RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) arising out of a Canadian press dispatch dated at Ottawa, January 17, as follows:
Employment of war veterans, where available, as convassers for radio licences will be made mandatory as from April 1.
Where and by whom will these appointments be made?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the appointments will, as in the past, be made by the Minister of Transport.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am informed it has been the custom during most of the last few sessions to adjourn at six o'clock on the Friday of the first full week. It would appear that some hon. members on this side of the house have taken it for granted that that custom will be followed and, for that reason, have made other arrangements. I might add that while I am not insisting upon it, the party I lead would be pleased if the house did adjourn to-day at six. We have sat three evenings this week, and I think that is not bad for the opening week of the session.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: What the leader of the
opposition (Mr. Manion) has said with respect to adjournment in the last three or four years is quite correct. The house has adjourned at six o'clock on the Friday evening which closes the first full week of the session, not because of any rule, but simply because it seemed to be the general desire of hon. members. I understand there is the same desire this year on all sides of the house, and I shall be pleased to see that adjournment is moved at six o'clock.



PROCEDURE RESPECTING CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to reply to a question asked last night by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) respecting the procedure the government intended to adopt with respect to the trade agreement, once the resolution on the order paper is passed.
In a word the procedure will be the same as that followed at the time of consideration of the 1936 agreement. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will move the house into committee of ways and means so that the agreement in detail, and particularly the schedules attached thereto, may be considered by that committee. This motion is required under standing order 60 of the House of Commons. When the committee has reported to the house and the report has been approved, a bill will be introduced, based on the resolution reported from committee of ways and means, giving the force of law to the new trade agreement and repealing the existing one, namely the Canada-United States Agreement Act of 1936. The bill will of course have to pass through all its stages, including committee of the whole.


Robert James Manion: In other words as soon as the resolution is passed that will be the procedure?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. May I point out that I am answering the question of the leader of the opposition as it was asked last night, because it related only to the procedure to be followed after the adoption of the resolution. I wish to make it quite clear that the resolution will be debated fully before any reference is made to the committee of ways and means.


Robert James Manion: I asked only because some little discussion had arisen. I inquired from the clerk and he explained it to me very much as did the right hon. gentleman. At the same time I was not quite certain of the procedure, as there was some dispute about it.

Radio-Broadcasting Privileges



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I have a matter to bring to the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). I shall not make comments, but shall be content to read a letter which has come to my hand. This letter, of which I shall send him a copy, is from Mr. Kenneth Woodsworth, secretary of the Canadian Youth Congress. It was received by me only a few moments ago, but it seemed so urgent, as the last paragraph will show, that I feel it necessary to bring it to the attention of the minister immediately. It is as follows:
It has been brought to our attention that some sixty-nine single transient unemployed men are now in gaol in Toronto, having been arrested for begging on the streets.
These men in Toronto are, for the most part, under the age of twenty-five; they have formed themselves into an association and have even been able to rent a house to support about sixty of their number. However, they have no means of subsistence and have been driven to begging in order to live. Now they are in danger of being made into criminals.
We have had occasion formerly to make representation to the Minister of Labour on the need for immediate public works projects to provide employment for Canada's unemployed youth. The present situation reemphasizes the great urgency for action.
In the immediate situation, we would ask your support and your influence in having these unfortunate young men released without sentence. We would further urge that they be given relief, until such time as they are provided with the means of livelihood.
They are to be brought before the court on Saturday morning, so we ask your prompt attention.
I take it that they are to appear in court to-morrow morning. In view of this very serious, even tragic, affair, will the Minister of Labour take it into consideration with a view to seeing if there is not some way in which he and his department can help?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, information reached me this morning to the effect that a number of single unemployed men have been arrested in the city of Toronto, presumably for a violation of a city by-law. My understanding is that the questions arising out of these arrests are being discussed at the present time by representatives of the city of Toronto and the provincial government. In the nature of things, this and other matters relating to unemployment will receive the careful consideration of the dominion Department of Labour.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). Last evening at 7.15 over station CFRB, on a trans-Canada network of twenty-nine stations, Mr. Edward Reid, managing director of the London Life Insurance Company, broadcast an address which was advertised as:
A message to the general public, which will be of particular interest to the owners of the
700,000	policies issued by this company.
Would the minister be good enough to explain to this house why, if Mr. George Mc-Cullagh, publisher of the Globe and Mail, was banned from the use of a network to broadcast a message to the general public and the readers of the Globe and Mail, Mr. Reid was granted the use of a network to broadcast a message to the general public and his policyholders?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The hon. member for Greenwood
(Mr. Massey) gave me notice of this question, which I received only a few moments ago. A question of this kind must of course be answered by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I shall be glad to ask them to forward an answer. However, I would point out that a question which is to be directed to an autonomous board should be placed on the order paper so that it may go to the proper headquarters in the usual way.


Denton Massey: I only asked the question now because I thought the minister might want to deal with it in his speech.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	Yesterday the hon. member for
Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) asked me a question on the orders of the day regarding the likelihood of receiving the report in connection with the investigation into radio tubes. I have made inquiry regarding the matter and while I cannot say precisely when the report will be received, it certainly will be during the course of the present session.
The Address-Mr. Howe


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. J. E. Matthews for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Manion, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Woods-worth.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, much has been said in well-earned commendation of the Speech from the Throne, and of the speeches of the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply. I shall therefore proceed immediately as spokesman in parliament for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to discuss the subject of a controversy that has appeared in current publications and has been discussed in this house. I shall attempt to dissipate some of the heat that has been generated and focus some additional light on the subject matter of that controversy.
The question under discussion is whether recent regulations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation were wisely made and have been wisely administered. This issue has been beclouded by a number of side issues, such as the doings and sayings of George McCullagh, the doings and sayings of the Minister of Transport, the right of free speech, the freedom of the press, all the fundamental principles of democracy, and various alleged plots by the government for one purpose or another. Before discussing my subject matter I shall try to clear up one or two of these side issues.
First let us discuss what Mr. McCullagh did, as disclosed in the correspondence recently tabled in this house. Mr. McCullagh applied to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to purchase time on a national network to broadcast a series of five addresses. The general manager of the broadcasting corporation replied to Mr. McCullagh that he welcomed to the network men of his type who wished to engage in a discussion of problems of the day. He explained to Mr. McCullagh that the regulations of the board made it impossible for the network to sell network time for the purpose desired by Mr. McCullagh. Mr. Murray invited Mr. McCullagh, as an alternative, to accept free time on one of the regular forums of the broadcasting corporation. Mr. McCullagh replied that the fourteen minutes suggested by Mr. Murray were not sufficient for his purpose.
Mr. McCullagh then seized upon what he thought was an alternative offered in the letter

written to him by Mr. Murray, that he could acquire time on a number of privately-owned stations in Ontario and Quebec and speak over them as a network. Mr. McCullagh said that rather than be restricted in his time he would prefer the alternative which he thought he had discovered in the letter from Mr. Murray. It has been suggested in this house that the correspondence indicated that a subject would be assigned to Mr. McCullagh. A reading of the correspondence makes it quite clear that. Mr. Murray told Mr. McCullagh that a suitable topic could be arranged between them. I think that possibly Mr. McCullagh was too anxious to take the other alternative. I think that if he had pressed Mr. Murray for more time in which to cover the subject he wished to discuss, the forum program could have been arranged accordingly, but in any event a certain time was offered to him on the network free.
The first letter from Mr. Murray to Mr. McCullagh indicated that the regulation which prevented the sale of time on the national network did not apply to individual privately-owned stations, and Mr. McCullagh possibly had some reason for reaching the conclusion that there would be no objection to buying time on some eighteen of these stations and proceeding to speak over a private network. However, when the necessary application was made to the board, the board decided that the regulation applying to the larger network must apply also to the smaller, and that while Mr. McCullagh was quite free to use individual stations, he was not free to connect the stations up with a wire network, network broadcasting being entirely a function of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, under the Radio Broadcasting Act, and subject to the regulations of the board.
Mr. McCullagh at that time had advanced his arrangements to the point where he decided to go ahead by a means that was obviously open to him, that is, making recordings of his address for delivery over eighteen stations, and making his personal address over the nineteenth.
Then Mr. McCullagh came into print. It was obvious that the sequence of events had made him exceedingly angry. I must admit that having studied the correspondence and listened to the discussions here, I would be the last to criticize Mr. McCullagh for feeling angry about the situation, but possibly he would now agree with me that it is not wise to write editorials or make public addresses while still in an angry mood. That, however, is a matter we need not go into here.
Much has been published about the doings and sayings of the Minister of Transport, and I wish to discuss that for just a moment. On

The Address-Mr. Howe
the afternoon of Christmas day the Minister of Transport left Canada for a two weeks' holiday, the first, I might say, that he has had of that length in twelve months. He returned to Ottawa on January 8. During the progress of all the negotiations and discussions and correspondence the Minister of Transport was on a cruise ship in the gulf stream, his mind completely at ease. He heard nothing about this correspondence until some three days later after his return, when it was sent to him from the broadcasting corporation, with a brief covering letter which said that this correspondence was being sent as it was thought by the general manager that the matter might become contentious. ' I give the general manager full marks for his prediction in that regard.
The next I heard about the matter was when I was sitting in the house listening to an address by the Prime Minister. One of the new pages came to me and said that I was wanted outside in the corridor. I asked who wanted me, and he said he thought it was my secretary. I told him I could not go just then, but in a minute or two the page came back and said that whoever it was outside must see me. I went out and found that it was a reporter of the Globe and Mail. It was my turn to become a little annoyed, and I gave an interview of about one minute's duration, which has probably received more space than any previous one minute's interview ever received. The next day I was interviewed by a reporter from the Toronto Star, and this time I was better fortified. I passed over to him the letter from Mr. Murray which, I said, explained the whole situation, and his interview was based on the contents of that letter.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the doings of the Minister of Transport throughout this transaction. Just why I should be held up as one of great wealth, one who can spend ten thousand dollars without a thought for a few hours' broadcasting, never travelling except in a fifty thousand dollar plane or in a private car, I cannot imagine. However, I suppose that is of no great importance.


Robert James Manion: Will the minister tell me where I can read that?-because I have never seen it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: It is in one of the Globe editorials. I may say to those who are not quite as familiar with my situation as is the leader of the opposition that the story about my great wealth is not in any way true.


Robert James Manion: I am not so sure of that.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Strange sidelights have been thrown into the controversy. I shall not go
into those interjected by the press, but I might discuss some of those which appeared in the discussions in the house.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), in discussing this matter, referred to freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the iron heel of the Prussian-


Robert James Manion: I did not mention that. That was not mine.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sorry; it was mentioned by someone. And it was suggested that there were schemes by the Liberal party to prevent a speech being broadcast that might be damaging to the party.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) discussed this question, and somehow or other he got it involved with the question of radio licence fees. I was not quite able to follow him in his remarks. Last evening we had an address by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), who also mentioned freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and an attempt to prevent someone making a speech damaging to this party. Even the right hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett) came out of his retirement, and issued a long and stirring manifesto in defence of free speech priced at $3,000 per hour over the air. I read that with great interest because I can just picture the bright galaxy of those who are able to indulge their passion for free speech at that rate.
But perhaps I can deal with these questions later. I come now to the root of the matter. I think it might be well to put on Hansard the regulations which caused all this furore. I will read them just as they were passed by the governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation at their last meeting in Ottawa held, I think, on December 8 last:
Rulings recently approved by the board of governors regarding the sponsorship of nonparty controversial broadcasts are as follows:
"(1) No individual may purchase any network to broadcast his own opinions;
(2)	No profit-making corporation may purchase any network to broadcast opinions;
(3)	Properly constituted societies may purchase network time subject to the following conditions:	(a) that the society accepts
responsibility for the broadcast, indemnifying the CBC against the possible consequences of libel or slander; (b) that each broadcast is prefaced and concluded by an appropriate announcement making clear the nature and auspices of the broadcast and indicating that equivalent facilities are available to opposing views on the same basis; (c) that there is no interference with normal CBC program arrangements; (d) that the broadcast is of sufficient popular appeal and interest to justify its
The Address-Mr. Howe

inclusion; (e) that the broadcast is within the wording and spirit of our regulations and not in violation of any law."
These rulings apply also to individual CBC stations but not to individual privately-owned stations.
I might say a word in explanation of the last. Canada, as is known, follows in its entirety neither the British nor the United States system, but has really more or less a combination of the two. It has its own facilities, and operating alongside of it are certain privately owned facilities.


Mr. CAHAN:: May I ask, were these regulations, which have just been read, duly published so that the public became acquainted with their terms and tenor?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I cannot say as to that. I
have made no inquiry. However, they are not new. They are a slight modification, perhaps, of existing regulations. I will deal with that later. But in regard to the private station, we think it has an important place in Canadian broadcasting, in serving the needs of a single community; therefore no very strict regulations are applied to individual privately owned stations. I am not speaking of these stations as a network, but simply as individual stations. They are for the expression of local opinion, and that same local opinion is an excellent regulator of what is proper and not proper for each individual station.
I might remind hon. gentlemen that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an autonomous body, set up by this parliament under the Broadcasting Act of 1936, which superseded the Broadcasting Act of 1932 sponsored by hon. gentlemen opposite. In drafts ing that act and in its course through a committee of the house every effort was made to divorce the corporation from political interference, or, in fact, any direction from the government of the day. Many hon. members now sitting in this house were on that committee and can bear witness to the truth of what I say. It was left to the goverment to do only a few things: first, to appoint the nine men who are governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation; second, to approve or disapprove the appointments made by that board of the manager and the assistant general manager; third, to approve the bylaws of the corporation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Or disapprove as well.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Approve or disapprove-yes.
And the only way in which the Minister of Transport or any other minister has any relations with that board is that the Broadcast-

ing Act designates the Minister of Transport as the channel through which the board shall communicate with the government and with parliament. There is no possible way in which under that act the government of the day can interfere with any decision of the broadcasting corporation. This government has never interfered with any action taken by the board. Personally I have often disagreed with action taken by the board, nevertheless the action taken has been that decided upon by the board. If I had felt disposed to interfere I would have reasoned that after all the considered opinion of nine men of the type that make up that board is much better than my own opinion, if for no other reason than that they are giving a great deal of time to studying the relevant circumstances, whereas I am not.
Hon. gentlemen recall that at the last session the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) joined on one occasion with certain hon. members sitting opposite in voicing disapproval of a certain commentator and the subject matter of his comments on foreign news. I think there was general agreement in the house that these comments were not in the public interest, but in spite of what was said here that same commentator continued for many weeks afterwards to make much the same type of comment as that to which objection had been taken in this house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And he received pay from the treasury for so doing.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I was outraged at the time. I simply mention it to show that we have a board operating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which is not disposed to take instructions from the government. I have never had anything to do with the appointment of any member of the staff of the broadcasting corporation, and I believe that every other member of the government can say the same. Similarly, I have never had anything to do with selection of any program or feature which has been broadcast by the corporation; and again, I think the government can say the same. I can say more, that if such a request had been made, I know the board well enough to be sure that the board would have probably leaned backward in refusing it, whether it could properly be refused or not.
That is the position with respect to the broadcasting corporation. May I also point out that the funds with which the broadcasting corporation operates are not voted by this parliament; they are collected from the listeners to the programs of the corporation

The Address-Mr. Howe
who are in reality the owners of the broadcasting facilities and whose interests must be considered as paramount.
We hear in this debate that all this is going to be changed if and when the Conservatives come into power. We have heard from the hon. member for Greenwood that he is outraged that such a situation as now obtains could exist. I believe he said that he had had a part in framing the act and that it was outrageous to suggest that this board did not come under the direction of the Minister of Transport and under the direction of the government of the day. He made it perfectly obvious that if there were a change of government, all this would be changed.


Denton Massey: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman-


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will read what he says. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. gentleman.


Denton Massey: I do not think the hon. gentleman would put words in my mouth that I did not say.


Clarence Decatur Howe: All right; I will read what he did say. On page 186 of Hansard he said:
The corporation was to administer policy, yes; to administer policy independent of but subject to review by the Minister of Transport, yes-


Denton Massey: Exactly.


Clarence Decatur Howe: .
-but to establish principle? No, a thousand times no!


Denton Massey: Quite right. Does that
not suggest that the present situation is going to be abolished?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Further on he said:
Would the minister state for a single, solitary moment that if any civil servant attempted to abridge any basic national principle, he, the minister, would simply say, "That has no bearing on me at all. That is his job."
That clarifies the statement made by the hon. member for Greenwood. He is outraged to think that this government should allow a corporation, set up to function independently, so to function.
Now let us examine a few of the regulations I have just cited as compared with practice in other countries. I may observe here that the broadcasting act itself recognizes political broadcasting as a special problem requiring separate regulation and gives different definitions for political broadcasting than for ordinary expression of opinion. In every country in which there is broadcasting, 71492-13
it is recognized that there are certain special circumstances existing immediately prior to an election which make it desirable that the leaders of all political parties should be given a reasonable opportunity to discuss with the electors the policies of their parties.


An hon. MEMBER:: If they have the
money.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There again I believe that a more enlightened attitude is being taken with regard to the financial question of political broadcasts, which is a bar on some occasions. I know that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's management is studying that very question at the moment with the general idea of making facilities more equally available.
Speaking of the English practice, the statement of the hon. member for Greenwood is quite correct, that the situation there is different in that the government owns all broadcasting facilities and does not sell time for any purpose whatever. The rules governing controversial broadcasts of opinions, while much more strict than our own, are, however, similar. Leading public men are given time on certain occasions to discuss events of the day and government policies. Similarly, topics of the day are debated from time to time, though on a much more restricted basis than on this continent and always, of course, without cost. In the United States we find a totally different system. There, broadcasting is privately owned and subject to very little direct governmental regulation. The sale of broadcasting time is a means of profit for the owners of stations and chains of stations and naturally the profit motive is an inducement to these chains to sell the greatest possible amount of time to purchasers. About the only restriction of broadcasting in the United States is that it shall not offend public opinion. But that very implied restriction in relation to the profit motive has led the larger chains in the United States to adopt definite policies with respect to controversial broadcasts, which are very similar to Canadian policies now being discussed.
I will not discuss the chain that was referred to last night, Father Coughlin's chain. In the United States there is nothing to prevent anyone from leasing a number of private stations and connecting them with telephone wires to make a broadcasting chain. I take it that Father Coughlin's chain is a free and easy affair, particularly after reading the statement in the Ottawa Journal that over that chain Father Coughlin delivered a speech which was almost word for word the speech written and delivered some two years ago

The Address-Mr. Howe

by Doctor Goebbels of the German nazi organization. So we will not discuss the ethics of that particular chain at this time.
I will, however, discuss the two largest broadcasting institutions, the National Broadcasting Company and the Columbia Broadcasting Company, and in that regard I wish to read statements just issued by each of these chains. These statements came by wire addressed to the Mirror, 330 Bay Street, Toronto, under yesterday's date. The authenticity of these wires has been checked by direct communication with the head offices of both chains. The following statement is from the president of the National Broadcasting Company, Mr. Lenox R. Lohr:
The National Broadcasting Company since its inception has held to a policy of not selling time for the discussion of controversial issues upon which large groups hold divergent views and solution of which materially affects the life and welfare of the public. Sustaining time is furnished at NBC expense for discussion of such questions by recognized leaders. The company attempts at all times as nearly as possible to give equal representation to opposing sides. Any other method of procedure would give those with the most financial resources a monopoly of radio as a medium of influencing public opinion.
At a meeting of our advisory council held on January 9 the following policies long established by the NBC were reaffirmed.
(1)	The NBC does not sell time for religious programs as this course might result in according a disproportionate representation to those individuals or groups who chance to command the largest purses. In view of the vast numbers of religious sects the company cannot attempt to serve each individually. It cannot of its own choice wisely single out particular individuals to represent special forms of faith. It has accordingly chosen responsible organizations representing the three dominant religious groups in America;-i.e. Protestants, Roman Catholics and Jews to suggest speakers and prepare programs. The NBC does not permit attacks upon religious faiths or upon racial groups.
(2)	During the period of elections only the company sells time to the official representatives of the major political parties. It does not accept dramatic presentations of political issues for it is impossible to prevent essential misrepresentation and unfairness when this technique is employed.
(3)	In connection with its own sustaining programs the company attempts at all times as nearly as possible to give equal representation to opposing sides of every controversial question which materially affects the life or welfare of any substantial group. If one side of such an issue is broadcast this fact does not convey as a matter of right an opportunity for the opposing side or individual to be given equal opportunities to reply. But in permitting the first broadcast the NBC has assumed an obligation to the public.
The NBC follows the same principle on sponsored programs where particular opinions on important controversial issues are expressed. In this case the sponsor may be required to yield time to a representative of view's opposed to the sponsor's speaker.

(4)	Freedom of the air is not to be construed as synonymous with freedom of the press or freedom of speech. Each form of bringing opinion to the public notice has its own characteristics and limitations.
5.	A speaker having been granted time on the air the NBC does not censor or edit his opinions. It must however check for violations of the law and for libellous, slanderous or seditious statements, as the courts have held broadcasters responsible for any damaging statement made over their facilities.
Lennox R. Lohr,
President of the National Broadcasting Company.
I have a similar statement issued by Mr. Frederic A. Willis, assistant to the president of the Columbia Broadcasting System. I believe it is desirable for the house to have this, and as my time is almost exhausted I ask permission to place this letter on Hansard.
The Mirror,
330 Bay Street,
Toronto.
Relative to your inquiry the Columbia Broadcasting System's policy is as follows:-"We do not sell time to individuals or groups for the discussion of controversial public issues such as, for example, taxation, legislation, or regulation." Time for discussion of public issues is allotted free of charge and in accordance with other elements of program balance. By program balance we mean offering to the public all kinds of information, instruction, entertainment as W'ell as the day to day developments and the shifting of public interest in topics available for discussion and the relative importance of each. We limit our advertisers in their messages to the sale of goods, services or promotion of good will for their industry. As an example, we would gladly sell time to a common carrier (railroad, bus or air transport company) for the promotion of travel but would not sell it to them to be used to agitate for new rates or different regulation.
The following are the reasons for refusing to sell time to individuals or groups for discussion of public issues and for allotting time free of charge instead. If time -were sold for discussion of controversial issues or for the propagation of the view's of individuals or groups, wre w'ould necessarily allow a powerful public forum to gravitate almost wholly into the hands of those with the means to buy it. We w'ould in fairness have to sell to all with the ability and inclination to buy at a given moment, thus surrendering all possibility of maintaining well balanced broadcasting schedule and such discussions should be kept in balance by editorial judgment.
The sole exception to sale of time to individuals and groups is during election periods when time is sold to parties owing to their need of greater time than we can afford to give away free.
Columbia does not censor ideas nor do we seek that the views of any speaker agree with any member of our editorial staff. We are pledged not only to freedom of the air but non-partisanship and fairness of the air. By freedom we mean the right of a speaker to express his views subject only to general law-s and the laws of libel and slander, the rule that he may not seek to provoke racial or religious

The Address-Mr. Howe
hatred and the ordinary limitations of good taste and the decorum appropriate to the homes of the nations. By fairness we mean no discussion must ever be one-sided so long as any qualified spokesman wants to take the other side. The party in power must never dominate the air. No majority must ever monopolize. Minorities must always have fair opportunities to express themselves.
Frederic A. Willis,
Assistant to the President, Columbia Broadcasting System.
Much has been said about freedom of speech and freedom of the press in relation to the regulations I have just read. As I understand it, freedom of speech gives every man the right to hire a hall, or if he cannot afford to hire a hall, to stand on a soap box and make any statement he likes, provided that statement is not libellous or seditious or profane. I may point out something that free speech does not imply; it does not supply an audience, a man has to get that himself. It does not give a man the right to an audience assembled in their own homes all across Canada to listen to a program of fine music or some usual entertainment feature.
Freedom of the press as I understand it is the right of an owner or editor of a newspaper to publish in his editorial columns anything he may see fit to publish, with the provisoes already mentioned. It also gives the editor or publisher the right to print or not to print anything he chooses to print or not to print in his newspaper. It does not give the public at large free entrance to his newspaper columns as a matter of right. The editor makes his decision, and the public has no recourse except to the editor or publisher himself. It is a strange thing that the claim that freedom of speech was denied should come so vehemently from the publisher of a daily newspaper. In my opinion the publisher and editor of a newspaper is in a most favoured position from the point of view of . his ability to bring his ideas and policies to the attention of the public, and it is extraordinary that another medium should be criticized for stifling his views and opinions. Radio broadcasting is a different medium, and its proper use is neither freedom of speech nor freedom of the press, but rather can be stated as equal opportunity of discussion.
We all know that the radio is a mighty weapon for the dissemination of propaganda. It is a new medium, and rules for its control are being changed frequently, almost from day to day. The by-laws of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation confer upon that body as of necessity the right to make regulations from day to day as conditions require. It is one of those regulations that we are discussing at this time.
71492-13 i


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But that is subject to government approval.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, not at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg the minister's pardon; the by-laws are.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not the regulations. Mention was made by the hon. member for Greenwood of the broadcasts of Mr. Beverley Baxter's comments on international affairs which came to Canada from the United Kingdom as an advertising feature for one of our motor car manufacturers. It was cited as a deviation of regulation 2. That is not an example of deviation. It was rather the cause for regulation 2. It was the first occasion on which a broadcast of that kind was made over CBC as a paid feature. The broadcast was very well done, I believe; I heard no criticism of its content. But I heard the question asked why a broadcast of that type by a prominent man in British public life should come to Canada as an advertising feature. When the question was asked of the broadcasting corporation the governors of the corporation met and decided that this was not proper material for use in Canada for advertising, and the regulation that I have just read arose out of that broadcast.
The first regulation I read has always been the view or policy of the CBC, as it is of chains in the United States. But the regulation makes it very definite that time will not in future be sold for the expression of opinions either by private persons or by profitmaking corporations. Surely we have a national trust which imposes upon us the necessity of not permitting our radio broadcasting facilities to be used for propaganda. We all had a lesson on the power of propaganda over the radio in the recent broadcast on a Sunday afternoon by Orson Welles of an imaginary invasion from Mars. In spite of the fact that at intervals of ten minutes throughout that broadcast the announcement was made that " this is a play representing wholly fictitious incidents," a great part of New York City and the surrounding country was thrown into an absolute frenzy. We had also a demonstration of the power of radio in disseminating information at the time of the Munich crisis. I think on that occasion every one of us kept as close to the radio as we could for several days. It has been said that the broadcasting may have been overdone at that time, but I think hon. members will agree that if war instead of peace had come, people all over the world would have had a knowledge of the fundamental causes of that war and the responsibility for bringing it about that the people had never had at any former time.
The Address-Mr. Howe


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I never before in my life heard so much of misrepresentation in a single week as I heard then through the Columbia and the National broadcasting systems.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Radio is increasingly exerting a profound influence on our daily life. It is therefore necessary that every possible precaution be taken to the end that it shall never be used for selfish propaganda, either by corporate or by private interests. On the other hand radio can be most helpful in building up an informed public opinion, provided great care is taken to present as fairly as possible all sides of controversial public questions. The new regulations of CBC are designed to make this possible. It will continue to be the policy of CBC to encourage the discussion of public questions on sustaining programs without cost to the speaker. Competent observers will be encouraged to give their views in a manner forthright, challenging and stimulating, but always fair. CBC will continue to resist any attempt to regiment opinion or to throttle freedom of utterance. It is a truism that the free interchange of opinion is one of the safeguards of democracy, and CBC believes that it would be false to its trust as custodian of an increasingly important part of the public domain if it did not resist external control and any attempt to place the free air under the domination of the power of wealth.
This parliament alone has power to give directions to CBC, and a committee of this parliament will at this session examine the policies of CBC and report on their wisdom.
I have no personal doubt that as in the past the report of that committee will be unanimous and an endorsement of present CBC policies, including those now under discussion.


Mr. A. B. HYNDMAN (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, rising to speak to the address in reply to the speech from the throne I do not think it is necessary for me to compliment the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier). I need only say that I trust they will represent their constituencies with the same honour, dignity and reputation as did their predecessors. I should like to say, too, how pleased I was to learn about the visit of the king and queen to Canada, and to express my particular pleasure in the fact that they are to spend a longer time in Carleton county than in any other part of Canada.
I have read carefully the speech from the throne and, strange to say, it reminded me of former speeches from the throne. I have looked through the speches of the past three sessions, the first of which was delivered on February 6, 1936. In that speech unemploy-[Mr. Howe.l
ment was mentioned and there is reference of the appointment of a commission. Outside of that there is very little in it.
In the speech from the throne delivered on January 14, 1937, the following year, I notice this:
The provision for large numbers still on relief remains a foremost problem.
The unemployed are still there. And we notice this further observation:
Measures will be taken, in cooperation with the provinces, to assist in the establishment of unemployed young people.
Turning to the speech delivered on January 27, 1938-last year-I find that the government is still going to try to promote and to preserve Canadian unity and,-
As a first step towards this end, a royal commission of inquiry has been appointed ....
That is about all we found in the speech from the throne of last year. Coming to the speech from the throne delivered at the opening of this session we find that after four years of effort on the part of the government the following reference is made to unemployment:
In Canada, the problem of unemployment has been aggravated in recent years by recurrent crop failures in the western provinces, and by the serious business recession experienced in the last year in other parts of the world. The intensification of the problem has set forth in bold relief the obstacles which the existing division of constitutional authority places in the way of solution .... The government have not altered their view that a national unemployment insurance scheme is essential to a permanent policy of meeting the problem of unemployment.
My ministers-
And I ask hon. members to note this.
My ministers recognize that the plight of those who are still unemployed cannot await necessary constitutional amendments, nor the summoning of any conference. They are prepared therefore-
Mark these words.
-notwithstanding constitutional impediments to effective action, to join with the provinces in a further determined effort to meet the immediate situation.
When I read that it recalled to my mind something which had appeared in the speech from the throne of 1936. Going back to the speech of that year I found the following paragraph:
In order to determine the question of their validity, reference has been made to the Supreme Court of Canada of a number of measures enacted at the last session of parliament.
In other words when the last government tried to bring in measures to help the unemployed of Canada, a question was raised as

The Address-Mr. Hyndman
to the constitutionality of the measures introduced. Now, a Liberal government, in spite of the constitutional difficulties which stand in the way, is apparently going to try to do something.
I was pleased, however-at least I was pleased until I came near to the end of the speech-that we were not going to have any more commissions. I could not find the word "commission" in the whole speech-at least, so I thought, until I reached the last sentence, when I learned that there is to be set up another commission to administer the penitentiaries. Let us hope that that will be the last of the commissions.
I believe that the pressing questions confronting the country to-day are three in number: first, national cooperation and understanding-I know the Liberal party calls that unity, but I prefer to call it cooperation, understanding and good-will; second, unemployment and third, the trade agreement.
As I have stated before, the king and queen are to visit Canada this summer and, with that thought in mind, I was disappointed when at the beginning of the session I found on the order paper certain resolutions standing in the names of the hon. members for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) and Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Lacroix). The first of these resolutions deals with the changing of our flag. I would suggest that the hon. member withdraw the notice of motion. In Canada to-day there is enough disunity and lack of cooperation without introducing that contentious subject into debate. I am not sure whether or not we should have a distinctive flag, but in view of the fact that the king and queen are visiting Canada this year let us not discuss the subject. The resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency asks that we change the name of our country from "The Dominion of Canada" to "The Kingdom of Canada," and that we change the name of our governor general to that of viceroy. Let us not talk along those lines this year. I would ask the two hon. members to withdraw their motions.
I have listened with interest to the speech of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) in which he discussed the controversy over the radio talk of Mr. McCullagh. I have in my hand a copy of that speech and, although I shall not comment upon the ruling of the broadcasting corporation, for the life of me I can see nothing in the speech which should not be broadcast throughout the dominion. It is headed "Marching On-to What?" I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that that is the very question which is on the lips and in the minds
of our people. To what are we marching? When I look over the subheadings of the speech I find these: "Problem of leadership; tired of personal feud." Surely we are tired of personal feuds in Canada. Then, the third heading is "Jobless present challenge"-and I am sure they do. Then, "How will Canada appear?" and "Apathy ancient enemy." Surely we have had apathy on the part of th'. Liberal party for the past three years. Finally and most important of all, a stop to wild spending. I cannot see how there can be any criticism of topics of that kind. In ' the speeches from the throne for the past four years we have had outlined the doctrine of national unity, and it has been preached from the Liberal benches. At no time since confederation have we had so much unrest, such a lack of cooperation, and so much disunity as we have at the present time. I should like to place on Hansard what I believe to be the real condition throughout Canada as far as unity is concerned.
I shall start with British Columbia, that beautiful province that is fast becoming the land of the rising sun. I read this:
Premier Pattullo of that province announces that he and his cabinet are to journey to Ottawa "not to discuss the needs and problems of this province, but to demand certain specific things under threat that if they are not granted there will be defection in the Liberal ranks and the Liberal party will no longer be able to bank upon the support of sixteen members from British Columbia."


Mr. REID:: They did not say that.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: They did not say that, but the premier of British Columbia did.


Thomas Reid: No, he did not.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: The premier of British Columbia did say that.


Thomas Reid: I ask for the authority.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: Then we come to Alberta. I do not agree entirely with the premier of that province, but in all fairness to him let me say that he has not had the least bit of cooperation from this house in even trying out his policy. I am not saying that I agree with his policy, but at least he is trying to do something, which is more than this house has done.
We come then to Saskatchewan. I am not criticizing the government for the money that has been spent in that province, but with all the money that was spent, even to win a provincial election, what do we find? They have raised the threat of secession. Let me quote from a report as follows:
The United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, devoted a long debate to the subject at its annua' convention and unani-
The Address-Mr. Hyndman

And no later than yesterday we had the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) saying this-and all these are Liberal members:
Mr. Speaker, as I review the accomplishments of the present government and of our own political term in office, and as I have listened attentively to the proposals in the speech from the throne, I begin to wonder how long it will be before the government will be willing to face fairly the fundamental issues, instead of permitting itself to be occupied merely with details of administration.
I do not want to suggest for one moment, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to have communism or fascism in this country, because we are not, but unless this government can prove that democracy is worth while, conditions that lead to communism and fascism are very likely to develop. Let me put on Hansard what the present Prime Minister had to say in 1935:
We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content"-
My, haven't we got that!
*-which is the rightful heritage of all.
We have also the report of the Canadian Welfare Council, which has this to say:
The discouraging fact is, after all these years, in part because of the clashing jurisdictions of the dominion and its provinces, Canada still lacks long term legislation, comprehensive planning, and any integrated and adequate program for a fundamental attack upon the serious national ills which have occasioned these heavy expenditures.
The town of Aylmer, on the Quebec side, reports four hundred persons in destitute circumstances on relief. Mr. Draper, the president of the trades and labour congress, has this to say:
As long as Canada's constitution fastens on the provinces the major responsibility for social legislation, a proper system of social services-unemployment insurance, health insurance, adequate old age pensions-will be out of the question.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), speaking in Toronto, significantly remarked:
We lost one generation of youth through the great war. We do not want to lose another through neglect.
No truer statement was made than that one. The cost of relief in nine years in the province of Ontario was $900,000,000, yet nothing is being done. We read that the AH-

Canadian Congress of Labour regrets 1938 saw little progress towards abolishing poverty and preserving national unity. They say:
It is deeply to be regretted that the intervening year has seen little or no progress toward their solution and that in some respects they have become intensified. . . . Good intentions are not enough; good-will is not enough. Surely the time has come for a national economic policy which will abolish starvation and unnecessary suffering in this richly endowed country.
The Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), speaking in Montreal, had this to say regarding taxes:
We must take stock of our expenditures. We must make improvements in a way that will add to the productive wealth of the country and leave to later years the other things that seem to be necessary in a modern civilization.
That refers to taxation and applies to the manner in which government is spending money at the present time on projects which are absolutely of no use to this country and never will be of much use.
I have received letters galore. There are two in my hand which I should like to read; they certainly touch one's heart. Writing the other day, one man says:
I am a married man, thirty-five years of age, with a wife and five children, four of whom are going to school, born and raised in Canada. . . .
I have tried, and never refused, any kind of work, even going as far as selling one's own life-blood as an aid to keeping one's family together. . . .
Quoting from another:
I sure do not know, but sure am discouraged, after living in Ottawa about fifty years things should be like they are, I often wish sometimes that I was a foreigner of some kind and I might be able to get some kind of employment.
I can tell the house that there are hundreds, indeed thousands of people in this country in a like position. The farmers too are in a desperate state at the present time, not only the western farmers but the mixed farmers of eastern Canada. I know of a number in my county who are forced to leave their farms.
Hon. members have the right to ask, "What did Mr. Bennett do about it? What did the previous government do about these matters?" Well, at least they tried. I looked up the different bills and trade agreements which the late government passed during its term of office, and I was greatly surprised to notice that the Liberal party, then in opposition, voted against the trade agreements introduced by that government. I also noticed that no vote was taken on certain pieces of

The Address-Mr. Hyndman
legislation brought in by the Bennett government in the last few years of their term of office, yet even though the Liberals were agreed upon these pieces of legislation, the minute they got into office they sent those enactments to the old country to see whether or not they were legal. I refer to the Natural Products Marketing Act, the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, the Employment and Social Insurance Act, the Minimum Wage Act, the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act, the Limitation of Hours of Work Act, the Weekly Day of Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act. Nearly all were thrown out by the action of the Liberal party. I feel that had they been carried through they would have improved conditions in this country.	j
I come now to the trade agreements. Apparently the Liberal government puts a great amount of stress upon trade agreements. I find that during the term of office of the Bennett government they consummated eight trade agreements, namely with Australia, New Zealand, France, Poland, the United Kingdom, the Union of South Africa, the Irish Free State, and Southern Rhodesia. What strikes me about this is that as regards all four trade agreements connected with the British commonwealth of nations, the Liberals voted against them. That goes to show that the Liberal party, when out of power, is not in favour of trading, at any rate with the British commonwealth of nations. Apparently there should be no truck nor trade with our best market. When the trade agreement with the United States was discussed in this house in 1936 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) stated that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and asked us to wait patiently and see what was the result of that agreement. Well, I can give the result of the eating of that pudding, and it is not very good. In 1935 the total exports from Canada to the United States amounted to $370,104,000, and our total imports amounted to $312,416,000. In other words we had a favourable trade balance in that year with the United States of over $57,000,000. What do we find as regards 1938? An adverse trade balance of over $64,000,000. When you add those two together you find that in 1935 Canada was better off as far as trade goes with the United States than she is in 1938 to the extent of $121,000,000.
Turn to the other side of the picture and consider the Ottawa trade agreements, the agreements against which the Liberal party voted when they were in opposition. Although they opposed the agreement with Great Britain, there was, I find, a favourable trade balance in 1935 of $191,000,000, in 1937 of $258,000,000; and for the eleven months of last year it was 71492-14
$225,000,000. I simply ask which is our best market? Why did the Liberals vote against the Ottawa trade agreements?
Great stress is laid by the Liberal government upon quotas. They are continually talking about the quotas-the preferences so to speak-they get from the United States.
I looked up that item and I find that under the 1935 agreement which they made with the United States the quota on cream was set at 1,500,000 gallons, yet all the cream which we shipped into the United States in ten months of last year was only 4,572 gallons. Then we had a quota on cattle. The United States said,
" Yes sir, you can ship your cattle into our country to the extent of 155,800 head of cattle weighing 700 pounds or more." I find, however, that we shipped only 33-5 per cent of the quota. As regards cattle, 175 pounds or less, it is said that we may ship 57,933 head, but I find that we shipped only 68 per cent of the quota. Of dairy cows they say that we can ship 20,000, but we shipped only 38-7 per cent. What, therefore, is the use of raising the quota? That is no advantage.
In the new agreement the quotas are increased, but that makes no difference. We have exceeded our quotas only in two commodities, shingles and seed potatoes, and the quota on potatoes is not increased in the new agreement. Under the old agreement we exceeded it by five per cent and so they said *they would not increase that quota. Shingles have been increased five per cent.
In short, every time a Liberal government tinkers with trade agreements we get the dirty end of the stick. The other party takes the horse and gives us the rabbit. In matters of trade the United States gives too little and asks too much. That is the fault of this government. Take the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables from the United States. In 1935 we imported only $9,000,000 worth of fruits, whereas in 1938 our importations were valued at $13,000,000. Of fresh vegetables, in 1935 we imported only $2,000,000 worth, and in 1938 over $4,000,000 worth. Is it any wonder our market gardeners have a hard time? Then take cheese, milk and butter. The average price of butter in Montreal in December, 1935, was 264 cents a pound, and in December, 1938, it was 21 cents. Farmers have asked me why the price of butter is so low, and it is not hard to tell them. In the eleven months ended November, 1938, we imported from New Zealand 2,871,373 pounds of butter, and from Australia, 1,400,000 pounds, or a total of 4,271,373 pounds. Butter in cold storage on January 1, 1939, amounted to 43,784,406 pounds as compared with 27,769,429 pounds in 1938. The increase in the

The Address-Mr. Needham

quantity of butter in storage last year amounted to 16.014,977 pounds. Is it any wonder the price is what it is?
The total production of milk in Canada in 1937 was 17,188,617,000 pounds. We may ship to the United States under the quota 30,000000 pounds of milk. Why, my own constituency of Carleton produced last year 131,000.000 pounds. That district could supply four times the quota which the United States allows us. And what about the rest of Canada? Was not the United States very generous when it said to the Liberal government that we might send 30,000,000 pounds of milk to that country?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.


Mr. JOSEPH NEEDHAM (The Battle-fords):: I ask the mover, (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne to accept my appreciation of the manner in which they discharged the duty assigned to them.
In the speech the first place is given to the visit of their majesties to this country. All I wish to say in that regard is that I know they will receive a royal welcome from one end of the dominion to the other. I understand that during the course of his visit His Majesty the King is to unveil the memorial on the plaza here in Ottawa. I would make this suggestion to the government, that in connection with the unveiling of this memorial they provide free transportation for every citizen who served overseas and who wishes to be present on that occasion. It is to them more than to any other living person that this memorial is due, and it would be a very fine gesture as a means of saying "Thank you" to them.
The next item has to do with an increased appropriation for defence and I notice that a defence purchasing board is to be appointed. To those who have read the report of the Bren machine gun inquiry one thing at least is apparent, nam'ely, that the department did not use ordinary business common sense in agreeing to that contract. It seems to me that there has been another setback to the idea of government ownership owing to the muddle that, was made in connection with that first contract for defence purposes. All over this country the people have been demanding that, profits be taken out of munitions, because that is regarded as the best way of dealing with the situation. It is felt that the best course would be to establish government ownership in the matter of munitions. But

in the first contract that is entered into, we see what business ability the department exhibited. It. is regrettable, and I hope that this defence purchasing board will be something more than a buffer to shield the Department of National Defence.
The new' trade agreement w'ith the United States is mentioned in the speech. That has been dealt with very fully by former speakers, and I think it would be more gratifying to the general public if there were a greater manifestation of the benefits that accrued from the former trade agreement with the United States. That is why there is so little interest and enthusiasm apparent at the present time. It seems as if this government is far more concerned with foreign markets than with the home market. One thing which has impressed me since coming to Ottawa is the lack of initiative on the part of the government in seeking to solve our interna! problems. Canada's greatest problems are internal, not external. We are assured to-day that the most prosperous countries are those which are giving definite direction to the home market and home problems. If our government would place the emphasis on the home market rather than on external trade they would be doing greater service to this country.
As to the matter of reduction of tariffs I hardly know what to say, when facts like this are so manifest:	When the Bennett
government came into power in 1930 and raised the tariff on agricultural implements to 25 per cent, the price of implements came down. In 1935 the King government came into office and in the first budget presented by them the tariff on agricultural implements was reduced from 25 per cent to 7j>
per cent, and the price of farm implements went up, not once but twice and three times.
Unemployment according to the speech from the throne is still one of our great national problems. The condition is still very serious, although conflicting statements are made as to its extent. One matter receiving special attention by the government is the proposal for youth training camps. These no doubt u'ould be good for the youth and for the communities where the camps are situated. But something far more important than training for positions is creating positions. I do not think there ever wras a time when youth did not qualify for the positions that were available. Neither do I think there ever was a generation of youth as well qualified by education, physique and otherwise to make a real contribution to their day and generation as the present one. If the positions are there, they will qualify to fill them. But the comparison we heard made last night of

The Address-Mr. Needham
the number of youth who have been trained and the number of positions found, is not very encouraging from the point of view of youth. Until this government gives more attention to creating positions by increasing the home market and production this problem will be with us.
Now a word or two regarding contemplated changes in the British North America Act, which is again referred to in the speech from the throne. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) yesterday referred to the British North America Act as the alibi by which this government has been shielded in the past. If the act were changed to the satisfaction of all concerned, he wondered where they would hide in the future. One thing I want to emphasize is that there is no need for the dominion government to wait for amendments to the British North America Act in order to give the provinces the assistance they need. If the government want to give assistance to the provinces, removing the sales tax would be a direct contribution; if the provinces wished to assess the sales tax themselves, they would then have at their command a source of revenue which is denied to them at the present time. Neither does it need a change in the British North America Act to enable the government to reduce the stamp tax or the cheque tax. The same applies to the income tax and radio licences. If this government would stop bleeding the provinces of every cent they can possibly get. they would have fewer loans to make or lend back.


An hon. MEMBER:: Give back.


Joseph Needham: They may have to be gifts, yes; as long as they bleed the provinces at every possible source, it is no doubt a gift.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: And why not?


Joseph Needham: Why should the dominion government bleed the provinces in every conceivable way until they have nothing at all left and then expect them to carry on? I cannot understand the common sense or the business sense of such a course of action. And there is a question whether the dominion is not invading the rights of the provinces in these matters. I do not think there is any doubt it is doing so, and that is what is causing the friction to-day between the provinces and the dominion. It is no wonder that the relation is becoming more and more strained. The various briefs submitted to the Rowell commission bear that out. Many believe that this commission was appointed for the purpose of recommending that even more authority be centred in the dominion govem-71492-14%
ment. The provinces, I am sure, will fight against such a recommendation to the last ditch, and rightly so. One has only to look at the personnel of the Rowell commission to know what to expect their recommendation will be.
An opinion generally expressed throughout the dominion is that we have too much government in Canada, and I am in agreement. And there is too much duplication and overlapping. But those who are chiefly advancing that idea are those who are trying to get more authority centred in Ottawa. They know it is easier to deal with one government than with ten. What is behind that idea is something worthy of serious investigation. There is too much government in Canada, but it is too much government at Ottawa rather than in the provinces. This is where the duplication and overlapping come in.
Let us now consider the Department of Agriculture. Agriculture is a purely provincial matter, and yet we have an expensive federal department. It is a puzzle to find out where the functions of the Department of Agriculture at Ottawa begin and those of the Department of Trade and Commerce end. I would suggest that the federal Department of Agriculture be abolished, and that the industry be left to the care of the provinces. The same may be said with respect to mines and resources. That is another purely provincial matter which should be left to the provinces. Instead of that, we always have conflicting ideas as to which body is in authority, and various angles of the question arise from time to time.
Another matter which has been mentioned in parliament before has reference to the senate. If any legislation respecting parliament is to be changed, I would suggest that the senate be given serious consideration, because in this twentieth century, in a democracy we love and of which we boast, it is very much out of date to permit the existence of a governing body or a body with legislative authority which is not representative of the people. When one looks at the business done in the senate, as reflected in the debates of that body contained each session in a volume of only about five hundred pages, one has cause to wonder. Last night the statement was made in the house that the senate had adjourned for a month. When we come to a consideration of costs of government and a realization of the fact that the people of Canada, some of whom are on relief, are struggling under the burden of those costs, then I say changes should be made where the best results would be obtained.
We hear talk about the centralization of power. We love to speak about the British
The Address-Mr. Needham

Empire. The empire is united but. I must point out, not by the centralization of power. At the imperial conferences the dominions are more and more demanding their right to govern themselves. The same principle applies to Canada and its provinces.
The suggestion is made that unemployment insurance will be discussed during the present session. An hon. member who spoke earlier made a statement to the effect that no doubt every hon. member would support such a measure. I am not prepared to support such a bill until I know its contents. Of what benefit would unemployment insurance be to the unemployed person? None at all. Of what benefit will it be to the employed person? If it is going to reduce his purchasing power, I do not believe that I shall support it. If there is to be a contribution from the employer, we know that portion will be passed on to the consumer, and for that reason such a measure would fail to get my support. If there is to be a contribution from the dominion government and the money is to be raised by taxation, it would be of necessity a penalty on all of us. For these reasons, until I see the bill, I fail to see the benefits of an unemployment insurance scheme, and at the present time I reserve my rights as to whether or not I shall support it. .
At the first session in which I appeared in the house I promised I would support the government if it brought down measures which appealed to me as being beneficial to the country and to my constituency in particular. I am sorry to say that after three years- and we are now beginning another-there is no indication that the goverment is worthy of my support.


Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, may I extend my best congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address on the way in which they performed their important task. And may I express my satisfaction, and I have no doubt that of all other hon. members, upon the recovery of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). It would be our hope that his health has reached the point where for a long time to come he may be able to carry out his duties.
May I thank the government, or whoever is responsible, for the improvement of the lighting in the chamber. Speaking on the same occasion last year I pointed out that we who sat on the back benches were having difficulties in view of the lighting, and it is gratifying to note that improvements have been made. May I point out, however, that still another place in this building where lighting arrangements could be improved is the
{Mr. Needham.]
library. For the last three sessions of parliament I have been a member of the committee having to do with the library of parliament. I was pleased in the session of 1936 to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) read my name as one of the members of the committee; but the committee never sat. In 1937 I heard my name read again, and again the committee did not sit. And in 1938 there was the same lack of action. I do not know whether the committee is composed of hon. members who are not qualified to give advice to the librarians, but the fact remains that the committee has never been called together. Although I admit I am not capable of giving much advice as to the choice of books, still I do believe I could give sound advice with respect to lighting. I am one who goes to the library often. As hon. members are aware, the lighting in the library is artificial, and at the present time it is a disgrace to a place like the parliamentary library.
In a few months we shall be honoured by the visit of King George and Queen Elizabeth. The whole country rejoices in contemplation of this important event, and no effort should be spared to make it the greatest success possible. It is the fond wish of the Canadian people that the royal visit of our king and queen be as pleasant as possible. I am sure Canadians will vie with one another in their endeavour to show their respect and affection for and loyalty to their sovereign. Throughout old Quebec, as well as in other Frenchspeaking parts of Canada they will be heartily greeted by the French cry: "Vive le Roy; vive la Reine"-God save the king; God save the queen. We are deeply grateful to their majesties for devoting a few weeks of their time to a visit in Canada, especially in times like these, times which are arduous and require much care and attention. It was a happy thought to create this precedent, and from the bottom of our hearts we wish that during their stay in Canada the old French proverb may apply: " Heureux comme un roi; heureuse comme une reine"-"happy as a king; happy as a queen."
I trust in this connection it will not sound like levity if I tell a story which was popular in Canada about thirty-five years ago. This story has reference to a Canadian who had been away from home for some time. We must remember that in those days there were no radio broadcasts, and news did not travel as fast as it does to-day. It was common in those days for men to be away from home for months or even years at a time. This particular chap returned to his home in lower Canada. When he arrived he inquired as to the latest news; he wanted to know what

The Address-Mr. Mallette
had occurred since his departure three or four years previously. He was told that Queen Victoria had died. "What! the good Queen has died?" They told him that was so. 'Who has succeeded her?" He was told that her son had succeeded to the throne. "Her son? Why, he must have had some pull with Laurier."
I wish to compliment the right hon. Prime Minister and his advisers in the Liberal party for facilitating the election to this House of Commons of the newly chosen leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition by refraining from placing a candidate against him in the recent by-election in London. I feel confident that this beau geste met with the approval of most Canadians, at least those who look upon politics as a field in which there still exists a remnant of the old spirit of chivalry. Surely in this twentieth century, nearly forty per cent of which has passed, we ought to be broad-minded enough to recognize that a political opponent should not always be looked upon as an enemy. Since it is part of our parliamentary institutions to have an official opposition, it was in the best interests of the country that the Prime Minister should act as he did. It is another proof of his real desire to strengthen the unity of Canadians.
Since the last session of this parliament the government has appointed a minister to Belgium and Holland. This marks a further step in the development of Canada's international relations. Step by step, carefully and cautiously, Canada must take charge of her own interests everywhere and not always leave that burden upon the shoulders of the mother country. In my humble and very sincere opinion, the appointment of a minister duly accredited to the courts of Belgium and Holland is a move for which the Canadian government deserves great credit. It is pleasing to note that the new minister, Mr. Jean Desy, has been reported as saying that he will do his utmost to improve not only the economic but the intellectual relations between Canada and Belgium and Holland. That is as it should be, and it ought to result in mutual and satisfactory benefits. We think most highly of the peoples of those two countries. We appreciate their business ability, their willingness to work hard and their accomplishments in all the crafts and beaux arts. Especially do we admire their sturdy patriotism.
There are so many interesting points in the speech from the throne that it is impossible to discuss them all thoroughly in the forty minutes allowed to each member of this house. Of course, I have no intention of
trying the patience of my hon. colleagues for that length of time. However, with most of the items it would not be fair to dismiss them abruptly. One such item is the trade agreement with the United States. While the analysis of that agreement probably will await the time when it is submitted to the house, I think it is perfectly in order to say now that the Canadian people welcome the government's efforts to bring about closer relations with our neighbours to the south. This is natural. There is scarcely a Canadian family which has not a relative living in the great United States republic. Most Canadians have good friends as well as relations in that country.
Perhaps it would not be amiss at this point to note what other people think of this agreement. I should like to quote from the report of the annual general meeting of the Bank of Montreal, held in Montreal on December 5,	1938. The president, Sir Charles
Gordon, had this to say under the heading of trade agreements:
An important factor hearing on the economic situation comes from the tripartite trade treaties just signed by the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. These treaties will affect in more or less degree every industrial and commercial enterprise in this country. The situation has been a peculiar one for Canada, inasmuch as it has provided the most dramatic demonstration yet given of Canada's position as the natural liason between Great Britain and the United States. Without Canada's co-operation the agreement making for closer commercial cooperation between the two largest Englishspeaking nations, so important at this juncture in world affairs, would not have been possible. Canada has given that cooperation, not without sacrifices and not without some misgivings as to what these sacrifices may portend. Partly as compensation for giving way to American producers in the British market and partly as compensation for a lowering of our tariffs all along the line in favour of American manufactures, Canada has received advantages in the American market for a wide variety of the products of the farm, the forest, the fisheries and the mines. Primary producers in every province have long desired this freer access to the great market to the south, and we all hope that the advantages which it offers to them will result in such a general increase in the purchasing power of the nation as to offset the added competition which many manufacturing industries will be called upon to face.
The president of the Banque Canadienne Nationale, another important financial institution, had this to say at the annual meeting held on January 9, 1939:
The new treaty, introducing as it does hundreds of changes in the tariffs of the three countries, embodies mutual concessions. Canada grants the United States many tariff reductions and loses the preference of six cents a bushel on empire-grown wheat. The high
1 lie Address-Mr. Mallette

quality of Canadian wheat should minimize the adverse effect of free competition on the British market. Canadian products of the farm, the forest and the fisheries should find a wider market in the United States and this advantage should assist where help was needed most. Moreover, the price of many goods imported from the United States will he lowered, reducing industrial outlays and the cost of living. Furthermore, a necessary revival of international trade should ensue inasmuch as trade between Great Britain and the United States represents about twenty-six per cent of the total commerce of the world, in which Canada plays an important part. Another interesting aspect is the application of the most favoured nation clause to a score of other countries.
I have another bank report, that of the Provincial Bank of Canada. I shall read only a small extract, as follows:
A very important factor, is the recent trade agreement made between Great Britain, the United States and Canada, effective since the first of the year. Concessions were made by Great Britain in eliminating certain excessive trade harriers. The United States and Canada also made concessions, and indications are that these reciprocal trade agreements have laid foundations for considerably expanded commerce.
Hon. members will notice that these three banks are not obsessed with the spirit of defeatism, which seems to haunt our friends to my left in connection with this trade agreement, as is evidenced by their speeches since the opening of the present debate.
The government proposes to expand its long range program of public undertakings, and I assume that this will, to a certain extent, replace direct relief. Such a move will surely be hailed with satisfaction by the taxpayers. Direct relief has never been very popular. Many have always held the view that where the government has to help the unemployed, it is better to do it through the medium of public works. They felt it was a mistake to dole out money without getting any return. Let it be said to the honour of the beneficiaries of these distributions that they prefer work to the dole. Not only was this money that was doled out wholly unproductive, but because of forced idleness many good workers have lost the ability to practise their regular craft. The country has been impoverished to that extent. I am sure that any disposition on the part of the government to replace direct relief with useful public works will meet with the approval of the entire population.
Care should be exercised in the selection of the projects to be executed in a program of this kind. It would be ideal to promote only public works that will be self-sustaining or that will liquidate themselves within a reasonable period. The government should be careful to see that proposed public works do not

conflict with established legitimate enterprises already providing employment. I am sure that numerous plans will be submitted to the government in connection with this program, and I am willing to .do my share in making suggestions.
Here is suggestion number one. There is a great need on the island of Montreal for a new roadway at the western end. The need is great and very apparent. I am fifty years of age, and as far back as I can remember the building of that road has been discussed; so the idea is not new at all. I do not expect the federal government to be called upon to build the road, but it might help in this way. It would be necessary to do away with several level crossings, of which there are many in that section, and which have been the scene of several tragedies in the last few years. The only reason these level crossings have not been abolished is that the municipalities concerned did not have the necessary money; they need financial help. Inasmuch as this improvement would be for the benefit not only of the municipalities but of all the people using the road, I believe that this government should help, and I apply now to them to consider the expenditure of a certain sum of money for the abolition of level crossings in that section of the island when this famous boulevard is built, as we expect, in 1939.
There is another place where we have dangerous level crossings in my county. Running north and south on the island of Montreal, a road passes through Cartierville. Motorists know that road well. People going to the Laurentians for skiing in the winter also know it well. It is fairly wide in places, and then it narrows until when you get to the Canadian National railway tracks there is hardly room for two vehicles to pass. Representations have been^ made to the Quebec government in regard to improving the road, and a start was made on widening it throughout. There is a fair expectation that some work will be done on the road this year, but assistance will be needed in connection with the subway, and I ask this government to give consideration to assistance for that project.
But that is not all. I have often asked the department concerned to improve the Riviere des Prairies at the back of the island of Montreal, to permit navigation. We have enough space on the shores of the island of Montreal for a population of one million, but although Montreal is situated on an island there is no place for aquatic sports, no place where people can go boating on the river at the back of the island.
Lake St. Louis is also in need of being improved. I have received representations

The Address-Mr. Mallette
for its improvement at Pointe Claire, La-chine, and other places. So if this government do not know where to spend the money they are going to appropriate, let them come to me and I shall do the best I can to help them with good suggestions.
Speaking of unemployment, I feel in a general way that it would not be well to create and encourage the impression that unemployment is going to become a permanent institution with us, to be met by federal outlays for public works. That would be to adopt an attitude of defeatism, which is repugnant to the Canadian mind. On the contrary every effort should be directed towards the reintegration of categories of workers in gainful occupation according to their avocations. Some people say that all we need to do is to return to that favourite virtue of our ancestors, so dear to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), thrift, and dispense with non-essentials. I am afraid that individually as well as nationally we have somehow forgotten that good old English proverb that "one must cut his coat according to his cloth." It might be said that I have just been advocating expenditures, and here I am advocating economy; but in my county I have people of both persuasions, and I represent them all.
A few moments ago I gave a list of public works which could be undertaken in the fight against unemployment and which would incidentally greatly benefit the island of Montreal and the county of Jaeques-Cartier, which I have the honour to represent in this house. I wish to remind hon. members that in this same county of Jaeques-Cartier there is a considerable number of farmers and gardeners, and for them I ask for a continued intelligent application of the seasonal tariffs on competitive produce coming into Canada. A difference of a few days in the application of these tariffs means a great deal to these farmers and gardeners. We have a high type of farmer and gardener in our county, and they won many prizes at the Royal Winter Fair. The prize list is so long, indeed, that it has not yet arrived.
In common with workers of all classes, our agricultural workers have always received sincere, helpful and friendly cooperation from Liberal administrations. The Liberal party is a true friend of those in need, the friend of the under-dog.
May I say, en passant, that a few weeks ago I received a circular from the Massey-Harris Company, announcing substantial price reductions on tractors and general farm machinery effective November 1. 1938, and the circular states that these reductions are
the result of a desire on the part of the company to share with its customers the benefits of economies effected, together with savings resulting from the slight decreases in the prices of raw materials. I have no objection to giving the company whatever credit is due for its good intentions; but members of this house, no matter to which party they belong, cannot fail to remember that an extensive investigation was made by a committee of this house not long ago into the price of agricultural implements.
Turning now to the question of armaments, in common with most people I have no liking for heavy expenditures on armaments. If every country would refrain from such expenditures the whole world would be much happier, but unfortunately those are not the conditions, and we seem to be very far from the millennium. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Canadian government deem it their duty to take steps properly to defend our well beloved country. It is impossible for a civilian to say exactly what ought to be done in that connection. We must trust those in office to assume their responsibilities, and we must support their efforts to defend our country. I intend to discuss this matter further when the National Defence estimates come before the house.
At the moment I think particular attention should be drawn to two items of importance. Every item in the Department of National Defence is important, of course, but somehow I feel that we should work up more enthusiasm among our people to join the militia. That enthusiasm does not exist at the present time. I am not blaming anybody for that, but I do think there is a great lack of enthusiasm. In the old French regime everybody joined the militia willy-nilly, because they were conscripted. I am not advocating that, but I do think we should work up enthusiasm among our young men to join the militia units.
I also believe that cadet training should receive more attention. I know there is a sum in the estimates each year for cadet training, and some training is done, .but from what I have seen of it I am not satisfied that the government is getting full value for its money. If you want to work up enthusiasm for the militia you must start with the young people. This is not a party affair at all; it is a national affair.
The order paper contains quite a number of proposals for social reform. I have another one to suggest. I am not the originator of it and cannot claim its paternity; but it is a matter of serious importance and one which must eventually be dealt with by parliament,
The Address-Mr. Mallette

and at some time or another it will be translated into the laws of Canada. Men are paid in accordance with a wage scale; and from the point of view of producers this is quite correct because whatever the producers make must not cost them a price that would put them out of competition. That is quite clear. On the other hand, it is also abundantly clear-to use a favourite expression of the former leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett)-that the man who is married needs more money than his bachelor companion, and a couple with one child needs more money than a childless couple; and that, of course, goes on increasingly with the number of children. It is evident that the ordinary worker making two or three dollars a day, with a family of, say five children, cannot give his family the standard of living which can be given by another worker in the same line getting the same remuneration and bringing up only one child or none at all. In the case of education alone the first man would be under a terrible hardship, and his children likewise. It is of them that I am thinking. It is of the loss thereby incurred by the nation that I am thinking, and I am sure that one of these days the state will have to go seriously into the question of family allowances. I say "the state" because employers taken by themselves are definitely unable to pay more than a certain level of salaries and wages. I wish that members of the government and of this house would give this aspect of our social life their earnest consideration. There is no doubt about the merits of the matter, although I understand readily the difficulties to be surmounted in curing this unfortunate condition. I do not expect either that very much will be done about it now. I am content to plant the seeds of this idea in the generous hearts of all the members of the House of Commons, knowing that it will germinate there with loving care and eventually will be brought to fruition.
A word with regard to the opposition. The hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition ("Mr. Manion) but who is not at the moment in his seat-perhaps exemplifying the fact that *the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has to be absent sometimes-in a very friendly manner in his speech of last Monday evening chided us upon what he called family quarrels in the Liberal party. He quoted our manifesto of 1935, and said, according to the report in Hansard, at page 43 in advocating that a new edition of the manifesto be published:
Even if the book were not of very great use, it would at least add to the gaiety of nations.

Well, I have before me something that may not add a deuce of a lot to the gaiety of nations but may add, for the moment, a little to the gaiety of Canada. I have brought here two editorials of the Montreal Gazette, dealing with the leader of the opposition, his party, and so on. I should like to take extracts from these articles, but that is hardly possible; they have to be quoted in full, or, as the intelligentzia say, in toto, so I shall ask hon. members to bear with me for a minute while I read this one, an editorial of Friday, August 12, 1938, entitled "Where is Doctor Manion Going?"
The new leader of the Conservative party addressed a meeting at Barry's Bay on Wednesday. Barry's Bay is a small lumbering centre in the county of Benfrew. It was chosen by Dr. Manion for his first eastern Ontario address in his new capacity. He seems to have said some remarkable things. For example, he told his hearers that federal governments in the past have done little in the way of national planning of Canada's economic life, that the time has come for action on economic problems, and that the policy of drifting has brought about a fear psychology and "a danger of revolution which we must realize." Further on Dr. Manion expressed the opinion that one of the ways of protecting Canadian liberties is improvement of the economic system. The wealth of the country, he said, is badly distributed ; hence the danger of revolution and the need of national planning, and so on.
Where is this new leader going? The convention which selected him turned its back definitely on what is implied in national planning and upon the two principal apostles of national planning in the Conservative party. It dispensed with Mr. R. B. Bennett as leader and. it would have nothing to do with Mr. Herridge or his heresies. It went back to Conservative principles. But now we find Dr. Manion talking the language of Mr. Bennett, even the language of Mr. Herridge, and if he does not know that this is an affront to Conservative thought in Canada, he has learned nothing from the temper of the convention which gave him his mandate. Dr. Manion's only chance of success for himself and for the Conservative party is through enlisting and holding the loyal support of the great body of Conservatives in this country who were dissatisfied with the Bennett regime, who called for a party convention and got it, and, through their representatives at that convention, laid down a platform which, if vaguely phrased-
Mind you.
-in some respects, does substantially represent and express Conservative opinion. If the new leader has any inclination to move to the left he can, of course, indulge it, but he cannot take the Conservative party with him. In his own interest he should be warned against a false step which may lead him away from the great political element in this country upon whose support he must rely, a step which may conceivably compel that element to seek a new allegiance.

The Address-Mr. Mallette
This is another leading article in the Gazette. The first was on August 12, 1938, the second on September 2, 1938-a Friday in both instances.


Mr. MacNICOL:: But not the thirteenth.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: Not this time. That will come later. I hate to inflict this upon the house, but, you know-


Mr. SPENCE:: Go ahead. Lots of time.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: I thank the hon. member. There are some of these words I cannot pronounce; I went to school only until I was about fifteen. "Whither Conservatism?" Listen to this; it is illuminating.
It begins to look very much as if the Conservative party has extricated itself from the frying-pan only to get into the fire.
Is that not nice?
name as well as in policy. Dr. Manion says that he is going forward, that he will not be diverted from that course by any self-sufficient group which wants things to remain as they are and which will not recognize the danger to our political and economic system by standing still. No political party, he says, can stand still, and true Conservatives realize that it must move on. The new leader may intend to go forward, but it is abundantly evident that he has chosen a route other than that which the convention mapped for him. If turning sharply to the left is going forward, then he is doing it, but, as we have said before, he cannot expect the Conservative party to follow him. It will not do so, and if the Conservative rank and file find themselves obliged to acknowledge other leadership the responsibility will not be upon them.
It is sheer nonsense to suggest or imply, as Dr. .Manion has done, that the Conservative party is standing still or that any of its elements wish it to stand still.
Dr. Manion has not ahvays been a Conservative-


John Ritchie MacNicol: The fires of office.


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: I continue:
At the party convention at Ottawa it turned its back upon radicalism and radical leaders and confirmed a policy substantially conforming to old Conservative principles and traditions as written into the record of the party in this country. The convention was clearly of the opinion that the party should keep to the right, and it affirmed that opinion in its platform. Upon that platform Dr. R. J. Manion wras chosen as Conservative leader and he has no mandate extending beyond the four corners of the policy to which the convention subscribed. If he was not prepared then, as apparently he is not prepared now, to stand upon that platform and proclaim that policy, he should not have accepted the leadership. Conservatives, the great majority of them, were amazed and disturbed by Dr. Manion's speech at Barry's Bay in which he preached reform as the only alternative to revolution. Naturally, a declaration of that kind evoked strong criticism as being irreconcilable with Conservative doctrine and Conservative thought. Undeterred by such criticism Dr. Manion has gone down to Saint John, N.B., and has reaffirmed his Barry's Bay utterance. He is reported as predicting wreck, anarchy and barbarism, ushered in by revolution, unless pressing reforms are made in the economic system, and made soon, reforms that will assure the comforts and needs of life to many who are now without them.
There is an obvious difficulty in dealing with this soap-box solicitude for underprivileged persons, because Dr. Manion does not define reform or social justice or whatever else he has in mind. He does say that it is not radicalism, that it is not socialism, and that it is not communism. He calls it the attitude of cpmmonsense tempered by justice and fair dealing, terms that are about as vague as any that he could have employed, and this very-vagueness increases their mischievous potentiality. The Conservative convention had no welcome for Mr. W. D. Herridge, who had gone up and down the country advocating an unintelligible formula of economic reform, but Mr. Herridge apparently did make one convert, and the convention chose that convert to lead a party that was, and still is, Conservative in
They remember that over there.
but he has been a member of that great party long enough to know that he has cast and is easting a wholly unwarranted reflection upon it. No other party in this country looks back upon a finer record of progress under sound leadership, but it has been progress achieved through the observance of long-established principles of public policy and public administration. Never until recent years was the party ever guilty of fouling its own nest. Its leaders-until recently-were content to stand or fall by those principles, to build always upon solid foundations, to promote the welfare
of all classes, and at no time-until recently___
one them attempt to capitalize for political purposes upon any kind of class disturbance.
Dr. Manion is in danger of departing from this proud tradition, if indeed he has not already dissociated himself from it. He has delivered two addresses which would be understandable enough as expressing the views of el,t"er tlle small groups at the extreme left of foe House of Commons. Like all such appeals they have failed to even indicate a remedy tor the conditions he has described, and for any party leader to emphasize, much less to exaggerate, existing conditions of distress without having in his possession a remedy composed of anything better than a few meaningless words and phrases is to assume an exceedingly grave responsibility. To talk of revolution m this country is a downright absurdity, but it will become less and less of an absurdity as Dr. Manion continues to spread the idea among distressed and dissatisfied citizens. If
that is Conservative leadership it is a brand
which, fortunately, the dominion has never had before.
The hon. gentleman referred to certain posters used by the Liberal party, one of them entitled " King or chaos," and he said that one of the best jokes was that the country had got both King and chaos. This statement is undoubtedly clever, but with all due deference to the hon. gentleman I suggest that it is not strictly correct. It is true that one poster was circulated bearing the title "King
The Address-Mr. Mallette

or chaos," and some people in my own constituency, when they heard the results of the election, declared that the country got King and the Tory party got chaos. As a matter of fact, one big change that has taken place in this house since the last election is the disappearance of two parties from our midst. The Reconstruction party has gone, lock, stock and barrel, and the old Liberal-Conservative party, the party of Cartier and Macdonald, has likewise disappeared. What will the Conservatives of Quebec say? The party of Cartier gone! My hon. friends will find out at the next election.


John Ritchie MacNicol: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."


Joseph Léon Vital Mallette: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) introduces some of his classics; I have a couple of them which I am holding in reserve. It is true we have a party with a new name, the National Conservative party. Well, what was the party before? It was not national, nor was it international, because the leader of the opposition says that we take too much interest in world affairs. The word " national," I suggest, is intended for the good old province of Quebec. When elections are close at hand, how much study and care is devoted by the Tories to the old province of Quebec! Naturally, I can understand that, though we were caught once, in the year 1911, when I cast my first vote. There was an election in that year, and twenty-two candidates, led by Mr. Henri Bourassa and other patriots were returned to parliament; but when the time came for them to take their seats here, there was only one of them who was found true to Mr. Bourassa. I refer to Mr. Lamarche the then member for Nicolet, a gentleman who is still remembered for the staunch support he gave to his leader through thick and thin. Others got honours; to him was given honour -and please do not confuse honours with honour.
We have before us, Mr. Speaker, an amendment and a subamendment. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) intends to support the amendment; I read his speech and I could not decide. If he does, then it would seem that the three parties are voting together. In other words, the new leader of the opposition has succeeded, as Monsieur Blum did in France, in having a Front Populaire, a popular front. Well, the sort of success that has been achieved in France and Spain does not promise much for the future of this country, from fronts populaires.
I wish to refer for a moment to another matter which was brought up last night. The

hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) spoke of certain ceremonies at which he was present when another anthem than God Save the King was sung, and he was not interested. The hon. member for Broadview is one of the finest men in this house. Not a day passes in the session when he and I do not have a friendly conversation. I am fond of him and the more one gets to know him the more one likes him. But on some points I think he is radically wrong. When he objects to a second national anthem in Canada I suppose he has in mind "0 Canada," and I venture to think his remarks in that regard do not echo the sentiment of Ontario or even that of Toronto. One night, in my home, we turned on the radio and listened to a masterly execution of 0 Canada in French, without a trace of accent. The singing was beautiful, and you may be surprised to hear, Mr. Speaker, that this was a performance by that great, artistic organization, the Mendelssohn choir of Toronto. I am sure that performance would remove from the minds of the audience any such impression as that which the hon. member for Broadview expressed last night on this subject.
In closing, may I refer to the question of unity, which is very much to the fore. It is well that the position of every party be made clear, and in this regard I should like to read a few extracts from a speech made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1889. Speaking at Quebec on St. Jean-Baptiste day, Sir Wilfrid said:
Can we not believe that in that supreme battle here, on the plains of Abraham, when the fate of arms turned against us, can we not believe that it entered into the decrees of Providence that the two races, up to that time enemies, should henceforth live in peace and harmony, and henceforth should form one nation? Such was the inspiring cause of confederation.
When the British provinces were united under the same constitution, the hope now acknowledged was to give to all the scattered elements therein a national ideal, to present to the world the spectacle of a nation diverse in its origins and retaining in all its groups respect for family and race traditions, but giving thenceforward to all one and the same aspiration.
This speech was delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1889, nearly fifty years ago. Let me go back further-to the year 1841. I have before me an extract from a speech delivered by Monsieur Lafontaine, the then leader of the Liberal party, addressing the electors of Terrebonne. On that occasion he said-I am translating:
Canada is the land of our ancestors. It is our homeland, just as it must become the adopted home country of different people who come from divers parts of the globe, to exploit its forests for the purpose of establishing them-

Abolition of Privy Council Appeals
selves permanently with their interests. Like ourselves, they must desire above all things the happiness and prosperity of Canada. It is the heritage which they must try to transmit to their descendants in this young and hospitable land. Their children must be like ourselves, and before all, Canadians.
These are the sentiments of the Liberal party. They were expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1889 and, in an earlier day, in 1841, nearly a century ago, by the then leader of the party, Monsieur Lafontaine; and they are the sentiments of the Liberal party to-day, expressed by the present leader of the government. By these sentiments we stand or fall. It is abundantly clear that if I vote with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) against the subamendment, I must also vote against the amendment.
On motion of Mr. Rogers the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
Monday, January 23, 1939