder if he is aware that Professor Copland was a member of a commission of economic inquiry which made a thorough study in 1929 of the effects of the tariff in Australia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And is he also aware that as a result of this inquiry it was found that the tariff has pressed unequally on various sections of Australia?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Norman McLeod Rogers: And that various remedies were suggested to correct the discrimination thus produced? I might very well place on Hansard at least a section of the appendix to that report, because it refers particularly to this very matter to which my right hon. friend has taken exception. These are the
words used by this commission on the Australian tariff in 1929:
(1)	The unequal effects between states are probably the most embarrassing consequences of the tariff, but they have their roots in the unequal effects between industries, which are natural and inevitable consequences of tariff protection. Were Australia one email, compact economic unit, in which the benefits of protection were thoroughly diffused, in which one common tax system operated, and in which development expenditure was equally shared, differences between areas would be less important. But with our diverse geographical conditions and our federal system of government this is not the case.
(2)	The distribution of Australian industries has been substantially modified by the tariff. Assistance to protected industries has been provided chiefly at the expense of the export industries. We have shown that these industries are retarded and that their land values have been curtailed. The costs imposed upon them have been borne chiefly in the country districts and in the outlying states, which are more naturally adapted for the export industries.
I doubt if there is any advantage in my going further with this quotation. The leader of the opposition has promised he will read the submission, and he will find this particular extract on page 181 of the brief.
The leader of the opposition referred also in the course of his speech the other day to the celebrated debate in the United States between Webster and Hayne. Let me quote his words:
No man who is familiar with the history of the United States

I would like the house to keep that in mind.

can fail to remember the great struggle that took place between the states and the central power. The suggestion that the states were sovereign powers was put forward by Calhoun and Hayne. The great debate in the Senate between Webster and Hayne was to decide whether they should have a strong union or whether there should be a group of sovereign states gathered together in a loose form of government. That was the issue, but the reply of Webster in the Senate settled the matter. Hundreds of thousands of copies of his speeches were circulated in every part of the union, and the cry that had gone forward for the establishment of sovereign states ended.
Now, fro-m beginning to end of that reference by my right hon. friend there is no suggestion that the cause of the crisis in the United States at that time was the extreme tariff which had fallen with special injury upon the southern and western states, and that what precipitated the debate between Webster and Hayne was the threat of South Carolina of nullification, the threat that it would not permit the collection of tariff duties within the state of South Carolina. That was the actual cause of that debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not according to Mr. Webster.
The Address-Mr. Rogers


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend has suggested that this crisis was solved by an eloquent appeal by Webster for national unity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said he had been preparing his speech all his life.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, there were others who were preparing more effective measures for dealing with a crisis of that kind. That crisis was not settled by the eloquence of Webster. It was settled by a message from President Jackson to the United States congress asking that duties which had risen to the level of forty-nine per cent on the average should be reduced from 1832 to 1842 to an average of twenty per cent. That was the way in which that crisis was settled. I refer to it now merely to remind my right hon. friend that tl s question of the tariff in its effect upon the relations of the federal system has been recognized elsewhere. And is a man to be charged with an offence against his country because he seeks to bring out light in a similar way with respect to the effect of the Canadian tariff upon federal relations in this country? I doubt whether there is any advantage in pursuing this point except to say that, as regards the main positions taken in the submission to the Nova Scotia commission, I have no desire to recall them; and I do not propose to recall them. My one regret has been, and I say this to the house quite frankly, that some of the computations made in the course of that brief, and which were placed upon Hansard (by my right hon. friend the other day, have been published in some of our newspapers without some of the explanations and reservations that must always accompany such an analysis of the effects of the tariff upon various regions of the country.
Now I pass on to consider another matter of some importance to the house, one which also contains within it at least the suggestion of an accusation. In his reference to unemployment insurance the other day the leader of the opposition said:
It is well known, of course, that the case with respect to unemployment insurance was not presented to the courts. No one knows that better than the Minister of Labour. It was not, for the simple and obvious reason that admissions, which constituted the basis of the judgment of the court, were made.
I would suggest that these words are at least capable of the construction that the Minister of Labour may have had some prior knowledge that admissions were to be made and that for this reason he might be guilty of an act of barratry against legislation in

the interests of the labouring people of the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I at once assure the hon. gentleman that such was not the case. He was on demurrage at the time in London.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Precisely. I wished very
much to have that assurance, because when my right hon. friend mentioned the other day that I had knowledge of this question I could not recall having heard any reference to the matter apart from the speech made by the leader of the opposition after the announcement was made of the decisions of the privy council last year. I have not heard the suggestion in any other quarter -apart from the references made to the same subject by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) on Friday last, and I should like to deny in categorical terms that either the Minister of Labour or the government was responsible in any degree for admissions made which might lead the privy council to declare this legislation invalid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assure the hon. gentleman again, I did not make any such suggestion.


Norman McLeod Rogers: What I suspect did happen was this, that in the course of questioning, which often accompanies argument before the privy council, one of the counsel for the dominion was asked, for example, whether the general subject of insurance did not properly lie within property and civil rights, and no doubt he would make the admission that insurance generally would fall within that subject; but he would at once proceed to give the argument as to why it should be taken out of that subject and placed under the subjects in section 91 of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the argument reported in the London Times.


Norman McLeod Rogers: At all events, I think this
government can fairly say that with respect to this unemployment insurance measure we have proceded with due regard for constitutional propriety; and we have wished above all else to have upon our statute books an act of unemployment insurance which would be operative and would not be subject to attacks in the courts. I wonder sometimes if my right hon. friend realizes the chaos and confusion that would have resulted had he set up an organization running into thousands of employees across the country under his act of 1935 and then have that act thrown out in the courts. It would have caused a condition

The Address-Mr. Rogers
of indescribable confusion, not only to those who had been employed as members of the staff of the unemployment and social insurance commission, but also to those industries throughout the country which would have been obliged in the interval to adjust much of their office procedure to the requirements of the unemployment insurance returns.
I have sometimes wondered when it was that the leader of the opposition determined in his own mind that this parliament could of itself appropriate the jurisdiction to deal with unemployment insurance. My right hon. friend spent some time in Geneva in the autumn of 1934, and I have wondered whether it was while he was there that he decided that this parliament had competence to deal with unemployment insurance; because as a matter of fact as late as November 27 of that year the then Secretary of State declared in very definite terms that the jurisdiction to deal with unemployment insurance lay properly with the provinces, and in making that statement he was merely declaring what had been generally understood as a result of the decisions in the courts over a long period of years. My right hon. friend may also recall that just prior to his sailing for Geneva in the autumn of 1934-it was at the end of August, as I recall it-he sent a letter to the provincial governments of the dominion. In that letter he recognized clearly that the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with unemployment insurance lay with the provinces, and that applied equally to other matters which he later made the subject of legislation in the session of 1935. As I have said, I do not know when the leader of the opposition changed his mind upon these matters, and it is quite evident that he does not desire to tell the house when he was converted upon this point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will tell him now.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I shall be pleased to know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will read the judgments of the privy council in the aeronautics case and in the radio case in the light of the subsequent discussion he will discover there the reasons.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, the radio case and the aviation case turned upon the question whether or not our ratification of an international convention or treaty would give us jurisdiction. But does my right hon. friend suggest that his unemployment insurance act had any connection whatever with a convention or treaty?
51952-id


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has with a convention, not with a treaty.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The unemployment insurance act was not based upon a convention or a treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was based upon the treaty of peace, in part, as the hon. member will recall-in the recital in connection with the convention that took place under it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have not the act before me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You can get it.


Norman McLeod Rogers: The preamble, however, does not declare that the jurisdiction of the dominion parliament in this matter rests at all upon the ratification of a treaty or convention, but I am quite willing to wait until it is possible to get a copy of the text. I should like, however, to say this. We have felt, as the leader of the opposition has felt, and, I believe, as it is recognized on all sides of the house, that if we are to deal with this problem of economic insecurity, which is the great problem of our generation, we ought to have in Canada an organization and a statutory method of dealing with casual, seasonal and cyclical unemployment. It was with this in mind that the present administration, having found that the legislation of 1935 was not valid, invited the provinces to cooperate in order that an unemployment insurance measure might be introduced at the present session. It has been suggested in some quarters that in taking that action the present government has encroached on provincial autonomy. Surely that cannot be urged up to the present. Instead of appropriating jurisdiction we have asked the provinces to consent to transfer jurisdiction. We have invited them to cooperate with us in making it possible to put this legislation through. If there had been consent on the part of all provinces, as it was our earnest hope there would be, no question of invasion of provincial autonomy could possibly have been raised. As it is, some provinces have indicated that they are not as yet willing to concede that jurisdiction. But I believe it is the will of this house and of the country generally that this government should do its utmost within the bounds of constitutional propriety to proceed with this measure as soon as possible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like finally and briefly to turn to the amendment-


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has exhausted his time, but it may be that the house is willing to grant some indulgence-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.



The Address-Mr. Rogers


Norman McLeod Rogers: I promise to be brief. I wish to refer to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition in his speech on Monday last. That amendment is in the following terms:
We desire respectfully to express regret that the speech from the throne does not indicate that the government have taken or contemplate taking efficient measures to deal with unfavourable economic conditions in Canada, and that no legislative action is proposed to deal effectively with the prevailing uncertainty and insecurity resulting from the inadequate incomes of large numbers of our people.
I should like to say first that the figures I was able to quote a while ago with respect to the improvement in employment made it abundantly clear that during the past year there was in fact a remarkable improvement not merely in the number of wage earners in this country but also in the number of those who previously had been in receipt of state relief but are now happily earning incomes of their own. As a matter of fact, in the period under review some 95,000 have moved from relief rolls into employment in private industry. These men and women are earning incomes where previously they were bn relief. Not only that, but if one takes the latest available figures from the bureau of statistics, as of December, giving the estimate of unemployment in Canada, and carries the statistics back to 1930, the following is shown:
Estimate of Unemployment in Canada
December-
1930		 413,000
1931		 543,000
1932		 675,000
1933		 623,000
1934		 571,000
1935		 546,000
1936		 502,000
1937		 381,000
In other words, during the past year there has been an improvement to the extent of 120,000. I should explain to the house that these figures include those who have been unemployed but not upon relief. The earlier figure I gave of 95,000 covers only those who previously had been on relief.
It might also be pertinent I think to place before the house the actual improvement in wages and earnings which has taken place during the past year. Wage rates during 1936 and 1937 have continued the recovery from the low level of 1933, so that the index number for 1937 was only 2-7 per cent lower than in 1930. It was 11 per cent lower in 1935, and in 1933 it was 15 per cent lower. The greatest recovery has been in logging and saw-milling, which had an increase of 13 per cent over 1936, making the level for 1937 nearly 24 per cent higher than in 1935 and 55 per cent higher than in 1933. In manufac-

turing industries the increase in 1937 was 8 per cent over 1936 and 16 per cent over 1933. The industries showing the greatest increases during the year were: automobile manufacturing, 15 per cent; cotton, 11 per cent; meat packing, 19 per cent; pulp and paper, 12 per cent; crude iron and steel, 14 per cent; metal trades, 10 per cent. Wages in the building trades, which fell 24 per cent between 1930 and 1934, have risen nearly 7 per cent but are still 18 per cent lower than in 1930. On steam railways the rates were only 4 per cent below 1930 in December, and the reductions will be fully restored by April 1 of this year. On electric street railways and in printing trades and coal mining the reductions were less but increases are gradually being made. The principal coal mines in Nova Scotia raised wages nearly ten per cent in 1937.
Moreover, earnings of employees have shown considerable increases. On the principal steam railways, for the first eleven months of 1937 the total compensation paid was $160,419,196 as compared with $152,334,902 in the same period in 1936, and $144,751,921 in 1935. This is the only industry for which earnings of employees in 1937 are available. Figures for certain manufacturing industries for 1936 have been issued. In the primary iron and steel industry the total earnings of employees in 1936 were $13,830,377 as compared with $12,279,390 in 1935 and $14,934,325 in 1930. In petroleum refining, earnings in 1936 were $7,193,148 as compared with $7,046,675 in 1935, $5,897,811 in 1932 and $8,190,130 in 1930. In the men's clothing industry earnings in 1936 were $10,255,745 as compared with $8,990,370 in 1935 and $11,542,990 in 1930.
These figures cover only a very limited part of industry throughout Canada, but they are representative and illustrate the very marked improvement in wages and earnings which has taken place during the past year.
In the light of the improvement which has taken place since the present government came into office, the expanding trade, the expanding income, the expanding employment., the expanding revenues, and the declining deficits, it does seem to me that there is every reason why this house should give its confidence to this administration, even as that confidence has been given in abundant measure by the people of this country.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the remarks made by the various speakers, unless time permits me to refer to some of the last remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), who has just sat down, particularly his remarks in regard to unemployment insurance.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
I want to deal first with the second sentence in paragraph 4 of the speech from the throne, which reads:
Trade with other countries has materially expanded.
With every hon. member of the house I rejoice when the trade of Canada expands, particularly if it expands along sound economic lines. Experienced business men, however, in trying to obtain more customers for that which they produce, are very careful not to alienate the loyalty of dependable customers of long standing. I claim that is exactly what this government has done, in one particular in any event, and I have time only to deal with that one particular. I refer to the anthracite coal trade. The government are so infatuated with such expressions as "expanding trade" and "trade expansion" that in my judgment they have made a very grievous error in their handling of the Welsh anthracite coal trade which may mean the loss of considerable trade to Canada in the form of produce shipped in return to Wales and, in a smaller degree, to Scotland, where we also obtain anthracite coal.
It was an incident that occurred last June in Wales, where I had gone to make my own survey of the ramifications of the anthracite coal trade, that made me determine to refer to the matter in the house on the very first available occasion. I had been asked to address a meeting of coal producers, following a dinner, in the Metropole hotel at Swansea. Just before I rose to speak a porter came into the room and handed a clipping, which I hold in my hand, to the chairman of the meeting, who afterwards handed it to me. I may say that it was on June 7 that I was at Swansea, and this clipping is dated Ottawa, May 29, containing a quotation from the Montreal Standard of that date:
Almost a whole year in advance of the next federal budget, the advance guard of the coal lobby has taken up its position on parliament hill, determined that it will succeed before another session is past in its objective of having the existing duties abolished against American anthracite and bituminous coals.
Further the quotation states:
Ontario is credited with being the chief sufferer under the existing tariffs, with Quebec bearing the balance of the burden.
The newspaper clipping does not reveal the names of any of the lobbyists, but I am satisfied that there would be none from either Nova Scotia or Alberta. I cannot speak for Quebec, but so far as Ontario is concerned I believe I can say that the people of this province are willing, and indeed glad, to give a preference to Nova Scotia bituminous coal, wherever 51952-144
it can be used, as against foreign bituminous coal. Likewise I believe they are glad to give a preference to Alberta coal, wherever it can be used, and to Welsh and Scotch anthracite in the importations we have to make.
Ten or fifteen years ago Canada regularly imported approximately five million tons of anthracite coal per year, all of it from the United States. Then, I claim through the good judgment of members of the house, irrespective of party, legislation or regulations, were initiated to encourage bringing Nova Scotia bituminous coal to Ontario and Quebec, as well as Alberta coal to Saskatchewan, Manitoba and northwestern Ontario. As a result our importations of anthracite coal were reduced from five million tons to three and a half million tons, at which point they seem to be fairly well established.
When the government of the present right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) came into power, he implemented his promise to the electorate to increase intra-empire trade, in large degree in connection with the importation of Welsh anthracite, and in substantial degree in connection with the importation of Scotch anthracite. In fact he carried out that promise in many ways, but time will permit me to deal only with this one. Let us see what the situation was as far as the importation of anthracite was concerned when the right hon. gentleman formed his government. In 1929, the last full year during which the previous government of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in power, Canada imported 3,173,043 tons of American anthracite coal and 729,458 tons of Welsh anthracite coal. There was no Scotch anthracite imported that year. In 1934, the last full year of the government of the right hon. gentleman, thanks to his policy of increasing trade between the different parts of the empire, the situation had changed. Just here may I say that I know of no trade that is carried on with greater benefit to both the exporter and the importer than the importation of Welsh and Scotch anthracite coal in exchange for Canadian farm produce. In the last full year of the former Conservative government, 1934, importations of United States anthracite coal fell to 1,804,127 tons, while importations of Welsh anthracite increased to 1,334,517 tons. We brought in also 309,000 tons of Scotch coal, making a total importation of United Kingdom anthracite amounting to 1,643,517 tons, or not much less than the amount we imported from the United States.
What has happened to this fine trade, as a result of the "expanding trade" policy of the
The Address-Mr. MacNicol

present government, without regard to whether or not tried and true customers are alienated? Last year, 1937, Canada imported from the United States 1,888,860 tons of anthracite, while our total importation of Scotch and Welsh coal was reduced to 1,123,841 tons. At the same time we imported 264,048 tons from Germany, 146,648 tons from Russia, 19,000 tons from Indo-China and 20,000 tons from Belgium. In other words our total importation of foreign anthracite last year was 2,338,000 tons, while our total importation of United Kingdom coal fell to 1,123,841 tons.
An examination of these figures surely will reveal why there is a marked and rising resentment in Wales to-day in regard to Canada's anthracite coal policy. If that resentment continues I feel certain that it will be reflected in a greatly reduced number of return cargoes of Canadian farm products. For the life of me I cannot see what the government expects to gain by reducing our importations of anthracite coal from the United Kingdom by 500,000 tons and then going all over the face of the earth, to countries to which we cannot possibly ship our farm produce, in order to bring in 500,000 tons of coal to make up the difference. Personally I would much rather deal with tried and true customers like Wales and Scotland in an exchange of this kind, which is beneficial to all concerned, than go all over the face of the earth in an attempt to expand our trade, in any event in connection with this particular commodity.
A few moments ago I said that last June I made a rather extended survey of the situation in Wales. I went through the mining areas and visited many of the mines. I imagine that every one in Canada has been touched by the newspaper reports which have appeared from time to time describing the distress in the Welsh coal mining areas as a result of the reduction in exportations of coal. In my judgment it is small business on the part of this government to inflict further distress upon Wales through a reduction in the importations of coal from Wales as well as from Scotland. When visiting the different coal mining towns I saw a number of bills similar to the one I hold in my hand. These were pasted up in the different stores from which the miners purchased their supplies, but I am afraid that they will be taken down before very long. I might say that Canada's purchases of Welsh coal gave employment to 7,000 miners, and her purchases of Scotch coal gave employment to as many as 2,000 miners. These bills, which were printed both in English and in Welsh were very illuminating.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read the one printed in Welsh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish I could. I brought along one printed in English for fear there would not be any one in the house who could read Welsh.
This poster, issued by Messrs. T. T. Pascoe, Ltd., Coal Exporters, Swansea, reads, when translated: .
W ales

Canada Canada is buying 1.000,000 tons of '
Welsh Anthracite and 1,000,000 boxes of Welsh Tinplates
Give your support by asking your shopkeeper for Canadian Canned Tomatoes "King's Choice" and
. Canadian Belleville Cheese
Reciprocal trade between Wales and Canada
Sponsored by
T. T. Pascoe, Ltd., Swansea.
Other bills referred to other Canadian products. I think that is a mighty fine spirit for them to display towards Canada produce and I should like to see the government reverse its present policy.


Charles Avery Dunning: They still appreciate it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The government should see that more Welsh and Scotch coal is purchased in order that more Canadian products may be purchased in those countries. When at Swansea I saw a large ship unloading a full cargo of Canadian wheat and piled up on the docks were large supplies of Canadian cheese and canned goods of one kind or another. I also inspected the method of loading coal on ships for Canada. Over there they view this matter with very grave concern. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) and other members of the government who have anything to do with the exporting of Canadian products to the United Kingdom have read reports similar to these that I hold in my hand. I should like to read a few in order to direct the attention of the government to whither they are going. The first one appeared in the Toronto Globe of September 22, 1936, in the form of an editorial, and reads:
The South Wales Miners' Federation adopted a resolution to call upon the board of trade to protest the action of the Canadian government. According to the Welsh miners, Canada's pact with Russia "must result in further loss of trade to South Wales, where there is so much depression already, and must gravely affect the livelihood of some hundreds of workmen employed in the Welsh coal fields."

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
The next one is a Canadian Press dispatch from London, England, dated September 30, and reads:
A deputation from the South Wales Coal-owners' Association conferred to-day with Captain H. Crookshank, parliamentary secretary to the mines department, on the subject of the lifting of the Canadian government's ban on imports of Russian anthracite.
The next one is from the old Mail and Empire, dated October 2, 1936, and reads:
The Russian anthracite is produced under conditions which are uneconomic and inconsistent with the pledges given at the Ottawa imperial conference of 1932. Canada's concession of a strictly preferred market to British anthracite formed one of the basic terms of the Anglo-Canadian treaty then agreed upon. It therefore looks as if Ottawa will be guilty of bad faith if it ratifies Mr. Euler's action in Moscow. Such bad faith might have the effect of lessening the preferred place which Canada now enjoys for its products in the markets of the United Kingdom, which are the greatest food importing markets in the world.
The next one is dated Fort Erie, October 7, 1937. This refers to a shipment of Russian anthracite to Fort Erie, and reads:
The consignment will be shipped from the t-ea of Azov, the Black sea and the Mediterranean sea to Montreal, and by barges to Fort Erie. A second shipment for use in industrial furnaces in this area was contemplated.
The next is dated London, November 16, 1937, and reads:
A suggestion Great Britain was losing the Canadian coal market to Russia and other countries was voiced in the House of Commons to-day.
These things are disquieting to the Scotch and Welsh buyers of Canadian products, and I find that there is a depressed feeling in the situation as far as coal exporters are concerned. Before leaving for the old country I went to see some of the coal importers in Toronto from whom I buy Nova Scotia and Welsh coal. They told me that the price of Welsh coal was perhaps a little high in Canada because of the breakage or "degradation" in shipping. They referred to the breakagesaving equipment used by German shippers. In order to make a thorough investigation of this matter I visited Rotterdam and Antwerp, the ports from which German coal is shipped. I also inspected the docks at Swansea. I got many good photographs of the equipment used in loading German coal. I was told that the ministry of industries in Germany, to which I shall refer a little later on, subsidizes the exportation of German products. I do not know whether the German government have paid any part of the cost of the equipment at Rotterdam or Antwerp,
but I would not be surprised to learn that they had. I understand a large sum of money was voted last year for the encouragement of exports.
At Antwerp and Rotterdam there are four lines of railroad tracks on the docks parallel to the ships. This means that at least four different kinds of coal can be loaded into a ship at the same time. The latest type of crane is used with which to take the coal from the cars and place it in the hold of the ship. The net result is that the breakage or "degradation" is quite small. At Swansea the cars come singly to the ship and at right angles. The car is lifted on an elevator and tilted over and sometimes the coal is dropped twenty, forty or sixty feet into the hold of the ship. At other times it is dropped on an escalator. The equipment at Swansea is not equal to what they have at Antwerp and Rotterdam.
I submit that this government should initiate a national or an empire coal policy and take some steps to try to improve the method of shipping Welsh coal. This might be done, first, through approaching the British government; second, through approaching the railroads; third, through approaching the producers and, fourth, the shippers. In this way the "degradation" or breakage of Welsh coal in shipment might be reduced, with a corresponding decrease in the Canadian price of the coal.


William Daum Euler: Does my bon. friend seriously suggest that it is the duty of the Canadian government to improve the facilities for loading coal in the old country, rather than have the British government itself attend to that?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I said very plainly that in my judgment it might be good business on the part of this government to approach the British government with a view to doing just that.


William Daum Euler: Most absurd.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It is not absurd. We are doing many things in connection with the export of wheat and other products that you might equally well call absurd. Is it absurd to try to increase trade between Canada and Wales? I do not believe it is. I believe in developing empire trade by bringing into this country Welsh anthracite coal and exporting in return our farm products. That is good trade. In any event this government could do a lot to reduce the breakage between Montreal and Toronto.


William Daum Euler: That is a different story.
The Address-Mr. MacNicol


John Ritchie MacNicol: The British government might welcome this government approaching them on the subject. I have talked about it and I always met a very receptive ear wherever I mentioned it in government circles overseas, none of them saying it was absurd. This government certainly can do this, and it would not be absurd; they could take steps to increase the importation of Welsh and Scotch anthracite coal into Canada, and also to increase the importation into Ontario of Nova Scotia and Alberta coal, as part of a national trade policy. Such a policy would result in providing much more employment in Canada than you will get by trying to expand trade along the lines this government has been taking, of cutting off our importations of Welsh and Scotch coal and importing it from all over the face of the earth from countries from which we get practically no return.
I want now to speak briefly on a subject on which I have spoken before in the house, namely, the necessity, in my judgment, for a ministry of industry in the federal government. I should like to see created a department whose main business it is to propagate, that is, encourage industry in this country. Twenty-three other nations have a ministry of industry, and from a survey I have made of their achievements I am convinced they have done very fine work. In some countries the department stands alone, while in others it is associated with the department of commerce; in others with the department of agriculture, and in others again with the department of labour. If the ministry of industry in this country were a ministry of industry and agriculture, it might be a success under the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who is capable and able, if he could only bring himself to realize that the interests of industry, labour and agriculture are identical so far as the benefit to the country is concerned, and that industry and agriculture are equally important. But the present Minister of Agriculture, speaking in the house as Minister of Agriculture, last session is reported to have said, at page 1636 of Hansard:
I am one of those who believe that if we want to sell our wheat in the old country market, we should be prepared to bring back to this country the shirts we wear when we are producing that wheat and the boots we wear when we grow that wheat.
But it would be a "wow" if a day or two afterwards, as minister of industry, he rose and said this:
I am one of those who believe that if we want to sell our agricultural implements in the Argentine, we should be prepared to bring
IMr. Euler.]
back to this country wheat to make the bread we eat when we are producing those implements and the beef we eat when we make those implements.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: That would not be right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Quite so. I quite believe that if the minister were minister of industry as well as Minister of Agriculture he would not make either statement, because he would realize you cannot destroy industry without destroying agriculture.


Mr. GARDINER:: I would rather agree with your other argument that we take Welsh coal.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The department would be a "wow" under a minister who would make both those statements. But I do not believe the present minister would; I give him credit for that.
Pursuing my inquiries into this subject of a ministry of industry I went to Berlin, Germany, and discussed the matter with their Department of Industry and inquired just how they proceeded in developing the marvellous production returns in industry in that country. They gave me the objectives of their department. I quite realize, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot go into this subject in detail now, but I shall do so later, if an opportunity presents itself. I was struck with this thing about the Department of Industry in Germany, that it confines itself primarily to creating employment in industry. They said that their business was: (1) to induce the setting up of new industries; (2) modernize old industries; (3) develop and manufacture low grade and high grade economic resources to render Germany independent of foreign supplies so far as possible; (4) maintain a strong middle class with numerous small and independent undertakings, including shopkeepers and craftsmen; (5) to subsidize exports. As I said a moment ago, they had subsidized, as far as I could hear, the exportation of coal. In any event the department last year spent 200,000,000 reichsmark, in subsidizing the exportation of their products. Then (6) the objective of their ministry is to develop the greatest possible home market; and lastly (7) to supervise the cost of production. That is something I feel this country ought to do. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) will tell me we have not any authority to supervise the cost of production. Perhaps we have not, but in my humble judgment the time has come for the government to take an interest in the cost of production in this country so that we shall be able not only to assure a fair price to consumers but to encourage a greater exportation of our manufactures.

The Address-Mr. MacNicol
If I might digress for a moment, I was impressed with the figures I got in Germany of the production of wheat. The figures were a revelation to me because I had never gone into the question of wheat extensively and I was amazed to learn the quantity of wheat
they produced in a small country of 208,000 square miles. I shall give the house comparative figures of production and acreage for Canada and Germany for three years, 1936, 1932, 1913:
1936 Acreage 25,290,000	Quarters of 480 lbs. 28,650,000	Canada 1932 Acreage 27,180,000	Quarters of 480 lbs. 55,380,000	1913 Acreage 11,010,000	Quarters of 480 lbs. 28,950,000Acreage 5,150,000	Quarters of 480 lbs. 21,230,000	Germany Acreage 5,630,000	Quarters of 480 lbs. 23,000,000	Acreage 4,860,000	Quarters of 480 lbs. 21,390,000
I might add that the figures for oats, barley and rye show just as prolific a production.
Then I proceeded to Ireland to inquire into their Ministry of Industry. We all realize that the Irish Free State has few natural resources, that the country is small and their resources are limited. They have also had unpleasant trouble with Great Britain over trade, which has resulted in a reduction of their exports. In spite of that, their Ministry of Industry has, in my judgment, done remarkable work. I looked into it very, very carefully, and while I have not time now to go into the many ramifications of their work, I shall just say that what they have done in propagating industry might well be emulated in any country. I do not know what minister in the Canadian government has to do particularly with propagating industry.


Charles Avery Dunning: Propagating it?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, encouraging the
development of industries.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think we have any minister who propagates industry exactly.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, encourage it, then. They call it propagating it over there, but perhaps they are not familiar with English. What they told me was that they are determined to propagate industry by encouraging the opening of factories to manufacture new lines of goods, and Ireland has done very well at that. As a matter of fact, though a small country, its manufactured productions have increased from $275,000,000 in 1931 to over $400,000,000 in 1937, and I say that is not so bad in these times and under the circumstances in which they have to operate.
Of course Great Britain surpasses any other country in the increase of manufacturing. I suppose the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) did as I did and visited many of the new industrial areas-at Wembley, at Wimbledon, at Slough-where there are five hundred new factories-at Port Talbot, at Manchester, and elsewhere. I was amazed at what they are doing. It is not much to be wondered at that they are reducing unemployment in the old land, for they are firmly convinced that the way to do it is to give men jobs in factories, turning wheels and manufacturing material, and they have done that to a tremendous extent. I talked to several heads of great firms employing as many as thirty to fifty thousand men. I read in the press that the government was trying to persuade manufacturers not to build too close to London, but rather to go away from the metropolis as far as they reasonably could. I talked to some of these men who told me they were going to build new branches, and suggested that they might consider establishing them in Canada. I am not sure what the government would need to do to permit a branch manufacturing in Canada to ship into the United Kingdom as though the branch itself were in that country, but I have no doubt the difficulty could be overcome. There is a growing feeling in England to-day that the time has come when many of their plants, certainly those which are in any wise associated with provision for defence and the safety of the realm, be moved up country or over here to Canada. We are no farther away from London to-day than Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield were a hundred years ago. I may be exaggerating. I see the Minister of Finance smiling.
The Address-Mr. MacNicol


Charles Avery Dunning: Not as much as usual.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a base below
which the wage must not fall.


John Ritchie MacNicol: 
Mr. CHARLES PARENT (Quebec West and South) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish needlessly to delay the vote on the address by a long speech, but I do not think it would be imposing on the kindness of the house to offer one or two observations, first, on the subject of civil liberty in Quebec, and next, on the advisability of beautifying Quebec city and preserving its historic character by extending the authority of the national battlefields commission over certain federal properties. Before broaching these subjects, however, may I tender my most sincere congratulations to the honourable members who proposed and seconded the motion. This oratorical classic always bears a stamp of its own. Whether it is to seek relaxation from patronage troubles, I cannot say, but it is undeniable that practically all members of the house follow attentively when these speeches are delivered. In addition, the galleries are filled with members of the fair sex, belonging to fashionable Canadian society for whom the social events of the Capital have much interest at this season. The task of the mover and seconder of the address is therefore a heavy one, Mr. Speaker, and the entire house rejoices at the success obtained.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to some honourable members who have upbraided the government because, in the speech from the throne, no reference was made to the civil rights of our people. I may point out to the house that nowhere in the world do civilized people enjoy more freedom and tolerance than they do in the province of Quebec. In Quebec city, where I live, there are several thousand English-speaking protestants. We are all living in perfect harmony. Moreover, we see, withm a distance of a few hundred feet, the catholic and the protestant cathedrals, and every Sunday we witness the edifying spectacle of catholic French-Canadians and protestant English speaking people wending their way together towards their respective place of worship, mutually respectful of their religious belief, with never a clash or a display of unfriendliness. We speak of them as they speak of us, with the utmost regard. We respect their pastors, just as they respect our priests.
Since the days of Jogues, Brebeuf and Lallemand, three centuries of history have recorded the devotion, the sacrifices and the wonderful deeds accomplished in our country in the name of Faith. That constitutes the very basis of our existence. No wonder that those who preach among us the non-existence of God should be branded as barbarians.
I take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the government the great national eucharistic congress which will take place in Quebec next summer. I do hope the government will vote an appropriation towards the expenses of the congress and that a federal delegate will attend it.
In order to make my speech shorter, Mr. Speaker, I shall take up at once my second point, which is the advisability of providing for the improvement of the city of Quebec and for the preservation of its historic character, by extending to certain federal property the powers of the national battlefields commission. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, not only is Quebec the oldest city in America, but it is also a city of priceless historical treasures. Thanks to the good breeding of its inhabitants, to its narrow streets, to its beautiful climate, to its monuments and its historic associations, Quebec is an interesting place whose quaintness attracts nearly a million tourists every year. It is also the summer residence of His Excellency the Governor General, and for that reason I believe the dominion government should take an especial interest in the improvement of the city. From the rock of Quebec, from that spot which is called Dufferin Terrace, tourists may admire one of the world's most beautiful panoramas. On either shore of the St. Lawrence are to be seen pretty villages whose white cottages stand out against the green mountains, while directly ahead is the island of Orleans which, rising amid the platinum billows of the great river, appears like a gigantic emerald. Mr. Speaker, every time you come to Quebec, I am sure you like to gaze, from that spot, upon some of the most beautiful parishes in your constituency. Perhaps it has occurred to you, as it has to me, that such a wonderful terrace might well be extended toward the west, as far as the National Battlefields park. Besides affording employment, this would provide the most picturesque site in the world.
In 1908, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, realizing the special and national character of Quebec city, appointed the National Battlefields Commission. The purpose of the act whereby that
21S
The Address-Mr Parent

commission was created was to preserve the great battlefields which witnessed the epic struggle between Wolfe and Montcalm, and to restore, in so far as possible, their original features.
In 1911, the dominion government and the transcontinental railway commission acquired several properties and rights of way along the river; to-day these properties and rights of way are quite useless, owing to a change in the location of that railway.
Would it not be advisable, Mr. Speaker, to have these sites under the authority of the battlefields commission or even to have them transferred to it? Would it not be well to extend the commission's jurisdiction so as to include the Quebec walls which are being reconstructed, and, in keeping with our present needs, to lay out public walks as well as to rebuild the old gates which, for the sake of progress, have been destroyed?
In 1928, the dominion government voted an amount of $750,000 to be spread over a period of ten years, and the last payment is due this year. I hope that Laurier's plan may be followed up for many more years and that further appropriations may be voted for the improvement and conservation of that historic site in the oldest city of America. May I express the wish that the extension of the terrace, the general improvement of the city of Quebec and the preservation of its historic sites will have the support of those who, up to this day, have shown their judgment.
Mr. Speaker, I am confident that, with the strong support of my colleagues from Quebec city, the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), my humble suggestion will be welcome. It is not only in the interest of Quebec city that I am making it, but also in the interest of the many visitors who come there from across the line. These visitors from abroad are very much impressed when they see Quebec for the first time, for it recalls many memories of the last three centuries, and it has been said of Quebec, that each stone reminds you of the past.
Mr. Speaker, it may be suggested that I make an appeal in behalf of my city and my constituency. In reply, I could quote these words of a writer: "One is always entitled to speak of his town when he loves it to the very depths of his heart."
Since I have yet a few minutes to spare, may I be allowed to draw the attention of the government to the fact that those conditions ought to be improved because Quebec is the oldest city in America and our modem needs

were not contemplated in the original plans. Quebec city, owing to its narrow streets and its lack of opportunity for future development, is in a peculiar position regarding the assistance to be given by the dominion government under the housing act. Particularly in my own constituency, where there are many workingmen, several requests did not get from the commission the consideration which they deserved. I hope that the government will see its way clear to have the act amended in order to help the workingman, for, up to now, it has benefited in our part of the country only those who could have built their homes without such assistance. I understand that this legislation is calculated to help those who have not had a very easy life, namely the labourers, our workingmen, who, through their savings, are anxious to provide for a living in their old days. I hope that a representative of the government, after examining the conditions such as they obtain in Quebec, will see fit to put aside a certain tract of land to allow the government to assist in the building of homes where the workingmen, along with those that are in better circumstances, may secure a comfortable life for their children.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne and especially the hon. gentleman who spoke in French.
Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to parade my few poor words of French in this chamber; I wish merely to express in that way something of the appreciation which I feel for the assistance and cooperation I have had in this house and in my political experience from those people who speak French as their native tongue.
(Text) Before entering upon the subject matter of my remarks I desire to extend in my own language congratulations to the mover and seconder upon their speeches, and to the electors of their constituencies congratulations upon the election of these hon. gentlemen. Their oratory is stilled for the time being, but there remains to us the consideration of the program of the government as set forth in the speech from the throne. For myself, sir, I approach this session in a state of



193S

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Mutch
mind which I think might be illustrated by a quotation from T. B. Macaulay. Some hon. members will remember that in his essay on John Dryden, Macaulay wrote:
His imagination resembled the wings of an ostrich. It enabled him to run, though not to soar.
Sir, the government which it is my privilege to support is in motion; it may be said in many respects to have accelerated its pace to a run but I doubt if it can be said to soar. The return to power of the Liberal party in 1935 was a mandate to give Canada a Liberal government. That was the promise implied in the platform of that party, and that promise was greater and of more importance, to my mind, than the promises of all the leaders of the various parties who met us with opposition at that time. It is not for me to say that the government has failed to give leadership along the Liberal way. We have not failed to make progress, but I think it is my prerogative as a member of the party and a supporter of the government to say to my colleagues in the party at this, the first opportunity I have had in this session, that neither I nor my constituents -many of them, at least-feel that so far we have any great reason to feel smug about the rate of our progress.
We do not differ from other groups in the house with respect to our desire to serve Canada. We do differ as to how that service may be efficiently carried out; or do we? Sometimes one is reminded of the expression, " By their fruits ye shall know them." The most damning indictment of the Liberal party is and perhaps always will be that we Liberals are of the same political stripe as our Conservative opponents. Unfortunately, in my opinion during the past three years we have given a measure of hope and courage to our traducers. We hear from our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends not only " Hear, hear " but " We told you so." Out on the prairies the pool official says " Me, too," and from the shadow of the Rockies, almost out of the ether itself, we hear a voice crying, " Behold, the lion and the lamb lie down together." Nobody is fooled, unless we fool ourselves. Sometimes I think we do, we who put through the scandalous furniture tariff changes in the dying moments of the last session; we who in 1930 looked upon the Ottawa agreements with scorn, ostracized the parents and then in 1937 adopted the baby; we who permit the gasoline trust to mulct every user of gasoline on every gallon he uses; we who permit automobile manufacturers to take advantage of all the
engineering developments charged against the American consuming public on their cars and then charge that again here in Canada and, finally, we who permit a Tory tariff board to give advice to our government. That in an individual would be something bordering on treason, and in a political party it is at least foolish.
If that were the whole story there would be much to be desired, but I rejoice that in this ledger there is much to counterbalance and offset it. I do not feel called upon at the moment to deal with the other side; I do not think there is any necessity to stress the achievements of the administration. At the beginning of a session I think perhaps it is a good thing for us to think more particularly about the things that have not been done.
It is perhaps unthinkable, Mr. Speaker, to many minds steeped in the political game, that one should speak out so frankly in this house, but I make no apology for having thought it wise to point out that there is an urge in my mind, as I know there is an urge in the minds of my constituents, to say to the government, " Faster, faster." I have a loyalty to the government of the day; that loyalty I give freely, but I also have a loyalty to the hopes and ambitions of the people who are the supporters of this government. I believe in the destiny of Canada; I believe that destiny can be best achieved in the Liberal way, but I want to see it come as quickly as possible along that way.
It is trite to say that these are critical times. It is stressing the obvious to say that the nations are failing to face up to the problems of the day. At this time it is perhaps sufficient to dwell for a little while on the problems peculiarly our own. Perhaps it is a good idea to ask ourselves: What are these great Canadian problems? I suggest, sir, that the first among them is the preservation of Canada herself as a united nation. We in Canada in past years have been much exercised about our national status, our place within the empire. Sometimes I think we have forgotten, too often and for too long a time, to assure ourselves of our own unity. I say quite frankly that if confederation was not an established fact, to-day in Canada it would be impossible. But, sir, seventy years have passed since confederation became an accomplished fact in this country. That union or confederation has been sanctified, if you like, by the blood of thousands of men who died for Canada; not for Quebec or Manitoba or the maritime provinces or British Columbia but for Canada, and the union which has
The Address-Mr. Mutch
[Stage Direction]
stood the stresses and strains of those seventy years must not be permitted to break down under any circumstances.
First of all, we, as members of the House of Commons, are to love and serve Canada, we must know our country. Sometimes when I have come to the city of Ottawa, after I have been here a little while I have felt as I sometimes feel in a little valley high up in the western mountains. After I have been there a while I have an almost overwhelming desire to climb-and I do not like >to climb-to look over the top and see what is going on just beyond that rim which seems so near. Perhaps that feeling of repression in the mountains is the result of having been born on the prairies, but as I come to this parliament hill I sometimes think we are in something of a valley, and we do not see over the edge quite far enough or quite often enough. Perhaps if one did not say the things that come to mind in the first few days of the session, under the influence of that isolation one might refrain altogether from saying them. At any rate if in times past I have been unduly critical of the travelling expenses of any ministers of past governments, I feel like taking it all back and suggesting to those who form the government now, and those yet to come, that they should travel more.
The sectionalism that is so rife-and it is rife-in my opinion is largely the result of ignorance. Ignorance is a greater menace than selfishness, because selfishness is the result of a lack of understanding of our own best interests. Second, there must be leadership, and in Canada we look to this house for that leadership. A member of this house who puts constituency considerations before national considerations should to my mind retire to the county council, where his talents will find their proper scope. A member of this house who allows the real or fancied needs of his province to dominate his national sentiments should seek a field of endeavour where his bias would be less harmful and more appreciated. At this point I should like to say even more emphatically that the member of any provincial legislature who uses his power in an attempt to enhance his own prestige at the expense of national unity is no patriot, be he malicious, or ignorant, or vain, or all three.
Party government is no bar to national unity. On the contrary it is perhaps its strongest binding tie. This can be true only so long as party lines divide this country horizontally. Vertical lines of division are lines of sectionalism and of selfishness and that way lies disaster. He is no patriot who

pits east against west, the centre against the far-flung frontiers. That way lies chaos, dissension and defeat.
If Canadian politicians had spent one-tenth of the time and effort in educating the various parts of Canada as to their dependence upon each other that they have spent in provoking sectional antagonisms for selfish political ends, I venture to say that this great Canadian problem would hardly be a problem to-day. But we ask ourselves, "Is it a paramount question?" When we admit that it is, then we ask ourselves, "Why?" It is a problem because it affects the rights and privileges, the opportunities and rewards of every citizen. It is a problem because the very physical structure of the nation is threatened. It is a political question, an economic question and a social question. It touches every side of life of every citizen.
We come then to this question: Having recognized that there is a problem and having admitted that this house is the logical place where it should be dealt with, we then ask, "What are we to do?" I venture to say that no one can answer that question; there is no all-embracing answer. Most of us have come to realize that when we meet a man who knows all the answers, we have met a fool or a fanatic. We must then begin by laying down such fundamental principles as will guide us in arriving at a judgment on the various methods we shall explore. We must first realize the implications of national unity and we must then desire to achieve it. Then with knowledge and desire behind us, we must examine eveiy question of national policy in the light of that knowledge and desire. I do not hesitate to say quite frankly that in my opinion policies in Canada have always been influenced more by constituencies than by principles. Perhaps this can be more readily illustrated by a study of Canadian tariff history than in any other way.
I have said that Canadian tariff policy has been influenced more by constituencies than by principles. I propose to show that the practice is accepted without comment by the very persons who suffer most from tariff instability. I quote from Canadian Business of December, 1937, which, speaking in advance of this session, says:
It looks also as if the prairie tariff talkers will get a hearing on textiles, furniture and automobiles.
No suggestion that the government might be considering the needs and wants of the Canadian consuming public if, as the article suggests, it is planning a step along the Liberal way. "Oh, no," says Canadian Busi-

The Address-Mr. Mutch
ness, "if it comes it will be a sop thrown to the prairie tariff talkers, those strange western representatives of the poor rural rustics who believe that the duty of governments is to legislate for the people and who, incredibly enough, say so in public." This is another quotation from the same publication:
It is unlikely the apple preference of $1.50 per barrel will be disturbed for it is a life and death proposition for the Annapolis valley and even a reduction in it would probably compel the Minister of National Revenue, Hon. J. L. Ilsley, to find a new political address.
Hon. members will notice that the story stresses, not the principle of tariff adjustment, not the economic situation in the Annapolis valley, but'-the climax for Canadian Business-the possible reelection of the minister. I cannot fail to take issue with Canadian Business on this point. Without exonerating this or any other Canadian government from political consideration when tariffs are tinkered with, I feel sure that the hon. minister in question would throw away his seat, and mine too, rather than abandon his convictions.
Finally, there is another feature of the importance of national unity which should never escape the notice of the house. All of us are constantly made aware of our duties as citizens and we should give some thought to our rights. We share a common heritage and we owe a common duty, not only to the state but to each other and to ourselves. As Canadians we have decided that certain standards and services shall be maintained. By no stretch of the imagination can we justify discrimination as between Canadians in the enjoyment of these standards and services. The origin of these services is not local, their importance is not local and the advantages accruing are not local-they are national. By every test and upon every consideration, the responsibility is upon this house. If we meet it, we shall go a long way toward the goal of an harmoniously united Canada.
At this point I cannot do less than express my satisfaction that the speech from the throne foreshadows one step in the right direction, that of unemployment insurance. Here too I might pay my tribute to the government of the day for the appointment of the royal commission. In my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of my constituents, this commission has undertaken an herculean task. I believe that the government has selected men who are equal to that task.
There is another great problem which touches on the happiness and well-being of our people. This is a twin problem, the problem of housing and the problem of slum clearance.
As I have said, this is a national problem and out of it spring many of the social problems which we have to face. Although not mentioned in the speech from the throne, I trust it has not been forgotten. Of this I shall have more to say at another time.
Second only to the problem of setting our national state in order is the problem of determining what our position is to be with relation to the other nations of the world, and what steps we shall take to maintain that position. These are troublesome times in the world at large. I submit it is not too much to say that the conscience of man has been dulled. There has been a futile scurrying from one untenable position to another in connection with international affairs. This so-called diplomacy of another generation has been perpetuated in this newer age. We are stumbling along the old paths, unwilling but surely. For all of this, this government is hardly to blame. Our opportunity for world leadership is limited both geographically and numerically. We are too far from the seat of discord and too weak to be a threat to those who transgress human rights. Yet I could wish that we in Canada stood more foursquare to our problems. To my mind, we have done something, but not enough.
The challenge to leadership was never more clear, more decisive or more urgent. Beginning with the deliberations at Versailles and continuing until to-day the outmoded statesmen of the world have floundered. They have played safe when audacity would have won the day. They have feared when courage might have swept the field. They have compromised when there was nothing to gain. The criticism which I make of the governments of the world, including our own, is that none of them really faces up to the fact of a changed world. None seems to realize that despite the alarms of war this is the hour to strike for peace.
Peace is or ought to be the greatest achievement of mankind. Its importance transcends the importance of liberty, prosperity and power. Without peace these are nothing. We have heard that there can be no peace without honour. Perhaps we ought to reverse those words and say that there can be no honour without peace. Without peace honour is hollow and meaningless. We have been contemptuous of those who cry for peace at any price, failing to realize that without peace price has no substance.
The tragedy of humanity is that we learn so slowly. Our elders, usually dominant in the affairs of the world, proceed with the caution that comes with experience and disappointment. In a fast changing world they
The Address-Mr. Mutch
[Stage Direction]
miss all too often the tempo of the hour. Someone has said that to achieve greatly, one must dare greatly. The world has failed in that; we have kept our feet on the beaten paths which for centuries have led again and again to failure and despair. We need to explore the by-paths; we need to pioneer new trails.
We in Canada are a young nation and we ought to be vigorous, imaginative and courageous. We ought to face the world with something of the attitude of Pitt. You will remember, sir, that the great Walpole had chided Pitt for his youth and rashness. We ought as a nation to ponder on Pitt's reply. He said, "The atrocious crime of being a young man, which the hon. gentleman has with such spirit and decency charged upon me, I shall neither attempt to palliate nor deny; but content myself with wishing that I may be one of those whose follies may cease with their youth, and not of that number who are ignorant in spite of experience."
Asquith's policy of "wait and see" produced the crisis that made Lloyd George the man of the hour. But, sir, the old policy of muddling through is out of step with the times. Events move too quickly in this day and generation. Neither the Canadian people nor the Canadian government can afford to merit the description of those in Dante's hell, "The wretched souls of those who lived without or praise or blame."
We have had some inkling of public reaction to those who dare to be definite even when they dare to be wrong. The public of Canada is tolerant of the mistakes of those who would come to grips with our problems.
We in this house are, I believe, capable of expressing the mind of our people, and I hope that from this session of parliament there may go out a reasoned, imaginative, courageous expression of opinion on foreign relationships which will be a guide to our government, an answer to the question, "How long^ halt ye between two opinions?" and an inspiration to the world. But, sir, the great tragedy of the ages is that by the time young men are convinced they cannot right the wrongs of the world by their own wisdom, they have become so old that they regard it as hopeless. I wonder if any man who has not, face pressed to earth, felt his insides turn to water as the bombs came whistling down, is competent' to evaluate the claims of humanity as against vested interests in the game of war.
It will be asked, What could, what can Canada do in the world scheme of things? Something she can do. Here in this new

world she can, if she be willing to pay the price, raise the standard of national morality, and say with Luther, "Here I stand; God helping me, I can do no other."
The United States is half right, and therefore wholly a failure in international affairs. Right when she sees that leadership toward peace cannot be looked for from Europe; a failure because, so far. she has failed to rise to repeated opportunities of leadership. Like the Pharisee she has gathered her cloak about her and passed by on the other side. Our guilt is only less because our opportunities, and therefore our responsibilities, are less.
What can Canada do? If we cannot give leadership to the world we can at least set an example, and who knows but what that example might be strong enough to divert the rolling river of doom that threatens to engulf the world.
I have no language to express my scorn for the hypocrisy of those who are unwilling to fight for peace. I think of those thousands, yes millions, who did not scorn to die for peace. I think again of the poet's words, "We have kept the faith." We said, "We shall go down with unreluctant tread, rose crowned into the darkness." Is that real to you? I saw it! I stood by while an endless procession passed me one by one, outward borne. What did they die for? They were not professional soldiers doing a job. They had no dream of conquest, nothing to gain, everything to lose; no hatred for their foes, no traditional national enemies held in contempt from childhood; no dream of empire; no old scores to settle, and yet horribly, damnably, they died to a man, doing a job they hated, to free the world from this monster for all time. They died for an ideal, the ideal that may deliver this world for all time from the monster which even then was devouring them. They fought for peace, they paid for peace, and counted death nothing if the end was peace.
Well, they fought their fight, and for a little while we hoped and planned and, more briefly still, we believed. Gradually we began to realize that the fight for peace had not been won. There was wavering in the ranks. The world statesmen began to count the cost of peace, and the price was too high. National pride became an obsession, at the expense of national honour, national decency. Avarice outweighs principle; madmen speak and millions tremble in fear. It is not a pretty picture; it is not a hopeful prospect, but, sir, it is not yet hopeless. Perhaps it., is now the eleventh hour; but there is, one ventures to think, even yet, one hour for repentance. It is not too late to say that,

The Address-Mr. Mutch
come weal or woe to our physical being, we have counted the cost and we will pay the price of peace, and I venture to say that the price of peace will be no dearer than the price of folly.
In this dark hour how shall we, being both British and Canadian, answer the challenge, "Stands England-stands Canada-where she did?" We know the bitter answer. Let us in all humility start afresh to be once more a nation, new, vigorous, neither ignorant of our destiny nor unwilling to pay the price of its realization. Let us brush aside the cold, dead hand of the past that reaches forth again to lead us by the old pathways to the ever-yawning abyss. Let us be definite, clear-cut and courageous, wrong sometimes, if that is the price we must pay for forthrightness, but moving forward always, building on our errors to be more often right. Above all, let us rise above the ultimate in hypocrisy-agreement in principle and denial in practice.
This brings me to the question of how we are to maintain our national integrity. Sir, it seems to me-and I have said so before in the house-that ten millions of people cannot long hope to hold half a continent in an overcrowded world. It is our good fortune that Canada abounds with those things which the world wants and must, in many instances, have. It is a noble heritage but it involves a great responsibility.
We must examine three possibilities. First, we may simply drift until, as the inevitable result of such a policy, we are invaded and overrun. We may then find our destiny among our conquerors.
Or we may proceed with vigour and intelligence to populate our country and develop it and, by trade, supply our world neighbours with their needs, at the same time enriching our own lives. Having brought in and assimilated another ten or twenty millions of people we may then have some assurance that we can indeed protect our shores, our homes, our heritage.
We must, then, it would seem, either populate our country or fight for it, or give it to someone else strong enough to fight our battles, as the price of our defence.
There is a third alternative to drift or immigration. That, sir, is the policy we are following to-day. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the policy of to-day is partly drift and partly the third policy, which I shall call the policy of limited "preparedness." We have progressed to a point where we admit that since we have doors, we might as well have locks; since we have guns, we might as well have ammunition; since we have both, we might as well train
a few men to use them. And, of course, since we have so many generals we have to have some soldiers to keep the generals out of politics or other mischief.
We are united on this, that we will defend ourselves, if need be; but we are quite far from a unanimous realization that the need may come. We are reasonably united in opposition to wars of aggression, but far from united on the question of where our defensive frontier lies. We consent to a limited permanent force for defensive purposes but are quite unwilling, so far, to make the conditions of service such that they will attract to the service men who would by their enthusiasm and ability give us more of military efficiency and of protection for the taxpayer's dollar than we have been getting. I mean to cast no slur upon those who serve us now. Their character, and in most cases their ability, do them credit. Many of the conditions under which they serve do us no credit. We have not received the most or the best for our money. On this point it is noteworthy that in England a similar situation has been recognized and is being remedied. On that subject, when the estimates come up I may have something further to say.
Fnally I turn to the question which is in many ways the most serious and certainly the most pressing problem of them all in that part of the country from which I come. Nobody could be more gratified than I am with the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) this afternoon. And yet, after over seven years, seven long lean years, we are still trying to delude ourselves into believing that unemployment is municipal and provincial, whereas since 1930 it has been definitely a national problem-national in the most real sense of the word. The unemployed who walk the streets of Winnipeg and Edmonton are just as much the problem of Hamilton and Moncton as they are of Winnipeg and Edmonton. But we have failed to realize this or to act on the realization.
The policy laid down in 1930 to 1935, and followed since 1935 by this government, has been wrong in principle and disastrous in its effect. Municipal and provincial governments have been beggared and bankrupted to no avail. What have we done? First of all we have bankrupted both municipalities and provinces in at least four of the nine provinces and impaired the credit of the others. We have forced on to the relief rolls not only the unemployed but all of the unemployable who at the beginning of this time might have been reasonably considered a charge upon the municipal and provincial governments. Then we have loaned the money, in many instances
The Address-Mr. Mutch
[Stage Direction]
all of it, to maintain this monstrous burden. Recently this government has realized the unwisdom of confusing unemployed and unemployable. Alas, the realization comes too late. We now propose to shift to the local authorities a responsibility which was, perhaps, always rightly theirs but which they escaped in the general confusion of unemployed and unemployable. The catch is that we are too late. The policies followed thus far have already beggared and bankrupted the lesser governmental bodies; they cannot carry any more.
There is the situation as far as that part of the country from which I come is concerned. We need not lay the problem at the door of the Minister of Labour or any other member of the government. We have been reminding them in the morning and in the evening and at the rising and the setting of the sun, for some time. There is a place, and this is the place, where I have the opportunity to say this, and I say it. I believe it, and I shall continue to urge it until some one else replaces me or something is done about it. I am persuaded that the long range policies of this government are sound, that they present the only workable solution of the main problem of employment. I do think that they proceed with hesitating steps in the carrying out of some of these policies, chiefly in the lowering of living costs and increasing of trade by lowering the vicious tariff rates still in effect.
So, sir, I must say with regret that when we come to the short range policies for the immediate relief of a problem which is human and national rather than economic, I feel we have not lived up to the measure of our opportunity. At the same time, loyal to this mistaken concept of local responsibility, we have in reality loaned and lost money which, used otherwise, might have saved those local governments from their present plight.
If I have spoken frankly, that is my nature. If I have offended any, this is my defence.-I find it in Pope's Essay on Criticism:
Fear not the anger of the wise to raise,
Those best can bear reproof who merit praise.
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Having read very carefully the speech from the throne, foreshadowing, as it is supposed to do, the government's legislative program for the coming year, I feel in duty bound to the people who sent me here to vote for the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I am therefore supporting and speaking to the amendment, which reads as follows:
We desire respectfully to express regret that the speech from the throne does not indicate
[Mr. Mutch.J
that the government has taken or contemplates taking efficient measures to deal with unfavourable economic conditions in Canada, and that no legislative action is proposed to deal effectively with the prevailing uncertainty and insecurity resulting from the inadequate incomes of large numbers of our people.
Every hon. member will naturally think in terms of the people he represents; and I am supporting this amendment because I can find nothing in the speech from the throne to indicate that the government is taking, or contemplates taking, any constructive measures to ameliorate the sufferings of the people whom I represent. Nor am I thinking only of my constituents, because the problems that are confronting them are also confronted by nearly a million people living in the drought area and, in more or less degree, all the people living on the prairie. From time to time hon. members in this corner of the house have endeavoured to depict the conditions of the people on the prairie. We have been told by hon. gentlemen opposite that we were cranks, that we were gloom-spreaders. At one time we were told that we did no service to western Canada by painting so black a picture. But I submit that we have been vindicated during the past few months, for the western provinces have submitted through their respective governments to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations briefs which have painted pictures equally black or more so than any for which we in this corner of the house have been responsible.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) outlined the Manitoba situation very well the other day, and I have no doubt hon. members from Alberta will do the same for their province. It is therefore my intention to summarize very briefly the material contained in the report which was made by the Saskatchewan government to the royal commission. May I remind the house that what I am quoting from is not the ravings of some dyspeptic pessimist but a report made by a Liberal government which until a very short time ago was led by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Whether, due to his absence, they have become more intelligent or more progressive I know not. But they have made a report. While I do not agree in all its details with that report, I do think it is very commendable and gives a fairly accurate picture of conditions as they are in Saskatchewan.
It deals first of all with the question of debt. The latest figures, given by the government of Saskatchewan on January 28, show that the provincial debt is just a few dollars short of $192,000,000, with a contingent liability of over $32,000,000, making in all a debt of

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
over $220,000,000 to be borne by a population of about 900,000. The seriousness of this can be realized when we remember, as the Saskatchewan government pointed out to the commission, that fifty-two per cent of their ordinary revenues were devoted at that date to the payment of interest charges; in other words, that fifty-two cents out of every dollar they collected went to pay interest and forty-eight cents out of every dollar went to pay for education, government administration, relief and other social services. They pointed out that the municipal debt was: For rural municipalities, S61,000,000; for villages, $2,000,000; for towns, $7,000,000; for cities, $57,000,000, or a total of $127,000,000, to be paid by municipal bodies whose incomes are steadily diminishing, while their responsibilities are yearly increasing. They pointed out further that the total farm debt for Saskatchewan, including first mortgages, hypothecs and agreements of sale make a grand total of $525,000,000. This does not include second mortgages and debts owing to doctors, storekeepers and so on, nor has any estimate been made of the amount of money owing in the form of mortgages and agreements of sale registered against homes and businesses in towns, villages and cities.
An analysis of figures collected under the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act in Saskatchewan shows that the farm debt of Saskatchewan is 120 per cent of the total property assets of these farmers and 140 per cent of their total assets, property and personal. If these debts were owed only in the province it would mean that payment of them would be a matter of exchange within the province.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman has made an important statement and I should like to have his authority for it. He mentioned the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am referring to figures that have been collected from time to time under the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does any officer under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act or the board of review take responsibility for the figures the hon. gentleman has given?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The figures
were given from time to time in reply to questions asked last year.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no official statement in connection with it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These are figures that were given in answer to questions put on the order paper last year.
51952-IS


James Garfield Gardiner: Only with respect to those who came before officials.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Exactly. The government of Saskatchewan showed that of the farm debt of the province 83-5 per cent is outside the province and only 16-5 per cent is owing inside. I submit that a condition like this permits of only one conclusion, that is that a great area of the dominion is insolvent, the income of the people being less than their expenditure; 52 per cent of their income goes to pay interest, and their liabilities far exceed their assets.
The effect of this on the population of Saskatchewan has been pointed out in this brief. They point out first of all the effect on the people who are on relief. The total number of people receiving government aid in some form or another is nearly 500.000, more than half the total population. No picture that we have ever painted of the conditions under which these people live is nearly so black as that painted in this brief in quotations taken from articles written by Mr. D. B. MacRae, editor of the Regina Leader Post and Mr. R. M. Scott. I shall read one or two quotations from pages 291 and 292:
There is virtually nothing in the rolling hills and valleys at Buffalo Gap and Big Beaver, which are near the U.S. border due south of Bengough. Gardens were a failure. Potatoes will have to be brought in. . . . One man told of children whom he knew who had not tasted any other vegetables than potatoes for over two years. Meat, bread and potatoes form the diet of the majority it was stated, but this year it is feared that the meat will often be lacking and the potatoes as well. Such is the progressive effect of six years of drought. . . .
This means that replacement of things in the home has been at a low point, or practically not at all. This is the most aggravating feature of the drought. One farmer described the situation as "patching up old clothes with clothes already patched, only to find that the garment had given way somewhere else." Examples are everywhere but repetition of them would not ease the circumstances. Clothing and bed clothes are badly needed. . . .
Clothing has been reduced to a minimum and bed clothes are reported as a great necessity, being but a remnant of what they once were and worn thin with age. Bare necessities have been the rule during the past few years. Farm homes such as these have never been run on a lavish scale.	The people live simply and
modestly, so reduction from their scale of living means more to the farmer and his wife and family than would at first appear. . . .
In some farm houses near the United States border .	. . information was given of cases
where one girl wore "the dress" to school one day while the sister stayed at home. Next day they alternated, one staying at home and one going to school. Even the tea kettle is worn out and has been replaced by a lard pail. Broken panes of glass have been replaced by cardboard.

226	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
That is not the statement of someone trying to overdraw the picture; it comes from the editor of the Regina Leader Post, a supporter of the Liberal party. The housing conditions of these people are such that one could not take time to describe them, but I will give a quotation from a report of the bureau of statistics:
The large six room dwelling is predominant in the maritimes and Ontario where there is least evidence of crowding and conversely on the prairies where four room dwellings predominate, there is definite evidence of inadequate living space, particularly in rural areas. . . . Over 60 per cent of prairie rural homes contain four rooms or less, while the number of such homes in Ontario is less than 23 per cent. In Alberta and Saskatchewan there are more rural households occupying two rooms than in any other room group.
The Saskatchewan government submitted figures to show that in regard to household comforts in rural homes Saskatchewan ranks among the lowest in the matter of farm conveniences and has the unenviable distinction of having fewer homes with sanitary conveniences and running water than any other province in the dominion. The effect, as the result of these long years of unvaried diet and living on starches, has been to reduce the powers of resistance of great masses of these people. When we realize that the maximum relief for a family of five is $20.20 per month, with 15 per cent deduction if they have meat, 10 per cent deduction if they have dairy products, 10 per cent deduction if they have vegetables, we can readily understand that the problem of health, the problem resulting from undernourishment and malnutrition is a very grave one indeed.
This brief points out that not only have the people on relief been affected, but the rest of the people have had their incomes seriously curtailed. Storekeepers, doctors, workers in towns and villages, ministers of the gospel- all these people are still endeavouring to cany on the services of the community, in many cases with resources exhausted, and they can carry on only under great privation and hardship. And no group have suffered more than the school-teachers, particularly the rural teachers. The brief points out that in 1936 the total salaries paid the school-teachers of Saskatchewan amounted to about half what was paid in 1926, and the total of salaries owing to the teachers was about $1,000,000. It proceeds to set out some of the causes, three main causes being mentioned. I cannot deal with them extensively, but it is interesting to note that drought is not given as one of the main causes.

I have listened to hon. gentlemen opposite telling us from time to time that one good rain or one or two good crops would put Saskatchewan and the prairies back on their feet. That was not the opinion of those who presented this brief. They recognized that drought is a factor which has aggravated the situation, but the causes lie deep down in our economic and social system. On page 1 they say:
It will be most unfortunate for Canada as a whole if fundamental weaknesses in the economy of the western provinces, and in particular of Saskatchewan, are ignored in the belief that prosperity will be assured with a return of normal crop conditions.
And the same view is stated on pages 18 and 46. They cite three main causes; the first is the uneven burden of the protective tariff, and as usual they quote the figures compiled by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) before he became a member of the government. I am not going into that except to say that the government of Saskatchewan pointed out to the Rowell commission that those figures show-and they must have agreed with them-that the benefit Saskatchewan derived from the tariff was $3,000,000 a year, the amount it cost Saskatchewan was $29,000,000 a year, and therefore the loss to the people of Saskatchewan was $26,000,000 a year. Therefore on a per capita basis each man, woman or child gained in benefit $3.55 and paid out $31.71, in other words, the tariff cost each man, woman or child in Saskatchewan $28.16 in terms of too high prices that they paid for the goods they bought, over what they would have paid had they been buying in the markets of the world. They pointed out that western Canada was discriminated against, that they received in benefit only $30,000,000 and that it cost them $86,000,000, being a net loss of $56,000,000 per year to the three prairie provinces. Now I am not going to say whether or not those figures are correct, I shall leave their defence to the Minister of Labour, who is an authority on gathering statistics. But I ask, Why should a Liberal government in western Canada present these facts to the Rowell commission? If there were a Tory government in Ottawa I could well understand them talking about the unequal burden of the tariff, but we have a government here which has for its slogan "Wider and freer markets," a government which has in its ranks the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman), whose syndicated articles on freer trade are blazoned from one end of Canada to the other. I listened with interest to the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) saying that the

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
farmers give every fifth hog, every fifth head of cattle, every fifth bushel of wheat to protection. But why tell us that? All he has to do to have this situation rectified is to convert hon. gentlemen beside him. They have the power; theirs must be the responsibility if there is an unequal tariff burden.
The same thing is true in regard to the second cause they gave. They say that the monetary policy of the government was such that it had worked a hardship on western Canada. I refer the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) particularly to pages 233 and 237. I shall read only one quotation:
While western members in the house continued to urge a change of monetary viewpoint in order to ease the burden of western agriculture, the government of the day never wavered in its allegiance to the doctrine of " sound money."
Has the doctrine of sound money been changed? In what way? Why tell the Rowell commission about it? This government has been in office two and a half years; its leader was going to "issue currency and credit in terms of public need." It has among its supporters and champions the hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), and the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker). I remember with what eloquence these gentlemen entered the house to do battle against the money power.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member may ask all the questions he likes when I have finished.


Malcolm McLean: Is it the present government that is meant by "the government of the day"?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member may make his speech when I have finished.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member has reached the stage where he will not answer questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These gentlemen remind me of Tennyson's well known lines:
But oh for the touch of a vanished hand,
And the sound of a voice that is still.
Their voices have become very still.


Mr. FINN:: Yours has not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope it never will as long as the government opposite is in power.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That will be not more than two and a half years.
51952-15J


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The third reason given was the railway problem and unfair freight rates. I shall take no time to say anything about that, except that the same remark applies; the government in power could have rectified these inequalities, and theirs is the responsibility for not doing so.
But I want to mention some of the causes not mentioned in the brief, that have aggravated the situation. The first I come to is the administration of relief, particularly in the drought area and in the province of Saskatchewan. The first thing wrong has been lack of direct responsibility. A man applies for relief, his application goes to the secretary of the municipal council. The council consider it, they may pass it, reject it or cut it down. Then the relief officer comes around. There is one relief officer for every two or three municipalities. He has power to veto any relief order the municipal council may pass. Furthermore he has power to pass one even if the municipal council may have rejected the application, and to pass that relief order on to the provincial government. In other words, the responsibility does not lie with the municipalities, as has been so often alleged. No wonder the rural municipalities of Saskatchewan in their brief to the Rowell commission said this rather sad thing:
We at times feel that we are a rather important unit of our government system, and at other times that we are simply in existence for the purpose of performing tasks and assuming responsibilities that no self-respecting unit of government would undertake.
And that is true.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, that is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the minister will let me finish my argument I will show it is true.


James Garfield Gardiner: May I ask a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister knows I cannot go on for an hour and twenty minutes as he did. I have only forty minutes, unless the house will extend my time, in which case I will answer all the questions the minister likes to ask.
This is what happens when a man finds his relief order has been cut down; he goes to the secretary of the municipality, who tells him; You have to see the relief officer. The relief officer tells him; I am governed by the regulations of the provincial government. He goes to the province and is told: That is under the dominion government. He addresses himself to the federal minister and is told: We provide the money but we do not administer it, and they send him back to the province, which refers him back to the relief officer. So, like the music, he "goes round and round" and never gets anywhere.
228	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
In giving the relief officer a power which is practically dictatorial you give him power to discriminate against individuals. The other evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) put this question to us in this corner:
I am certain that my friends^ of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, some of whom come from Saskatchewan, or of the Social Credit group, two of whom come from that province, will not admit that the councils in the municipalities which they represent are composed of men who are cogs in any political machine.
Mr. Speaker, I have covered eighteen thousand miles this summer by car, going into every corner of the drought area. I have handled hundreds of relief cases. After seeing this thing I say first that the municipal councils are not in the political machines, but that the relief inspectors are, and that there is being built up to-day in the drought area, on the misery of our people, a political machine that would make Tammany Hall look like a Sunday school.


John Ritchie MacNicol: They will receive what Tammany Hall did.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why? Simply because these relief inspectors are politically appointed. They have the power; if they like a man's political flavour his relief application goes through without difficulty. they do not like his political flavour they can give him a great deal of trouble. I am not saying that happens in every case; I have met scores of these men and taken up individual cases with them, and when apparent discrimination has been drawn to their attention it has been rectified. But I will say to the government, and particularly to the Minister of Agriculture, that there is room in this set-up for discrimination and that there has been discrimination again and again.


James Garfield Gardiner: That is not the set-up. The hon. member has not described the set-up.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think I have described the set-up very well.
The second effect of our relief system, Mr. Speaker, of course has been to penalize initiative. There is a deduction, for instance, if a man raises a few pigs or milks some cows. If he gets a little work and earns some money, that is deducted from his relief. Even last summer if men went out in the boiling sun and put up stacks of Russian thistle, in many cases they had it deducted later on from their feed and fodder quota. In other words we have worked out a relief system which says: The more you do, the less you get; the less you do the more you get. I can remember

that during the campaign of 1935 some hon. gentlemen opposite said to the electors, "If you have a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation government, everybody will be looked after, but what will you do with the lazy fellow?" I want to ask what you are doing with the lazy fellows under this relief system. Of course some of them have been made government inspectors, but what about the others? This is what they have done with the lazy fellows. They have said to them, "You stay out on the prairie and squat and do nothing, and you will get more relief than the man who is trying to do a little to help himself."


Mr. DONNELLY:: Is that what you told
them at home?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have said here w'hat I told them at home. I can tell the hon. member for Wood Mountain (Mr. Donnelly that I always tell the people here what I tell the people at home. That is not true of some hon. members.
The second thing that has aggravated the situation has been the distribution of feed and fodder. May I review, just briefly, what happened. First of all, in the early summer the Saskatchewan wheat pool, recognizing as everyone did that we were going to be short of feed and fodder, made an offer. They were willing to use their facilities to collect feed and fodder, bring it into the province, do the interim financing, bale and load it for seventy-five cents a ton and take a large share of this work off the hands of the government. Why this offer was never accepted no one has been able to explain.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has all been explained on the floor of the legislature in Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I hope it will be.


James Garfield Gardiner: It has been.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I would not consider that an explanation; I would consider that an evasion. This is what happened. It was apparent last year in the middle of July that we were not going to have enough feed. Some of us, along with farmers' organizations and representatives of the municipalities, approached government officials. We said, "Lou are not going to have enough feed, and nobody can expect you to feed all the cattle in Saskatchewan. We ask you to take the scrubs to the canning factories, but the foundation stock must be taken care of, either by shipping it out, by organizing bands of farmers to go out and secure feed or by

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weyhum)
shipping feed in." Nothing was done. Weeks went by. In the middle of August I journeyed all the way to the town of Carlyle to hear the Minister of Agriculture speak to his own constituents. It was the only way I could possibly find out what the government was going to do.


James Garfield Gardiner: The hon. member must have hidden in the back corner; I did not see him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: 
James Garfield Gardiner: Why should a man with
sixty head of cattle obtain relief?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That represents his capital equipment. You would not ask a grain farmer to sell his equipment. The result was that thousands of farmers were faced with the choice of either liquidating their herds or seeing their wives and children starve. What has been the result? There has been a depletion of live stock. The other evening, as reported at page 158 of Hansard, the minister said:
In other words, we still have 252,000 head more than we had in 1931, so if that number of cattle are still in Saskatchewan no one can say that the country has been depleted of cattle.
Do you see the catch in it, Mr. Speaker? These figures represent statistics as of June 1. The cattle were shipped out in September, October and November, to say nothing of the cattle that died in the meantime.


James Garfield Gardiner: Read the rest of the speech and you will find that I covered that point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister did not cover that. He went on to talk about the cattle shipped out, but he has no statistics at all with regard to the cattle that died. Any person who says there has been no depletion in Saskatchewan has only to go along the railway lines of that province to see what are the facts. In 1931 the farmers were shipping out butter and butter fat; to-day they are shipping it in. What has been the result? Simply this, that the live stock industry in southern Saskatchewan at least has been liquidated. That means hundreds of farmers are unable to supply their own tables. For many of them it means no cream cheques. In the town in which I live it means $1,500 a week less in cream cheques coming in, a total of S75.000 a year less purchasing power. But it means more than that. If we have a crop
i	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
next year, as we hope we shall, these farmers are going to want to build up their herds again. How are they going to do it? I saw cattle being sold for $12 and $15 a head. Can anybody imagine buying milch cows for anything like that amount next summer? No; the farmers will be asked to pay anywhere from $60 to $100, which they simply cannot pay. This will mean that they will have to breed up their herds, and in the end it will mean that the live stock industry has been ruined for at least ten or twelve years. That is one principal reason for the great dissatisfaction which exists there.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with one other matter, but I am afraid my time is not going to permit me to do so. Since the Minister of Labour is in his seat I should like to have dealt especially with the farm placement scheme.
At this time I should like to pay a tribute to the youth training program put on by the Minister of Labour. A very fine work has been done. I visited a number of these schools and I found they were excellently handled. I only hope that the appropriation will be increased next year and this work continued. While I am paying compliments, perhaps I should mention the Minister of Agriculture. I consider the distribution of fish, cheese and beans under Doctor Stapleford to have been the most efficient and equitable I have ever seen. I think the minister is to be commended for this work.
While the minister's department may be a " wow " at gathering statistics, there has been either a great deal of incompetency or sheer stupidity in the administration of the farm bonus plan. I think other hon. members will agree with me when I say that I have had more letters of complaint about this single thing than about anything else. There are two main difficulties in connection with this matter. The first is the definition of " homeless." A young man or young woman may have been working for a farmer for one, two or three months and then be informed by Mr. Molloy, who is administering this work and doing it very well under the handicap under which he is working, that his or her application has been rejected because it has been found that he or she has a home. The fact that a man has a home somewhere ought not to bar him from taking a job.
I know of many cases where the head of the home is unable to support a young man or woman. It may be that a home is presided over by a widow; that other children are doing all the work necessary on the farm, and that an older brother or sister coming

home would simply mean an additional burden. I have before me a number of letters that I would gladly pass over to the minister. In addition to being thrown out of employment, these young people have been unable to collect anything for the two or three months they have worked.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not think that is the case at all. I am quite sure my hon. friend is misinformed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I can show the minister letters from his own branch.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I would be very glad to receive them.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will pass over to the minister letters which were received from Mr. Molloy in which he states that that is why these people have been refused employment. I have written to Mr. Molloy and that is the kind of answer I have received.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Everyone will be paid for the time he has worked on a farm.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have one letter in which Mr. Molloy offered to pay relief to a farmer for the time a man worked, but he would not pay anything else.
Then there is the question of relationship. Applications have been refused because the applicant was a relative. This rule is being applied stringently, even in cases where the relationship is very remote. For instance, take t.he case of a widow with a small family running a farm. She needs someone to help her and there may be a brother who is homeless and destitute. He has to work somewhere and he would be better working for his sister than somewhere else. But his application is rejected. Mr. Molloy is quite clear about this.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Will my hon. friend say how many have been placed in Saskatchewan?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am talking about those who have not been placed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: About 25,000 have been placed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the Minister of Labour met a man who was out of work he would say to him, "Cheer up, my friend, there are a lot of people who are working." That is no consolation for a man who is not working. Then the minister might tell him that he has been registered and therefore he should feel better. I am sure it is not the slightest consolation to the unemployed of this country to know that they have been registered.

The Address-Mr. Marsh


Charles Avery Dunning: Twenty-five thousand have been placed in Saskatchewan.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the Minister of Finance will let me go on, I should like to quote from this letter from Mr. Molloy. He
says:
Your opinion that it is much more suitable and proper that a widow endeavouring to maintain herself on a farm should be allowed to have her brother, rather than a stranger, reside in the home and assist in the farm work, is concurred in by my minister, the Honourable Mr. Barker. As evidence of this, I would mention that Mr. Parker made quite a strong appeal to the Minister of Labour at Ottawa to permit the placement of relatives with women who are endeavouring to carry on farming operations in the province. However, this appeal was rejected by the federal authorities.
I submit that in the definition of "homeless" and of "relatives" there ought to be some leeway by those responsible for administration in the respective provinces in order that situations like this may be adjusted. In this particular case the man was allowed to work for his sister for two years under the farm bonus plan. Then in the third year it was suddenly found that as he was a relative he could work no longer. I think serious consideration should be given to this problem. I suggest that the difficulties facing the people in the drought area are due not only to the drought but to certain fundamental economic conditions that have not been rectified. Their difficulties are due above all to the aggravating policies that have been formulated by this government and to a lack of constructive measures to meet the situation that confronts these people.


Mr. J. A. MARSH (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in this august chamber for the first time I do so with memories of him in whose place I now stand. I refer to the late Herbert Earl Wilton. Mr. Wilton was a man whom we in the city of Hamilton had grown to love and respect as a capable and efficient public servant. For several years he served in our city as an alderman, then later as mayor, and he finished his term of public life as the member for Hamilton West in this House of Commons. We knew him not only as a public servant, but as a man whom we had grown to respect and love. His integrity, his love of truth, his exceeding kindliness and his good humour made him beloved by all with whom he came in contact.
I am happy to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne. As a new member perhaps I can appreciate their feelings and emotions more thoroughly
as they stood up to speak than other hon.
members, who in their wisdom and experience, have sat in this chamber for many years. I am sorry I was not in the chamber when the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) told the house he was just completing thirty-five years as a member of parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I view with regret the content, or	shall	I say the lack	of	content, inthe speech from the throne. I am moved to	say	that	I regard	it	as a sad
document to be put forth by a government whose Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), whose ministers and many of whose members have so recently participated in that joyous event, the coronation, and later in the imperial conference of the countries of the empire. What a wonderful clearing house that must have been for ideas and what a diversification of problems to be solved! All of this should have been productive of much. But this government has returned for the third session of this parliament and I submit that the speech from the throne leaves much to be desired.
Canada is faced with a number of problems, at least two of which threaten the very lifeblood of our country. The first to which I shall refer is that of poverty in a land of plenty. The second problem is the apparent desire on the part of some provinces to legislate for themselves and to set up nine separate bodies instead of continuing as the great Dominion of Canada which was handed down to us by the fathers of confederation.
I read from the speech from the throne:
It is gratifying to note that, during the past year, there has been a further substantial advance in Canada's economic recovery. Revenues have reached new levels. Trade with other countries has materially expanded.
I submit that the recovery referred to is much more imaginary than real, and that, if divorced from its dependence upon our participation in the armaments program in which the world is engaged at the present time, there is little net economic advance. I thoroughly concur with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he said, on Wednesday last, that increased revenue was obtained last year largely through the exploitation of Canada's mines for war purposes and that we were avidly selling to both aggressor and defending nations.
During the last few years I have spoken with people who are thinking people, and if I can believe what I hear and what I read, it is the opinion of a great many Canadians that our nation is one of the most materialistic in the world. I am forced to agree that that is so. We pride ourselves on our standard
The Address-Mr. Marsh

of living; but I am convinced that Canada is now putting far too much emphasis on the dollar and not enough emphasis on the man. Our national life is full of evidences of this.
I am sorry to say that our churches are not free from it, though I hesitate to criticize them. Our values are all wrong. Does it not seem to be the veriest hypocrisy that we, living in a country where we have virtually control of nickel and to a large extent control of copper, should sell them to belligerent nations for the purposes of destroying life, while at the same time we hear from the radio, the newspaper and the pulpit appeals by the Red Cross-and God bless the Red Cross-that we send sums of money to one million Chinese boys and girls and old men and women to nurse back to health broken bodies, the starved wastage of war? Does it not seem the veriest hypocrisy that shells and other armaments made of Canadian nickel and copper and sold by Canadian industries to belligerent nations should later necessitate philanthropic giving, to nurse, with Canadian surgery and the use of Canadian adhesive tape, perhaps, the products of our own destruction? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is poor economy and worse Christianity. It is entirely unworthy of the traditions of the Canadian people.
I make these observations after serious thought. When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was speaking on Monday last, he pointed out very clearly the importance of Canadians not taking sides, that Canada must observe her neutrality, that public servants must be guarded in their expressions of opinion as to any belligerent. Also I am mindful that the Prime Minister, in reply, concurred in this thought, and I was much impressed by his earnestness when he said:
I do hope that in the course of political discussions in this house during the present session, hon. members will think twice with regard to whatever they may have to say on foreign affairs, and ask themselves whether, in viewr of the attitude which great nations such as England, France and the United States have thought it wisest to adopt, we ourselves should seek to outrun them and attempt some of the things that go much farther than they are prepared to go.
Despite this injunction I am moved to say that the present exploitation of Canada's mines in favour of belligerent nations, of aggressive people at war, is Canada's responsibility. I deplore that I must say it is Canada's guilt.
Also am I mindful of the efforts put forth by British statesmen in the last few years to preserve the peace of Europe. Cannot this government, moved by the high principles of

right, justice and peace, do something to eliminate or at least to curtail the exploitation of our mines in order that shells may be sold to belligerent nations? It should never be hinted or even thought of Canada that she sacrificed her national honour for financial gain.
Neither, Mr. Speaker, am I impressed by the	increase of	revenue	which	wasspoken of in the speech from the throne, when I	realize that	the taxes paid	bythe Canadian people last year were greater than in any previous year in our history.	You have heard this	before,	Mr. Speaker, during the discussion, and you will hear it again, because of necessity it must be spoken. Are we to congratulate the government because they have proved themselves to be the greatest tax collectors in the history of federal governments in Canada? I think not. In	view of the	increase	in economic
recovery as spoken of in the speech from the throne, why does the sales tax-that much discussed burden which unfortunately falls so largely on the commodities that the man making fifteen or eighteen dollars a week has to buy-remain at eight per cent? Why the tax on sugar? You have heard this before, but in view of the economic recovery, why is that tax still one cent a pound? In view of the surplus in the department of the Postmaster General I wonder why postage is still three cents? The leader of the opposition put the matter in its right category when with ridicule he said, "Behold the surplus 1" If recent government action gives any indication of what is going to happen in the next few months it would appear that taxes are increasing rather than decreasing. Otherwise why the increase in the radio licence from two dollars to two dollars and a half? I am not going to belabour the point now; I wish to speak of it a little later.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is unbecoming in a young man, especially a new member, to be intolerant. As we approach years of maturity we should find in ourselves a readiness to stand in the other man's shoes, to look at mutual problems through the other man's glasses, and I hope that as long as I am on the opposition benches I shall not be found continually condemning the government. I am not made that way. Consequently perhaps I may remark that when hon. members who now sit to the right of the Speaker move over, as they will do in a little while, to the left of the Speaker, they will conduct themselves accordingly.
Therefore, realizing that this young country of ours-and how prone we are to boast about its trees, its streams and its lakes, its rivers

The Address-Mr. Marsh
that generate power, the nickel and copper we take from the bowels of the earth, the apples which compare favourably with the best in the world-with all its present wealth and its potentialities, is faced with a menace, an enemy which is stalking through the length and breadth of the land, cannot this parliament unite to banish that monster from among us? His name is poverty.
I come, Mr. Speaker, from the industrial city of Hamilton. Hamilton is the Pittsburgh of Canada, and the finest city in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Allmond Marsh: I hear some assent and some dissent from a few members, perhaps from Toronto. Perhaps I may be permitted to say to them that civilization has always moved from the east to the west, and there may come a time when "the desert will blossom like the rose" and Hamilton will extend its boundaries north, south, east and west, but mostly to the east, and when that time comes, the city of "Toronto the good" will perhaps find itself rejoicing in the bosom of a greater and better Hamilton.
We pride ourselves in Hamilton upon possessing a university, and we have a school system that we think is second to none. We have other cultural advantages, but Hamilton is still a city of dinner pails and time-clocks and pay envelopes. Because of our natural geographical location, and because of the fact that we have a fine harbour and good railroad service, as good as the present setup can give us, industry knocks at our door, and we joyfully admit industry. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I am distressed to see the men and women who haunt our streets day by day looking for the job they cannot find. I am distressed also by the great percentage of men and women in the city of Hamilton who are working in our industries, giving an honest day's work and receiving in return a pay envelope that is inadequate even for the bare necessities of life. I am further distressed by the number we have on relief. Our relief system is, we think, one of the most economically operated in Canada, and we are proud of it. But relief is a poor substitute for a job, and it is a terrible impost on the taxpayer who is trying to help out his less fortunate fellow-citizens.
We listened the other day with a good deal of interest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) as he told us what the government had done and tried to do in the west. We were gratified to hear that the government had done so much, but we
have also heard from western members who have told us of the spectre of poverty that is marching throughout the west, leaving in its wake destitution, bundles of bones-horses or cattle-wandering on the prairies, little children clothed in burlap, receiving a steady diet of potatoes, and perhaps not that. I would like to say to the members from the west that those of us in the east pay our tribute to you of the west. You have been brave; you have fought manfully. Perish the thought that the east should ever forget the west, or the west ever forget the east! Perish the thought that one province should ever war with another! Perish the thought that this Dominion of Canada should ever disintegrate because of selfishness! But I would like to point out that the government now in power appealed to the electorate in 1935, and said: If you put us into office, you will have the federal government and all the provincial governments of this country of the same political persuasion, and we shall have a cohesion and a unity which will enable us to solve many of the problems that are now distressing this country. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government stands condemned until that is a realization, and not just a fond hope-and that time is not yet.
To the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) I would suggest that we cannot brag about our trade and commerce so long as we have 960,000 people on relief in a country of 11,000.000, almost one in eleven of our total population. We cannot brag about our resources or our world trade so long as we have a great mass of people in our cities and in the country living in the shadow of insecurity, and of fear of what to-morrow may bring.
May I say a word about the tendency on the part of this government to reduce tariffs in industries which depend upon protection for their very existence, the payrolls of which are even now inadequate to afford a decent living to their workmen. I refer to the reductions that have been made in certain tariffs during 1936 and 1937. I am an advocate of a reasonable tariff for an industry that needs protection. I am an advocate of foreign trade. I believe in exchanging our surplus products, if they can be exchanged with a country whose business cycle is not a feast-and-famine cycle, whose market is more or less stable, whose trade . shows some degree of consistency, and therefore I am alarmed at the reference made in
The Address-Mr. Marsh

the speech from the throne to the proposed trade treaty between Canada and the United States. To what extent will it affect the present British Empire trade agreements, so skilfully and carefully prepared by the late government under its right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett), and implemented by the present government somewhat. There is great apprehension on the part of manufacturers as to what the future holds for them. How can they plan with tariffs that jump around? While the speech from the throne does not indicate the specific classes of goods that may be affected, nevertheless I should like to quote what the leader of the opposition said in his speech on Monday last:
There is nothing more we can give the United States except specific reductions of tariff items, but we are told that what we are to do is to sell our British preference for these benefits. That is the story. Without going into it in detail, the sole, simple question is: What price? And what price means what concessions we are prepared to make from the British preference in order that we may get something for which we have given already everything we have to give on our own account, so that we have nothing more to offer except reductions in specific items. . . . We are not prepared to take quotas when we have given 125,000,000 people everything.
I am rather taken by the undeniable fact- and it applies in this instance-of how history has a habit of repeating itself. Why are Liberal governments against, and why have Liberal governments through all the years been against industry? Senator Beaubien, on April 1, 1936, reviewing the success or failure of reasonable tariff protection of our industries, instanced the year 1930, and said:
So our tariff wall was being demolished brick by brick, and a flood of merchandise from all over the world was pouring into Canadian markets with the result that manufacturers who had been in business in this country for years and gave employment to large numbers of our citizens were unable to withstand the competition.
What was the position in 1930? The manufacturers of the United States, enjoying higher protection and greater sales volume than do our manufacturers, flooded our market with $900,000,000 worth of goods, $600,000,000 worth of which competed directly with our own manufactured products.
I do not say this disparagingly, but it has always struck me as being very strange that, traditionally, the Liberal party has in a sense always been opposed to our manufacturers. My hon. friends opposite know this to be a fact. Why is this?
We are still asking that question in the year of Our Lord, 1938.
The situation was bad enough in 1930. What is it like now? I dare say that there is no other country in the world which provides such

dangerous competition for our industries as does the United States. We could perhaps meet the competition of glassware and boots manufactured in Czechoslovakia, for that country is a great distance from our market, and, so far as its boots are concerned, our people will not wear them. But every hon. member having the slightest experience of business knows that the manufacturers of the United States are competitors against whom it is virtually impossible for us to compete. This was evidenced in 1930.
I shall not read further, but I would point out that since this statement was made, tariffs have again been lowered, and now we have a proposed trade agreement with a country of 125,000,000 people who have protected themselves with a 60 per cent tariff, while our own country, with 11,000,000 people, has an average tariff of approximately 14 per cent. We have an adverse balance of trade with them at the present time; what have we to gain?
May I say a word or two to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) with regard to certain branches of the textile industry. I have learned to respect the Minister of Finance; I admire his brain and his tongue, and most of all I like his very cordial manner in the House of Commons. But I cannot understand the way his brain works when it comes to the protection of our industries. I am aware that there are certain branches of the textile trade which came in for condemnation because they have not played the game in the past, but there are other branches which need protection. Surely the minister does not need to be reminded that S25.000.000 is paid by this industry directly to men and women who work with their hands; nor does he need to be reminded that there are eighty-two municipalities in Ontario, thirty-nine in Quebec, eighteen in the maritime provinces and seven in the west which are dependent upon this pay-roll and benefit by it. I would ask him to compare the duty into Canada with the duty into ten of the principal cottonmanufacturing countries.
I quote from an authority which I regard as responsible and I give as a basis five Lancashire gray cloths. Taking cloth No. 1, the rates are:
Per cent
United States	 22-3
Japan	 21-0
United Kingdom	 23-0
India	 23-0
China	 35-5
I-'rance	 33-6
Brazil (minimum duty)	197-4
Czechoslovakia	 22-3
Belgium	   25-0
Canada	 15-0


Charles Avery Dunning: Is that gray cloth?

The Address-Mr. Marsh


John Allmond Marsh: That is gray cloth. The percentages for cloth No. 2 are:
Per cent
United States	 19-5
Japan	 18-8
United Kingdom	 23-0
India	 23-0
China	 35'5
France	 24-2
Brazil (minimum duty)	215-9
Czechoslovakia	 25-1
Belgium	 22-4
Canada	 15-0
I shall not weary the house by giving the figures for cloths Nos. 3, 4 and 5; they all find Canada at the bottom of the heap with 15 per cent. I have not said anything about five countries which might be spoken of as textile manufacturing countries-Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain and Poland-all of which might be claimed to have special considerations governing the extent of their tariffs; but I have quoted ten of the fifteen important textile manufacturing countries. It is evident that the Canadian duty on cotton textiles is the lowest of any textile manufacturing country in the world and that our standard of living, thank heaven, is higher than it is in China. I submit therefore that the tariff should not be further lowered, but should be raised.
It has been said of this government that it is a safe government. I wonder what we mean by "safe." We cast our minds back a few hundred years to the middle ages and read of monks going into monasteries in order to be safe. They shut themselves off from the iniquities of the world, from sin, and hardship and warfare in order that they might be safe. We who are in positions of leadership in Canada's parliament are very much at grips w-ith life, and we cannot be inactive; we must wage war on this thing we call poverty. I am mindful that during the recent depression the then government, now sitting in opposition, was blamed for the greatest slump in the history of modern times. The present leader of the opposition, then Prime Minister, came in for a great deal of criticism and blame, but his shoulders were broad. He was blamed for the collapse of the whole world, at any rate for the depression, so far as Canada was concerned. I shall not reciprocate in kind and blame the present Prime Minister and his government for the fact that the sun did not shine at the right time in Saskatchewan; that the rain did not fall; that the wheat did not grow; that men who sowed did not reap. But I do submit, in the light of evidence that we have heard on the floor of the house, that the government did not act soon enough. It did not go into the situation thoroughly enough, and the west
suffered mightily because of the want of aggressiveness and because of the passivity on the part of this government. The government did not act with the dispatch which the pressure of the moment demanded.
And now, I shall voice the protest of hundreds of thousands of Canadians against the present radio situation. First of all, I refer to the increase in licence fee from S2 to $2.50, and in the second place to the impost of $2.50 for each additional radio in the home and for radios in motor cars. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), speaking the other day, hit the nail on the head when he said that it was a nuisance tax and that the people regarded it as such. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was looked upon with a good deal of kindness for a while when it was dependent upon the good will of the people, but it is losing that good will quickly. But there is another question: Why should the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, protected by government licence and supported by the people's funds, go into the radio business on a commercial basis and compete with privately owned radio stations who did the pioneering? Years ago when the radio was a new thing men had faith in it, to the extent of being willing to dig down into their pockets and establish a radio industry. Through the years the going was hard and they were in the red, but now that it appears that world trade is coming back and they have a chance to make money the government goes into the business. What would happen if the government went into the steel business and started to buy and sell steel? You know what would happen, Mr. Speaker, and so do I. This idea, of the government using radio as a commercial means of putting out of business established industry, is wrong.
Might I review briefly why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was set up? It was established with the intention of providing competition for foreign broadcasts. It was argued that a broadcasting organization supported by the Canadian government, financed by revenues from listeners, and with its credit standing guaranteed by the government, could develop programs which would compare favourably with and therefore could compete with United States broadcasts. These programs were to be made available to Canadian radio stations. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was given wide powers, including power to refuse to any Canadian radio station the right to import any foreign program. I remember well two years ago that a great motor car company which has one of the finest broadcasts on the air desired to send that broadcast over
The Address-Mr. Marsh

Canadian airways. A Canadian radio station had the business initiative, the facilities and salesmanship to go out and sell that company. Then arrangements were made to broadcast the program over Canadian stations, all this to be subject to the approval of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. They applied to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and permission was refused. Months later I understand that another motor car manufacturer in the United States, which has a Canadian factory and employs Canadian workmen, wanted to broadcast a radio program in Canada. A Canadian station applied to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the right to use that program, and was refused.
Now what has happened? The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its search for further revenue is now doing exactly what it formerly would not permit the private station to do for the same purpose. Further, the corporation I understand is offering United States agencies special concessions in the form of corporation networks at a combined cost far below the normal time charges of these stations, also line facilities at less than normal cost. These concessions are being made to attract foreign broadcasts to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stations, and, mark you, the deficit is being paid from my $2.50 and the $2.50 of the poor fellow making $18 a week, who has just as much right to radio as anyone, if our standard of living is to be kept up. Why the right about face?
Now my time is almost up; so let me briefly summarize what I have said about the present radio set-up in Canada. First, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation imports foreign broadcasts for its own network, which privilege has long been denied the private stations. Second, the corporation establishes powerful broadcasting stations but will not permit the private station to increase its power; therefore it cannot compete. Third, the corporation offers sponsors the facilities of ^ these stations, its networks and line facilities, at less than normal cost. Fourth, the non-Canadian activities of this corporation are made possible and the payment of the deficit incurred by a licence fee of $2.50 for each individual radio, which is an imposition and a nuisance tax that should be withdrawn altogether.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have the friendliest feelings for the people of the United States of America-part of my family live there, although they are Canadian born-and I think it is very fine that we can have the friendliest of intercourse with that great English-speaking country. But, sir, I deplore the fact that a 
responsible Canadian journal, the Financial Post, can truthfully say, in black headlines, a thing we cannot deny-" United States speaks-Canada listens!"
Mr. F. D. MacKENZIE (Neepawa); Mr. Speaker, first I offer my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
Then, sir, I wish to speak briefly on one or two subjects that have been discussed during this last week. First, I should like to make some observations on unemployment and relief, chieflj' as relating to the province of Manitoba and more particularly the constituency I have the honour to represent.
Manitoba is still an agricultural province, and as such there will always be a seasonal fluctuation in employment. Under normal conditions there is always a part of the year when employment is active, that is during seeding and still more during harvesting and threshing; also there is a period when employment on the farm is slack. That will always be the case unless there is some change in the set-up, as would now appear to be working itself out, for due to the more extensive mechanization of farming the labour requirements even during the busy season are much less than they were in the past. In spite of that, if it had not been for the help of men from Saskatchewan, Manitoba would have been short of labour during the last harvest season. Farmers from the drought area of Saskatchewan poured into Manitoba last year, and the stream even trickled through to Ontario, as I found in more than one part of this province last autumn. But the fact remains that while in the city of Winnipeg many men were unemployed and on relief the country was short-handed and would have suffered had it not been for the drought in Saskatchewan which allowed the farmers from that province and their sons to come to the assistance of Manitoba farmers.
If we leave out of the picture the drought area in Saskatchewan and Alberta, has there ever been more employment in Canada at this season of the year than there is this year? That does not mean that I am satisfied with the situation; I just put the question. I repeat what I said at the outset, that Manitoba being largely a farming province will continue to have these seasonal fluctuations. Normally more men are required in the summer than in the winter. This has always been the case and will continue to be so under the set-up we have now. What is to be done about the matter? Is the cure to

The Address-Mr. MacKenzie (Neepawa)
be found in establishing more secondary industries in the west? I do not think so, because men employed in factories would not be available on the farms unless the factories worked only in the winter, which of course is not feasible. The cure is to be found in something which will put the farmers in such a financial position that they will be able to hire men for longer periods, that is, to hire permanent help.
In the old days, before the advent of direct relief on the present scale, men went out from the towns and cities to work on the land during the summer months. Then in many cases they went back to the cities, doing little or no work all winter. Some would go to the woods for the winter, but there never has been in Canada sufficient lumbering and allied work to take up the slack of winter unemployment, especially on the prairies. I remember that in Ontario, when I was a boy here, many of the young men in our community would follow the work of sailing on the great lakes. As a rule they did not work in the winter; in the great majority of cases they would lay up. I suppose the nearest we have come to taking up this winter slack in employment in Canada has been during the several railroad building periods of the past.
The point I wish to stress is that before the present period of depression and large scale direct relief, men never thought of going on relief even though conditions in regard to employment were no better than, or not as good as, they have been during the present winter. As hon. members know, people have gone to the cities and gone on relief, and they will not go on the land during the busy season. They prefer to remain on relief throughout the year. In that connection I want to say that the relief rates are so high in the cities that farmers cannot afford to pay men enough to compete with existing rates of relief. That is the case as between Winnipeg and rural Manitoba. I know a great number of cases in my own constituency, where men have come out from Winnipeg for harvest work, good farm labourers, men who should be living in the country instead of the city, because they know farm work better than city work, and who have gone back to the city because they could draw more in relief than they could make by working in the country. They have made that statement quite openly. A farmer cannot pay wages high enough to compete with the relief rates in the cities at the present time.
That is one side of the situation. There is another side to look at. During the last few years in the west the farmer has taken
such a beating year after year that he has no reserve left. In a great many cases he may be actually gravely in debt. Much of his machinery is in bad repair; much of it is out of date, long past the time for replacement. Buildings are in need of paint and repairs, but the farmers are not in a position to hire men for the better part of the year. They have been hiring men only when they could not possibly get along without help, particularly for harvesting and threshing. Many have done without help altogether. Now that times are a little better for the man on the land, he may put some of his surplus into the new machine he needs so much. Then he may put a little into much needed repairs to his buildings. After that, if his taxes are paid, he can begin to think of hiring help for longer periods of time. Many of the farmers in our constituency would hire men if they were sure they would be able to pay them after harvesting their crops. That is what they have told me. That is why in Manitoba, and especially in our part of the country where a fair crop was harvested last year, some farmers did not hire help except for harvesting and threshing. Last summer they found it difficult to get men in the busy season, having waited too long. This was Where the Saskatchewan men who came into the province at that time saved the situation.
It does create a problem when the farmers do not hire men right through the season but take them on for only short periods. First, it makes it difficult for the farmer himself to have any choice in his labour supply, for when he does need a man the supply is limited. In the second place it is very difficult for the labourer to carry on until he is again needed on the farm, and if he finds another job in the meantime he cannot be expected to throw it up in order to work for a few weeks on the farm.
The solution for this phase of the problem will be found only when the farmer himself is assured of a Living wage, an income suited to his requirements. When you assure the farmer a fair return for his work you will automatically solve a great many of the other problems that are worrying us to-day. The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) is right; put the primary producer on his feet and you will cure most of our economic ills.
To sum up that part of my argument, if Manitoba is to remain a farming province the position of the farmer must be improved, because labour cannot be employed unless the farmer can afford to hire labour con-
238	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacKenzie (Neepawa)
tinuously. So the farmer must be helped to attain a position where he can hire labour steadily.
Before leaving this point may I say in passing that there are a great many other families who, like the farmers, have fallen behind during the years of depression, and who will find it difficult to exist until they can again find steady employment at reasonably good wages. Many have used up what reserves they had, and at last have had to go on relief. Many, I know, have gone on fighting and have kept off relief. Many of those people deserve a better fate than a continuance of that grim struggle, and I think the government should do more rather than less in providing work for those who have kept off relief in spite of everything.
I should like to offer a suggestion to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) which will help in Manitoba. It is that public works coming under the dominion-provincial agreement, such as road work, should get under way earlier in the season and not late in July or August, as has been the case in the past. I know it is not the fault of the minister; but if that could be done, once seeding is finished men could go to work on the road projects. Then, these being completed, the harvest would come along and the farmers would be able to get men, while the men would continue to get jobs. This would do away with the conflict as between the farmer and the contractor for men for short periods in the summer and the resulting periods when neither the farmer nor the contractor is busy.
There has been an improvement in the Manitoba farm situation, but there is much leeway to make up. Several years like 1937 would do a great deal to put the country on its feet, provided other things were taken care of by the government. This brings me to another matter which has been discussed in the course, of this debate and which I hope to have an opportunity of dealing with at greater length later in the session. It follows naturally and logically.
The speech from the throne mentioned the pending trade treaty between the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. If I may judge from a survey of Canadian newspapers, there is little opposition to the treaty and much support. The treaties already consummated by this government and the moderate reductions that have been made in the tariff have been generally conceded to have assisted in building up our external trade to the point where we are in fourth position in the world in export trade. That that improved

trade has had a beneficial effect on our whole national position is borne out in many ways and is so stated by many who are not avowed free traders. Mr. Wilson, President of the Royal Bank of Canada, had the following to say in his annual statement:
Where the recent prosperity in the United States has been dependent mainly upon large-scale government deficits, the Canadian recovery took its origin from foreign trade. There was no single remedy to bring about improvement.
He mentions a number of possible remedies and then goes on:
But these should be combined with exceptional efforts on the part of the government to open the doors to foreign markets.
And again:
I view with satisfaction the present tendency among democratic countries to break down barriers impeding the natural flow of business.
He says a lot more which I shall skip. I should like to quote a report in the Ottawa Journal of January 28 of a speech by Mr. McLeod, President of the Bank of Nova Scotia, as follows:
During 1937 there was a modest reduction in the barriers to international trade. Some countries, of which Canada was one, made significant if moderate decreases in their tariffs. New trade agreements were negotiated, of which that between Great Britain and Canada was among the more important. Some exchange controls were relaxed and according to League of Nations authorities the actual administration of such controls and clearing agreements was in many countries made less rigid.
Now that the recovery in trade appears for the moment to have been interrupted, it is more important than ever that further steps should be taken to lower barriers which still obstruct the flow of goods from one country to another.
The recent opening of trade negotiations between Great Britain and the United States is of the greatest significance. A treaty between these two countries would tend to reduce the barriers to trade over a very large part of the world. A truly successful agreement would hold vast promise for the further revival of trade and thus for the continuance of world recovery.
Mr. Speaker, it all seems very reasonable and very logical. Moderate tariff reductions by Canada would be followed by increased trade which would be followed by improved conditions of employment. All this would be to the general benefit of Canada. Does this not suggest that the reasonable and logical course to pursue is the further lowering of tariffs which would be followed by a further improvement in employment and in Canada's economic position? Mr. McLeod goes on to say:
The price of success is a willingness to make concessions in the spirit of give and take, not only by the two parties directly involved but also by Canada and the other British dominions.

The Address-Mr. Betts
These two men cannot be accused of being free traders and yet they ask us to press on to lower tariffs in order to promote the common good of all. We can do this by trade agreements and we can do it in the ordinary way.
We look forward to the agreement mentioned in the speech from the throne with hopeful anticipation. We look forward to further reductions in our tariff structure so that improvement may continue until national prosperity is assured.
As I said before, a few more years like Manitoba had in 1937 would help to put the country on its feet. Two sections of my constituency were completely hailed out and of course the people suffered as a consequence, but the rest of the country enjoyed a comparatively good year. My constituency embraces one of the finest farming districts in the west, in fact anywhere in Canada, sloping as it does to the south and east from the Riding Mountain plateau. Each year of the three I have been a member of this house I have listened to eulogies on the county of Peel, a fine county which I know personally, but if the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray-don) would come west and visit with me for several days I could show him a constituency the equal of his own in many ways, and the superior in others.
I could show him the district which produces the cream and butter which has for years led the province of Manitoba to the grand championship of Canada at all the large fairs. Manitoba has led all Canada since 1924 in the production of quality butter, and for the last several years the creameries of my constituency have led Manitoba to victory. Not only has the Gladstone creamery won the grand championship at the Canadian National Exhibition, but at the last three successive Royals it has captured supreme honours. It has taken those honours right from the front door of the county of Peel.
We also produce live stock which has competed with success at the larger fairs. What is more, our men and boys know their live stock. Of the Manitoba boys' and girls' clubs team at the Royal last year, the four boys in live stock judging were from my constituency. Our honey is of a much better quality than one can find here in Ontario, so much so that I bring my own supply with me each session.
But we have more than fine grain, live stock, butter and honey; we. have admittedly some of the finest scenery in the country. I would like to take hon. members to the Riding mountain national park, down the east slope of the mountain. As the road winds slowly downward through the poplar,
spruce and birch, now on the edge of a precipitous cliff, now overlooking a deep ravine, we would see far below mile after mile of cultivated farm lands and away on to where the far horizon blends into lake Manitoba's waters. Some of those glorious vistas are comparable in kind and beauty, but more expansive, with some we have known in Italy. There are many other scenes which might well make one. on viewing them, imagine himself in bonnie Scotland.
But my time is going and I should like to touch on just one more of the subjects mentioned in the speech from the throne. It gave me pleasure to note that there was to be an expansion in the program of youth training. That is as it should be. The work last year was to some extent in the nature of an experiment, but it proved so successful in our province that its extension is amply justified. I do not know just how much the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) will expand or extend his program, but he can be assured of my complete support even to the limit of the greatest burst of generosity by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I do not intend to say more on this now, but I hope to join in the discussion when it comes again before the house.
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, support the amendment.


Mr. F. C. BETTS (London):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my own words of congratulation to those we have heard already to the mover (Mr. Francoeur) and the seconder (Mr. Warren) of the motion now being debated. With most of what they said I am in active disagreement, but nevertheless I should like to felicitate them on the graceful manner in which they performed their duties.
At the outset of my remarks, which will be very brief, I too should like to register, as a representative of a riding in which a great many people are engaged in the manufacture and distribution of radios, a strong protest against the increase in the radio licence fee. This added tax, to my way of thinking, is objectionable for a number of reasons. In the first place, it will retard the sale of sets, particularly what are described as secondary sets, that is the small sets, such as are used on the mantel, and in a motor car. In the second place, it is going to place on the Canadian radio audience a burden which is entirely disproportionate to the benefits, if any, that we derive from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Finally, it is a tax which invites evasion and dishonesty, in that the honest taxpayer will declare his
The Address-Mr. Betts

extra sets and pay the very considerably increased tax on each one, while the dishonest taxpayer will conceal his extra sets and evade the tax. Last, and most important of all is the consideration that by this additional impost the government is seriously obstructing an inexpensive source of amusement, relaxation and education which in the past has been available to hundreds of thousands of people in this country who because of their limited means would otherwise enjoy the minimum of these blessings. For these reasons I feel the government might as well cancel the increase at once.
I should like to read the paragraph in the speech from the throne which states:
The strains and stresses, which economic and social developments since confederation have placed upon Canada's governmental structure, have disclosed the necessity for adjustments which will enable it the more effectively to serve provincial and national needs, and to promote and preserve Canadian unity.
With that statement, Mr. Speaker, no one can be in disagreement, and I would venture to suggest to the government of the day a few methods by which the strains and stresses under which we are suffering may be, in part at least, lessened, by which the national need can be better served, and by which Canadian unity may be promoted and preserved.
There is one means which would go a long way towards these very desirable ends, and that is based upon the fact, which we all admit, that to-day we live in an age when propaganda is more powerful and more prevalent than ever before in the world's history. The spoken word and the written word have more power to-day than they have had at any time in the past. That being the case, any measure which will tend to facilitate the means whereby our national hopes, our national problems, our national aspirations, are disseminated will be a measure tending to preserve and promote Canadian unity, and any measure which makes against the establishment of a Canadian literature will be very much opposed to these objects.
I should like to point out that when the former government was in office there was, until 1935, a tax on magazines entering this country from the United States. That tax was removed when the present government assumed office, and the result of its removal has been a tremendous influx of publications, periodicals and magazines, in which the Canadian viewpoint finds no place whatever. Many of them contain a great deal of active proAmerican and anti-Canadian propaganda. Most of them are, to use a colloquialism,

tripe, devoted in the main to cheap sensationalism and pallid pornography. Many of them are decidedly harmful and objectionable, taking into consideration the fact that many of these publications inevitably fall into the hands of our young people. To show the rate of increase of this undesirable type of literature, in 1935 when the duty was on, we imported United States magazines to a value of S2.625.000. The tax was removed, and next year the total value jumped to $4,037,000; last year it was up to 85,900,000. I made some inquiries recently, Mr. Speaker, of a very large and very reputable concern, whose business is the distribution of magazines and publications, and I find that they listed and carried in their stock what they described as
1,000	"titles"; that is to say, 1,000 separate magazines and periodicals. Of these only 2^ per cent were Canadian; some 35 to 40 per cent originated in the British Isles, and the balance, or roughly 60 per cent, were of United States origin. That is a situation which the government could very readily and simply correct, and I would urge the government in the interests of Canadian unity, with the idea of encouraging our people to do more Canadian reading and more Canadian thinking, to reimpose that salutary tax which existed in 1935.
Another effective manner of promoting Canadian unity is to foster and protect to an adequate extent our Canadian industries. I am not one who is opposed in any sense of the word to foreign trade, nor are such views held by the party of which I have the honour to be a member. But I do appreciate the immense importance to this country of our domestic and imperial markets. Coming from a riding which, as I have said, is industrial, I have seen for myself the benefits which industrial workers there and in every part of the dominion have derived from the empire trade agreements of 1932. Those agreements are just as good as they ever were, and I submit to the government with all the emphasis at my command that in the revision of the Canada-United States treaty which is now being considered they must do nothing to weaken the empire trade agreements. I urge the government not to give away any of our empire preferences. If they follow my suggestions in this connection they will do much to promote and preserve Canadian unity; they will serve the national need, and they will relieve our body politic of some of the strains and stresses from which we are suffering.
Turning to another paragraph of the speech, I note the mention, and a very proper one,

The Address- Mr. Betts
of the coronation ceremonies. That event has been described as one of special significance, and we are all in entire agreement with that expression. On that occasion our young king and his young queen assumed staggering responsibilities, of which they have since discharged themselves royally and magnificently. On that occasion all parts of the empire were represented. It was the greatest festival of empire the world has ever seen. It was an opportunity for every part of the empire to advertise itself before a great cloud of witnesses. I call to mind the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), with which I am in full agreement, as to the desirability of this dominion advertising its products in London to the very best possible advantage. The coronation ceremonies afforded Canada, along with the other dominions, a golden opportunity of advertising its greatest national product, its manhood. We were honoured along with the other parts of the empire by an invitation to send a delegation to represent Canada.
Let us see how the government availed itself of that opportunity and how they proceeded in their selection of Canada's contingent. In the first place, they made a ruling that representatives should attend the ceremony from our naval, militia and air services and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-an eminently proper riding. A delegation was built up totalling three hundred and fifty-one. It was composed of thirty from the naval services, two hundred and fifty-six from the militia services, thirty from the air services, and thirty-five from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Let me say before I go any further, in order that no misunderstandings may arise, that the representatives of the mounted police, I am told by every one who was at the ceremony, were a credit to their corps, to their commissioner, and to their country. I have heard them described time after time as the smartest uniformed men in the coronation procession.
I propose to deal with the representatives of the militia service-a subject in which I have a particular interest, having served for some time in the Canadian militia. Let us examine that militia contingent of two hundred and fifty-six with the idea of seeing how it was made up as to ranks. It is a question, no doubt, that must have given the government some thought. I shall not weary you, Mr. Speaker, by detailing all the various ranks; I shall simply say that in that contingent there were thirty-two gunners, privates and bandsmen, and the balance of the contingent, two hundred and twenty-four, consisted of officers and non-commissioned 51952-16
officers. I do not know what precedent the government followed in arriving at that quota.
I think it is of interest to see how some of our military formations are made up as far as the matter of rank is concerned, and I would place on the record a few figures as to the constitution of an infantry battalion on a peace-time basis. I take an infantry rifle battalion as being typical. The total of all ranks of such a unit is four hundred and seventy, and of these there are two hundred and thirty-four private soldiers. In other words, as near as a toucher, there is one private soldier for each other soldier of higher rank. I would draw to your attention, sir, that in the coronation detachment, for every private soldier-and I speak still of the militia detachment-there were seven soldiers of higher rank to every private. As a result of that somewhat top-heavy constitution of the militia detachment, some strange things followed. I should like to read an article from The Legionary of July, 1937, entitled "Tickled Tommies":
Canadians could be very proud of the military bearing of the dominion's contingent, declared Colonel J. E. L. Streight, M.C., M.P., commandant of the Canadian coronation contingent, on his return from England last month. The Canadian guard at Buckingham palace was mounted with only one day's notice in advance, and it was conceded that the Canadians turned out as smart a guard as the British regulars, Colonel Streight said.
There were one or two amusing incidents in connection with the Buckingham palace guard duty.
" Before we mounted guard, sentry duty there had never been done by warrant officers, and a special order had to be issued by the War Office to permit Canadian N.C.O's to perform the duty of a private soldier. It was necessary because of all our contingent of 359 there were only five privates. British Tommies were tickled to see regimental sergeant-majors and other high-ranking warrant officers doing sentry duty like private soldiers," Colonel Streight related.
I can only say that British Tommies and others may have been tickled to see an entire reversal of what is usual in important military duties, especially when these duties were being carried out at the king's front door. But if I may speak for many people who were anxious to see the best possible, the most military and the smartest detachment representing Canada on that important occasion, these people-many hundreds of thousands of them-were not and are not tickled by that extraordinary situation. Dealing still with the claim made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Streight), who commanded the Canadian contingent on the occasion in question, that the Canadian guards were as smart as the British regulars, I would refer hon. members to the coronation

The Address- Mr. Betts

number of the Illustrated London News of May 22, 1937. It is in the parliamentary reading room and they can get it there. There is probably no publication that has a wider circulation in every part of the British Empire than the Illustrated London News, and at page 955 hon. members will find a picture with the following letterpress beneath it:
The first dominion troops to guard the royal palaces: Canadians relieving the Welsh guards. On May 9, for the first time in history, dominion troops mounted guard at British royal palaces. Precedence was accorded to the Canadian coronation contingent as representing the oldest dominion. They took over from the Welsh guards at fourteen posts (seven at Buckingham palace and seven at St. James's palace) for six hours.
If hon. members will examine the picture they will see that it shows a sentry being posted for guard duty, and being instructed in his duty; and standing beside him is the sentry whom he is about to relieve. The sentry who is being posted and instructed is a Canadian sergeant-major, who, as hon. members know, is a very high-ranking non-commissioned officer. He is being instructed in his duties by a Canadian corporal, an extremely junior non-commissioned officer. That, I submit, is making a farce of what should be a solemn occasion, and there was no necessity for it except for the fact that the government chose to leave all privates at home except thirty-two. I make these remarks not with any pleasure whatever, but simply because I regard it as a duty that should be performed. Nor do I know who the sergeant-major is. He may have a fine military record, or a fine political record; I do not know anything about that. But he is not a smart and soldierly figure. His greatcoat is pulled all awry; he stands a foot shorter than the imperial soldier whom he is relieving; and he has a bulge in front, which, to put it mildly, suggests that for a soldier doing sentry duty outside his majesty's palace he is in a very interesting condition.
In all seriousness, I am going to submit to the government that to choose a contingent, in which private soldiers were represented, on the scale of one to seven, is the antithesis of democracy, and the quintessence of fascism. I say further that the adoption of any system whereby the plums go to the high-ranking men, "and to blazes with the men in the ranks," will do more than anything else, not to promote and preserve national unity, but to prevent and to destroy it. It will do more towards that end than anything I can imagine. I would say, furthermore, that it should have been obvious to the meanest intellect; it should have been obvious to the

Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), that the private soldier, the man in the low-paid ranks, was least able to pay his way to this great festival of empire, while the high-ranking officers were best able to go at their own expense.
I remember that in the course of the last election campaign there was a grandiose and grandiloquent book displayed on the newsstands, selling for SI or more. It was called The Liberal Way, and I am told on very good authority by my publisher friends that it can now be picked up in any departmental store for fourteen cents. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, if the manner in which Canada's coronation contingent was selected was the Liberal way, the book is grossly overpriced at fourteen cents. I would not give the Prime Minister's favourite price of five cents for it; in fact, I would not take it as a gift.
On motion of Mr. Turgeon the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 8, 1938