[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1936, was presented by the Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. LACROIX (Beauce):: 1.	Since 1930 to date, did the federal government purchase the Bouvier hotel at Vercheres, Quebec ?
2.	If so, at what price and from whom was it purchased?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN COMMODITY EXCHANGE, INC.
Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	What is the Canadian Commodity Exchange of Montreal?
2.	Has this organization been incorporated, and if so (a) -whether by dominion or provincial letters patent, and (b) upon what date?
3.	When did the commodity exchange commence operation?
4.	What is the nature of its business?
5.	Does the organization deal in futures in agricultural products such as butter and cheese?
6.	Has the organization received a permit from the Department of Agriculture to carry on business in futures as applied to agricultural products?
7.	Is such business in futures advantageous to the agricultural industry, and, if not, can the government take measures to prohibit it?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No information.
2.	(a) Not incorporated by letters patent
under the Dominion Companies Act. The Quebec Gazette, September 22,	1934, at
page 3957, contains notice of incorporation by letters patent under Quebec Companies Act of Montreal Silver Exchange, Inc., incorporated August 24, 1934. The Quebec Gazette of October 13, 1934, at page 4266,

Questions
announces issue of supplementary letters patent dated October 1, 1934, changing name of company to Canadian Commodity Exchange, Inc.; (b) answered by (a).
3,	4 and 5. No official information.
6.	No.
7.	There is considerable difference of opinion as to whether trading in futures is advantageous.


ROSARIO TREMBLAY
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Has Rosario Tremblay, of St. Joachim, county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, been dismissed from his position at the experimental farm at St. Joachim?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	Upon whose request?
4.	What was the nature of the charges preferred against the said Rosario Tremblay?
5.	Who laid such charges?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To make it possible to reemploy Antonio Tremblay whose services had been satisfactory but who had been previously dropped.
3.	Antonio Tremblay.
4.	No charges were preferred against Rosario Tremblay.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


GEORGES HORACE TREMBLAY
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Has Georges Horace Tremblay, of St. Joachim, county of Charlevoix-Saguenay, been dismissed from his position at the experimental farm at St. Joachim?
2.	If so, for what reasons?
3.	Upon whose request?
4.	What was the nature of the charges preferred against Georges Horace Tremblay?
5.	Who laid these charges?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	To make it possible to reemploy Ludger Simard whose services had been satisfactory but who had been previously dropped.
3.	Ludger Simard.
4.	No charges were preferred against Georges Horace Tremblay.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


SILVER DOLLARS
Mr. REID:: 1.	What arrangements have been made either by the Bank of Canada or the dominion government to meet the heavy demand for silver dollars in the province of British Columbia?
2.	How many silver dollars can the mint produce per day, and (a) how many are they producing daily during the present time?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. The coins are issued by the Royal Canadian Mint to the Bank of Canada to meet
requisitions received from chartered banks.
2. Minting exclusively silver dollars, 10,000; (a) 5,000.
^PROPOSED SURVEY RESPECTING ONTARIO AND QUEBEC TAXATION


Mr. CHURCH:: Will the government consider the appointment of a royal commission to make an immediate survey as to rights and position of the two central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, in confederation, with a view to giving Ontario and Quebec some relief under the British North America Act, from the present heavy burden of bearing approximately 80 per cent of the cash taxes of Canada, such survey to be on the same basis within the British North America Act as the royal commission which investigated maritime, prairie and Pacific rights within confederation?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, I think I had better answer this question orally. The first part of the question reads:
Will the government consider the appointment of a royal commission to make an immediate survey as to rights and position of the two central provinces, Ontario and Quebec, in confederation?
This is a matter of government policy, which will be made known when it is thought advisable so to do.
The remainder of the question purports really to give information instead of asking for it, and as such is not in order.


GUYSBOROUGH RAILWAY
Mr. McCULLOGH:: 1.	In what year was the legislation passed which provided for the construction of the so-called Guysborough railway by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	What was the amount of bonds which the railway company were permitted to issue for the construction of the said railway?
3.	What amount of bonds were issued and sold for this purpose by the railway company?
4.	When was the contract let for the construction of said railway, and who was the contractor?
5.	How many miles of road-bed were con structed under the contract?
6.	What was the amount paid the con tractor for his work under the contract?
7.	When was the work of the said railway stopped ?
8.	What amount of money was expended from the sale of the said bonds?
9.	In whose custody is the amount of the unexpended balance of said money?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	1929.
2.	$4,025,000.
3.	$3,568,564.81.
4.	November 14, 1939-Dominion Construo-tion Company, Limited.
5.	67 miles (grading and bridges).
6.	$2,852,340.72.
Questions

7.	August, 1931.
8.	Expenditures under contract and expenditures not under contract absorbed entire sum realized.
9.	Answered by No. 8.


USE OF NIAGARA RIVER WATERS FOR POWER PURPOSES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Are any negotiations pending between the government of Canada or any officer thereof, and the government of the United States or any officer thereof, regarding the joint use of additional waters from Niagara river for public ownership power purposes to conserve the scenic beauty of Niagara falls?
2.	If so, what has been accomplished?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Provision for the preservation of the scenic values of Niagara Falls and for the experimental diversion of water for power purposes was contained in the Niagara convention signed at Ottawa on January 2, 1929. In February, 1931, the convention failed to meet the approval of the United States Senate. The problems involved have been discussed with the United States authorities from time to time since that period, but no definite conclusions have been reached.


MAHONE BAY DREDGING
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works have a contract with the Southern Salvage Company of Liverpool, for the dredging of Mahone bay in 1935?
2.	How much of this work was completed?
3.	Was the contract cancelled?
4.	If so, why?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Approximately seventy-three per cent.
3.	Yes.
4.	To permit reconsideration of dredging requirements in the harbour.


MAJOR ROSS PLATO
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	Was Major Ross Plato employed on the staff of the Welland ship canal?
2.	Has he been discharged from the Welland ship canal, and, if so, for what reasons?
3.	Did he serve overseas?
4.	Does he draw a pension, and, if so, how much?
5.	Is he engaged in military activities; if so, what position does he hold?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) political partizanship.
3.	Yes.
4.	$120 a year.
5.	No information.


FRENCHMAN'S BUTTE POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McIntosh :
How many dollars' worth of money orders, postal notes and stamps respectively, were sold through the Frenchman's Butte post office during the years 1930 to 1935 inclusive, respectively?
Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: Value	Value	Valuemoney	postal	postageFiscal	orders	notes	stampsyear	sold	sold	sold1930-31	....$11,371.79	$208.98	$292.041931-32	.... 15,625.92	30725	409.421932-33	.... 12,703.62	352.25	404.801933-34	.... 16,860.84	615.79	446.501934-35	.... 20,107S3	909.71	489.23QUESTION PASSED	AS ORDER


FOR RETURN
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Who selected the examiners who determined the qualifications of the candidates for the position of metallurgist in the Department of Mines, to which Mr. Farnham was recently appointed ?
2.	Did the examiners personally interview each of the candidates, and if not, who were the candidates not personally seen?
3.	How did the examiners proceed to determine the relative merits of the candidates?
4.	Upon what basis did the examiners determine that Mr. Farnham's qualifications were superior to those of the other candidates?
5.	What was the nature of the examination to which the candidates were subjected?
6.	Were all the candidates required to submit to the examination and who were those who complied ?
7.	What is the address of N. B. Davis, one of the examiners, and by whom was he selected for this duty?
8.	What is the address, vocation, salary and age of Mr. W. B. Timm, one of the examiners, and by whom was he selected for the duty?
9.	What are the addresses, vocations, salaries and ages respectively, of C. E. Garrett and L. P. Cliche, two of the examiners, and by whom were they selected for the duty ?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. DOUGLAS:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents passing between (a) Sir James MacBrien and Commissioner Wood; (b) the Department of Justice and either Sir James MacBrien or Commissioner Wood, prior to and subsequent to July 1, 1935, pertaining to the arrival and dispersal of relief trekkers in the city of Regina, Saskatchewan.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I am
sorry I cannot agree to the adoption of this motion in its present form. With regard to

The Budget-Mr. Jagues
(a), it has always been held that police communications are of a confidential nature. I think the house will realize that it would be impossible to have an efficient police system if such communications were subject to production in this house. I have no objection to (b), provided that the documents are not of a confidential nature, and that their production would not be detrimental to the public interest. Subject to these reservations, I have no objection to the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, proposed agreements and all other documents, between the government of Canada or any officer thereof and the President and government of the United States of America or of any province of Canada, regarding a new St. Lawrence seaway, including any correspondence or documents regarding a new proposed waterway from Montreal and New York via the St. Lawrence and Hudson rivers through lake Champlain. Motion to include above papers of 1935 and 1936 only, and to include copy of proposed treaty by Canada and the United States which was rejected by the United States Senate, and of any amendments proposed thereto since.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) is of course aware of the customary reservations with respect to the publication of the confidential communications with foreign governments. Subject to this reservation, documents asked for will be brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier):: I should
like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he can give us any official information with respect to the proposed visit to Ottawa this summer of the President of the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I regret I am not able
to give my hon. friend any official information. It is hoped the president will visit Canada this year, but what may be possible will necessarily depend upon the president's own engagements.


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.
Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: When the house adjourned last evening I was quoting from an essay of the Dean of Canterbury on national dividends, and I continue as follows:
The national dividend is not only possible, it is ethically warranted: Justice demands it. The increase, by which men are enriched when they work in association, is a corporate and not an individual perquisite. This increment, of association which comes to us through the machine, and the harnessing of solar power, and which now fills our garners full to overflowing, has been given at the price of individual craftsmanship and independence.
Far back in time man worked alone, independent of his fellows, but ineffective as a producer. Moving out of his isolation, his production increased, but at the cost of his independence. When he tilled his own land, raised his own sheep, and wove his own cloth, he was a craftsman and independent of his fellows. When he was torn from the soil, set at specialized tasks, and organized in close association with other men, he said good-bye to independence. He constructed boots perhaps, but others wove for him and ploughed for him. He could no longer stand alone. His productive powers grew but not his wealth. He was merely-I speak of workers in general -granted a maintenance allowance. That was the initial robbery.
When, however, with machines constructed still more scientifically he made not one pair of boots but a twentieth part of one, his craftsmanship as well as his independence departed. Only his maintenance remained and, in spite of the ever-increasing production which ensued, he was still rewarded with bare maintenance and no more. The robbery increased and unrest with it. And when at last the machine reached its maturity, and the robot arrived, man had lost everything: independence, craft and maintenance as well. He was palmed off with the dole and the robbery was complete.
For all this increase of riches is in reality a corporate inheritance. It is the private property of none. It springs up in an organized society, and upon an organized society it depends.
And again:
Consider it more closely, or in the miniature as it were. If a dozen men can do more work in combination than by operating singly, and if by their combined effort they succeed in so organizing their work that at last only two are needed in its performance, are the remaining ten treated justly if left to starve whilst the two who are the last to be displaced reap all the benefits? Justice surely demands that all shall share the increment, even if wage plus benefit goes to the fortunate two.
The Budget-Mr. Jaques

And further:
The national dividend is the alternative to sabotage. It removes irritation, disarms the social rebel, and ends the class war. It supplies the incentive for working together and makes for social solidarity. It carries the promise of a wide extension of our fundamental liberties, crowning political with economical freedom. The dividend makes every man a freeman. It takes the shackles off the manufacturer, supplying him with customers, and saving him from the threatened alternative of government control, which all too often subjects the first-class expert to the dominance of a second-class mind. It removes the hindrance to innovation in technique and equipment and encourages invention and organization.
The national dividend gives security as well as liberty.... The dividend saves us from the menace of an acquisitive society.
And further:
Dividends give choice of a profession. Talent in young inventors, scientists, musicians or writers-and every true teacher knows what abundance of talent exists-need no longer wither because "Father says there is no money in music, art, or scientific research." Neither will there be shortage of teachers when class numbers drop from thirty to ten; nor of curates when expense of training no longer debars men from entry upon the noblest of all vocations.
A new and amazingly creative society is immediately possible; a form of society secure of its maintenance and raised above the gross materialism which degrades us now; for money ceases to engross us when we leave the world of artifical scarcity as water ceases to engross our thought when we leave the sands of the Sahara. Poverty ended and the fear of want removed, then at last indeed personality has the chance to grow and man may sally forth to the noble tasks which await him and are yet untouched.


Mr. WILTON:: What authority is the hon. member quoting from?


Norman Jaques: I have been quoting from
an essay by the Very Reverend Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury, Social Credit and the War on Poverty.


An hon. MEMBER:: What .page?


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


Norman Jaques: I have heard it remarked
outside that if some members would read more and talk less it might be better for the country. We offer the national dividend as an alternative to subsistence farming, sweated labour, tight belts, bankruptcy, lunacy, suicide and war. I submit that the problem is to end poverty because to end poverty is to end all these things. Our object is to enslave the machine and free mankind, but under present conditions the machine is steadily enslaving mankind. Let us suppose that a company of men have decided to cross the desert. They know beforehand that there will be no food or water on the way, so they

meet and discuss plans and elect leaders, and of course they realize that everything depends upon the strict observance of rules. They will submit to the most stringent discipline for the simple reason that the rules must be kept, their very safety depending upon this. That largely has been the condition of the world up to the present, an age of real scarcity, natural and unavoidable. But having crossed the desert and having reached the land of plenty, suppose their leaders said to these men: You shall not have what water you want; you shall not have all the food you need because if you did you would be demoralized. What would anyone say of such leaders? I suggest that they would cease to be leaders and become dictators and the members of that expedition would have either to revolt or to become slaves. That is the state of affairs to-day. This is an age of plenty, and it is precisely because the people realize in a dim sort of way that this poverty is artificial and not real that so much ill-feeling exists in society. Apparently that is what is desired by those who oppose economic freedom. We on the other hand submit that if we are to preserve our political freedom we must have economic freedom at the same time or we shall lose both. Already they are lost in Russia, Germany and Italy. In those countries every man has been put to work, but in that sense unemployment has not been solved in the British empire or in the United States or anywhere else where freedom exists; and it never will be solved in that sense, for when it is there will no longer be freedom.


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: In attempting to make a few observations on the question now before the house and a few general remarks as well, I should like at the outset to congratulate the Minister of Finance. I offer him my sincere congratulations upon having been appointed to his present position. It seems to me that this country is fortunate in having as its Minister of Finance a man with the honour, integrity and sound business judgment which our hon. friend is well known to have. Our hon. friend has, I think, pretty definite knowledge of the problems with which we are confronted, for he has had practical experience as a worker, as a farmer and as a business man; and having had that practical experience he has, I believe, the confidence of the people of Canada to a degree of which we might well, I think, be proud. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is to be commended for having chosen our hon. friend for this important position.
I wish to extend to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) my congratulations

The Budget-Mr. Golding
upon his contribution to this debate. Anyone who listened to his address must realize that the grasp he has of our whole economic situation has been gained only by plenty of study and hard work. Let me assure him and every other member of the house that if I say anything which differs from the views of those in opposition to us I credit them with the same sincerity as I believe I have myself. I am sure we are all interested in the problems with which we have to deal and are all trying to solve them.
It is hardly necessary for me to point out that I have not been a member of this house very long, having been elected in one of the byelections in the last parliament. But during the time I have been a member and during this depression I have looked forward with keen interest to the proposals of the government, whether in the speech from the throne, in the budget, or in any other form, whereby they have hoped to improve the position of our people. I have noticed that on every occasion the government has always been optimistic and has endeavoured to lead the people to believe that the policy submitted would improve their position. I am very glad, as I am sure every member of the house is, to note that since 1932-33, which seemed to be the low point in the depression as far as Canada is concerned, there has been a slight but gradual improvement. That improvement, however, has not accomplished What was expected in the way of ending unemployment or of improving the condition of agriculture, and I am persuaded that until the lot of our agriculturists is improved we can never hope to have prosperity or to see our unemployed back at work.
As I have listened to the discussions this session, I have been pleased to hear so many members, coming from different sections of the country, speaking in praise and satisfaction of the way in which the government has endeavoured to handle the problems that have been brought before it. If we have given the matter any study at all we must realize what a tremendous problem it is to formulate a policy which will be entirely acceptable. Realizing the vastness of this Canada of ours, the varying needs of our people, and the different ideas and viewpoints which are bound to prevail in different sections of the country, we must recognize that skilful leadership is required to formulate the policies which have been endorsed to the extent that the government's policies have been endorsed thus far this session. I think it must be a source of satisfaction to every member of the government to see how generally their policies have been supported.
In speaking on this question this year, I cannot but be impressed-and I imagine the feeling is common to many other members who have spoken since this session began-with the tremendous change that has occurred in the personnel of the membership as compared with what it was when parliament was dissolved last July. As we recall some of those who were then members of this house, our thoughts naturally go back to some of the debates which took place at that time and in which they took an active part. When our friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group moved their amendment to the address this year, I could not help recalling that in 1934, in the debate on the address, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or independent group submitted what I think was considered to be a very unusual subamendment. The amendment moved by the official opposition on that occasion was, of course, to the effect that the government had lost the confidence of the country. In view of the results of the various byelections, in which government candidates were repeatedly defeated, it was my opinion that the official opposition were justified in moving an>
amendment of that sort, which, of course, was a want of confidence motion, and of putting themselves on record to that effect. But in view of what happened to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidates who appealed to the people for support, I could not understand then, nor can I understand now, how they were justified in submitting the unusual subamendment to which I have referred, and which was to the effect that not only had the government lost the confidence of the country, but the official opposition had also lost the confidence of the people.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Well, they will in five years.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Less than that.


William Henry Golding: If I remember correctly, it was the then hon. member for Acadia who submitted that subamendment; and, by the way, I always had a very high regard for him. If we reread the debates which took place at that time we cannot but be impressed with the fact that the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) had pretty definite foresight and knowledge when he moved the amendment which he did. Certainly his opinion was amply confirmed by the result of the vote which took place on October 14 last. I think we must all admit that the people have expressed in no uncertain terms their lack of confidence in the late government and, also, in those who submitted the unusual subamendment to which
The Budget-Mr. Golding

I have referred. The Alberta group, who, I understand-when they first came to the house I was not a member-were in the first place Progressives; then, I think, United Farmers of Alberta; then Cooperative Commonwealth Federationists-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the hon. member? They were United Farmers of Alberta when they were elected, and they were United Farmers of Alberta when they were defeated last year.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: They were Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Progressives.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Is that in the Parliamentary Guide?


William Henry Golding: I was not then a member of the house, and I did not take it. But what I wanted to say is that the group which moved that subamendment were completely wiped out, while those who, they contended, had lost the confidence of the country were returned with the largest majority ever given any straight party in the history of Canada.


Mr. POOLE:: I would like to point out that it was not the Liberals who wiped them out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Henry Golding: The majority is now so large that there is not sufficient seating capacity on this side of the house, and the government whip has found it necessary to provide on the Speaker's left seating accommodation for government members, something that has never before happened, I assume, in the history of this house. There are some who try to minimize this victory by telling us that only thirty-five out of every hundred voted for the Liberal party. Shortly after the election I noticed a summary according to which the Liberal candidates polled an average vote of something like 8,000; the Conservatives polled about 5,800; the Social Credit, 3,600; the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, 3,300, and the Reconstruction party, 2,300. That is the average, not for those elected but for the total candidates in the field. I merely cite those figures; any one who wants to get any comfort out of them can have all the comfort he wants.
With reference to the Alberta group which has disappeared, while we may not have agreed with their ideas or their viewpoint, we recognized that they were always diligent in their duties. I believe they were honest in their convictions; they did endeavour to improve the situation for their constituents, and they did contribute some worth while ideas to the debates of the house, in which
TMr. Golding.]
they always took a very active part. I know they will be missed very much indeed. The same could be said of many members who were in this house last session but who, as a result of the election, are no longer with us.
As I pointed out, Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but be impressed with the changes that have taken place. Of the cabinet that formerly occupied these front benches but very few remain. Some resigned because of ill health; some went to the senate and others endeavoured to secure safe positions where they would not be required to face the electors of their constituencies. All these have been contributing factors to the many changes that we noticed when we took our places in the house at the opening of this session. I should not like to overlook the fact that as a result of the election we have in this parliament another lady member in the person of the hon. member for Yukon (Mrs. Black), who I am sure will prove to be a useful member and who is to be congratulated on her success in the far away Yukon. Then, too, we have in the far corner a new movement represented by the social credit group. While the social credit theory has been advocated in this house before, as well as in the banking and commerce committee by Major Douglas in 1934, this is the first time any group has been elected definitely to advocate the social credit theory in the House of Commons. In the province of Alberta we have a government pledged to put these theories into effect. I want to say that the leader of that government is a native of my home town, a gentleman whom I know well, and who, while living in our town, was highly thought of and highly spoken of. As a young man he was one of the finest athletes you would want to meet. Naturally, since he is a native of my own town, I am anxious to see him make good. Therefore I want to appeal to my colleagues on this side of the house to give a good hearing when our social credit friends endeavour to present their views. After all, Mr. Speaker, I think we are all interested in trying to solve the problems with which we are confronted, and we should take the best of our collective ideas. I just leave that thought with my hon. friends on this side' of the house.
Now I should like to say a few words in reference to my honoured leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). As we occupy our places to-day, and as we view the results of the election, T think we can all agree that the Prime Minister is certainly deserving of our sincere congratulations upon the splendid victory achieved and upon the confidence that has.

The Budget-Mr. Golding
been placed in him by our people in this critical time in our country's history. The citizens of Canada have confidently placed in the hands of the Prime Minister and his colleagues the task of trying to restore trade and industry in order to give employment to many who have been unemployed for years. It must be a source of satisfaction and pride to the Prime Minister to find that after occupying the position of leader of his parly for some seventeen years and the important office of prime minister for nine years, the people should again turn to him and his followers in such a definite way and ask them to reassume control of the country's business. As I pointed out, on October 14 the Canadian people indicated their confidence in the Liberal leader and in Liberal policies by the most overwhelming vote on record. It was a tremendous victory, but I want to remind the government- that this wonderful victory carries with it great responsibilities. As supporters of the government I think we should all realize that we shall be expected to do our utmost to solve the problems that we know are impeding the progress of this country and in many cases making it exceedingly difficult for our people to cariy on. We should make every possible effort to put into effect the policies which were submitted to the people for approval, the policies of which they did approve and which I know they will expect to see implemented. I think the government should be congratulated upon the effort they have put forth and the progress they are making in carrying out that undertaking.	[DOT]
I should like also to congratulate my honoured leader, the Prime Minister, on the attitude he took immediately before and during the campaign, when he absolutely refused to enter into any promising contest, in which each candidate would endeavour to promise more -than his opponent. It does appear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the people are fed up with this sort of electioneering. It is utter foolishness that we should try to kid ourselves and the public into believing that governments can wave soma magic wand and transform things overnight. It simply cannot be done, and as far as I am concerned I made that perfectly clear to my constituents. All that any government can do is give sound, sensible business administration; I think the people expect that from any government, and they do not expect anything more.
During the campaign the Prime Minister relied entirely on the program which he submitted to this house, on behalf of his party,
in February, 1933. That platform was not formulated on the eve of an election in order to win a snap verdict. The policies embodied therein were placed on the records of the house two and a half years before the election, and I am persuaded that the great mass of our Canadian citizens gave far more attention to these policies than was given by many who were then members of the house and by many candidates in the recent election. Notwithstanding the fact that these policies had been placed on the records of the house and had been given to the electors in various by-elections in which splendid victories had been achieved it was repeatedly stated during the election that the Liberal party had no policy, no program and no platform. I confess I was surprised to hear that statement made so many times by those who, to say the least, should have known 'better, and in my opinion they did not add to their prestige by repeating them. On the eve of the election, when the present Prime Minister went on the air, the people, some of whom were expecting sensational promises, were eager and anxious to know what he would have to say. When he simply reiterated the statements he had made in this house, and frankly told the people he would stand or fall on that platform, I can assure him it was a source of satisfaction to every one of his followers throughout the land. I say to the government that t.he people expect these policies to be implemented.
We should profit by experience. We should not overlook the fact that five years ago last July there was elected in this country a supposedly strong government, a government that had sufficient numerical strength to put through any measure it deemed to be in the interest of the country. That government had practically a free hand to enact its legislative program without having to cater to independents or oppositionists of any kind. It was conceded by all at that time that the then government occupied a very strong position. I think it is conceded also that that government did not long enjoy the confidence of the people. There was reason for that. I doubt very much whether a government was ever elected from which so much was expected, and I doubt also whether a government was ever elected which had given such definite promises as to what it would accomplish. I am not for a moment questioning the sincerity of those who made them, but promises were made that seemed quite impossible to fulfil, such as the promise to end unemployment. Through that failure to fulfil its promises the government lost
The Budget-Mr, Golding

prestige, and it was a significant thing that notwithstanding its numerical strength in the beginning, on the eve of the last election we found cabinet ministers giving up their positions in unprecedented numbers. There was of course a reason for that; for during the late government's term of office there were from time to time strong indications that the policies which were being put into effect did not meet with the approval of the people. There were the by-elections, in which their candidates were repeatedly defeated. Provincial elections also indicated that the people were far from satisfied. With all these indications of dissatisfaction it is little wonder that on the eve of the general election cabinet ministers were deserting their leader who five years before had placed them in these important and prominent positions. True it is that there were those who filled the breaches by accepting portfolios, but many of them were swept aside by an avalanche of votes against themselves and their government. With the exception of the province of Alberta public opinion as expressed by the ballot indicated that the Canadian people believed that the policies of the Liberal party as outlined by its leader were best suited to the needs of this country. I again urge the government to see to it that these policies are put into effect.
These are some things which we should endeavour to do. We should endeavour to reduce the cost of government. This is a matter which has been discussed many times and on many platforms. Indeed I referred to this question when I spoke on the budget in 1934. It is a question that can be taken up in the federal-provincial conference. Then we should endeavour as far as possible to get back to a condition under which the members themselves will have to take more responsibility. In this way I believe the cost of government can be reduced, and the burden of taxation which is crushing our people can oe lightened. We should also endeavour in every way possible to lessen the spread between the price that the basic producer receives for his product and the price he h'as to pay for the commodities he has to purchase. It is essential that this be done if Canada is to come through.
We should economize in every way possible in the expenditure of public funds. I stand behind the Finance minister in his endeavours to achieve that end. I confess I have been surprised, in listening to the discussions this session, to hear suggestions made which if put into effect would involve the expenditure of many millions of dollars. Hon. members 
complain about the sales tax. I assure them there is no one in this house who is anxious to have a sales tax of eight per cent, but when they suggest enormous expenditures I say that if we are going to do that sort of thing we must not complain about taxation. The municipalities and the provincial governments are complaining that they are not able to meet their obligations, and they ask the federal government to come to their assistance. But we must keep in mind the fact that the federal government derives its revenue from the pockets of the taxpayers, and unfortunately too often they are the very taxpayers that the municipalities and the provincial governments claim they cannot tax any further. In all fairness to everyone we must keep that in mind when we are making requests for oiur constituencies. In listening to the discussions in this house and reading the demands that are made, one would think there is supposed to be some sort of reservoir in connection with the federal Finance department out of which all could take sufficient to satisfy their needs and never touch bottom. The sooner we get rid of that idea the better it will be for all concerned. There are those who suggest that we ought to print money, or that the government ought to issue credit and currency without any interest, and all that sort of thing. I am not going to attempt to debate that question. Personally I have sufficient confidence in the gentlemen who are now occupying the treasury benches to believe they will go as far as they possibly can and as far as they think it is wise to go along this line. I leave the matter a,t that.
Another thing I think we should do, although I know there are some hon. members on the other side who will not agree with me, is to reduce to as low a point as possible the tariffs on essential articles. Now is the opportune time to do it. because I am satisfied that many countries which have been trying to make themselves prosperous by sending trade barriers skyrocketing are ready to consider a reduction in tariffs. This, therefore, is the time to make new trade arrangements as quickly as we can.
I listened to the discussion last night of the implement business and the position of the industrial worker. I have heard these discussions many times. I have been an industrial worker myself and I am as much interested1 in the industrial class as anybody in this country, but listening to the discussion last night I was surprised to hear some of the statements that were made. I venture to make this assertion, that if one will look into the books of the machine companies since 1890, to go back that far, it will be found that

The Budget-Mr. Church
during the years a Liberal government has been1 in power these companies have made more money and been more prosperous than at any other time.
My hon. friend from Greenwood (Mr. Massey) speaking in the debate last night said:
I am sent here by an industrial riding;
I am sent here to represent the industrial worker, and so long as there is breath in my body and red blood in my veins I will plead his cause. And I say to-day that the jobs of 18,000 men are at stake.
He was referring to the implement industry.
I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, figures supplied by the bureau of statistics as to the number of men employed in the implement industry since 1920, and I find that during the nine full years from 1922 to 1930, both inclusive, the average number employed in the implement industry was 8,780.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: He was only ten thousand out!


Mr MASSEY:: Will the hon. member permit an interruption?


William Henry Golding: Certainly.


Mr. MASSEY:: The figures just given by the hon. member are absolutely incorrect.


Malcolm McLean: They are bureau of statistics figures.


William Henry Golding: I do not wish to quote any figure that is not correct, but when I get a table of figures like this from the bureau of statistics I accept it.


Denton Massey: The figure of 18,000 includes those who are employed directly in factories and those who are indirectly employed in the warehouses, agents and all that sort of thing.


Malcolm McLean: The latter class would be required if all our implements were imported from other countries.


William Henry Golding: The hon. member for Greenwood said last night:
And I say to-day that the jobs of 18,000 men are at stake. Yes, and how many more jobs are there at stake in industries which contribute raw materials?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am giving the figures of the bureau of statistics on the implement industry, and they show that the average number employed in the industry from 1922 to 1930 was 8,780, and that the average number employed during the last four years- I have the figures only up to 1934-was 3,500. They also show that the average wages and salaries paid in the nine years from 1922 to 1930 was $1,206, as compared with an average of $1,010 for the last four
years. I want hon. gentlemen also to note this:	The average production per annum
in the nibe years from 1922 to 1930 was in round figures, $31,723,000, and the average for the last four years was $7,457,000. So that I do not know why any industrial worker should get so enthusiastic about high tariffs. Of course I appreciate the fact that these are figures for previous years and that we have the conditions of the present to deal with, but so far as that is concerned I would be quite willing to go back to 1890 for figures on this question. I cannot understand, Mr. Speaker, how people will get so enthusiastic for a high tariff with figures like this before them.
What is more, in 1929, the last full year the Liberals were in power, there were in operation in this country sixty-two implement plants;, and in 1934 there were only thirty-five, not much more than half. Those are figures supplied by the bureau of statistics. Yet during the last election, and we heard the same thing in 1921, hon. gentlemen opposite told the people that if the Liberal party came into power these workers would be out of employment. I think the industrial worker is pretty well fed up on that sort of thing, and I speak as one who has had practical experience for many years.
There is another point I want to make.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must inform the hon.
member that he has spoken more than forty minutes.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, coming from the industrial province of Ontario, I think the budget will be of very little help to the industries of our province or to agriculture.
Those who sit in this part of the house have always had a consistent tariff policy for the people of Canada, which policy through the dark days and the good days has proved to be the only salvation of industry and of agriculture. We believe in a protective tariff, brought up to date to meet any abuses which may have got into the system, a tariff that will serve not only for revenue purposes but to protect the working people of this country. That has been the consistent policy of the Conservative party since 1878, and it has made Canada the industrial nation she is to-day. We believe in a fair and equitable application of the doctrine of protection on behalf of the Canadian people. A right application of the doctrine of protection, brought up to date, will meet all our economic ills, whether in the maritime provinces, the central provinces, or right across the country to the Pacific coast province.

workers in Canada. We do not want to see too many Canadians driven out of the land for which they fought at the risk and hazard of their lives.
If one-tenth of the time that has been devoted in this building to the Hon. Mr. Sage were devoted to a consideration of the problem of the unemployed it would be far better for the country. The government has come to worry over Mr. Sage. Well there are other sages but not of that type. The best informed sage is the man on the street; he knows how this tariff will affect him and he is sick and tired of the way the present government is playing the game of politics in this House of Commons in the committees and on commissions the game of the ins and the outs. We have no committee on unemployment but we have a committee investigating Mr. Sage. The government has been in office for six months and what has it done for the unemployed? Nothing. And we have no committee on unemployment. But the government has seen to it that Mr. Sage should be the star of a committee.
While this has been going on Mr. consumer has been relegated to oblivion and with this eight per cent sales tax the average citizen will be unable to buy anything. The textile and clothing manufacturers have got their goods on the shelves of the stores and now they have done that the government comes along and imposes an eight per cent sales tax so that the average citizen not being in a position to buy these or any goods, the goods will remain on the shelves till next fall. The situation is aggravated by the fact that people with motor cars will cross the border and buy goods of $100 value in the cities bordering on the great lakes at the expense of our retail merchants who pay taxes. And what is the great sage of the Labour department doing? I do not see him here this afternoon but it has been announced that he is going to Toronto to deliver an address-to whom? Is he going to address the working classes and read Carlyle to them? No. He is going to address the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I hope that while he is there he will visit some of the retail stores on Queen street, Danforth avenue, Yonge street and other business sections and find out from the retail merchants what they think of this new policy of enabling the owners of motor cars to go to the United States and bring back $100 worth of goods. What will become of these merchants? We saw the suffering of these men when the mass buying investigation was going on. Instead of looking into the plight of these men the house has been engaged in investigating Mr. Sage. What does the man

out of work care about Mr. Sage? The sooner this sort of thing is abolished the better.
The government has done nothing to help to provide jobs for the working classes. It seems to me that it is time for the Minister of Labour to announce a change in the name of that department, for under his auspices it has never been a department of labour. The sweatshops and child labour are flourishing as never before. Look at the condition to-day-child labour, comfoihes in restraint of trade, chisellers, and banks .paying their young employees, after two years, $33 a month. So that we find the statement being made that it is no wonder some of these men are forced to take money out of the till once in a while. Why does not the minister regulate this? Why is he not up and doing when he has the report of the mass buying commission? What does he want Mr. Purvis of St. James Street for? That gentleman had better 'bring about labour wages and proper conditions in the Bell Telephone Company, the Sun Life and aill these other companies-one in my own constituency-'before weeping copious buckets of tears for the industrial workers of the country. I say that the department should change its name and should be known, not as the Department of Labour but as the Department of Capital. That is all it amounts to under the present Minister of Labour. I want to know the time and the place where the present government ever did anything to protect the consumer or to give Canada relief from sweatshops, child labour and chisellers, who have made a Roman holiday out of the exploited worker, as the investigation of last year shows. This government does nothing but refer to the supreme court the social legislation passed by the late administration.
What has the government done in this budget in connection with unemployment insurance? One of the planks of the liberal party's platform in 1019 had to do with sickness, unemployment and health insurance. What has become of that? After seventeen years not one word about it is mentioned in the budget; there is not one word for the workers. Yet we have a labour department. The minister, a former college professor, has been advising people to go back to the land. There is nothing to go back to the land for except starvation; for the men on the land cannot make production costs under this free trade policy. Why do not some of the college professors themselves go back to the land? Why does not the Minister of Labour advise some of the manu-

The Budget-Mr. Church
factureirs to spend three or four months on the land? Why does he not advise Charlie Burton of Simpson's store to go back to the land? That gentleman snaps his fingers at parliament. He proposed a policy last summer for the regimentation of youth. Why does he not go back to the land? He can snap his fingers at parliament; he can snap his fingers at the fourth estate and say, "I dare you to report the proceedings of a committee of the House of Commons because if you do you will lose your advertising to-morrow."
At Washington an investigation has been held into the newspaper business, and you would be surprised to read what I have been reading. Last session the senate here threw out a bill intended to cope with that situation and disclose the identity of ownership. The press of the United States is being corrupted with propaganda. I have here the proceedings at Washington and they have crossed into Canada, and we have seem what they have been attempting to do to destroy the press, this great protector of our liberties. For, let me say, we have a splendid press in Canada and I wish to speak in admiration of it as a unit. The press as a whole has done wonders and admirably during these dark days of depression. If we had mot had a courageous public spirited press throughout Canada the state of affairs would have been worse. This parliament should come to the support of the free press of this country, both the urban press and the rural papers which are doing so much to maintain the free institutions of Canada.
In my opinion this large sales tax will mean the end of the capitalistic system. This government has done more than any other agency, by means of this budget to let in the socialists in 1940, or 1945 at the outside. A wise Frenchman once said, "With what little wit the world is governed." When he wrote those lines he must have been thinking of Canada under the present government, because after all these commissions and committees and subcommittees finish their work they will almost rival the celebrated committee of 100, the committee which, under Liberal auspices in the province of Ontario, was to close the bar and save the boy. Once they closed the bar they forgot all about the boy, and the bar is reestablished in a new form. Now that all these commissions and committees have been reappointed, we find that the House of Commons is just going through its paces; that parliamentary government is a farce; that we have no real parliamentary government here because in all these proceedings the house, as I say, is just going through its paces; the real
debates and work is done behind closed doors in a star chamber. The executive and caucus and the main problems of government are settled in secret. What will the people back home think of this system of commissions and committees and subcommittees? You have as a result the government of Canada reduced to what? To a government of caretakers; that is all they are, since the powere of parliament are being crucified and its functions handed over to useless commissions. The government have no cause to worry over Mr. Sage. I think if they appointed Mr. Sage to the senate it would be a proper recognition of what he did, or give him a gold watch and illuminated address.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Langton Church: I hope that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) when he meets the Manufacturers' Association to-morrow night, will tell them that in Canada the economist has been exalted to a position he is unable to sustain. Economic thought is very useful, but no nation can rule itself by the advice of economists. Their advice varies and their conclusions are as far apart as the poles. In the last century science came, very rightly, to occupy a high place in the opinion of the people of the world. But economics, as preached from the housetops by the Minister of Labour and his friend the late Thomas Carlyle, is not and never has been a science like physics, or medicine or chemistry; it has never been able to predict anything with accuracy; its convictions are all in the realm of opinion and doubt, and you can take your choice from among them.
The main fight in Canada is not with Liberalism, but between socialism and communism. The man in the street is sick and tired of the way the politicians are playing this game. A truly national policy would not allow the Canadian farmer or any other consumer to be stung for an unfairly high price for agricultural implements, automobiles or any other unit, of Canadian industry. A truly national policy would provide an excise duty that would put into the public treasury every cent charged for agricultural implements or automobiles or any other product manufactured under protection at a price which represented fair wages to the workman and a fair profit to the manufacturer. I know this proposal will be met with the shout of "paternalism." I would sooner have the paternalism of a protectionist government than the paternalism of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and its allies, and the paternalism of a free trade that robs the growers of the best wheat in the world out of $25,000,000 per annum in the price of wheat, and puts that $25,000,000 into the pockets of
The Budget-Mr. Church

the American middleman who handle that wheat. We shall have to have more paternalism in the management of this country's reserves and the promotion of this country's welfare.
Canada is not being carried along the road to a fulfilment of its destiny as fast and as far as we could wish. Too many Canadians are being driven to carry themselves along the road that leads to a job under the stars and stripes. I am no more a defeatist on the issue of Canada's future in peace than I was a defeatist on the issue of Britain's victory in war. I believe in the certainty and greatness for the Canadian nation inside the British empire. I admit the height and number of certain obstacles to the attainment of that greatness. These obstacles are no visitation sent upon us by providence. The worst are of home manufacture, the product of laissez faire, free trade and the teachings of the Manchester school. We are back to 1924. Ontario took four years to recover then, up to 1928, from the free trade preaching and blue ruin prophecy. In 1924, Ontario gave a negative answer to the question: Shall a province that was saved by Brock be ruled by Drury? Ontario sent the Progressive end of the Liberal party about its business when it preached free trade. Ontario learned then in 1924 that a few months will not suffice to bring back the business opportunities which were driven away from the province by the Hon. E. C. Drury and the other would-be Progressives who called themselves farmers, but who were party-first agrarians, not genuine, patriotic Ontario farmers. What I said on this matter ten years ago is true now. When the issue of protection is raised in peace the farmers of Ontario have never failed to stand by their country in the polling booths. When the issue of Canada's existence is raised in war the farmers of Ontario-I mean the genuine farmers who actually work on the farms, not the party-first farmers-have never failed to go themselves or to send their sons to the battlefield. When free trade is preached, as is being done here, by those who wish to destroy the agricultural implement industry, I predict that its supporters will meet with the farmers the same fate when they go to the polls again.
The Conservative party has been consistent. Why has there been no prosecution of these coal people? Are we to wait until next winter to inquire into the high price of coal? Why has there been no aid to the municipalities? Winnipeg can get $900,000 for a trunk sewer. I am glad to see the city get it, but let other municipalities in on it. I have never opposed grants to the prairies. But I want to see
[Mr. Church.1
equality of treatment. I know the way in which the people of the west are suffering through drought and many other conditions, and a national emergency created, and Ontario and industrial Canada want to see them get all they can; God knows they need it. But I wish to see equality of treatment, protection for all the people all the time and not protection for some of the people some of the time. I am not objecting, and never did, to prairie votes, in anything I have said here, to proper votes for the prairies and for the suffering there, or for the farmers all over Canada as well as aid to industrial workers who now get nothing. But what I ask for is protection along specific lines. For railway services we are handing the Canadian Pacific and National Railways $3,100,000, which is nothing but a bonus, subvention and subsidy. Not a word has been said in this house, even by those of a socialist tendency, as to what should be done for the suburban workers, yet the suburban workers of this country are suffering untold hardship. Instead of putting people on the land on the outskirts of the provinces, if the government would only get some land near the cities, and give some of these men who are out of work a two or three acre lot, with enough agricultural implements, and some cash help for two or three years, it would get them out of the slums and solve the housing problem, with the assistance of the Canadian National Railway in the matter of commutation cheap tickets. We could usefully copy what has been done in London, England, where industrial workers are housed in an intelligent way in the outskirts. But no, the government wants to have professors in this house and out of it, while industrial workers are carted up to new Ontario, where they will never make anything out of the land, and where those who are now there cannot make anything now, even production costs.
I believe in a policy along the lines I have suggested, because under it, in my opinion, some of the deficits threatening the national railways would be eliminated. This vote for a national trunk highway across Canada is, in my view, an economic wastage. Here we have one, two, three transcontinental railways, and now you are going to build a big national transcontinental highway for motors. What is the result of that policy? You are simply handing out a subsidy-to whom? To the oil industry and the automobile people. While we have three national railways built by the Canadian people, you are going to build a competitive route and a free right of way for the use of motor trucks and motor buses to compete

The Budget-Mr. Church
with those railways and to increase the deficits of this country and these national highways are a direct subsidy to the oil industry at the expense of our railways and a competitor. Our road policy herein is notoriously uneconomic. This is nothing but a direct subsidy to the oil industry. These railways have had to create rights of way of their own, unaided, at the expense of the people of this country while the motor industry has a right of way given to it free, with which to parallel the three existing national railways. I admit that provincial good roads are necessary; my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Spence) and I were pioneers in the good roads movement in Toronto in 1907. But I say this elaborate and uneconomic road policy is all wrong; it is not going to do anything for the suburban worker; it is only giving a direct subsidy to the oil industry and these huge expenditures could wait and are uneconomic at present, and increase taxes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two about constitutional and parliamentary cabinet and law reform, because I think that is the main question before the Canadian people to-day. We must change our method of doing business in this house. The past year has witnessed the decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons. Parliamentary, constitutional, cabinet and law reform is long overdue in Canada. I have not time to go into the question in detail, but my main grievance with our parliamentary system here is that it is well on the way to being upside down. We sit here in a committee composed of 245 members. The committee is too large; it is unwieldy. If we were not three hundred years behind the times we would have a committee on estimates. When we take up estimates in committee of the whole we are simply holding a post mortem. The government should not fall by reason of the reduction of a vote. At the present time if an expenditure is reduced to $1 the government must resign. In my opinion that system has seen its best days. We should adopt the municipal system and set up a committee on estimates. Some of the private members of this house who have not a large amount of work to do -and that would include some of the ablest members-could sit on that committee. They could sit round a table with the heads of the various departments, and I venture to say that aided by our able officials they could strike $100,000,000 off the estimates of the country. In the municipalities the city councils and boards of control follow that practice when their estimates are under consideration.
There are many points with which I could deal in connection with this question of reform. There is the question of the senate. I have never opposed having a senate in this dominion. Far from it; I have always supported the senate. They are all fine men. I believe it serves a very useful purpose, but I want to see the senate do something along the line of work done by the senate of the United States. The history of the world is the history of minorities, but the history of Canada has been the history of compromises. The senate might perform useful work; it contains some very able men who have given a great deal of time and attention to the affairs of this country and some from here are its best members. The senate should consist of the lords of mind and intellect of Canada. Like the United States senate, it has all the powers it needs, if it would only enforce them and assert its functions. Let the senate go into St. James street and big business as they did at Washington and let it deal with many other matters, including the question of unemployment and get reforms.
In my opinion the time is coming when income tax returns should be made public. You can go to the registry office and look up a particular chattel mortgage, a bill of sale, a deed or a will, but you can get no information about income tax returns. No free nation has been prevented from developing along those lines. In the United States Pierpont Morgan did not pay a penny of income tax for years, and no one outside the house of Morgan was any the wiser. The United States senate held an inquiry into Wall street and financial racketeering there, and showed what was going on. They also disclosed what had been taking place in the way of newspapers being bought up in order to destroy public rights and the country's natural resources and public men who stood for public rights.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words with regard to the League of Nations. I believe the British fleet has been the only form of collective security of any value for some time past. I believe that before God the people of Great Britain stand as the appointed trustees for the peace of the world. Canada, which was first in the Diamond Jubilee procession, has been a slacker and has not contributed a cent to the maintenance of this fleet which in peace and war alike has kept open our trade routes and defended our shores. The boy scouts and girl guides are about all we have to show by way of an offensive force to-day. The league is failing; one by one its members have become covenant

The Budget-Mr. Church

breakers. After joining the league and agreeing to act as a moral police force whose authority was to be imposed collectively against treaty and sanction breakers without distinction as to race or creed, what have the members of the league done against covenant breakers? They have done nothing. Canada refused to impose certain sanctions and would mot contribute a farthing to help keep open Canada's trade routes on the seven seas. She would rather listen to the pacifists and depend upon the British taxpayer for maritime security, while the British taxpayer was taxed on his tea and coffee in order to pay the cost. If socialism and pacifism are allowed' to go their gait any longer, this will lead to the dismemberment of the British empire. If ever a nation wanted a George Canning it is England to-day. The whole foreign policy of England has been built up round Locarno and now that pact is a mass of ruins. So is the League of Nations and it is now in retreat. There are seven separate Locarno pacts all broken.
In my opinion, the league is to blame for its complacency in allowing slavery in Ethiopia, where five million slaves are simply chattels for profiteers. The league has never been anything but a piece of diplomatic machinery, dealing in compromise and never settling any question aright nor concerned with justice per se. We are still entirely dependent upon the British fleet to protect our shores. I think it was well that Mussolini went south and landed in Ethiopia instead of coming west to some of the British dominions. God forbid we should ever have war again on our own soil. If he had done so we would have had a rude awakening, and we may have it yet. There are those who want to hold an election in time of war and trouble, which by the grace of God we hope will never come. I am opposed to war, as is everyone else in this country, but the people of Canada will never allow Mr. General Election to become commander in chief of the British forces or Mr. General Election to ever become admiral of the British fleet. Before Mr. General Election could get his ballot boxes out the enemy will have sailed up the St. Lawrence, blown dowm the citadel probably and bombed this building. Let us face the facts. When that happens we shall learn something of what we owe to the maritime security of England.
No effective support for the League of Nations can be hoped for while it deals in compromise and platitudes and refuses to face the facts; recent events have shown that to be so. In my opinion Canada should get out of the league while the going is good.

Since 1919 the league has been nothing but an institution for the promotion of strife, ill-feeling and mischief between nation and nation. It has failed, as similar leagues of the past have failed. I am not opposed to the league in many ways; it has done some useful work, but it has made many mistakes. Formed to prevent war, by its mistakes it has brought about war. Instead of sticking to its last it has meddled in the internal affairs of every petty state with regard to labour and capital, and its meddling has kept the world in a perpetual turmoil. Now, after fifteen years, we see the utter failure of Woodrow Wilson's fond dream of open diplomacy. Of the great powers four, the United States, Germany, Russia and Japan, are now outside the league. At present it consists of little more than the allies who won the war. The withdrawal of Japan and Germany means that in future the smaller states will exercise more influence at Geneva, and as they have been the principal cause of international unrest for the last ten years this development is not reassuring. Now we find that Italy and France are none too keen about the league.
I sympathize with those who are friendly to the League of Nations; I am friendly to it myself, but I think it should be reorganized and made more useful and should include the United States, Germany, Japan and Russia. It is no use as it is now, without a police force. These covenants are made only to be broken. Why, we have had seven Locarnos and they have been broken seven or eight times. In future we cannot rely on any more of these Locarno gentleman's agreements, sudh as we have had with Italy and other countries, without the possibility of war facing us, because the only way to enforce these pacts and covenants is by war. We are at the parting of the ways; this league 'has failed every time it has had to deal with a major problem. The United States and Russia and Japan will not join the league until they can secure for their people a weight in the councils of the league at least equal to that exercised by the nations of western Europe. These agreements and pacts are never binding, are never intended to be without a war. The world is back where it was in 1914; it is an armed camp. The pacts will be kept as long as it is in the interest of all parties to keep them, but any party that feels like doing so-can waive them. The pacts are impossible. The treaty of Locarno can be enforced only by war; sanctions mean war. Canada, which was first in the Diamond Jubilee procession, backed out of Locarno. It now remains for-

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
Mussolini to take what he wants; he has captured Abyssinia and we are back where we were. No doubt, Germany will get Austria and her colonies next. The league is in flight. Since the great war there have been over one hundred pacts and treaties between the powers but those pacts and treaties have disappeared and the league is reduced to a modern tower of Babel, and is powerless against an aggressor. British foreign policy which relied on Locarno as a pedestal is a mass of ruins. So is the league. Italy is discredited.
Canada is at .the parting of the ways and the sooner she wakes up to the realities and faces the facts of the situation the better. I am not opposed to the principle of a League of Nations; I am a supporter of a real league. But as long as it is conducted as it has been it will never be a success. Canada can thank the mother country for membership in a real League of Nations; the British fleet is the only collective security the world has against tyranny and oppression.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon.
member has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: In rising to speak in this debate I wish to associate myself with those who preceded me in congratulating the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on the way in which he presented his budget on Friday last. I regret however that while I associate myself with the hon. member for Huron-Perth (Mr. Golding) in his attitude regarding the importance of these great questions and in his wish to feel that every hon. member is interested in finding a solution for them I cannot associate myself with his approval of the budget or the policy that it implies.
There are two points with which I wish to deal immediately. First the increase in the sales tax. There is no doubt that this will be very unpopular with the people of Canada. There is no doubt whatever that it will make still harder the position of those who have had difficulties enough to face in the past. It will increase the revenues of the government at the expense to a great extent of the low paid and underpaid workers. Even those who are on relief who get their subsistence from the government itself, will have to hand back a certain amount of what is already far too inadequate. On the other hand we find that the taxes on great wealth have not been increased, and no steps have been taken to reduce the debt of the country by taking from the large accumulations of capital that are now available. For that reason, and before I proceed any further with my remarks, I wish 12739-1644
to move an amendment to the motion made by the Minister of Finance on Friday. I move, seconded by Mr. Douglas:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:-
"this house regrets that the proposals submitted by the Minister of Finance on May 1 are entirely inadequate to meet the serious and acute situation prevailing in Canada, and would appear to be based upon the assumption that poverty and debt are inevitable conditions within the country.
Whilst the reduction of the' tariff on certain commodities is to be welcomed, this house deplores the increase in the sales tax, which falls so heavily on those least able to bear it, thus further reducing the already inadequate purchasing power of the masses.
This house also regrets that the government has taken no steps to lessen the inequalities of income by increased taxation on the larger incomes and by a levy on large accumulations of capital for the reduction of national debt."
The increase in the sales tax is not likely to lessen that unrest to which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred in one of his radio talks prior to the election. I would like to read that reference, as reported in the Vancouver Province of August 1, 1935:
With the return of the Liberal administration to office and the adoption of Liberal policies carried out on broad and generous lines, and with more concern for human relations than for the methods of big business, of high finance and of high pressure salesmanship there is no reason why this period of depression should not be followed by a new era of prosperity, and why the unrest and discontent which have brought these third parties into being and to which they owe their existence should not also disappear.
Anyone who listened to the budget speech on Friday last would be hard put to it to find Liberal policies in it. It was the most conservative, or if I may use the term, the most "Tory" budget we have ever listened to. If these are the policies that are to be carried out on broad and generous lines, policies such as increasing the sales tax, which is bound to reduce and depress the living standards of the people, I am satisfied that they are not going to lessen that unrest, but on the contrary will greatly increase it.
There are at least three major problems- I have no doubt there are more-that confront this government and the people of Canada. There is first the problem of unemployment. Then we have the problem of debt and the problem of lack of markets in which to dispose of the great surplus production of this country. The minister pointed out that despite the increasing physical volume of production, unemployment has not decreased in the same proportion. I find in the April issue of the Labour Gazette that the index of employment on March 1, 1935, was 96-4 and on March 1

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
1936, it was 98-9, an increase of 2-5. When we come to the figures of the physical volume of production given by the Minister of Finance we find that in 1935 the index stood at 94-2 and on the same date in 1936 it was 103-3, an increase of 9-1. How long is it going to take employment to catch up with production at that rate? What is going to happen, and in the very near future-it is what always happens-is that we shall again have a glut of goods on the market, and again w-e shall find industries slowing down and the numbers of the unemployed increasing. Let us remember, when we are dealing with the history of capitalism, that it has always been a series of ups and downs, a time of acceleration of business followed by a period of depression. Analyzing those cycles we find that the periods of prosperity, if we wish to call them that, are continually getting shorter and shorter, and the periods of depression, or bad times, continually getting longer and longer. We are now in a period of depression that has lasted for the past six years, and there is no indication that we are anywhere near the end of it yet. So I think we are safe in assuming that, unless some miracle happens, conditions such as we have now will be the normal state of capitalism in the future, and I am apprehensive as to how long we shall be able to keep going without a definite collapse. That is the point I would impress upon the members of this house in dealing with the question of unemployment.
I think it was the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who said yesterday that the thing to be done was to try to find out what is wrong, and we can find out what is wrong only by analyzing conditions, not only here, but elsewhere. The question of unemployment has been before this house in some form during most of the present session. The hon. member for The Battle-fords (Mr. Needham) said, and I think he put it very well indeed, that the first result of the machine is unemployment. He was pointing out to the house that unemployment is caused by the use of labour saving machinery in industry. While what he said is to a large extent true-that is, it is true at the present time-the first result of the machine was not unemployment. The first result of the machine was employment and then still more employment. It is only lately, for reasons that are quite dear if we will only seek them, that the result of the machine has been unemployment. As I have said, the first result of the machine was to create employment. Let me follow that a little further.

This system of society as we know it today, and as economists, I believe, deal with it, what we call the capitalist system, came into being around 1776, with the use of steam applied to industry in the British Isles. This was the beginning of what is termed the industrial revolution. When Great Britain began manufacturing with steam driven machinery one of her difficulties was to find enough labourers. There was no talk then of back to the land. As a matter of fact, history shows it was not a back to the land movement in those days, but, on the contrary, the people were driven off the land into the factories. Their houses, their homes, w-ere burned over their heads, and they were driven into the shambles of industry. That continued for some considerable time, and we can understand the present situation only if we understand the developments that have taken place from then until now. It is only by understanding them that we shall be able to find a solution for the difficulties that confront us.
Let us remember that industry produces two kinds of goods. Industry produces, first of all, consumers' goods; that is, the goods we use in our everyday life, such as clothing, boots and shoes, and all that sort of thing, goods that we use up every day. But industry also produces another kind of goods, what we term producers' goods, or capital goods. We must remember that the greater proportion of production is in producers' goods. I was much surprised at seeing the figures given some little time ago in a book published in 1934, What Everybody Wants to Know About Money, by Mr. E. F. M. Durbin and Mr. Gaitskill. They stated that nine-tenths of all goods produced in the British Isles were producers' goods and that ten-elevenths of all goods produced in America were producers' goods. The proportion seems very large to me, but I believe this authority is quite reliable.
Now let us see what happened when Great Britain began, about 1776, producing with steam driven machinery. Take a typical industry, one that has been associated with Britain at least since the industrial revolution began, the textile industry. We find that with the use of power driven looms and spinning machinery Great Britain was producing large exportable quantities of textile or cotton goods, which she was marketing in all parts of the world. There was a market everywhere for British cotton, in the countries of Europe, in the orient and in America, because at that time Great Britain was the only country in the world pro-

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
ducing cotton with steam or motive driven machinery; and had that situation remained as it was Great Britain, I asume, would still have her markets. But conditions did not remain as they were, because industry, under capitalism, can never remain stable, and that is something I would like the members of this house to understand. Capitalism will never and can neveT remain stable. It has to expand or it dies.
The next thing that happened was that Great Britain began selling the machines, the engines, the looms and spinning machinery with which she was manufacturing cotton goods, to the very countries that were buying her cotton goods, with the result, of course, that these countries in turn began to manufacture their own cotton, and with the further result that they also began to have surplus goods and to ship them into the markets that were formerly supplied by Great Britain. But that was not the end of it. They also began to sell the machines that were used in the making of cotton manufacturing machinery. And so Great Britain first lost a large part of her cotton goods trade, and then began to lose the cotton machinery trade as well. A few years ago I placed some .figures on Hansard, and as they are very illuminating I think it would be worth while again to place them before the house. In 1913 the total exports of British cotton goods amounted to 7,075 million yards. In 1929 the total exports amounted to only 3,765 million yards, a drop of 47 per cent in sixteen years. When I gave these figures to a friend of mine in Winnipeg some time ago, he told me that there had been a further decrease in 1933. In that year the total exports were below the three billion yard mark.
In 1913, of the total imports of cotton into China, Great Britain supplied 68 per cent, Japan 23 per cent and the United States and Russia, 9 per cent. In 1925, twelve years later, Great Britain supplied only 26 per cent while Japan supplied 74 per cent. During those years Japan had bought an enormous amount of cotton manufacturing machinery from Great Britain and Germany. These figures show that we are faced with a peculiar situation, one of the contradictions which appear in capitalism. Although capitalism requires foreign markets above everything else, it must destroy those markets if it is to keep going.
Coming down to the present day, I have here a news item which I clipped from the Manchester Guardian of March 18, 1936. This refers to the cotton trade, the heading being "Japan maintains cotton trade hold." The article reads:
"Made in Japan" has become the big bogy of cotton spinners here as they survey possible world markets to absorb the increased output of their mills.
Another large piece was cut from Britain's cloth export bolt last year when the Japanese maintained the dominant hold on the trade which has been theirs since 1933. Analyzing trade statistics by countries, the Lancashire spinners are alarmed most by the fact that the greatest shrinkage in their exports has been in British Empire countries, where Japan has made corresponding gains.
Then further on:
A decrease of 23,000,000 square yards in British cotton goods exports to Australia in 1935 also is attributed to the inroads made by Japan.
Japan's advantage in world markets, say Lancashire spinners, has been primarily due to a lower wage scale, although depreciation of the yen also has been a factor.
Further on is this very significant paragraph:
Opinion in the industry is moving toward the view that Japanese competition should be met not so much by legislative experiments and foreign trade agreements as by increasing efficiency through technical advancements, in which Lancashire has excelled since the 18th century.
If in the end every country is to come to that position, where is the hope of decreasing unemployment and improving the standards of living of the masses? If the spinners and weavers of Lancashire are compelled still further to improve technical development in their plants in order to displace workers and produce cotton more cheaply than Japan, Japan will be compelled to produce cotton still more cheaply and Canada will have to do the same. It will come to the point where the workers in all countries will be forced to a lower standard of living in order to enable capitalism to sell in world markets instead of providing goods for the people in their own countries. That is the inevitable result of capitalism.
What is true of cotton is true of many other commodities that we use in our everyday life. Let us come nearer home. Canada is interested in the sale of agricultural products, such as the wheat grown in our prairie provinces, but Canada is also interested in the export sale of agricultural machinery. What do we find? We find that although we need the markets of Europe, we are ready to help these countries to supply their own agricultural needs by furnishing them with agricultural machinery. In the Trade of Canada for 1933 appear the exports of agricultural machinery from Canada in 1930. Under the item covering harvesters and binders, I find that we sold 2,535 machines to Germany; 2,045 to France; 396 to Great Britain, and 349 to Italy. These are the
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to have to
inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, while the
Deputy Speaker occupied the chair I moved an amendment, and having moved an amendment, I am entitled, I think, to continue speaking.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the hon. member is right.


Angus MacInnis: I thank you. I was pointing out in what way those of us in this section of the chamber differ from the other political parties in this house. All of us are anxious, I take it, to solve the great social and economic problems confronting our people, but all the other political parties are trying to solve these matters within the limits of the capitalist system, that is, without interfering with the property relationships which exist within
the present capitalist structure of society. We take the position that the difficulties and trials we are meeting to-day are due to the workings of that system and not to maladministration by government, to bad business, or to lack of business ability on the part of individuals, and we hold that those troubles cannot possibly be solved under the present system. Therein lies the essential difference between other parties and ourselves, and I think modern history is with us, because it goes to show that those governments which have made any progress towards solving their social and economic problems in the past few years are those which have taken steps to control the economic life of their respective nations. So then, we say, the only solution for the world to-day, the only way to end unemployment, to get rid of our debt, to bring prosperity and to establish peace is for the countries of the world to adopt socialism as their economic system. I am quite sure that this does not seem so fantastic to-day as it did a few years ago. As I go round, talking with people in all walks of life, I find that, whatever they may say in public, they have no hope that they are going to solve their problems under the present capitalist system. They will say that socialism is bound to come but it will not be just yet. I am reminded of a statement supposed to have been made by Herbert Hoover, ex-President of the United States. He is reported as having said:
When I contemplate capitalism I see a precipice leading either to communism or fascism.
He sees a precipice where the drop will be either to communism or to fascism. It is not necessary to fall into either of these states, providing we do the right thing in time, but if we allow the conditions that exist to-day to get worse, something will happen and we may not be able to control the situation. What may develop then no one can say. But in all countries where democracies exist it is within the power of the people to go easily and surely into a new social order where production will be carried on to supply human needs and not for the making of profits. Under our present system the attempt to find markets in which to dispose of surplus goods, leads inevitably to war.
I have taken three different countries which have made some progress in dealing with their social economy during the depression years. The first one, Great Britain, was mentioned the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who remarked, I think, that Canada had followed Great Britain in almost
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis

all things with the exception of balancing our budget. Canada has not followed Great Britain at all. There were certainly some lame and hesitating attempts made to follow Great Britain during the last parliament. I am not suggesting for one moment that Great Britain has accepted socialism, but she is providing a certain amount of social control over the economic life of the country. I have taken excerpts from an article which appeared in Current History of November, 1935, and I would like to read some of them:
To the older generation, familiar with the British slogan of "No food taxes" and the doctrine that only through cheap food for the working man could there be low wages, low costs and a competitive advantage in world markets for British manufacturers, it is almost incredible that to-day about one-third of British agricultural produce is under priceraising marketing schemes, implemented in nearly every case by highly effective protection against foreign trade. The first to be thus dealt with was wheat-it is strange to remember that it was for free wheat that the battle of the corn laws was fought and won in the hungry forties. Instead of a marketing scheme, wheat was given a subsidy or "quota" in 1932. A levy was imposed on every sack of flour imported into Great Britain or milled within the country. The proceeds went to the British wheat grower to make up the difference between the price he actually received and the standard price of about $1.40 a bushel.
And yet we wonder why British imports of wheat from Canada are not so great as they were some years ago. Then the next paragraph:
The acquiescence of the greater part of the people in a program that involves taxation and increased costs of living for 93 per cent of the population in behalf of the 7 per cent who derive their income from agriculture indicates that rugged individualism as an ideal is fast vanishing from the British mind.
There is very much more of this that is worth reading, but I shall content myself with one more excerpt from the article, and I should like to draw the attention of the government to the necessity of doing something along these lines in the Dominion of Canada, because after it is done we shall have an asset to show, and it will bring comfort to many of our people. I quote again:
The most effective subsidy and possibly the greatest influence in the government's whole recovery program, is the aid that has made possible the immense housing program how being carried out in Great Britain. Since the armistice there have been built in Great Britain about 2,700,000 houses, almost one-half of which have been subsidized by the government or by the localities. Under the present government, the program has been speeded up. During the four years ended on March 31, 1935, about one million houses were built in England and Wales. In its last

session parliament passed a housing bill under which within five years all officially condemned slums will be demolished and sufficient houses provided to do away with overcrowding. At the most this program is expected to cost the public treasuries only $50,000,000 a year-not a staggering sum, the proponents of house construction as a recovery measure like to point out, in comparison with the money spent upon battleships, heavy guns and bombing planes.
Then it goes on:
The worst criticism is that it cannot last forever, and the slump may be bad. To this the government replies that it can see good results for at least five years ahead, after which, come what may, the British masses will be decently housed.
So, if the slump comes after the government have taken the first step in the organization and control of the economic and social life of the people, they will be better prepared to take the next step, if that slump should come before they have embarked upon a fully socialist program in that country.
During the last year we have heard a great deal about Sweden. So much that to-day Sweden has become a competitor with Russia for the tourist traffic, for the people who are anxious to see what has been accomplished in the last few years. I have under my hand an article which appeared in the La Fleche Press of February 20, 1936, and reprinted in the Saskatchewan Liberal of February 27, 1936, so I suppose there will be no objection if I read it in this house. The article states:
The cooperative societies of Sweden own and operate ten per cent of all industry and handle some 50 per cent of all retail trade in such essentials as food, clothing and shoes, says Stuart Chase in Government in Business, and continues as follows:
"They broke one private monopoly after another by threatening to organize their own supply. This has proved far more effective than anti-trust laws. The price of lamps was driven down from thirty-seven cents to twenty.
"Sweden has obviously mastered the yardstick technique with which Mr. Roosevelt is now struggling. She has the highest standard of living in Europe, higher even than for the mass of Americans. She is now about fifty per cent collectivized-including the cooperatives as public business. Private business has resigned itself to the inevitable, and from time to time actively cooperates in some aspect of state enterprise."
In addition Sweden has maintained the democratic principle in government and in industry, so that if we do not wish to follow other more drastic examples certainly we should not be afraid to follow the example which has been set by Sweden.
Now I wish to mention another country, which during the last sixteen or seventeen years has received a great deal of attention, some favourable and some not quite so favourable. It has this outstanding distinction,

The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis
however, that it is, I think, the only country in the world which has made continuous economic and social progress through all these years of depression.	I refer now to the
soviet union, and I am going to quote an authority to whom I do not think the house will object. The individual who wrote the article is, I believe, above reproach, and I think the periodical in which the article appeared will be quite acceptable to hon. members. The article is by Sir Frederick Banting, KJ3.E., and it appeared in Canadian Business, the official organ of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, of February, 1936. May I say, for the benefit of those who do not know-though I do not suppose any hon. member needs to be told-that Sir Frederick Banting is one of the discoverers of insulin and is in receipt of an honorarium, I think it is called, from this government amounting to some $7,500 yearly for his services to the people of Canada and of the world. My hon. friend from Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) says that Sir Frederick Banting receives something from the Ontario government as well. He writes:
The greatest experiment that the world has ever known, has just been carried out within the Soviet Union ...
Note this:
In the successful carrying out of this experiment, science was a major factor. Science and the fruit of science had been almost denied these people from the beginning of their history, until 1917. The Bolsheviks suffered privation, fought and if necessary died for those far-sighted leaders who promised the people education and science.
Then he goes on:
In order to understand the situation in the Soviet Union to-day it is necessary to realize that before the revolution only about ten people out of every one hundred could read and write.... The vast majority of the people were backward, down-trodden peasants who lived on farms or in small villages. Of the 170,000 doctors (at the rate of one doctor per one thousand population) -
That is the number they should have had.
-there were but 19,000 and these were, for the most part, located in the cities of the west and in the army and navy.... During the past ten years progress has been stupendous.
Then he goes on to indicate the progress that has been made in education, medical science, scientific research, production, and so on. I shall content myself with reading the last paragraph in the article:
All of these huge enterprises-
Referring to the industrial life of the country:
-require men of executive capacity, intelligence, foresight and judgment. These qualities are to be found in the men who rise to office
within the Soviet Union. The life and activities of their great commercial and industrial men do not greatly differ from the life and activities of industrial men in our country- nor does the financial man, banker and organizer of industry, differ so much from those that perform this service in other countries. There are privileges and luxuries that our financial leaders buy. In the Soviet Union these privileges and luxuries are given to him by the people. They honour service. Honour, appreciation and trust of comrades spur and inspire men to plan and work for the common good of all.
We are told in this country that unless there is the incentive of profit people will not do anything. Could anything be moTe false? We are told that in Russia people in every walk of life are continuously working for the common good without any thought of profit or private gain. But all the industries of Canada have the profit incentive. Here the means of production are used by their owners not to provide goods and services for the needs of the people but as a means of levying tribute on the people. Dr. Banting goes on to say:
There is no unemployment in the Soviet Union. Conditions are improving very rapidly. Everyone is tremendously enthusiastic. The health of all is cared for by the state. All people have the opportunity to rise as high as their talents and industry will permit in whatever field of endeavour they may select. Every person's future is invested in the state. The state in turn provides for the education of children and an old age pension. This sense of security brings happiness and peace of mind and permits true culture.
Can we say that in this country? Is there a sense of security here, even among those who are in employment, even among those who are in business, even among those who are fairly well off? No; there is no sense of security to-day for anybody. He continues:
The soviet government is building a gigantic structure on the solid rock of science and research. For this reason there now remains not a vestige of doubt as to the future success of the Soviet Union. Her future is doubly secure because no people in the world so fully realize that the science of to-day is the research of yesterday, and the research of to-day is the science of to-morrow.
When you compare that with what we have been attempting to do in this house during the last three months-unplanned activity when there was any activity at all; a dribble here, a dribble there; no coordination and no connection-it is no wonder that people are almost in despair.
I have another item here from Doctor Banting. Speaking in Hamilton, Ontario, on November 27, 1935, he said:
You rarely see a case of tuberculosis that requires hed treatment in Russia. Trade union
The Budget-Mr. Maclnnis

doctors examine the workers before they enter factories and they are placed under care immediately if any signs of disease are detected.
But in this great rich country whenever anything of the kind is mentioned we are always met with the question: Where can we find the money?
There came into my hands to-day a copy of the Monthly Review of Lloyd's Bank Limited for April, 1936, a rather conservative publication, I assume. In it I find a leading article by R. J. Truptil entitled The Economic Evolution of Soviet Russia, 1917-1936. It says:
It must be remembered that although the peace of Brest-Litovsk was signed in 1918, the Bolsheviks had to fight for several years, until 1921, against insurrections and interventions on many fronts.
And we helped in the fight against them. Even now we have not the trade relations with Soviet Russia that most other nations of the world have. After giving a very complete summary of the situation and the increase in production, he ends the article with this statement:
The economic revolution achieved in the Soviet Union is without parallel. In fifteen years-for it_ is fair to reckon only from the end of the civil war-one of the poorest and most backward nations has achieved simultaneously an industrial equipment and a complete transformation of its agricultural methods. Through many changes of policy, the Bolsheviks have gradually extended social ownership to all the means of production, transport and trade.
Yet they are keeping up their enthusiasm. They are working, they do not expect the state to keep them; they are themselves the state.
Their system is socialist. Although individual property can be acquired in the form of savings, state bonds, a house, a car, or a few animals, and although such property can even be inherited up to an amount of 50,000 roubles, there can be no individual ownership of the means of production.
That is, they are not allowing anyone to exploit the people for private gain.
_ As the system develops we may see issues of industrial debentures, but it seems reasonably certain that shares will not reappear.
Furthermore, it is not possible in the U.S.S.R. to live on unearned income....
Evidently they are finding no difficulty with the A plus B theorem either. They are finding it quite easy to increase the welfare of their people as production increase, and they are not issuing social dividends or social credit. All the production of the country belongs to the people, and until the production of this country belongs to the people I do not care how much the money system is

manipulated, you are not- going to get anywhere. Then the article concludes:
As it is, the system works,-
That is the final proof of any system.
-and this in a country of 170 million inhabitants, which for size, diversity and natural wealth can be compared only with the United States. The Soviet Union is thus becoming a leading factor in the world and it would be a profound mistake to ignore it.
In that connection let me say that to-day, because of the national control of its working class, Russia is the greatest factor for peace in the world. In fact so far as there is any guarantee of peace it comes from Russia and from the working class in the other countries where they have any voice at all in the government of the country.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of speaking so long. But I hope the house will realize that we cannot go backward, much as in my opinion the finance minister would want us to do. We are out of that stage just as surely as the chick that has left its shell, and we can never return to it, any more than the chick to the shell. So let us look to the golden age of the future, not to the golden age of the past-because there never was a golden age of the past.
On motion of Mr. Blais the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 7, 1936