Mr. T. L. CHURCH:: (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11, respecting balloting on questions of great national importance.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: The principle of this bill is to trust the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: That was a very popular plank of the Liberal platform, to trust the people. The bill is enabling legislation similar to that for many years in vogue in democratic countries. We are living in a new world and have over-government and over-taxation. At present the people have

Reformatories-Determinate Sentences
little or no control over their affairs or national property. The proposal embodied in this bill is found to be in the public interest and most useful, permitting the submission of important national questions to the wisdom and judgment of the electors. The provinces have used it extensively for years through the municipalities, thus providing an opportunity for giving the public a direct voice in government policies. It will create a prerogative of checks and balances and make for government "of the people, by the people and for the people." The governor in council can be thus enabled to submit to a vote any matter of national importance that parliament asks to be submitted, such as constitutional, parliamentary, cabinet and law reform, the transportation question, or any other domestic question, but no matters relating to defence on foreign affairs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Thomas Langton Church: The Prisons and Reformatories Act gives the court jurisdiction to impose a definite and an indeterminate term in a reformatory. The bill proposes to substitute determinate for indeterminate sentences. The several expressions relating to "indeterminate sentence" are found in eighteen sections or subsections of the act and the draftsman considers it inexpedient to amend each of such sections by a separate clause. This bill would revert to the old law of sentences for a definite period only.
The indeterminate legislation has been condemned by many judges and magistrates as inhuman and illegal. Canada's prisons at present are filled with youth, many first offenders, who have been unable to secure work. The lack of employment, by cause and effect, is one of the reasons for crime. Recently the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Ontario in Rex V. Bond, 1937 O. R., page 535, judgment of Hon. Mr. Justice Middleton, questioned and made observations on the legality of such legislation, as the provinces only had fundamentally the right of providing confinement for one year and three hundred and sixty-four days, and also condemned it on grounds of public policy. The
law has not acted as a deterrent nor is it reformative. It should be repealed because in practice it confers on officials of these institutions the right to detain those who have not influence enough to have employment awaiting them at the end of a definite period and gives to their decisions the force of statute law.
Mr. Justice Middleton has criticized the present practice. Let me read what he says, in part:
Many judges and magistrates when imposing an indeterminate sentence address the prisoner somewhat in these terms: . . . "If during this determinate term you prove yourself to be a good prisoner, and comply with the rules of the institution and show a disposition to be law-abiding, the parole board may, at the expiry of the definite term, allow you your liberty. It all depends upon yourself and your conduct as to how much, if any, of the indefinite term you may be called upon to serve."
Thus encouraged, the prisoner proves to be a model prisoner. He gives every indication of his reformation, and is taken at the expiry of the definite term before the board. He is hopeful of liberty and full of good resolutions, and the board announces that by reason of an earlier conviction, a fact well known to the judge who imposed the sentence, they will not allow him parole, and he must serve the indefinite term. I can imagine no situation more cruel and more likely to convert a man really desiring to reform into an enemy of society.
Indeterminate sentences had their origin in Michigan, and have been adopted in many places. Fundamentally reformatories are for up to one year and three hundred and sixty-four days definite, and by being indeterminate are made four years. The legality of the vvhole thing is questioned and the court of appeal makes criticisms on its usefulness.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FOOD AND DRUGS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to ajnend the Food and Drugs Act.
He said: The object of this bill is to amend the Food and Drugs Act, to broaden its scope and clarify certain features with a view to increasing its usefulness.
It is thought that foods and drugs should be more clearly defined for purposes of classification and that certain materials not now covered by the act should be brought within the scope of the statute. Means are being sought to make more effective the restraints upon misrepresentation in the marketing of foods and drugs.
71492-22J
Food and Drugs Act
[Stage Direction]
It is the intention to bring within the scope of the act certain material used in the practice of surgery and for the purposes of medical diagnosis.
It is the intention to extend the definition of drugs to include certain substances for which no medicinal claims are made but which may be injurious to human health. In addition, there are marketed to the general public, and extensively employed, certain extracts of animal tissues and other substances whose manufacture and sale should be strictly supervised in view of their potency for harm through uncontrolled distribution.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition) :: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if there has been tabled the preliminary correspondence with the United Kingdom dealing with what are called the triangular trade treaties recently negotiated. If this correspondence has not been brought down, would it be convenient to have it tabled before the discussion of the treaty in the house?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: There has been a great deal of correspondence, much of it, as my hon. friend will realize, necessarily of a confidential nature as affecting other countries. I shall make inquiry and ascertain if there is any correspondence of importance that has not been brought down and which can be brought down without violating any obligations to other countries. It would of course be necessary to get the consent of the British government to the bringing down of any correspondence which they might consider to be confidential.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I understand some may be of a confidential nature. Frankly what we would like is to have the correspondence dealing with concessions that were granted at the request of the British government. Anything of that sort that can properly be tabled we should very much like to have, in order to simplify the discussion when the time comes.
I Mr. Power.]



SASKATCHEWAN RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: I have a question which might properly be directed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), but he not being present the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) perhaps can answer it. The question is: In view of the revelation that has taken place through the reports of court proceedings and prosecutions in the Wakaw district with respect to the distribution of relief, which involves federal moneys, will the government consider setting up a commission to make a thorough investigation into the distribution of relief in Saskatchewan since December, 1935?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I gather that my hon. friend is referring to certain criminal prosecutions. I take it action is already under way by the proper authorities in the province. I cannot go any further than that.



ANTHRAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I have a question to direct to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power). Has the government made any investigation into the report that certain imported Japanese goods said to be infected with anthrax germs were seized in Toronto this week by officials of the Ontario department of health working in cooperation with the Ontario provincial police? If so, will the government say what steps are being taken to protect the public from such dangers in the future?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question. If the house will permit I might give a somewhat more extended answer than a merely categorical reply to the question.
On Saturday last the Department of Health received information from the head of the United States public health service, Surgeon-General Thomas Parran, to the effect that a case of anthrax which had been traced to a shaving brush had been discovered in North Dakota, and that it had resulted in a fatality. Immediately investigation was made by the United States authorities. The wholesale dis-

British Foreign Policy
tributing house which handled the brushes was questioned, and certain brushes seized and the hairs analyzed, with the result that a number were found to be contaminated with anthrax spores. Tracing the shipment still further to the distributing house in New York it was found that this house sold these brushes to a large number of variety stores throughout the United States and Canada. The surgeon-general of the United States advised the Canadian Department of Health that a number of these articles had been shipped to Canada, and gave the shipment numbers and the markings on the brushes. It was found that some had been distributed in the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The health authorities of each of these provinces were advised as to these shipments and the stores to which they had been shipped. The medical health authorities in the other provinces were advised that shipments might have been made into those provinces. We have had replies from the health authorities of British Columbia, who have not as yet completed their investigations, and from Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, which found no brushes. The Ontario department of health found and seized a number of brushes which had been shipped into this country about two years ago. They are now proceeding to make an analysis, and the report of that analysis will not reach us until early next week. The Department of Health is in communication with the Department of National Revenue for the purpose of tracing any other such shipments to Canada and in order to inaugurate restrictions at the port of entry on similar shipments into Canada.



BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: On Monday last the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) called attention to an item which appeared in The Nation, a periodical published in New York, to the effect that two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had had an interview with a certain person who had been writing letters to Mr. Chamberlain criticizing British foreign policy in order to dissuade him from writing such letters, and that that gentleman answered that "just so long as postage stamps are available" he would keep on writing. My hon. friend wanted to know what the facts
were and whether such action is a part of government policy.
These letters were sent to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by Scotland Yard, in exactly the same way as Scotland Yard would investigate at the request of the Canadian police. The letters were not only abusive but scurrilous and libelous, contrary to the criminal code and in contravention of the postal regulations of Canada. In undemocratic countries anyone who wrote such letters as these would have been suppressed bymethods which are well known. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police merely tried to-convince that man that he should not write-such letters. If they erred in any way it wras on the side of leniency. The unfortunate part of it is that someone in a foreign country, just for the purpose of showing that the system is not good at the present time, should have written an item in disparagement of an administration of justice which bears comparison with the best existing anywhere.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask, is it usual for
Scotland Yard to communicate directly with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Should there not be a communication through the Secretary of State? Secondly, have we not courts? Why should there not have been a prosecution, instead of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police acting both as judge and policeman?


Ernest Lapointe: Well,
Mr. Speaker, it is the practice not only here but in every civilized country that, when they are required to do so, police authorities may investigate for the police authorities of another country, especially in respect of illegal acts. The man who wrote that letter ought to be either in a lunatic asylum or in gaol. I do not think the hon. member is quite fair in criticizing the police for having given a warning to desist from writing those letters. Had the writer of the letters been prosecuted there would have been good souls who would have said that he was being persecuted for having written to Mr. Neville Chamberlain.
Members of the government are receiving letters of that kind. His Excellency the Governor General is receiving letters of that kind, and we are investigating in an effort to find out who are the crazy or guilty ones who are doing it, in order to try to prevent it. I am surprised to hear the hon. member criticize that course of action.
The Address-Mr. McNiven



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 25, 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. Woodsworth.
Mr. D. A. McNIVEN (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like my first observation to be one of commendation of the hon. members who moved and seconded the address. Both performed in a most acceptable manner a difficult task, before a highly critical audience. Having lived in the constituency of Brandon for some twenty-five years, and having some knowledge of the political histoiy of that seat, I was particularly interested in the effort of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), who established himself as a worthy successor to that amiable and kindly gentleman, the late Mr. Beaubier, and to the long list of outstanding men who have represented that city in bygone years. It is significant that the hon. member who now holds the -seat is the first out-and-out Liberal to be *elected in Brandon since 1908, and that significant fact establishes the popular appeal the policies of this government have made to a seat which is both urban and rural. In addition, the hon. member came from Prince Edward Island, and forms part of the large group of maritimers who, having thrown in their lot with us, have made a substantial contribution to the building up and development of the last great west.
This is not the first occasion, Mr. Speaker, upon which the hon. member for Stormont {Mr. Chevrier) has captivated the house. I refer particularly to his address delivered in February, 1937, during the debate on the address in reply, upon which occasion he outlined the Liberal attitude towards capital and labour, and indicated a minimum which labour should receive. His address on that occasion will bear frequent perusal and I refer it to hon. members of the opposition who, while they have displayed an interest in jobs, have not shown any particular interest in that partnership of labour and capital which means security for employees. I forthwith exempt from that mild indictment the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Esling), who frequently has brought to the attention of the house the ideal conditions which prevail in the plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada, Limited, at Trail, British Columbia. By so doing he IMr. E, Lapointe.]
has given encouragement to industrialists throughout Canada to follow the excellent example of that company.
May I join with others in extending congratulations to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his selection as leader of the Conservative party and upon attaining a seat in the house. I was somewhat disturbed by a news dispatch of a couple of months ago which indicated that the great Conservative party had decided to abandon western Canada and the maritimes. It was with great relief I heard his declaration that there was no truth in that statement, that the great Conservative party was still an allCanadian party, and that in future it would function in western Canada. I am glad of that, and the hon. member both as leader of the Conservative party and personally may be assured of a cordial and warm welcome in the capital city of Saskatchewan.
May I extend my personal congratulations to the two new ministers who were honoured a few days ago. They bring to their jobs a long experience and a very high order of merit. The hon. minister without portfolio (Mr. MacKinnon) representing the constituency of Edmonton West, is a western man with an eastern background; the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) is an eastern man with a western background, having practised in western Canada for some nine years. They will therefore bring to the council chamber of the nation qualities designed to build an all-Canadian viewpoint.
I also join with hon. members who have expressed their pleasure upon the recovery of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) from his recent illness, a pleasure which was emphasized by the splendid reception accorded him when he entered the house on the opening day of the session. May I assure him that the sympathy extended to him by his innumerable friends throughout Saskatchewan was paralleled only by their relief and gratitude upon learning of his progress toward recovery, and by their expressed hope that he will soon be restored to that vigour which we in Saskatchewan know so well.
Apparently there was a meeting in Regina a few days ago, the subject matter of which was referred to by the hon. members for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) and Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), who attempted to magnify into something of national importance that which is really just a small and local matter. With that thought in mind the hon. member for Weyburn placed on Hansard a certain part of a newspaper dispatch. In order that we may recall the subject matter of the article, I shall repeat it:
Party men to decide.

The Address-Mr. McNiven
No jobs for others than Liberals, says Regina M.L.A.
A definite clamp has been placed upon the appointment of Regina residents to posts within the civil service that bars those whose political faith is other than Liberal, B. J. McDaniel, K.C., junior member-elect for Regina, told the meeting of the Liberal council at the Labour temple Tuesday night.
In future, said Mr. McDaniel, "no appointment will be deemed to be properly made unless it bears the initials of Mr. Hogarth (senior member-elect for Regina), Mr. McNiven (federal M.P. for Regina), or myself."
I am firm in the belief, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. McDaniel was either misreported or misunderstood, and in any event this forms an excellent example of what generally happens when a line, a sentence or a paragraph taken from a general discussion, is divorced from its context. A wrong impression of what was intended generally follows. I am confirmed in that belief because I know of no such arrangement as that described in the article in question. Further, in Saskatchewan there is what is known as a public service commission which looks after appointments, and hon. members know the extent to which the civil service commission has control over federal appointments. As an illustration of what I mean, within the last few weeks the provincial government appointed two police magistrates in the city of Regina. I was not consulted with regard to those appointments by any member of the Saskatchewan government, though I did make recommendations on behalf of individuals who asked me so to do.
During the course of that meeting an attempt was made to confine the discussion to the question of temporary appointments in the post office during the Christmas rush. When I was requested to assist the postmaster in securing extra help for the Christmas work I immediately got in touch with the various veterans' organizations, the Canadian legion, the war veterans' assistance commission, the army and navy veterans and the disabled war veterans, and asked them to furnish lists of those whom they could recommend. When the lists were furnished they were too lengthy for the employment that was available, and I asked the officers of these associations to select from their lists those whom they would recommend, having in mind the efficiency of the service and giving the preference to married men, particularly those with small children. This was done, and from those who interviewed me personally asking for employment a list of approximately 175 names was drawn up, which included those who had been recommended by the four service organizations. That list was forwarded to the postmaster in order that he might make the selection of
the help he required. Included among the individuals who came to see me was a returned soldier who had walked the streets of Regina for three months without a tooth in his mouth. He had served in France for two years, and I recommended him for employment so as to assist him in purchasing a set of teeth. I also promised him that further assistance would be forthcoming, from some source, in order to complete the purchase of a set of teeth.
No questions were asked as to political affiliations. The list was sent to the postmaster, and he made the selections therefrom as help was required. According to my information from the postmaster, 143 men were taken on during the Christmas rush. Of that number 31 were on what is described as the eligible list established by the civil service commission, who under the regulations were required to be given such employment as was available. Of the remainder 70 were returned soldiers, of whom 69 were married men. There were 42 civilians, of whom 33 had dependents. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this employment was divided on a fair, just and equitable basis, having regard to the efficiency of the service, and in accordance with the generally accepted principle of the greatest good to the greatest number.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: I think all
will agree that this was very fair, but is it not a fact that the manner in which these appointments were made is exactly what Mr. McDaniel was objecting to?


Donald Alexander McNiven: No, that is not so, as
the hon. member would have learned if he had referred to Mr. McDaniel's explanation of what occurred at the meeting. I am also informed that all these facts, which are generally known throughout Regina, were disclosed to and discussed at the meeting but were not mentioned in the report, which was the reason for Mr. McDaniel's explanatory statement. There was no complaint on the part of Mr. McDaniel with regard to the method that was followed in making these selections.
As an indication that this method met with general acceptance I have a telegram from F. J. Rowan, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian legion at Regina, addressed to myself, as follows:
Officers and members Canadian legion, Regina branch, express and desire to acknowledge publicly deepest appreciation your efforts in obtaining employment for ex-service men at post office during Christmas rush and on other occasions elsewhere.
The Address-Mr. McNiven

May I just mention that there have been other occasions when it was possible to provide employment in connection with work being done under the direction of the Department of Agriculture. Substantially the same method was followed on those occasions, with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture. Then I have another telegram from R. D. Lamont, secretary of the war veterans assistance commission at Regina:
No complaint from veterans' assistance commission re Christmas post office employees. Your cooperation entirely satisfactory.
I venture the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) could not conceive, much less execute, anything fairer than the manner in which the responsibility was discharged on this occasion. And, sir, that plan has been followed consistently since and including 1935, notwithstanding the fact that we in the city of Regina and the province of Saskatchewan had a harrowing experience with a coalition government made up largely of Conservatives but kept in office through the votes of friends and supporters of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in this house. Between 1929 and 1934 that government dismissed hundreds of employees for no reason other than that they were Liberals. Men and women who had been employed by the government for twenty or twenty-five years were dismissed; and, sir, it is singular that Mr. McDaniel, who is the hero of this tempest in a teapot, was himself an employee of the provincial government in 1929.
In 1930 he was dismissed from office by that government notwithstanding the fact that he was a returned soldier, notwithstanding the fact that he had been decorated upon the field of battle and notwithstanding the fact that he had been seriously wounded and was able to progress down the streets of Regina only with the assistance of a cane. Members of the legislature friends and supporters of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in this house by their votes kept that government in office from 1929 to 1934. But the hand of retribution fell heavily on them; for not a single supporter of that government was returned to office in 1934.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I rise to a point of order. If I do not misunderstand my hon. friend, the statement was made that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members in this house kept that government in office during those years. I would say that that statement is incorrect.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The friends and supporters of the Cooperative Commonwealth

Federation members in this house. Mr. McDaniel was elected to the provincial house on November 24 last. He was elected by a majority of over 4,000 over his Conservative opponent, by a majority of over 6,000 over his Cooperative Commonwealth Federation opponent-who was supported by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas)-and by a majority of over 10,000 over his Social Credit opponent, a cause with which the hon. member for Weyburn was in 1935 allied. I apologize for taking up so much time in dealing with this trifling incident.


Ernest Edward Perley: The statement the hon. member has made is apart from the record. If he will take the quotation he will see it reads, "In future-"


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman has a right to put a question to the hon. member who is speaking, but he should not make a speech.


Ernest Edward Perley: He should deal with the matter as reported.


Donald Alexander McNiven: The hon. gentleman will appreciate how difficult it is for me to deal with it when I was not present at the meeting. I say that I have no knowledge of any such arrangement at all, and I can only repeat that.
I believe that Mr. McDaniel has either been misreported or misunderstood, or the phrase has been taken from its context, with the damaging results that have been indicated.
I shall make only cursory reference to certain passages in the speech from the throne. Notwithstanding the continued efforts of its critics to weigh the speech from the throne by avoirdupois, or to measure it by yardage, by verbiage, by wordage and other methods, it becomes increasingly apparent that the speech from the throne is broad and comprehensive. When elaborated, as it was during the course of this debate by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), it is found to contain a broad and comprehensive program intended to carry to the homes of the people of this country the benefits of the policies of this government. So far as we in the west are concerned we welcome these trade treaties. We welcome the Canada-United States treaty in the same terms as it has been acclaimed in eastern Canada. The treaty of 1935 showed direct and positive benefits to those of us who reside in western Canada. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) pointed out yesterday, it did no specific harm to any existing business institution.	[DOT]
Some comment has been made doubting the significance of the international effects of the

The Address-Mr. McNiven
treaty. Never in the history of Canada or the United States have there been such friendly relations between the two countries as prevail at the present time, which relations have come about since the signing of that treaty in 1935. There is no doubt at all that the terms of the treaty of 1935 and the experience gained under it paved the way for the enlarged treaty of 1939. Once again doubts are being voiced as to the international effects to be obtained from this treaty. In this regard I should like to refer to the comment of Mr. Paul Van Zeeland, a former prime minister of Belgium, who was asked recently to make a report to the governments of France and the United Kingdom as to the possibility of obtaining a reduction in the number of quotas and the removal of other obstacles to international trade. Mr. Van Zeeland, in part, said:
-in the present state of affairs the negotiation of bilateral commercial agreements, based on the most favoured nation clause, remains one of the most efficacious methods for reducing tariff barriers.
And again, writing some ten months before the British-United States agreement was completed, he used this language:
No one would underestimate the effect which would be produced-either directly, in its reaction, on the two national economies concerned, or indirectly in its repercussion on the whole world, by the conclusion, in a spirit of international collaboration, of a commercial agreement covering a wide range between the two great Anglo-Saxon communities.
No matter what the critics of this agreement may say, the former prime minister of Belgium believes that it will have direct international effects with repercussions of benefit to the world. As an indication that tariffs are a disturbing element in the peace of the world, I should like to quote a short passage from the Fascist handbook which was issued on October 28, 1937. The following passage is to be found on page 88:
A prohibitive tariff policy was adopted by the United States; England first depreciated her currency and then closed her markets. The Ottawa agreements introduced differential tariffs throughout the British empire. Currency dumping vras practised on a large scale by Japan and other countries. Not content with tariffs, France introduced quotas and prohibitions, followed in this by most of the European countries, exchange regulations and blocked credits finally demoralized the markets, and paralyzed foreign trade.
For five long years from 1929 to 1934 Italy held out against the quotas and exchange control system. The Italian government participated in all efforts made by the league of nations and other international organizations in favour of freer trade, a policy which had the wholehearted support of her delegates, but all was in vain. The doctrines of exasperated "nationalism," economic "self-sufficiency" and manipulated currencies prevailed, and Italy had no choice but to resort to similar measures
in self-defence. But if the doctrine of economic "self-sufficiency" is to prevail, and if the settlement of international accounts by goods and services is ruled out, then the possession of adequate national resources is a question of life or death for a nation.
I should also like to cite this passage from the Nazi Primer at page 246:
Germany would in its present strained condition gladly and willingly buy from abroad the raw materials which we lack, if a sufficient possibility were given for doing so. Foreign countries, however, demand payment in foreign currency. The only way that we can obtain foreign money is by exporting German goods. In a senseless manner the countries with raw materials shut out German imports, isolate themselves in their great economic enclaves. Our exports have shrunk, therefore, in exactly the ratio that the revival of our country has increased our need for raw materials. For that reason the German economy in industry and handicrafts finds itself in very serious difficulties. If, therefore, German industry is to put all German workers back again, and to raise the production of goods to the point of doing awray with German poverty, extraordinary measures are necessary in order to obtain sufficient supplies of raw materials.
That is the attitude of the fascist and nazi governments, and it does seem to me that some move might be made by our government towards improving our trade relationships with these countries. I am told, for example, that there is a shortage of butter fats in Germany and Italy, while we have in storage some thirty to forty million pounds of butter. Could not a deal be made whereby the butter which Germany and Italy so much require could be exchanged for their products? Germany and Italy, in making such a deal, would be doing a good thing for their own countries, and at the same time the stress and strain on our economy would be relieved.
Reference is made in the speech from the throne to youth training. I shall make only a casual reference to that subject. Suffice it to say that in our province youth training has been a most interesting and productive experiment. In its first year of operation some nine thousand young men and women trained in the courses then provided, and some 566 took the courses in Regina. The courses are being continued and extended so that now instruction is given in subjects running all the way from beauty culture to aeroplane mechanics. A few days before I came down here I visited a home where a class was in progress for the training of domestic workers. They are making a splendid success of that undertaking, training girls for useful work in the future. Much has been said, and much may be said, about flaming youth, but that our young people are taking an interest in preparing themselves for the future is
33S
The Address-Mr. McNiven

evidenced by the attendance at our universities, where more are taking advantage of the educational courses offered than ever before, training themselves for that opportunity which will undoubtedly come with the return of something more nearly approaching normal times.
I notice that in the speech from the throne reference is made to agricultural distress, crop failure in western Canada, and the activities under the prairie farm rehabilitation plan. In that regard I should like to make a passing reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hyndman) when he was speaking in the debate. By the way, I wonder if the hon. member for Carleton would tell me if Carleton county is in his constituency.


Mr. HYNDMAN:: Ottawa is not.


Donald Alexander McNiven: If Carleton county is not in the constituency of Carleton I should like to know where it is. Anyway, it is right near here and I understand that Carleton county is represented in the house by the hon. gentleman. I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) lives in Carleton county.


Mr. DUNNING:: Yes, and I have a good member, too.


Donald Alexander McNiven: I was interested in an
article in the Ottawa Journal of. January 24, which show's that Carleton county in eight years has reduced its bonded indebtedness by over one million dollars; that in the year 1938 it paid off 8187,000 odd of principal, and also paid in interest charges, 875,775. They propose for the year 1939 paying off $193,000 of principal and $66,000 of interest, or a total of $260,000 odd; and the county has a schedule of payments for each year up to 1944 when their bonded indebtedness will be retired in full.
As I listened to the hon. gentleman the other day, he painted a gloomy picture of the dominion and of conditions in his own constituency, but these figures from his own constituency for the year 1938 prove that the policies of this government have had no detrimental effect but rather a beneficial effect on the constituency w'hieh he represents. Carleton county anticipates no detrimental effects for the future because it plans with confidence to make yearly payments of principal and interest up to the year 1944, expecting by that time that Liberal policies will have blossomed forth into full fruition.
The hon. member for Carleton, in his endeavour to establish that there W'as discord and disunity throughout Canada, referred to the province of Saskatchewan, and said:
I am not criticizing the government for the money that has been spent in that province-

For that I thank him.
-but writh all the money that was spent, even to win a provincial election, what do we find?
May I assure the hon. gentleman that if he had in mind federal money, there was no federal money spent in the province of Saskatchewan to win an election. What do we find?-he asked, and then proceeded to say:
They have raised the threat of secession-
And in order to establish that fact he quotes a resolution which reads as follows:
The United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, devoted a long debate to the subject at its annual convention and unanimously adopted a resolution instructing its board of directors "to assimilate and prepare authoritative material on the subject of setting up a western autonomous state within the British empire, governed by a single government elected democratically by the people."
Shortly after that resolution was passed, one of the leading newspapers of Saskatchewan, with a province-wdde circulation, provided through its columns for a vote on the question of secession and one or two kindred questions. Just to show you, Mr. Speaker, that secession is not an issue at all, is not even being considered in Saskatchewan, approximately only three thousand people made any response at all and gave their view's, and of those who did respond about one-half voted in favour of consideration of some such resolution as the hon. member quoted, while the rest wrere diametrically opposed to anything in the nature of secession. The fact that only three thousand people, out of a population of nearly one million, would pay any attention to the matter at all, is proof positive to me that there is nothing in the way of a threat involving secession from confederation. But seeing that agriculture, the bad crops and the distress in Saskatchewan have been referred to from time to time I thought it might be permissible, even at the risk of criticism for being narrow and parochial to address the rest of my remarks to conditions in that province.
Western Canada contains the finest expanse of good agricultural land to be found anywhere in the world, and the largest block intact, of that description, lies in Saskatchewan. In sixty-two years western Canada has produced 8,900,000,000 bushels of wheat valued at 10,200 million dollars; and in that same period it has exported 6,100 million bushels of wheat valued at 7,200 million dollars. In other words, in sixty-two years western Canada has brought into the country in the way of new wealth a sum equivalent to the entire debt of the whole of the dominion, federally, provincially, municipally and individually.

The Address-Mr. Brooks


Walter Edward Foster: I regret to interrupt the
hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


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


Donald Alexander McNiven: From 1918 to 1929 in our province alone we produced 4,150 million dollars of new wealth. For 1926, 1927 and 1928 our agricultural production was valued at $1,200,000,000 and in the year 1928 alone it amounted to nearly $500,000,000. And then the holocaust! From 1930 to 1935, a period of six years, production only totalled $817,000,000. The 1936 crop was reduced to 110,000,000 bushels, the 1937 crop was 37,000,000 bushels, and in 1938 our wheat crop approximated 140,000,000 bushels. These are astronomical figures, but conditions in the last eight years have exacted a terrific toll.
It may be asked, with that production why cannot you take care of yourselves? There are many reasons, prominent among them being the fact that certain laws, supply and demand and the currency question, have not been allowed to work out as they should have done; and western agriculture lias been the sufferer in every instance. Let me go back to the year 1917. In that year wheat sold at $3.05 a bushel on the Winnipeg grain exchange. The exchange was closed and a fixed price of $2.18 was made payable for the crops of 1916, 1917 and 1918, and that at a time when the United States farmer was selling his wheat at a price as high as $4.50 a bushel. The western farmer did not complain, but if you wish to ascertain the western farmers' contribution to the winning of the war, just multiply the production of each one of the prairie provinces by at least $1.50 or possibly $2 a bushel and you will get it. You will then know what the western farmers' contribution was to the winning of the war.
Wheat was the only commodity over which the government of the day took control, and notwithstanding that fixed price, the farmer had to pay war prices for everything he had to buy. During the deflationary period of 1930, 1931 and 1932 the Canadian dollar was tied to the United States dollar. I fully appreciate why that was done, but at the same time export commodities, principally wheat, had to meet competition with countries that had depreciated currencies, namely, the Argentine and Australia. At a time when the British pound was quoted at $3.70 it simply meant that the western agriculturist received less in terms of Canadian dollars than he would have got had the Canadian dollar been tied to the British pound. The hope of the western farmer lies in providing against wide fluctuations in price such as from $3 a bushel down to 38 cents, which was the prevailing price in 1932.
May I make one reference to the value of western farm lands as a matter of defence. Two years ago I heard Sir George Paish, one of the leading economists of the British empire, say that the war could not have been won, or in other words that the war would have been lost, had it not been for the bountiful crops of western Canada in 1915 and 1916 and the ability of the British government to transport those crops overseas. The most effective contribution that Canada can make to the defence of the empire and of our own country itself is in maintaining the wheat lands of western Canada and maintaining the population there on a reasonable standard of living.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: May I at the outset congratulate the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven), who has just made an excellent speech. It did seem to me, though, that it was a shame that so much of his time should have been taken up in explaining the rather questionable activities of one of his colleagues in Regina. It might be said of him, as has been said of others on other occasions, that he is blessed with one of the best friends a man was ever cursed with. Unfortunately, the " McDaniels " are not all located in western Canada or in Regina. I fear there are many in other part's of Canada and, if I may say so, the unjust patronage which is rampant in certain sections of the dominion is one of the greatest enemies of our democracy.
I take this opportunity to congratulate the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne upon the excellence of their speeches. I fancy they are becoming weary of congratulations; nevertheless the congratulations have been well deserved.
I was particularly interested in the remark of the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McNiven) with reference to the mover of the address in that he was a maritime province man. It has often occurred to me, as it must have to others throughout this dominion, to wonder just what other parts of Canada would have done had the maritime provinces not supplied them with their leading men in various activities of life.
I wish to congratulate the new Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) upon his appointment to that very important office. It is a well deserved tribute to his ability, and I am satisfied that in the short time he will hold that office he will do credit to it. I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) upon his promo-
The Address-Mr. Brooks

tion. While he is not a maritimer I believe he did the next best thing; he went to the maritime provinces and took one of our fair daughters as his wife. I have no doubt that the inspiration which he received and the success which he has attained are due to the good advice he received from that source.
In my province of New Brunswick we have been thrilled, as the people all over Canada have been, by the prospective visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen. I am sure their visit to our dominion is an expression of their love of and loyalty to the people of this country, just as the great welcome they will receive will be an expression of the love and loyalty of the people of Canada for them. In my own constituency of Royal we expect to have the pleasure of a rather more extended visit than some other constituencies in Canada are to enjoy. King's county, in which I reside, is one of the few counties in which their majesties are to take a motor trip. Driving from Moncton to Sussex they will see the beautiful Kennebecasis valley, and on their trip from Fredericton to Saint John they will have the pleasure of seeing the beautiful Saint John river.
The speech from the throne made reference to the formal visit of the President of the United States to the Dominion of Canada. We in New Brunswick had many visits from Mr. Roosevelt before he became president. He spent many of his boyhood days on the beautiful little island of Campobello in the bay of Fundy, and doubtless the good feeling he entertains for this country and for the people of the British empire was more or less inspired by his contact with that part of Canada.
There is a criticism I should like to make with reference to visits of distinguished guests to our country, and it is this: that on too many occasions they are led to believe that Canada begins at Montreal and ends on the Pacific coast. Only last year a number of such visits were organized, supposed to be to eastern Canada. One party consisting of 200 Scottish school boys came out to see the eastern part of this country; their itinerary embraced Quebec, Montreal, the Laurentian mountains, Ottawa, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, London, Port Stanley, Toronto and Kingston, but did not include the maritime provinces. Another party of 200 under the auspices of the Overseas League-this by the way was the largest party organized by the Overseas League in the United Kingdom for travel in Canada, and represented one of the most important steps in furthering the chief aim of the league, namely, the cementing of friendly relations between the different parts of the 
British commonwealth of nations by the actual exchange of visits-this party visited Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Niagara Falls, and returned to Great Britain, although the tour also purported to cover the eastern provinces. A similar thing happened to the British parliamentarians who visited Canada recently; they commenced their visit at Quebec and ended it at Vancouver and Victoria. This is unfair to the three eastern provinces, and I hope that those who are responsible for such visits will see that this neglect is not continued.
The speech from the throne refers to the very important matter of defence. I am sure that all citizens of Canada to-day realize that defence is one of our most urgent necessities, and one of the biggest problems facing us. With world conditions what they are and have been for the past number of years, with nations seeming to be preparing to spring at one another's throats, and with conditions such as they have been in Ethiopia and Spain and China, it almost looks as if this old world were slithering back to the Middle Ages. If an emergency comes it will come quickly, so we must be prepared. I commend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) for the preparations he is making; I can only say that they are belated and not as extensive as they should be. In this morning's paper we see that a sum of $63,-
500,000	is to be provided for the defence of Canada, to be expended over a period of years. In the newspapers a short time ago we noticed that the Commonwealth of Australia also realizes that she must defend her territory against possible invasion. That dominion with only seven million people has voted some $250,000,000 to be expended over a period of three years. Australia is spending for defence something over $11 per person, while in our present estimate we are proposing to expend $5 per person.
I feel that we in eastern Canada have again been neglected as far as defence is concerned. The ports of Saint John and Halifax are without any adequate defence. We are told that the aeroplane is a great arm of defence. Other authorities tell us that the aeroplane is not the proper weapon for defence of cities and ports. Be that as it may, I am satisfied that at these two ports on the eastern coast we must have more antiaircraft guns, more artillery and coast defence. These I believe, as the minister told me last year, will take something like three years to provide.
As a maritimer I feel that we have another quarrel with the Minister of National Defence. I notice in this morning's paper that

The Address-Mr. Brooks
SI,800,000	is appropriated for Royal Canadian Air Force works in Nova Scotia. Last year I complained, and I complain again, that no appropriation has been made for military air fields in New Brunswick. We consider the port of Saint John just as necessary to the commercial life of this country, and of the maritime provinces in particular, as the port of Halifax; and it seems singular that there should be SI,800,000 spent in Nova Scotia, and five military air fields established in that province, and not one in New Brunswick. This item says:
More than $1,800,000 will be appropriated for the R.C.A.F. works in Nova Scotia. These embrace $919,000 for four hangars and other works at Dartmouth; $170,000 for runways at Yarmouth; $570,000 for runways at Sydney and $258,000 for magazines, quarters and runways at Truro.
If we are to defend the port of Saint John by air I claim there should be a military air field in the vicinity of that city. I also wish to give my approval to the formation of the defence purchasing board. It rather looks as if this is the direct result of the Davis report, and I would say it is all to the good for both Canada and the department. There is no member of this house, and I am sure there is no right thinking person in Canada, who does not feel that as far as profits are concerned there should be none from the various activities necessary to equip the militia of this country. I hope the activities of this board will be extended to include all the operations of the defence department, including both the permanent and the non-permanent militia.
Last year I called to the attention of the minister a matter which he admitted was a mess as far as his department was concerned. That was in connection with the building of the Venture by the Meteghan Shipbuilding Company in Nova Scotia, and I believe that matter has not been settled yet. The man who obtained that contract never would have been considered, I am sure, if there had been a board of this kind. In the first place the contractor was not capable of handling such a contract, and it is common knowledge that his men have not beep, paid, that the selection of the men for the work reeked with patronage and that labour was being exploited. Finally the Minister of Labour had to have an investigation into the activities of this company.	*
Now I come to a matter which is of very great importance to Saint John, the port of my own province, and also to Halifax. According to reports appearing in the newspapers of that part of the country, people are not satisfied with the explanation given
by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) here a few days ago. He quoted figures to show that there had been more wheat shipped from Canada in the five years prior to 1932 than in the five years following 1932. He did not say to what ports he was referring, nor did he give what is perhaps the chief explanation, that there was less wheat produced in Canada in the latter five years. According to my information, during the five years prior to 1932 we produced 2,056,244,000 bushels of wheat, while during the five years from 1932 to 1937 we produced only 1,241,304,000 bushels, or not much more than half as much. So it would not be logical to argue that during the five years in which we produced over two billion bushels of wheat there should not be more exported than during the period when we produced only a little over a billion bushels.
The minister also quoted from a report appearing in the Telegraph-Journal of January 10, under the heading, Grain Shipments Key to Port Problem, Workers Maintain. He was answering, as it were, the contention made by the heads of the longshoremen's association in Saint John. The president of that association is Leicester Wearing and the secretary is James Steen. These men are thoroughly informed in regard to everything concerning the port of Saint John, the shipping of grain and other commodities, rates and charges, and, in fact, all matters pertaining to the port. In an open letter regarding conditions in Saint John they have this to say:
That we are of the opinion that when the Anglo-American trade pact was signed, Canada was sadly neglected. The fact that British millers, within a week after pact was signed, placed an order for half a million tons of wheat with American shippers, coupled with the knowledge that in the last few days steamers have left our port to go to Baltimore to load grain, is sufficient proof for the members we represent to make this statement.
They also go on to say that the day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) made the statement that the Anglo-American trade pact was one of the greatest achievements of the Canadian year, grain shipments through Saint John to steamers amounted to S74.473 bushels as against 5,024,716 bushels on the same day the previous year; while on track and in elevator there were 337,437 bushels as compared with 2,418,763 on the same day in the previous year. Speaking of trade going to the American ports they say:
We do not expect the trade conditions in this port to show much improvement in the near future; steamers are leaving here with only part cargoes, some calling at American ports to complete loading. . . .
The Address

Mr. Brooks

During December the steamer Brant County came to Saint John, discharged a few hundred tons of freight and went to Baltimore to load a full cargo of grain.
The S.S. Cape Lena came here with 160,000 bushels of wheat loaded at Baltimore.
There is talk of the S.S. Melmore Head, now in port, discharging coal, going to Baltimore for grain.
That was on January 10. Since then there have been many more instances of the ports of Saint John and Halifax being neglected, in connection with grain shipments, in favour of United States ports. Here is a dispatch from Boston, under date of January 19:
First Canadian wheat to move through the port of Boston to British markets in more than two years, a shipment of 24,000 bushels will be placed in the steamship Newfoundland Saturday for delivery at Liverpool.
I could go on and read a great many similar statements, but it is not my intention to do so. In the mail this afternoon, just before I came into this house, I received a letter from the secretary of the longshoremen's union of Saint John. Among other things he says:
. . . never in the experience of the writer (nineteen years at this work) has work been so poor as this year has proven to be; and it was forecast on December 8, when this local took this matter, along with other points in dispute, up with Hon. Mr. Howe. . . .
Let me assure you that conditions here are terrible in so far as port business is concerned, and our members are not earning sufficient to keep their families while in previous years, at this time, they would be quite comfortable.
Irregardless of what Messrs. Howe, Euler, Michaud and Gardiner state in their remarks during sessions, the fact that steamers are coming here, discharging a few hundred tons of cargo and sailing to American ports to pick up Canadian grain, is convincing enough proof that there is some advantage over our port held by United States ports, and we are of the opinion that the preference abolishment, coupled with bonuses to American wheat exporters by U.S. government and railroad freight charges and elevation charges reduced, are the causes.
Then, too, in the Telegraph-Journal of yesterday, which I received just before coming into the chamber, there is a splendid editorial headed, Grain Elevation Charges. In this editorial it is stated that the one-cent charge per bushel in the elevators of Halifax and Saint John as against the half-cent charge in United States ports is having a very bad effect on the shipment of grain through those two ports. May I be pardoned to the extent of reading a part of the editorial as follows:
Steps should be taken to see that Canadian ports do not suffer as a result of competition from ports outside the dominion boundaries. If Canada is to gain the full benefits possible from the grain trade, which is heavily subsidized with federal funds to which all parts of Canada contribute, then no circumstance should be disregarded which will guide the flow of that trade over Canadian transportation

systems and through Canadian ports. The case presented to Ottawa by the Saint John Board of Trade should have the weight of Canadian public opinion behind it, and it should receive from the Ottawa authorities the attention which its national importance demands.
Saint John suffers also from discrimination as compared with Halifax in the matter of elevator storage charges on grain, which are assessed here but not collected in Halifax. This is another matter to which the National Harbours Board should give attention to put all national ports on the same basis.
I believe the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. McAvity), speaking last night, called the government's attention to that matter. Again, in yesterday's issue of the Moncton Times-


Mr. HOWE:: On a point of order, I
would ask the chair if it is in order to read editorials from newspapers.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: On the point
of order raised by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) may I point out that usually veiy wide latitude is given in the debate on the address in reply. I believe hon. members who have preceded the hon. member who has the floor have been permitted to read editorials.


Mr. SPENCE:: Everybody has.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Every day.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: They not only read
editorials; they read their whole speeches.


Clarence Decatur Howe: But occasionally put in a
little of their own material, though.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is exactly what we
are doing. The article is as follows:
Conditions at Halifax port described as far from satisfactory.
High elevator tolls divert traffic to United States.
Alarm expressed by retiring president oyer proposed cancellation of three per cent excise tax on goods shipped through United States ports as against direct to Canada.


Mr. ISNOR:: What paper is that?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The Moncton Times. It
is not my intention further to discuss the matten of the ports of Saint John and Halifax. The condition in which the labouring men find themselves in those ports this year is generally known.
When the Canada-United States treaty was first talked about the maritime provinces were led to believe, and possibly in some parts still believe, that they will derive great benefits from the reduction of duty on fish. The condition of the fishermen of Nova Scotia, as well as of those in other parts of the maritime provinces, has been very bad. For a

The Address-Mr. Brooks
number of years succeeding politicians have held out promises to them for a betterment of their condition. In 1935 they were told that so far as the export of fish to the United States was concerned, reductions would be made in duty. All hon. members know there was very little if any benefit so far as those reductions were concerned.
Then again, when the Anglo-United States-Canadian trade arrangements were talked about, the fishermen of maritime provinces were led to believe that great benefits would be achieved by reductions in duties. A few days ago I listened in vain to the speech of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) for any indication from him of any great benefits that were to accrue to the fishermen of his province, or to any other part of the maritime provinces. He did say that the fishermen were receiving bonuses which were helping them to live. He did say that when they reached old age they would receive old age pensions. Surely this is a poor commentary on one of the great industries of Canada.
Not so long ago I read a speech delivered by the Hon. Joseph Howe, the great Nova Scotian and Canadian, also a great Britisher. In that speech he foretold great things for his native province. He spoke about the fishing industry, and said the day would come when the fishing industry of the maritime provinces would foe one of the great industries of Canada. He spoke, too, of the prosperity of the men who go down to the sea in ships. He said the day would come when the maritime provinces would have over a half million men obtaining a living from the fisheries and the coastal trade. He said, too, that before the turn of the century the population of his native province of Nova Scotia would exceed a million people. All hon. members know how those prophecies have turned out.


Mr. KINLEY:: He was against confederation, too.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: He was against confederation for a time, I believe. I come from an inland constituency and will confess that I have very little knowledge gained from practical experience in the fishing industry. For that reason I was interested in an article in the Commercial News, the organ of the Halifax board of trade, in which the following was stated:
The looked-for reductions in duties by the export fish trade in connection with the Canada-United States treaty have not materialized.
It goes on to say that the salt fish industry will obtain less benefit from the treaty as it now reads than it would appear at first glance.
While the reductions are quite substantial, it must be remembered that Newfoundland receives the same treatment under the agreement. The maritime salt fish merchants hoped and expected an equalization in the rate of duty, both over and under 33 per cent moisture content, which would put them in a better competitive position with Newfoundland in the important Puerto Rico market.
The industry was also keenly disappointed in the failure to secure a reduction in the duty on salt mackerel-apparently Norway is the major supplier of this article, and the United States will only grant reductions on articles to the country which is the main supplier.
Then, again, The Maritime Merchant gives the opinion of Mr. F. Homer Zwicker, secretary-treasurer of a well known Lunenburg fish firm. He says that at first the people seemed to be well pleased, but that now they are highly displeased with the provisions in the treaty respecting fish.
If I understood the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg rightly the other day he said that the Minister of National Revenue was to be congratulated upon his courage in foregoing certain rights for apples, in Nova Scotia, in preference to fish. I looked in Hansard afterwards and I found that statement was not there. I may say I took the hon. member's words down when he was speaking, but I did not find them in Hansard later on.


John James Kinley: Mr. Speaker, what inference is the hon. member making?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Well, I am not making any inference. I simply say that I took the statement down while the hon. member was speaking, and when I looked in Hansard later it was not there.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Probably it was struck out.


John James Kinley: The hon. member took it down improperly, then, or incorrectly.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I was fairly close to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, and my hearing is pretty good.


John James Kinley: What I said is there.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: It is a well known fact that the apple growers have not been particularly pleased as far as their market in the United Kingdom is concerned. Practically one hundred per cent of their export apples have been shipped to that market. What the effect of the present treaty will be, we will have to wait to see. However, one thing is certain: there will be a reduction of two shillings per barrel in the price received by the app.le producers.


James Houston Spence: Two and three pence.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Two and three pence.
The hon. member for St. John-Albert referred last night to the great benefits that
The Address-Mr. Brooks

were accruing to the port of Saint John because of the West Indies treaty. I am not sure that his views are shared by people in other parts of the maritimes. I see the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Isnor) smiling. There is no doubt that the ships coming into Saint John every two weeks loaded with bananas from the West Indies do create some work for the people of Saint John. In that respect I think it has been of great benefit and is appreciated. We hope' that these benefits will continue. But the British West Indies treaty which was negotiated by the Liberal government in 1925 has not been beneficial to the maritime provinces. In fact the results have been just the reverse. I am sure there are hon. members who will agree with me when I say that the loss of our salt fish market in the West Indies has been due to that treaty. We also lost our great Cuban market for potatoes. To further their own ends politicians in the maritime provinces have tried to make out that this treaty was not responsible for those results. I should like to quote the opinion of Mr. O. F. Mackenzie, a fisheries expert who was engaged last year by the federal government to investigate southern fisheries markets. Speaking before the rotary club in Halifax a short time ago, he said:
The claim has been repeatedly made that the dump duties were responsible for the loss of our Cuban markets for codfish and potatoes. No one knows better than the gentlemen doing the talking that dumping duties had nothing to do with the loss of this trade.
As I say, it has been claimed for years by certain politicians in the maritime provinces that the dump duties brought about these results.


John James Kinley: What do you say?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I say that the dump duties, were not the cause of it.


Mr. EULER:: The result or the cause, which?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The loss of that market was brought about by the British West Indies treaty. That is the opinion of Mr. Mackenzie who was employed last year by this government. Speaking a few days ago the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in effect that the people of Canada were blessed by the results of the 1935 treaty. I wonder what would be the present condition of our people if that treaty had not been negotiated? Let us consider some of the products of our provinces. Take lumber, for instance. How much lumber, over and above the ordinary shipments, has been shipped to the United States since that treaty came into force? Lumbermen will tell you that that

treaty was of no benefit as far as their product was concerned. In 1936 we shipped 111,780,000 feet of lumber to the British market, and
148.522.000	in 1937. In 1936 we shipped
56.134.000	feet to the United States and
53.757.000	in 1937. The hon. member for St. John-Albert spoke of having seen ships at Saint John loading lumber. I should like to know to what destination that lumber was being shipped. I know it was not being loaded for the United States. Those shipments were not brought about because of the treaty negotiated in 1935 by his government. Those shipments were brought about because of the operations of the 1932 treaty negotiated by the Bennett government of that day.
Let me consider apples for a moment. I wonder what the present position with regard to apples would be if the treaty of 1935, which the Prime Minister says was of great benefit to this country, had not been negotiated. In 1936 Nova Scotia shipped 929,348 barrels of apples to the British empire market, and in 1937 the shipments totalled 1,089,655 barrels. Shipments from Nova Scotia to the United States in 1936 totalled 60 barrels, and the 1937 shipments consisted of 72 barrels. The province of New Brunswick shipped 48,523 barrels in 1936 to British empire markets, and the 1937 shipments totalled 25,744 barrels. The shipments to the United States amounted to 38 barrels in 1936 and 33 barrels in 1937. Where was the great benefit to the apple growers under that 1935 agreement?
What about milk? No milk was shipped from the maritime provinces. What about bacon? England has been the great market for bacon, as it has been for many other products of Canada. My time will not permit me to go further into this matter, but I simply want to say that as far as the primary producers of the maritime provinces are concerned, the statement made by the Prime Minister is not borne out by the facts.
The question of unemployment has been discussed extensively in this house. I do not intend to criticize or commend in detail the methods adopted by this government and by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in particular to stamp out unemployment. I believe it is generally known throughout this country that unemployment is still rife. As far as New Brunswick is concerned I believe there is more unemployment to-day than there has been for a number of years.


Frederick George Sanderson: I regret to
have to inform the hon. member that he has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.
rANUARY 26, 1939
The Address-Mr. MacNeil


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member may continue with the unanimous consent of the house.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: There has been much less lumbering in my own county. I have seen men come in there from Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and the northern part of New Brunswick looking for work in the woods; they walked long distances into the woods only to be told that there was nothing for them to do. I think it is generally realized that in New Brunswick conditions were never worse than they are at the present time. It was with considerable interest that I read a recent article by the Right Hon. Margaret Bondfield, a former minister of labour in the British government. She made a visit to Canada and the United States to study labour conditions, and speaking with reference to the youth in the United States she said:
Young men are made to feel that their country is looking after them.
Referring to Canada she had this to say:
It appears that no one takes the slightest responsibility for the Canadian youth once he is unemployed.
That is a terrible indictment of this government. It is a terrible indictment of our country.
In closing I have just a word or two to say about economic appeasement. I wonder why in a democratic country there should be talk of the necessity of economic appeasement in order to defend democratic institutions. What are the great democratic countries of the world? They are France, England and the United States. Is it not logical and reasonable to expect that these three nations should stand together both for their own defence and for the defence of democracy? We in Canada are very proud of France and England. During the great war these two nations fought shoulder to shoulder, and I believe they were fighting the battles of democracy. They are still standing shoulder to shoulder, but it is just as much in the interests of the United States that democracy should survive in this world as it is in the interests of the British empire or in the interests of France. Why then should we talk of economic appeasement?
The Prime Minister prates of health and peace and sweet content being the rightful heritage of all. Why should the longshoreman and the workingman in the city of Saint John, for example, be sacrificed for the economic appeasement of the longshoreman and workingman in Baltimore or some other
port of the United States? Why should the primary producers and our workers in the factories of this country be sacrificed for the economic appeasement of workers elsewhere? I do not believe that the American people require it; I do not believe they want it. I believe they are willing and anxious to stand shoulder to shoulder with the British empire and France in the defence of that democracy which we all love. In this recent treaty I fear that Canada has again paid too high a price, and that the treaty is out of balance, as far as lasting benefits to Canada are concerned.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIE (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, other members of this group have given adequate reasons for supporting the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), and I associate myself heartily with their views. But at this time I intend to confine my attention to those references in the speech from the throne which deal with national defence and the proposed defence purchasing board. I am aware that these matters will be discussed in more detail later; nevertheless, in view of certain recent disquiet-rg disclosures. 1 believe the government should at the earliest possible date give more adequate assurances that conditions repugnant to the public interest will be rectified.
In the forecast of the legislative program set forth in the speech from the throne, priority is given to the proposal to increase substantially appropriations for national defence and for the establishment of a defence purchasing board. At this stage I shall not attempt to discuss whether such increased appropriations are justified, but I express the hope that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) will take the house fully into his confidence as to the policies to be pursued and as to the manner in which these huge sums will be applied. It is important that the government, before embarking on such policies, should give more definite assurances than have heretofore been given that Canada will receive full value in defence measures for every dollar spent on defence. Increased defence appropriations will place additional burdens on the Canadian taxpayer and will demand of the Canadian people further sacrifices. Clearly we have reached the point where increased expenditure for this purpose will retard the promotion and development of necessary social services. Before launching a still greater spending program to provide armaments for Canada, this country has a right to expect the closest and most rigorous scrutiny of the spending method? of
The Address-Mr. MacNeil

those to whom t he administration of those vast sums is entrusted. The competency of these men is now a matter of grave doubt.
The minister has stated publicly on more than one occasion that because of the limitations of the appropriations made by parliament he could not make satisfactory progress in providing for the defence of Canada. It is now evident that something more than huge appropriations are needed to guarantee us defence against external dangers. In the period between 1918 and 1937 something in the vicinity of three hundred million dollars was expended in defence. Yet the minister in 1937 rose in his place and said that defence had been so neglected that Canada was without any means of defence. Apparently the trifling sum of approximately three hundred million dollars entrusted to the general staff had gone with the wind.
In the last two years an additional seventy million dollars has been made available to the defence department. Apparently with regard to coastal defence the results achieved have been negligible. No one can understand where the money has gone. The sums voted by parliament in the last three years, approximately ninety million dollars, should have made evident some effective measures of coastal defence. Must we conclude that the clue to the mystery is to be found in the recent judicial inquiry into the Bren machine gun contract? One contract out of many was submitted to a searching inquiry, and the most amazing circumstances have been disclosed. We knew that the Department of National Defence was becoming one of the biggest spending departments of the government. We now have good cause to regard it as the most wasteful and inefficient. We have good cause to ask if the additional millions requested from parliament are actually for the defence of Canada or for the defence of the profits of the privileged ring of armament manufacturers. We now discover that department officials have shown the most arrogant disregard of policies enunciated in parliament and accepted by parliament in good faith. It now rests with parliament to determine whether there has been a gross betrayal of public trust.
During the last session members of this group endeavoured to obtain from the Minister of National Defence more definite information regarding the conditions under which the Bren machine gun contract had been negotiated and executed. We got from the minister in this regard little more than the most eloquent assurance that it was the best of all possible contracts for the Dominion of Canada. It is a matter of regret that the
(Mr MarNpil.1
minister did not discuss the matter with greater frankness and that it required a judicial inquiry to unearth facts which should have been in the possession of the house when the matter was under consideration. The minister can no longer boast that it is one of the finest contracts ever made on behalf of Canada. I venture to predict that it will prove to be one of the most humiliating episodes in his public career.
It was claimed in press releases at the time the commissioner's report was tabled that the department had received complete exoneration. Nothing could be further from the truth. No one was exonerated except in the matter of personal graft and corruption, which was never in question. The very fact that the commissioner found it necessary to recommend an entirely new method of awarding contracts of this kind is by implication a condemnation of the method followed in this instance. If it had been shown that the method of placing government contracts followed in this instance had been entirely satisfactory, the commissioner would have said so. Instead he recommends a drastic change in the whole system. The government now finds it necessary to act on this recommendation. The methods which we questioned last year, and which were then defended by the government, must now be discarded because the public interests were then inadequately safeguarded. The condemnation of departmental administration is indirect, nevertheless so plain that he who runs may read.
In an editorial the Winnipeg Tribune aptly said that the commission might be described as having done a very neat job of washing its hands and holding its nose alternately. It also said that Mr. Justice Davis had parked that squawling brat, the Bren gun contract, right back on the dominion government's doorstep where it belongs. That exactly describes the situation in language which is easily understood. The commissioner places on record certain facts with regard to which he reports there was no dispute. He states:
It will be for those charged with the responsibility of dealing with the facts, i.e., the government and parliament, to examine and study them and to take such action, if any, as they may sec fit.
Further than this, the commissioner places certain issues squarely before parliament. Parliament is asked to judge on the facts in evidence, as to-
(1)	Whether Bren guns should be produced by the government in publicly-owned fac-

The Address-Mr. MacNeil
tories or through private manufacture (page 10 of the report).
(2)	Whether the conduct of the individuals *concerned was above question (page 35).
(3)	Whether adequate reasons existed for the failure of the interdepartmental committee to report back to the government when the system of supervision of contracts broke down (page 41).
(4)	Whether the procedure followed in negotiating this contract protected the public interest (page 49).
(5)	Whether proper steps were taken to ensure proper discharge of the responsibility assumed in the selection of a favoured contractor (page 50).
I contend that these issues should be dealt with by parliament before we approve further appropriations to be administered by those whose administrative competency is now a matter of grave doubt.
From time to time the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) have given assurances in this chamber as to the policies that would be pursued in placing armament contracts. I submit that the facts disclosed in the commissioner's report indicate that in many important respects no attempt was made to give effect to these policies in administration. As a matter of fact, it is shown by the evidence that the intentions of the government as declared in the house and accepted in good faith were evaded and even thwarted by those responsible for the negotiations leading up to the execution of this contract. This administration is on record as favouring the principle of public ownership as applied to the manufacture of armaments, particularly during peace time. When on the witness stand, the Minister of National Defence was most emphatic in his declaration on this point. The evidence shows that senior officers with responsible positions on the defence council had advocated the establishment by the government of a plant capable of meeting the requirements of the Canadian forces in respect to the Bren gun. These officers pointed to the unsatisfactory results which had followed the placement of similar orders in privately-owned factories in other dominions. The minutes of the defence council as recorded in the evidence make it quite clear that in 1936 there was a considerable weight of technical opinion on the side of public ownership. The original agreement between the British government and the patentee stipulated that manufacture in the dominions should be in a factory operated by the government in question. Even while Major Hahn was in England negotiating for
his contract, the chief of general staff argued in a memorandum made in October, 1936, for the establishment of a government-operated rifle and gun plant. If manufacturing in government plants was ever seriously contemplated, why was a favoured contractor commissioned to secure secret information in England for his own purposes when at that time an officer of the Department of National Defence had the necessary technical information?
The reason given by the minister, when on the stand, for his non-adherence to the principle of public ownership was the limitations of appropriations made by parliament. He described these appropriations as meagre and stated that it was impossible even to make a start towards the establishment of government-operated plants. When the Bren gun was under consideration, he stated that he had been provided with an estimate showing that from 830,000,000 to 835.000,000 would be required to proceed with such a scheme. Actually, when this estimate was mentioned in the minutes of the defence council, it referred to the creation of a complete group of government manufacturing establishments on a scale that would meet all the requirements of the Canadian forces.
The commissioner was in doubt upon this point, for at page 11 of the report he says:
But the testimony given before the commission established that only 00,000 square feet of space was necessary for the purpose of production of the 7,000 Bren guns for Canada as well as 5,000 guns for the War Office and that an entirely new building (apart from land) would cost approximately $120,000. In proposal "B" of Major Hahn (Exhibit 11) of December 29, 1936, the building was shown at an estimated cost of $104,196.40.
This testimony should be considered in conjunction with the terms of the contract which placed government equipment at Valcartier and Quebec at the disposal of the John Inglis Company and made provision for a substantial reimbursement on the purchase of additional equipment required. No real attempt was made to explore the possibilities of public manufacture. It does not require an expert accountant to show that a government-owned plant might have been established, as originally stipulated by the British government, at a cost within the bounds of the appropriations made by parliament.
Furthermore, apparently no attempt was made to examine the possibilities of manufacture in plants already under government control. It was reported to the house last session that a complete survey had been made of such plants, and we know there are such
The Address-Mr. MacNeil

For some time the British government insisted upon its desire to deal with the Canadian government and not directly with a Canadian manufacturer. The report makes it clear that from the earliest stage of the discussions and negotiations it was the aim of the department to secure a complementary order from the War Office for Hahn's firm. Subsequently Colonel Orde, judge-advocate-general, assisted in drafting the contract between the British authorities and the John Inglis Company. The commissioner states 'That pressure from Canada upon the War Office during the period was continuous is in my view the proper inference from the facts directly proved in evidence." Contrary to the statement made by the minister in the house last session, it was this pressure for a full year from the Department of National Defence which secured a profitable contract from the British government for the John Inglis Company. I refer to the minister's statement which appears at page 3555 of Hansard for June 3, 193S.
The Prime Minister also assured the house that all such contracts would be reviewed by the interdepartmental committee. The commissioner in his report points to the breakdown of this system and to the failure of the committee to report back to the government, The chairman of this committee is the deputy minister of the Department of National Defence. The committee wanted to get price comparisons from other competent companies. They kept urging some method of competitive bidding. The chairman indicated that he had then an understanding that the British authorities would not deal with any other firm. Later, in February, 193S. he intimated to the committee that the British government had picked the John Inglis Company. When the committee suggested that a cablegram be sent to the British War Office asking, "Will you or will you not deal with a selected list of companies?" the deputy minister is reported as feeling very strongly about the matter and practically insisting that they must not take such action. The committee was forced to accept the deputy minister's word that the British government would deal with no other company than the John Inglis Company.
This becomes a serious matter when the proceedings of the interdepartmental committee are viewed in the light of the negotiations conducted with the British government from 1936 and the pressure actually exercised to persuade the British government to place an order with one particular company. The minister accepts full responsibility for the

actions of the officers of his department. I look to him to explain whether or not the committee was shamefully deceived and misled as to the true facts in the case.
The truth about the situation must be plain to every hon. member who reads the report. It was one of the rankest and most barefaced political patronage deals ever foisted upon a long-suffering public. When political patronage is admitted at the back-door, all businesslike and patriotic considerations are thrown out of the window. This becomes especially serious when patronage is extended to armament contracts. Patronage becomes the most convenient cloak for our profiteers to cash in on the profits of the next war. The report of the commissioner contains one clear-cut illustration of how patronage operates to block ordinary, clean, honest, businesslike methods. On August 24, 1936, the hon. member for Trinity wrote to the Prime Minister stating that a group of friends in Toronto were fully equipped to manufacture munitions. On October 25, 1936, the deputy minister, following several conversations, wrote to the Department of External Affairs asking that Major Hahn be sponsored in the British War Office by the high commissioner. He described Major Hahn as representing- and I quote:
-a reliable group, which controls certain manufacturing plants, capable of manufacturing armament and munitions-
He did not wait until he had received a report on the plant from the officers of his department, but subsequently he did receive a report which reads in part as follows, and I am quoting from page 22 of the commissioner's report:
This plant is primarily equipped for the manufacture of boilers, turbines and the working of heavy plate generally. _ All equipment is in reasonably good condition, considering the length of time it has been in use.
The machinery at present in this factory with few exceptions is unsuited for the manufacture of aircraft, but it might be used for the manufacture of tanks or shells . . *_
This factory is at present inoperative and has not been in operation since April, 1936, There is no design staff at present employed and the total number of workmen now employed consists of three men as factory maintenance staff.
Another officer reported:
This firm is equipped to do heavy engineering work, boilers, etc. The shops would require to be stripped of their equipment to be suitable for aircraft construction. The shops are more suitable for shells, gun carriages, etc., than for aircraft or aircraft engines.
Thus it appears that both the communication of the hon. member for Trinity and the communication of the deputy minister were grossly inaccurate.

The Address-Mr. T.remblay


Mr. PLAXTON:: I should like to question that statement, and I would like the hon. member, while he is speaking, to point out the inaccuracy. I do not wish to interrupt, but I should like him to do that.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The hon. member may read his letter to the Prime Minister and the letter of the deputy minister to the Department of External Aflairs, and compare them with the reports I have just read. I submit that I am fully justified in drawing the conclusion that his letter was inaccurate.


Hugh John Plaxton: Well, the facts speak for themselves.


Charles Grant MacNeil: During the argument by counsel special reference was made to that inaccuracy and to the responsibility of the hon. member in that regard. There is no evidence to show that this information was communicated to the British War Office. Apparently the British authorities were allowed, during the negotiations which followed, to proceed on the assumption established in the letter of the deputy minister. The minister gave evidence on the stand that he did not know the personnel of the group behind Major Hahn, and did not know what previous experience they had in the manufacture of precision steel; he stated that he was completely in the dark on these matters. The deputy minister also swore that he did not know who were included in this "reliable group." According to the report, not until May, 1937, were any inquiries made as to the financial standing of Major Hahn, when a banker's reference was obtained. Why were ordinary business precautions so grossly neglected, if there was not the determination to place this contract to the advantage of political friends?
The report confirms statements I have made on previous occasions with regard to the inefficiency of the Department of National Defence. There is evidently a lamentable lack of coordination between the administrative and technical branches. If these huge expenditures are to provide a party "pork-barrel," we shall get little in the way of actual defence. I suggest that hon. members read the volume of appendices issued with the first volume of the official war history and refresh their memories as to the humiliating experiences in connection with war purchases during 1914-1918. It would be well to remember now, in the light of these disclosures, the Ross rifle, the Oliver equipment, the Bain wagon, the motor equipment and spare parts, and so on. Read the exchange of cablegrams between the Canadian authorities and the British War Office. When boots of Canadian manufacture were condemned by
the British higher command, the Canadian authorities, to satisfy profiteering interests in Canada, ordered thousands of overshoes which were never used and which never could have been used by men in the front line. For similar reasons they let contracts to remodel the Oliver equipment, all of which was later dumped somewhere, and so on ad nauseam. A number of painful inquiries were held by committees of this house, during which the most scandalous evidence was unearthed. Because of these things, the lives of our troops were exposed to additional and needless risk in the most callous manner.
There can no longer be any doubt but that these misdeeds found their root in political patronage. Much was forgiven because of the emergencies of war time. There can be no such excuse for similar practices now which may lead to results quite as iniquitous during crises of the future. The mere appointment of a defence purchasing board does not meet the situation. The responsibility lies upon the government to deal severely with those who have been playing political "ducks and drakes" with defence appropriations. Defence purchasing must be freed entirely from political patronage.
Because of this report, which is not at all reassuring but definitely alarming, I urge that an inquiry be made by this house or by a committee of this house into the facts cited by the commissioner, to which I have referred, together with the related evidence. I also urge the drastic reorganization of the Department of National Defence, to accomplish greater efficiency and coordination. Further. I urge the nationalization of armament manufacture.


Mr. L. D. TREMBLAY (Dorchester) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, my first words will be an expression of the joy felt throughout Canada, and already voiced by many hon. members, at the coming visit of our king and queen. The joyous anticipation felt by the people of Canada has been properly expressed in the speech from the throne. I think I can add that it is felt with particular keenness in the province of Quebec. Canada's recent history reveals numerous reasons why we, a minority, should show our attachment to the British crown. Especially since the enactment of the statute of Westminster, we can say: the King of Canada. We sincerely hope, particularly we of the province of Quebec, that their majesties' visit to Canada will be a most pleasant one. We are sure that throughout the country they will find, wherever they go, an atmosphere of cordiality and of attachment to the British crown.
The Address-Mr. Tremblay

The speech from the throne also makes reference to the visit which the president of the neighbouring republic paid to Canada last summer. We are particularly glad of it. Indeed, it is comforting to note, in these times of universal distrust, the friendly relations existing between Canada and the United States and which are an example to the world. All will admit, I venture to say, that through his personality and intellectual outlook the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) enjoys valuable friendships abroad, which have been of distinct benefit to us.
Not very long ago an Ottawa newspaper paid the following tribute to the Prime Minister. I quote from the Ottawa Evening Citizen of February 15th, 1937:
The spirit of Canada, the spirit of friendly cooperation, readiness to meet the other man half-way as the most hopeful way to make an enduring agreement, is reflected in every substantial achievement of the Prime Minister's long political career.
We can sincerely thank Providence that in these times of universal stress the present Prime Minister is directing the affairs of the country.
(Text) May I now offer my congratulations to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his election to the leadership of the party and subsequently to the house. He seems to be a very sympathetic gentleman, and all hon. members are pleased to welcome him. For many years he has been a leading figure in Canadian politics, and iwe Liberals were particularly gratified that our party did not oppose his election. Though I do not by any means wish to be disagreeable, may I add that having carefully listened to and read his speech on the address and having read and listened to the reply of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), our sense of security as Liberals is such that I am wondering whether the beau geste of the Prime Minister at the time of the London by-election was altogether disinterested.
May I extend my congratulations also to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) upon his able speech. He has good reason to be proud of his success in Brandon, and we are glad to welcome him among us.
(Translation) I also wish to offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier). The legitimate feeling of pride which his success in this chamber has caused to us of French origin can easily be understood. He has revealed himself a brilliant politician and indefatigable worker, with an intelligent interest in all the difficult problems which confront the legislative bodies of the country. I trust his constituents will keep him a long time in the House of Commons, so that he may

fruitfully continue an already promising career.
The speech from the throne refers to present developments throughout the world, which are of grave concern not only to those charged with the administration of public affairs, but to the entire country, nay to all the countries of the world. Every day we anxiously open the papers to find out the latest developments in the international situation. Last September we all breathed a sigh of relief when, thanks to the intervention of the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Chamberlain, war was avoided at the last moment. Those of my generation especially, who vividly recall the horrors of the last war, rendered thanks to Providence that the intervention of the great English statesman had succeeded, for a time at least-for ever-in ensuring universal peace. I suggest that the leader of this country was largely responsible for that result. From nearly every quarter attempts were made to obtain from the right hon. the prime minister, or from the government, statements that would have committed Canada to one stand or another, but with his well known caution our leader was more than a match for those who wished to extort from him an ill-timed statement.
As stated in the paper I have just quoted, the right hon. the prime minister is a true Canadian, and I believe it is high time . that his Canadianism should be shared by other eminent public men who seem to have much more concern for the interests of the empire than for those of Canada. A few days ago, I was reading lectures and speeches delivered all over the country by the erstwhile leader of the Conservative party during his farewell trip. He is a former prime minister and the predecessor of the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). He always gives the impression of having at heart the interests of the empire to the extent, I am afraid, of forgetting that the duty of a Canadian is, above all, to promote the interests of Canada. We have just one country: Canada. It is all very well to watch over the safety of the empire, but it is more legitimate and patriotic to look after the security of Canada.
I should like to read an article from the January 25th issue of the Liberal party's organ in Quebec, which I am sure reflects the opinion of the majority of my compatriots from Quebec. In an editorial entitled "His last will", Le Soleil, of Quebec city, had this to say:
To look after the safety of the empire, such is the ideal which Eight Honourable R. B. Bennett propounds to the young people of Canada, at a time when he is leaving this country to enjoy in England the consideration he has earned through his loyal services. The former

The Address-Mr. Tremblay
Tory leader is thus at variance with his political platform of 1930, which he used to sum up in two words: "Canada first." Moreover, in that farewell speech the words and the actions of the speaker are not in harmony.
After all, he is a healthy, wealthy and influential' man who now renounces the duties of Canadian citizenship in order to go and lead an easier life in a country where lie will be able to fulfil other ambitions. Like a successful adventurer he takes away with him what he earned during a long stay in the colonies. Obviously, he does not realize that he is setting a bad example. Otherwise, he would feel some embarrassment in laying down a policy for those who are staying here.
In conclusion the editor of Le Soleil writes that for some Canadians-
-that last pilgrimage to the imperial fatherland is not unlike the crowning of a wish similar to the one which an exiled Arab makes when turning towards Mecca he invokes Allah. Rut for those native citizens who have just one lather]and and do not want to serve another the action of the abdicating leader shows the danger of the imperial delusion.
Taking these facts into account, I do say that we in Canada are well advised in supporting the man who truly exemplifies the feelings of Canadians. And that is, without the least doubt, the reason why the province of Quebec has not hesitated in supporting the present prime minister.
In the speech from the throne reference is also made to the importance for Canada of having adequate military defences. In this connection. I should like to quote from the speech delivered by the leader of the opposition during the debate on the address. His words were obviously intended for the province of Quebec. Here is what the hon. the leader of the opposition said:
If some of the right honourable gentlemen from the province of Quebec had not been so assiduous, in years gone by, in preaching to the people of that province the doctrine that this party was the militaristic party because we believed in a certain amount of defence about half of what we have to-day-if they had
not been so assiduous in building up prejudice___
they would not to-day find it so difficult to remove the prejudice which they built up in regard to defence.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who asserts that we, from the province of Quebec, are against defence is saying something that is absolutely unfounded. Nothing shows that such is the case. We have our own opinions and freedom to express them is the very essence of liberalism. A few of my hon. fellow-members have done so. By-elections have since been held in the province of Quebec and the armaments question has been discussed before the electors, and everywhere we have gained signal victories. To the hon. leader of the opposition who suggests that some of our leaders have built up prejudice in the 71492-23
province of Quebec, I will say that his statement is unfounded and unwarranted. But I remember quite well that some twenty years ago, the hon. the leader of the opposition was in sympathy with a government which succeeded in raising prejudice against the province of Quebec in all the other provinces of the dominion. We, from Quebec, do not claim that Canada should have no defence or armaments; on the contrary, but Canada is our only fatherland. We are neither French nor English, we are Canadians, and our only fatherland is Canada. When we are requested to vote for an increase in the estimates of the Department of National Defence for the protection of Canada and the defence of our territory, I say that Quebec is willing to support that, but we do not want to share any longer in foreign ventures; that is all we have said and that is the feeling of the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, unemployment of course is a matter of concern for all governments. This government refers to it in the speech from the throne. Last year, it was my privilege in this house, to say a few words about the elimination of abuses in the organization set up for the relief of unemployment through projects initiated by the provincial authorities of Quebec or carried out by them in cooperation with the dominion government. I mentioned cases where the Quebec government showed discrimination against destitute people solely because they did not share their political opinions. It is a well known fact that the government of the province of Quebec refuses to cooperate with the dominion government, Last session I asked the government this question:	Is a responsible
government justified in asking the House of Commons to vote millions of dollars of the tax-payer's money to be spent by another government which has so often showed bad faith and from which no cooperation can be expected? Subsequent events force me to repeat this question and to ask if such a condition should continue.
Last year I had to inform the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) that I had repeatedly asked the administrators of the youth training plan in the province of Quebec, but always in vain, to give to some of my electors an opportunity of taking advantage of the plan. I am glad to acknowledge to-day that my recommendations have had at least partial effect, for I have since succeeded in my attempts on behalf of a certain number of unemployed young men residing in my constituency. It seems to me, however, that the application of the scheme could be extended somewhat. There are, for instance.

The Address-Mr. Tremblay

young men who would have liked to take courses at the Quebec technical school. I recommended some of them, but I was told that they could not be admitted this year under the youth training plan.
Youth is such an important factor in any nation that we ought to be more generous with regard to that part of our population. Our contribution to that plan should be larger in order to give young men and women, who have reached or will soon reach the age of earning their livelihood a chance to take advantage of the present depression to learn a trade that will enable them to serve the community at some future time.
The sons of our farmers cannot easily avail themselves of the opportunity offered by the youth training plan. May I suggest that extension courses in agriculture should be given more extensively? During the winter months, young people in the rural districts have practically nothing to do. If agricultural experts could visit the different parishes in order to give such extension courses, young people could improve their knowledge of agricultural sciences and prepare themselves to make a more useful contribution to the development of agriculture. Such an expenditure would prove to be a good investment. As I represent an almost exclusively rural district and am acquainted with the facts, I am satisfied that legislative bodies would do well to give more attention to the youth of our rural communities. I would therefore ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to take such steps as may be necessary, under the federal-provincial agreement, to call the attention of the youth training committee to my suggestion.
Does the government propose entirely to assume the cost of old age pensions as some people have suggested? I cannot say. But let me urge upon the government, if provincial governments are to retain the administration of the act, the necessity of at least appointing federal inspectors to see that those who are entitled to it get a pension and to avoid any favouritism in that respect. In the province of Quebec, there is cause to complain of the shameful partiality shown by the provincial government. Consequently, the federal government would be well advised to ensure an equitable distribution of pensions.
During the Christmas holidays, I read a circular letter addressed to all those in receipt of government pensions by the Union Nationale member for the county of Dorchester. In that letter, he emphasized his solicitude in their behalf, and all the trouble he had taken in order to secure old age pensions for them. Mr. Begin added that,

so long as he is the representative of their electoral district, those poor old people could feel assured of their economic security, without mentioning that 75 per cent of their pension is paid by the federal government. I want to call the attention of the government to that fact, which shows that all possible means are used in the province of Quebec for political propaganda.
I desire to join with hon. members who have congratulated the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) for his recent statement in Montreal. 1 fully endorse the words not only of the minister but also of my fellow members, and especially of the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier). I sincerely congratulate him for his speech in this chamber. He accurately expressed the sentiment of my compatriots of the province of Quebec. I heartily join with my desk-mate, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) in congratulating the Secretary of State for his statement. We have nothing against any minority, but we are opposed to all immigration. We should solve our own problems instead of aggravating them and creating new difficulties. After we have found a job for every unemployed man in Canada, we will be in a position to cast a sympathetic eye on other nations of the world labouring under hardships. Until then, let us devote all our energies to the solution of our own problems.
In conclusion, sir, I again make this appeal to my fellow members and all Canadians: By all means, during the difficult days in which we live, let us act and think as Canadians. The affairs of our own country must engage all our attention. Let us silence those who create prejudices and try to set one class of society against the other in order to gain some personal benefit. United, we will be able to do something for Canada. Let us think a little more of Canada, our country, than the British empire.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks on the speech from the throne I should like to add a word of praise for the speeches of the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply. I thought the hon. member for Brandon spoke excellently and I have no doubt he was aided considerably by the odd timely nod and smile of your honour, which has meant so much to all of

The Address-Mr. Green
us new members in this parliament. Of course the hon. member for Stormont also spoke well; we all knew he would do so. Although one of our youngest members, he is one of our ablest and at the same time one of our most modest, and I have always believed that he is destined to render great service to Canada. I wish I could say as much for the government.
To-night, however, I aim to be entirely constructive in my criticism of the government, and I intend to offer them sincerely certain suggestions which I know will be accepted in the spirit in which they are given, I do this particularly because in these days, as we all know, there are literally thousands upon thousands of good Canadians who are unhappy and unsettled and whose lives could be greatly brightened if this government will only act at this session.
As the basis for my suggestions may I say that, looking back, I am convinced that from the start, from the year 1935, this government have made one great mistake. Of course, there have been many minor mistakes, but they have made one great mistake, and judging by the speech from the throne, and particularly by the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) delivered yesterday, they plan to persist in that same mistake, which is, in expecting too much from our export trade instead of placing equal importance upon improving directly the living conditions of the Canadian people.
Coming from the great Pacific port of Vancouver, one of the gateways of British Columbia, which is an export province, I realize to the full the importance of developing our overseas markets. But side by side with the development of those markets there should have gone policies for the improving of conditions within Canada. Take, for example, the 1935 trade agreement with the United States. That obviously did not solve our internal problems, and the new Canada-United States trade agreement, with the concessions made by Canada in respect of the United Kingdom agreement, will not solve these problems. They may help a bit; though I am afraid they will not, I hope they do. But no one in British Columbia, or at least no considerable body of people in that province, expects them to create many jobs. The people there fear that the agreements will wipe out present jobs. In fact the general reaction is the negative one, "Oh, well, they might have been worse."
But now that these trade arrangements are concluded, I urge the government to give its undivided attention to conditions within Canada, and particularly to the problem of what is to be done about Canadians on relief or on aid of one type or another, ranging in number from approximately three-
71492-23J
quarters of a million to a million as the seasons change, and that after we have been in a depression for eight or nine years. The government should also face the problem of what is to be done about those other Canadians, numbering no one knows how many thousands, who are living from day to day on the verge of relief, not actually on relief but very near it, in fear of what the morrow may bring forth. Both these groups are without security for future happiness and without much incentive to be enthusiastic over Canada or over Canadian institutions.
The speech from the throne offers these two groups very little more than the same old soothing syrup of'public works. We all admit that public works are not a solution; they are merely a stop gap; and yet that is what we are offered in the speech from the throne. For the permanent solution of the problem we have a promise. Promises are great things, and we have the promise that after the Rowell commission reports there is going to be a national conference at which, I quote from the speech from the throne:
. . . among the important subjects to be dealt with will be the problem of unemployment and social services generally.
In other words, this government is marking time on this issue of relief and security, continuing the great mistake that has been made by Canadian governments since the depression began, of treating unemployment as an emergency, treating it as something local and temporary, instead of what it is, a great national issue.
I suggest that at this 1939 session the government, while it still has the chance, take the first step toward providing unemployment insurance by passing an act authorizing the dominion to pay, to those provinces which set up a satisfactory unemployment insurance scheme, either the whole or part of the cost. This was the way in which Canadians got old age pensions. I would refer hon. members to section 3 of the Old Age Pensions Act, which tells the story. It reads.
The governor in council may make an agreement with the lieutenant-governor in council of any province for the payment to such province quarterly of an amount equal to seventy-five per cent of the net sum paid out during the preceding quarter by such province for pensions-
Then I stress these words:
-pursuant to a provincial statute authorizing and providing for the payment of such pensions to the persons and under the conditions specified in this act-
That is, the federal act.
-and the regulations made hereunder.
No doubt it would be more workable and less expensive to have unemployment insur-
The Address-Mr. Green

ance provided for under dominion law exclusively, but it seems obvious that the provinces will not agree that the dominion should have the necessary power. For example, I would refer the house to the speech from the throne in 1938, particularly to that portion dealing with unemployment insurance, which reads:
The cooperation of the provinces has been sought with a view to an amendment of the British North America Act which would empower the parliament of Canada to enact forthwith a national scheme of unemployment insurance. My ministers hope the proposal may meet with early approval in order that unemployment insurance legislation may be enacted during the present session of parliament.
That was a year ago. Since then it has developed, that three provinces, Alberta, Quebec, and New Brunswick, will not agree, and apparently the government are bogged down on unemployment insurance. Judging by the speech from the throne this year, it is now in the government's land of dreams; for we find this lone reference:
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.
Unemployment insurance will not settle the relief problem, but it will partly settle the problem of security for Canadian wage-earners, and it should not be delayed one day longer. There is no reason why Canada, with her progressive people, should lag behind the rest of the commonwealth in security legislation. I am afraid the main reason that such is the case is that we have the most out-ofdate government in the commonwealth.
My second suggestion is that the government have a committee of this house look into the possibility of extending old age pensions to Canadians between sixty-five and seventy years of age. It seems absurd to me to force people over sixty-five to work, with thousands of young people clamouring for work and unable to get a start in life. It may be that we would require a contributory scheme, but the whole question should be investigated and should be investigated now, not after the Rowell commission reports and not after the next election. In any event the government should stop the present tendency to treat those elder Canadians who apply for pension as paupers-which is an objectionable feature in the administration of the act at the present time, and very far removed from the original intention, which was that pensions should be a reward to pioneers.
As a third suggestion, I recommend that the government have part II of the National Housing Act amended at this session; that is, the part dealing with low rental housing. It

was passed last year with the best of intentions from all sides of the house. A $30,000,000 fund was provided, and yet not one dollar of that fund has been spent. Apparently this part of the act is a dud, and the reasons for that, at any rate in the city of Vancouver, are two. First of all, under the provisions of the act the taxes that a municipality levies must not exceed one per cent of the cost of construction. We have been met with the argument that it is unfair that a housing scheme in one block should be taxed only on the basis of one per cent whereas property across the street is taxed on the basis of, say four per cent. For that reason there is a strong objection to the act. The other objection is this: under the act rentals paid must cover carrying charges; for example, on a home which cost 82,400, the carrying charges amount to about $14 a month, so that that amount of rental must be collected; but then there is the further provision that the tenant cannot pay over one-fifth of the family income; this means that the income must be at least five times $14, which amounts to $70, so the lowest income group which can be helped must have an income of $70 a month, which amounts to about $850 a year. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are below that income group, probably all the people who need the help, so part II of the act is of no use to those who need it most, and in addition competes with the ordinary house owners who are desirous of renting their property.
I suggest that the act should be amended to meet these difficulties. I do not know just how it can be done-perhaps by providing that municipalities can tax up to two per cent, and certainly by giving the dominion power to make contributions to what is known as a rent reduction fund. At the present time only the municipalities and the provinces can contribute to such a fund.
There is great need of low rental housing in Canada. I do not want to take the time of the house, but I would quote briefly from the interim report of the national employment commission, which, at page 11, sets out the conditions very clearly. It is the report to the government made in July, 1937:
The commission recognized the desirability of a rounding out of governmental housing policy, particularly as regards accommodation for those unable themselves to afford an economic rent-often associated with slum clearance. Action in this field was considered necessary both from the viewpoint of eliminating a social sore all too prevalent, especially in the larger cities, and because of its effect in stimulating employment in the construction field.

The Address-Mr. Green
Then they go on to make this startling statement:
In making this recommendation the commission was influenced by the fact that Canadian governmental bodies had expended some $14,000,000 in 1930 to rent accommodation for relief recipients, and that in many instances such accommodation was unsanitary and unsuitable in the extreme. The commission feels that such a situation should not be allowed to continue in that it breeds conditions tending to increase unemployment by decreasing the employability of numbers of workers, thus making it harder for them to secure employment.
The fourth suggestion I would make is that the government follow the recommendation of its own national employment commission by setting up a national employment service in Canada. The present position is that the provinces have their employment agencies and the dominion subsidizes them to an aggregate sum of $150,000 a year. The commission found that these employment agencies are entirely inadequate. I should like to make it clear that I have nothing but praise for the personnel of the men in these employment agencies. They are not being given a chance to do the job. But this commission has found that our employment service is entirely inadequate. Appointed in June, 1936, it was only two months before the commission recommended to the government that these agencies should be administered by the nation. Five months later, in January, 1937, we find another emphatic recommendation that it was of vital importance that Canada should set up national employment agencies. Nothing was done in either case. Again, six months later, in July. 1937, we have the interim report of the commission, and I should like to read to hon. members one of the statements found at page 17 of that report:
Employment Service of Canada Early in the commission's investigations it became evident that the first and most vital step necessary to the successful handling of employment, re-employment and aid administration problems is the development of more efficient employment services throughout Canada. The present provincial employment services are in practice unfitted to meet the exigencies of the situation.
Again nothing was done, although the commission pleaded for action. In the final report, brought in a year ago-I believe it was a year ago to-day; no doubt members of the government will remember it very well-we find this further strong recommendation, one of the most emphatic recommendations of the commission. Dealing again with the national employment service it states at page 15:
The requirement here, as pointed out on page 19 of the interim report, is the prompt modernization and extension of the employment service of Canada, this with a view to a better linking together of employer and employee; to providing focal points for attacks on local employment problems, and as a means of gauging the relative degree of employability of those in receipt of aid. In discussions which the commission has had in recent months, general agreement has been expressed by all provincial governments as to the unsuitability of the existing set-up, and of the restricted services of the provincial employment services in fulfilling these vital functions.
The commission wishes to emphasize the urgency for action. It recommends that the service be placed immediately under the direction of the dominion government, both as to controlling principles and broad policies, but with provision for the appointment of strong regional directors, and regional advisory councils, to whom certain decentralized powers would be given, so as to ensure adequate weight being accorded, and attention being paid, to the problems peculiar to particular regions.
Similar advisory councils were used with great success under the home improvement plan.
Yet nothing has been done. Probably this is the worst example of drift by this government. The folly of such inaction is best shown by pointing to their fine youth program, for which I think the government are to be commended; yet there is no proper employment service to help these youths find jobs after they have completed their training. This condition is so bad that the minister of labour of British Columbia, Mr. Pearson, speaking in the provincial house last November, is reported by the Vancouver Province as saying:
"I'm not satisfied with the present set-up myself." . .	. When the federal government
proposed to take over the whole matter, in conjunction with unemployment insurance, he had had visions of an efficient employment service in charge of the provincial authorities, but had dropped it. He had waited in vain for Ottawa to act. Finally, he said, he had debated the matter of dominion and provincial em-' ployment service and last year decided the dominion intended to do nothing for the present, so set about his own reorganization plan.
"I started on the women's section, which needs reorganization more than the men's," Mr. Pearson stated. "I am going ahead," he said, "in spite of the indecision of Ottawa, and in the hope of permissive unemployment insurance in the provinces."
Then I suggest that the government follow the further recommendation of its own national employment commission, that through a national employment service the government take over the administration and payment of unemployment aid for all employables, as distinguished from unemployables, freeing the provinces and municipalities of this burden which certainly should not be the burden of the municipalities, because in the end that means .a burden on the homes of

The Address-Mr. Green
Canada. There is no reason why the municipalities should be responsible for the burden of such relief under the present tax set-up in Canada.
Meanwhile the government should do something about the problem of non-residents and migrants wandering by the thousands back and forth across this country. There are several steps the government could take. In the first place they could lay down uniform residence provisions. Each year a great deal of the money by way of grants-in-aid goes from the dominion government under agreements with the provincial governments. I suggest that in these agreements the government insert a provision that each province, in accepting the money, must adopt uniform residence standards so that we shall not have the present difficulty of one province insisting on two years' residence, another on three years, another on one year and so forth. This principle has been adopted in the agreement with British Columbia concerning municipalities in the province, by means of the following paragraph :
The province agrees to maintain such residence regulations that no person shall become ineligible to receive material aid by reason of having lost residence in one municipality or jurisdiction within the province before having established residence in another-
I say a similar provision should be written into the agreements to provide for regulations as between the provinces. Then the government should take full responsibility for the real migrants, those Canadians who cannot meet residential qualifications in any province; for those hundreds who really are not fit, the older men who are " burnt out," I suggest that the government set up farm hostels operated on a subsistence basis; certainly these men should be withdrawn from the employment market.
Another suggestion, which I particularly wish to present to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), is that the government should place far more emphasis upon the trans-Canada highway than they do at the present time. To me the trans-Canada highway means not only jobs in connection with construction; it also means jobs resulting from tourist traffic, and most important of all it means a wonderful way of promoting unity in Canada. Anyone coming from the more remote provinces of Canada cannot fail to be impressed by that argument. If this highway is completed it will give thousands of Canadians, who otherwise could not get it, an opportunity to travel across their own country and to meet and understand their fellow-Canadians. I would point out that at the present time there are two gaps in the trans-Canada highway. In British Columbia there is a small gap known

as the Big Bend gap; but in the northern part of this great province of Ontario there is a gap of about 250 miles, with very little apparent effort to have that gap completed. Someone suggests that is due to failure to agree with Mitch, and that may explain a lot. But surely it is not too much to ask or expect that action should be taken, and at this session; and in that connection I should like to remind the house of the policy of the National Conservative party on this project:
The National Conservative party reaffirms its policy of completing the construction of and the future maintenance of a trans-Canada highway from coast to coast as a national undertaking.
If this government does not hurry up and do that this year, it will not get a chance to do it at all.
My final suggestion is that this country this year should accept full responsibility for its veterans who served in France or another theatre of war and who are at the present time on the relief rolls across the country. In other words, I believe Canada should accept responsibility for its fighting men. I do not think there are many people in Canada to-night who would not say heartily that this responsibility rests right here, with the dominion government. Yet year after year we have been unable to get the government to take any action. They have taken the responsibility for the unfit man, but they will not assume responsibility for the fit veteran who wants to work but is unable to find employment. That is the stand of the government despite the recommendations of the Hyndman committee as far back as 1935 and the recommendations of its own Rattray commission in 1937 and again in the final report of 1938. I should like to refresh the memory of hon. gentlemen with regard to the recommendations of that commission, which are to be found at page 63 of the report:
. . . the commission has come to the conclusion that it can do no less than recommend that the dominion government accept responsibility for all indigent unemployed veterans who were domiciled in Canada at date of enlistment and who saw service in a theatre of actual war.
There are only about ten thousand of them, according to the commission, so it is not as though there were hundreds of thousands of these men to be provided for. The reasons given by the commission for that recommendation still hold good, and have not been answered by this government. One reason, for example, is that the average age of these men is about fifty years. What possible chance under present conditions has a veteran fifty years of age of finding employment? It has been found further that these men are pre-aged, that they have suffered through loss

The Address-Mr. Dujjus
of training during their younger years when they were serving at the front, and that they are a marginal group on the labour market; in other words, that they can work for only a few months or a few weeks at a time. The commission also found a fact which every hon. member knows to be true, that the tendency of the municipalities and the provinces is to say to those veterans on relief, "Oh, you belong to the dominion government; what are you bothering us for? It is not up to us to look after you. You should be cared for by the dominion government." The final and the most telling reason given by the Rattray commission is this, as it appears at page 40 of the report:
We feel, as we are confident the country at large feels, that no matter what Canada has done to requite the services of her veterans, her obligation to them is not discharged while one of them walks the streets vainly in search of work, or while one of them is in distress.
These men served Canada. We were proud of the word "Canada" on our shoulder-straps. We were not serving British Columbia, Ontario. Prince Edward Island or any single province; we were serving Canada. The responsibility for the care of those fighting men rests with the Canadian government, and the form the assistance to be given them should take is a matter for the government to decide. They may adopt the recommendation of the commission for a provisional economic allowance, or they might consider an extension of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. The point is that the responsibility rests right here.
In conclusion, may I say that all these are problems within Canada. The government has its precious trade treaty. Now let it get down to business at home. Let it face these vital issues now, in the 1939 session. Canada cannot afford to lose these years for development, for progress and for bringing greater happiness to her people.


Mr. J. J. DUFFUS (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) does not expect me to follow him in all his arguments, much less to agree with them. At the outset I desire to join hon. members in paying my humble tributes to the hon. members for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) upon their elevation to the cabinet. I am confident both of these gentlemen will do great honour and credit to themselves, their constituents and the government of Canada.
One of the reasons I have sought the indulgence of the house at this time is that I do not wish the opposition groups to conclude that because I occupy a seat on this
side of the chamber I am in agreement with their philosophies, their theories or even their bitter criticism of the government and the splendid legislation it has brought down.
In order to do my part towards making it possible for the house to prorogue prior to the royal visit, which I believe should be the aim of all hon. members, I shall be as brief as possible.
With what has been so eloquently said by previous speakers of the great honour to be conferred upon the people of Canada by the proposed visit of Their Royal Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, I am in full accord. I am sure the committee which has this important matter in hand will arrange for and extend to their royal majesties a very cordial welcome and fitting reception.
I wish also to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) and the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) upon their excellent speeches in moving and seconding the address in reply. Each acquitted himself in a very creditable and dignified manner. I desire also to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate most heartily the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon the honour which has come to him upon being elected leader of the National Conservative party and of His Majesty's loyal opposition.
Permit me to refer, with a limited amount of pardonable pride to the constituency of Peterborough West which I have the honour to represent, a constituency comprising the industrial city of Peterborough, one of the finest cities in Canada; Lakefield, the "village beautiful" on the Trent waterway; the fertile township of South Monaghan lying "sunny side up" on the shore of Rice lake in Northumberland county, and eight townships dotted with lakes and rivers in the county of Peterborough. The residents of the agricultural area of that constituency, in their efforts in advanced agriculture, have achieved many outstanding records in dairying, live stock, grain and other products.
I believe I can give the house a concrete example of how a judicious management of public affairs can bring about happiness, economy and increasing confidence. During and subsequently to the war, the city of Peterborough looked to the future with a determination to reduce debt. For several years past the city has not issued any debentures. It has, moreover, paid out of current revenue all relief costs, and in addition has gradually reduced its mill rate.
The net debt of the city of Peterborough at the end of 1933 was $3,145,900. In the intervening years this amount has been reduced
The Address-Mr. Duffus

The Address-Mr. Duflus

If we approach this question nationally, from the standpoint of labour, it is estimated, taking the generally accepted basis that eighty per cent of the cost of construction goes to labour directly or indirectly, that new home-building activity financed under the dominion housing legislation accounts to date for a payment to labour of approximately $29,000,000; and if advances of over $24,000,000 under the home improvement plan are also taken into account, it is evident that the combined total has provided for the payment to labour of a sum amounting to date to about $53,000,000. This is a formidable figure, and the expenditure of this amount has obviously greatly assisted labour, notwithstanding the criticism of hon. members opposite.
In view of the extremely rapid increase not only in the number of loans being negotiated but in the increasing number of municipalities all over Canada that are taking advantage of the benefits of the National Housing Act, it is difficult even to hazard a conjecture as to what the increased activities of the construction industry will be during this and following years. It may indeed tax our lumber and building material industries to the limit.
Speaking of the basic industry of agriculture, which all hon. members admit is the bedrock foundation of stable prosperity for all our industries, it must be obvious to all that the Anglo-United-States-Canada treaty, with its great possibilities of increasing world's markets, was designed also for the purpose of giving our farmers the assistance which they so greatly need and to which they are justly entitled. I should like to make some extensive observations in respect of agriculture, but time will not permit.
Farmers are the founders of civilization. Moie and more agriculture is honoured with a pi ice among the sciences. It is a science of necessity, a science which has stood the test of ages. Our country's weal and woe depend absolutely upon agriculture and the farmer. Empires have risen and crumbled into dust; various arts have been learned and forgotten; but agriculture still survives. Many nations owe their life and progressive advancement to the character of their agriculturists. Amidst all the mechanical skill that has characterized nations, agriculture has held a distinguished position. The happiest days of ancient Rome were marked by agricultural prosperity. When Italy was in danger, consequent upon the evil of civil wars, every effort was made to restore that noble art in order to rescue her from ruin. In the primeval ages agriculture was the commodity parent of traffic. To-day it is still essential for the promotion of trade

in general. If all our mines of gold and silver became exhausted, our commerce with all nations prohibited; if all art were abolished, the fertility of the land alone would supply sustenance for the people of the earth.
May I express the confident hope that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and his colleagues will continue their efforts toward bettering the lot of those without whom it would be impossible to find a means of sustaining the teeming millions of the world. In this connection I suggest that the government give consideration to the advisability of bringing down during this session, legislation, such as exists in some of the provinces, with a view to controlling the orderly marketing of all farm products.
In view of the successful efforts of the government in so many directions it is little wonder that there is increasing confidence in the minds of the people of Canada. Canada's Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), with his fine sense of constitutional accuracies, has always served the best interests of Canada, Britain and the British commonwealth of nations, with unparalleled distinction. His expressed determination that a strong, united empire is the best guarantee of world peace at a time when communism and other isms are so prevalent is recognized throughout the world. The enhancement of national unity, the demolition of sectional barriers, the stimulation of a deeper spirit of community interests and all his utterances, both in parliament and out of it, reveal a conspicuous consistency of policy resulting in the present government enlisting a continually widening circle of favour in the dominion. When Canadian history is written, our present Prime Minister will come into his own as a prime minister whose achievements do not deserve him to be ranked less than Canada's most outstanding statesman among those who have preceded him.
Speaking before the press after the session in 1936 the late Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden said:
Dunning is a splendid fellow, the highest type of public man, who enjoys the confidence of his countrymen, and well may they be glad that he has charge of a department of such tremendous responsibility in these critical days.
And further, " Young men of promise " was his description of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers); the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe); the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power); and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). What Sir Robert said in respect of these hon. gentlemen in my humble opinion applies equally to the other members of the cabinet, including the two new appointees.

The Address-Mr. Warren
How fortunate we are to have such able administrators at a time when there is so much economic and social turmoil throughout the world.- But for them we could not sustain the huge increase in trade that Canada has enjoyed, such an expansion of international activity in commerce and industry as producing and earning Canadians hope for and are now enjoying in large measure.
I wonder if we who live in Canada have anything like a full appreciation of the advantages we enjoy-the freedom, liberty and security that are ours-in comparison with what people in other countries of the world have to endure who live in constant suspense, in those lands where people go to bed at night not knowing whether they will see the morning and, if they do see it, whether in the morning earth and sky will be darkened by approaching death.
Divine Providence has surely blessed our country in many different ways when we consider her wealth in agriculture, mines, forests, and fisheries, her vast resources of water power, her grain and fruit land, her unimpaired freedom of three oceans, and last and most important of all, the character of her people.
I believe I am within the bounds of moderation when I say that history does not reveal a finer example of good will and friendship between Iwo great nations than that existing between Canada and the United States of America. By common consent, on both sides of the border, we recognize a permanent pact of two peoples sealed by upwards of one hundred years of history and deriving its authority from the mutual good will of these people rather than from exchange of diplomatic pledges. Canadians sometimes think the United States fails to comprehend the political structure of the empire. To dream of a commonwealth of nations that will some day take in the United States of America is perhaps to dream too greatly.
In the meantime, it is much to know that on all vital matters, in nearly all the supreme things of life, the heart of the great nation to the south of us does beat with the empire, holds her common ideals, common aspirations, common truths.
Mr. Speaker, in the maintenance of that free harmony in the years ahead lies much of the future goodwill of the world.
Three thousand miles of border line!
-nor fort nor armed host
On all this frontier neighbour-ground from east to western coast;
A spectacle to conjure with-a thought to stir the blood!
A living proof to all the world of faith in brotherhood.
Three thousand miles of border line-nor has a century
Seen ought along this common course but peace and harmony
0 nations bound in brotherhood! O faith in fellovvman!
What better way on earth to dwell than this God-given plan?
Three thousand miles of border line! One hundred years of peace!
In all the page of history, what parallel to this?
God speed that surely dawning day-that coming hour divine-
When all the nations of the earth shall boast such border line!
Mr. R. M. WARREN (Renfrew North); In my contribution to this debate I shall dispense with the preliminaries except to say that I heartily agree with the sentiments so ably expressed by so many hon. members in appreciation of the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I want also to extend to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) my congratulations upon his elevation to office as leader of the National Conservative party. I would also extend a word of welcome to the new members: the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), and the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Bercovitch). I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) upon their elevation to cabinet positions in this government.
A great variety of subjects has been discussed in this debate. This parliament is blessed or cursed with having three groups on the opposition benches. Many speakers, particularly on the other side of the house, appear to consider it as one of their first duties to make the efforts of the government appear futile and unavailing. The reading public, if they do not use their own judgment, must receive the impression that we are surely living in a land of misery, hardship and unhappiness. My effort will be to attempt to introduce a note of optimism among so many speeches of a pessimistic nature.
This government, during their three years of office, have devoted a great deal of attention to the development of trade and the negotiating of fair trade agreements with any countries which are willing to trade with us. In this they have been singularly successful. That is very well illustrated by comparing our trade figures of 1938 with those of 1934. In 1934 our imports amounted to $513,000,000 and our exports to $660,000,000; in 1938 our exports had risen to $956,000,000 and our imports to $677,000,000, being an
The Address-Mr. Warren

increase of 44-85 per cent in our exports and of 31-97 per cent in our imports. Recently we have seen negotiated new agreements between the United States and Canada and between the United States and Great Britain. I believe I could not do better in the way of expressing the feeling of the farmers generally throughout Canada regarding this treaty than to quote from the speech of the hon. member for Brandon:
Experienced cattle dealers have told me that they have found a distinctly healthier tone in the cattle market ever since this agreement was announced. These men are convinced, after years of experience, -that the tariff reductions and the increased quota admissible to the United States, now 225,000 head, will mean a very decided impetus to our live stock development. An alert business man with an analytical complex remarked to me a few days before I left for Ottawa that, having studied this agreement, he had come to the conclusion that it was the smartest-that is the word he used-piece of business legislation enacted in Canada since confederation.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is also quite true to say that our lumbermen are quite optimistic respecting the improvement of their industry as a result of this new trade agreement. If all governments throughout the world would follow the example of the Canadian government in their endeavour to negotiate and carry out fair trade agreements, would this not go a long way toward solving the problems of the world?
One of the favourite topics in this debate has been unemployment. I wish to deal with it for a few minutes, although I am not sure that I shall be able to offer the government any new suggestions regarding it. The government has been deluged with advice, some of it good and some not so good. I feel that the handling of this problem is just as safe in the hands of this government as it would be in the hands of any body of men whom the Canadian people could elect.
In discussing this question we ought to keep in mind that, compared with the figures during the lean years of the Bennett-Manion regime, we have reduced unemployment by approximately 50 per cent. If we can accomplish that within the space of three years, what may not be done within the space of six years? With the same amount of progress our problem would be entirely solved in another three years.
I desire to inject a note of cheer into a debate which has fairly bristled with pessimism. If we get one cheerful speech from the government side of the house, it is followed by three speeches from the opposition benches where the speakers vie with each other to paint as black a picture as possible. I say as a new member that this has a most de-

pressing effect. I am not worried about the effect it has on us in this house; what troubles me is the effect that it does and must have on citizens generally throughout the dominion. Of all the orations of gloom to which we have been permitted to listen, none excelled that of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). When he reached his climax and was so ably describing the actions which he considered should be taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as captain of the ship of state, it did seem rather a pity that his speech was more or less spoiled by the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser), interjecting the remark that the hon. member for Kootenay East ought to know, for he had scuttled one ship.
But I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) in reference to the difficulties of our farmers. While he was speaking, my mind went back a few years to the time when he and the present leader of the opposition were sitting on the treasury benches, forming part of the government of this country. I remembered that we sold hogs on the Montreal market for $3.85 per 100 pounds, and the finest finished cattle for as low as $3 per 100 pounds. I compared that in my mind with conditions to-day, and recalled that this week hogs sold on the Montreal market for $9.75 per 100 pounds and finished cattle for S7 per 100 pounds, an improvement of considerably more than 100 per cent in the prices paid for these two important products of the farm. I am sure even the hon. member for Kootenay East should agree that the picture is scarcely as black as he would have us believe.
But, Mr. Speaker, this wail of woe comes regularly, without variation, from a number of hon. members from Alberta. Listening to their speeches one would think that in their beautiful province the birds never sing, the clouds have no silver lining, the sun never shines and the flowers never bloom; that they have nothing at all in that wonderful province to be thankful for. But is the situation as bad as all that? They have almost limitless areas of perhaps the most fertile and productive land in the world; they have lakes and rivers; they have timber resources; they have so much coal that you can shovel it out of the hillsides; they have an almost inexhaustible supply of oil; they have railroads and bus lines and beautiful cities-a great, youthful, growing nation-in itself. Even this year there was a building boom in the city of Edmonton. They have flocks and herds, which carry off prizes in any competition, and then they always have the hope that one of these days

The Address-Mr. Warren
each person will receive a monthly cheque of $25, which, indeed, must be comforting to the people of that province.
It is quite true that each province has its troubles; but troubles and difficulties do not hurt us if we develop the ability to overcome our troubles and surmount our difficulties. It is true that we have our problem of the single transient, but we had that in normal times. We have our single, homeless men in every community, but why do we hear so much about it to-day? One reason is that under the Bennett-Manion regime the then administration instituted the idea that it was the duty of the government to look after these men. When I hear this question being discussed, I always think of the single, homeless men in my own community. I suppose they are in every community, men who came from the old country as boys, who have grown up and have no place they can call home, though many of them have established themselves. I recall that in lean times, a few years ago, these boys would wander away from our community. They would ride the rods; they would try the slave camps, but they would always come back, always without a dollar; and I never knew one of those boys in our community who did not come back to find an open door waiting for him, with a farmer offering him wages to help on the farm. It is true that at times the wages may have been small, but I always noticed that when one farmer was finished with one of those fellows invariably there was another farmer waiting to give him a job.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) rather sarcastically referred to what he called a soup-kitchen in Winnipeg, where he told us three thousand men were being fed. I was in Winnipeg at that soup-kitchen when harvesting and threshing were in full swing in Manitoba, and when there was plenty of work. Why, even the high school boys were in the harvest fields; but as I was shown the splendid way they feed those men who call themselves single, homeless transients, it seemed to me like a great haven of rest for men who were too tired to go out and fork sheaves to a separator or follow a binder.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Shame.


Mr. WARREN:: Fancy how a man could loaf the long day through while others toiled, always sure of two good meals of good food and a bed to sleep in at night, knowing that the taxpayer would take care of the cost. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre upon having such a splendid institution in his home city. As I said before, we have always had the problem
of the single transient. It may be asked where those men were in the old days, because many of them are actually unemployables. We always had our unemployable? In the old days many of those men would be back on the homestead with a father or a brother, working and wTorth at least their board and clothing. To-day they are cared for by a generous government.
I was greatly interested in the speech of the hon. member for Yukon (Mrs. Black) and in her inability to control her language when a drifter refused to take a pick-and-shovel job. Evidently the people of that territory, as well as their member, have retained their pioneer spirit and stick to the old truth that if a man will not work neither shall he eat.
I was greatly interested in an article which appeared in the Ottawa Journal of January 23. Evidently there had been some dispute between a gentleman named Tom Moore and Doctor Putman, a controller in the civic government of Ottawa. Doctor Putman had suggested that Mr. Moore was complaining about the hundreds of skilled men who are not able to find employment, and made a suggestion that Mr. Moore should organize a cooperative building association among those skilled mechanics who are idle. Doctor Putman said, in part:
Find an architect, a business manager, carpenters, bricklayers, plasterers, plumbers, painters and labourers. Let these idle tradesmen build half a dozen semi-detached houses on city owned lots. I will do my utmost to persuade the city to supply all material. When the houses are completed the city will sell them at auction, deduct half the assessed value of the land and the total cost of materials and hand over to Mr. Moore the balance for distribution among the workmen.
I was not particularly interested in that part of the article. The following is the part of the article which attracted my attention:
Doctor Putman goes on to say he doubts if Mr. Moore knew what he actually said in council or why he felt called upon to say anything. He explains he did so because other speakers in council were giving an impression that "Canada had quite gone to the dogs," that there was no work, young people were in despair, faced the future without hope, that someone, presumably the city council, ought to find jobs for the thousands of fully trained and highly efficient young folk who were eating their hearts out in idleness.
Then Doctor Putman is reported as saying:
Now to my mind, we have had during the past two years, too much preaching of this pessimistic nonsense. Some of it comes from leaders of youth, some from social workers, some from the pulpit, some from the press and, much of it from cheap politicians. But whatever its source the effect is vicious. It leads youth to think they are victims of circumstances which they cannot control. It tends to make sour their attitude toward society and
The Address-Mr. Warren

toward our political and economic structure. It tends to make them lean upon the oars at a time when they ought to lend every effort toward pushing their boat against the stream.
Then the article states:
Canadians held half a continent and numbered eleven millions. There was everything needed to create a paradise on earth, millions of acres of fertile soil only half cultivated, rich deposits of economic and precious minerals, valuable clays, rivers, lakes and sea coasts teeming with fish, fertile protected valleys for raising fruit, great areas of waste lands ready to grow more forests, rich swamp lands begging to be drained. What more could a people ask?
The sun shone, showers descended, grass grew, flowers and fruit ripened, animals thrived, with sheep giving wool, cows giving milk, hens laying eggs, bees gathering honey. What more could the Lord give a people? Whose fault was it if some went hungry and half naked and lived in shacks? Surely it was the fault of the people themselves. Any man who said youth had no chance was ignorant and a worker of mischief.
Doctor Putman challenged his critic to point to any country where youth had a better chance.
Was it Germany, Italy, China, Japan or Russia? Or would it be Belgium. Holland or Scandinavia where youths worked long hours for a pittance and ate meat once or twice a week.
This is the spirit of the rural districts, the spirit of the villages, and to a lesser extent, the spirit of the towns. Unfortunately, however, it can scarcely be said to be the spirit of the cities, as expressed by gatherings of mayors who get together to urge that the federal government ought to take over one hundred per cent of the responsibility for relief.
This statement coming from an official of a civic government was to me just like a balmy breeze in the midst of a blizzard. In the rural parts we have our needy; but how do we take care of them? We look after them in the old-fashioned way; the neighbours assist, and the churches help. We have managed to get along in that way. Is it any wonder that we resented the suggestion of the present leader of the opposition who, in his speech at Barry's Bay shortly after his election, said it ought to be the duty of the federal government to bear the whole cost of relief. If we take away all the responsibility from local municipalities, and remove all the incentive on their part to get rid of the burden of relief-


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but the other day when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) was speaking I pointed out the proper report of the speech at Barry's Bay. If the hon. member was not in the house I would suggest that he read my remarks made at that time, because he is now misquoting me.


Ralph Melville Warren: I should be very sorry to misquote the hon. member, but reading the local papers at that time I could not help interpreting the statement as a definite pronouncement of policy.


Robert James Manion: I do not interrupt the
hon. member to be discourteous, but I made it very clear the other day that what I said was-and it was so reported by the majority of papers-that the dominion government should take over in greater part the relief costs of unemployment in the cities.


Ralph Melville Warren: In closing, may I point
out that we have made progress. As an indication of the progress being made I would direct the attention of the house to an editorial respecting the county of Carleton which appears in this morning's issue of the Ottawa Journal. I quote:
Once more we can commend Carleton county council and its clerk-treasurer, Mr. H. R. Washington, for a substantial reduction in its public debt. At the end of 1930 Carleton owed the colossal sum of $2,241,469. Eight years later the debt had been reduced by a million dollars to $1,222,034, and in 1939 additional payments will bring it down almost to the million-dollar mark.
By continuing its present policy, restricting new debenture issues to cases of the most exacting necessity, Carleton in another five years will see its public debt almost extinguished, with further important reductions in carrying charges and consequent relief for the taxpayers of the thirteen municipalities that make up the Carleton governmental unit.
What is true of Carleton county is true to a great extent of local rural municipalities throughout Ontario. I might say that some of them are in even much better financial position than the county of Carleton. Then, on the same page appears this further paragraph :
Ottawa's relief rolls in December had 590 fewer families and 2,444 fewer individuals than a year earlier, and for the month relief costs were down by $48,000.
Another item in the same issue quotes Mr. J. A. McLeod, president of the Bank of Nova Scotia, as follows:
President McLeod termed the recently concluded trade agreements between Canada and the United States and the United States and Great Britain "the greatest achievement in reducing trade barriers since the onset of the depression."
And again:
But it was "remarkable" how the economio structure withstood depressing influences. Tho president said that from the peak in 1937 to the low point in 1938, the decline in industrial production in Canada was only 20 per cent as against 35 per cent in the United States. The drop in factory employment was 9 per cent in Canada compared with a 25 per cent fall in the United States.

The Address-Mr. Wood
Occasionally someone breaks into print with a statement that the church and democracy have failed. At this point I should like to pay tribute to the work of the churches in the district with which I am best acquainted.
I do not confine my tribute to any particular denomination. During the past lean years ministers and priests alike have distinguished themselves in helping the needy and trying to solve this problem with which we are faced. I have in mind an Irish priest in Renfrew county in whose parish an agitation had occurred for the distribution of relief. One Sunday morning this priest preached a sermon. in the course of which he told his congregation that there would be no relief in his parish. There was no relief and they got along nicely without it. These ministers and priests are still carrying on. When the statement is made that the church has failed or that democracy has failed, quite often no thought is given to the good things with which we are surrounded.
I have noticed that there appears to be an awakening among our younger men, our younger business and professional men. They appear to be more ready to enter into local activities, and there seems to be a keen desire on their part to render service to their communities. It seems to me that with the cooperation of labour, and with a more fearless and aggressive attitude on the part of employers of labour who might make an effort to employ a greater number of labourers, we in this dominion can surmount our difficulties and solve our problems.


Mr. G. E. WOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to follow the hon. member who has preceded me (Mr. Warren) in extending my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne by his excellency to this House of Commons. I desire also to extend my congratulations to the newly appointed cabinet ministers. I am sure we have every reason to expect that they will represent us as ably as those ministers already appointed to a cabinet which is considered to be one of the most brilliant Canada has ever had.
I desire also to extend my congratulations to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his appointment as head of what is now termed the National Conservative party. He has been receiving so many congratulations lately that he hardly pays any attention to them, but I do want him to know that mine are sincere. I have heard my own leader say that if you want to know what the future has in store for you, you will
be wise to take a glimpse at the past. With this thought in mind I have a few kindly suggestions to make to my hon. friend. The Conservative party is very rich in leaders and ex-leaders. I think we shall have to give them at least that much of a break. There are also triplets of would-be leaders, and it will be interesting to watch just what they are going to accomplish in their respective departments. I am of the opinion that the people of Canada, if they look back over the road they have travelled, will be extremely reluctant to place any great responsibility on the shoulders of these hon. gentlemen. I am sure the Canadian people have learned their lesson, and will realize just what problems each of these ex-leaders has left upon the door-steps of the Canadian people.
If we go back into history for a period of twenty-four years, I think we can discover something of the record of the ex-leaders of the Conservative party. Every one of these ex-leaders has left a national problem upon the door-steps of the Canadian people, and I am inclined to the view that this is the reason why they have adopted the name of National Conservative party. In the first place they left us a national debt. During the past twenty-four years there have been twelve years of Conservative administration and twelve years of Liberal administration. During the twelve years of Conservative administration there were deficits totalling $2,441,700,000. The combined deficits of twelve years of Conservative administration amounted to that astronomical sum. During the twelve years of Liberal administration there were deficits totalling $235,000,000, but during that time there were seven years of surpluses which totalled $310,000,000. There was a credit balance in favour of the Liberals amounting to about $75,000,000, representing a reduction in our national debt in consequence of Liberal administration.
I was greatly interested on Sunday night in listening to the radio address of Mr. Mc-Cullagh, the publisher of the Globe and Mail. He stressed, quite rightly, the importance of the national debt. He emphasized the fact that so much of the Canadian taxpayers' money was used to carry our national debt. There were many observations which Mr. McCullagh made with which I agreed heartily. I am inclined to the view that he is doing a worthy act by directing the attention of the people to the serious situation that exists. But I want the people to understand the true condition of affairs, so that by taking a look back into the past they may be able to guide and direct their actions in the future. I would
The Address-Mr. Wood

say to the leader of the opposition that he and his trio can never expect to win the confidence of the people.
Around 1917 or 1918, when the leader of the opposition was a supporter of the government of that day, we had inflicted upon us another national problem in the form of the Canadian National Railways. Not that I am saying that the intentions were not good, and undoubtedly the Canadian National Railways has given a wonderful service to this dominion. I believe, moreover, that it never gets a fair deal in the press, which is inclined to expose all the shortcomings of the system without giving it credit for the many contributions it has made to the national life of this country. But I can never understand why a company that goes insolvent, when it is taken over by the government as the national railways, was not purchased for what it was worth without all its obligations being assumed. I believe that if we had had sound business administration at that time, the Canadian National Railways would not be the menace to the prosperity of the Canadian people that some are saying it is to-day. So far as I personally am concerned, I rather defend the Canadian National Railways because, although they have a deficit of around one million dollars a week, we must consider the services rendered by the system. It gives us the cheapest freight rate of any transportation system in the world, a rate of less than 98 cents per ton-mile, which I do not think can, at the present time, be paralleled by any other transportation system on this continent..
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure but that the competitive railway to the Canadian National Railways may be costing us just as much as the Canadian National Railways when one takes into consideration the contributions which the country has made in subsidies to the privately-owned road. I had occasion to refer to the 1938 Year Book, and I saw at page 649 that we have granted in subsidies to the Canadian National Railways, prior to the amalgamation, 898,000,000, and to the Canadian Pacific Railway, 8119,000,000; the Canadian National Railways were granted land subsidies of 7,640,000 acres, while the Canadian Pacific Railway was granted 36,956,000 acres. So I really do not believe that the head of the Canadian Pacific Railway has reason to complain very much of the cost to the Canadian people of the Canadian National system. When you sum it all up, I am not so sure but that the Canadian Pacific Railway may be just as guilty of bearing down heavily upon the people of Canada.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I do not wish it to be thought that I do not view seriously the deficits on our national railway 
system. On the contrary I believe that every effort should be made to wipe off that deficit. But there are certain facts that I believe should be brought to the attention of the Canadian people. There is the fact that 83 per cent of the stockholders of the Canadian Pacific Railway live outside Canada; and the fact that 75 per cent of the bondholders of the Dominion of Canada live within Canada is one indication that we ought to move very cautiously in doing anything that might interfere with the credit of this dominion in regard to those bonds. So much for the second national problem that was left to us by a Conservative administration.
I come now to the national problem of unemployment, which is considered Canada's greatest national problem. In 1930 we were told by the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that if we elected his party to office he was going to cure unemployment or perish in the attempt. I am not doubting at all the sincerity of the predecessor of the present leader of the opposition. In my association with him in the last three years I came to admire him very much. Nevertheless he is human like the rest of us, and liable to make mistakes. It seems to me peculiar that most of the great national mistakes seem to have been made by the Conservative party. My own leader was condemned for a particular speech which he made in the House of Commons in the year 1930. I am not so sure that he was wrong because he did object to this federal government taxing the people of this country and then handing out money for other people to hand out for relief and give something for nothing. That is where the national problem comes in. It is not so much what we have given away but rather the fact that we have destroyed the morale of the people-


Robert James Manion: That was not the attitude of my hon. friend's leader. It was that he would not give anything to any province that was governed by a Conservative administration-not a five-cent piece.


George Ernest Wood: That was the interpretation. Mr. MANION: No, those were the words.


George Ernest Wood: Our hon. leader was not so short-sighted as that. As far as administrators are concerned, he knew what the future had in store for us. I quite agree that the leader of the opposition and his party lent themselves to distorting that speech for their own ends.


Mr. STEWART:: We did not have to distort it.


George Ernest Wood: We have to face this problem of unemployment; I suppose it is not so very necessary to talk about what has been done

The Address-Mr. TVood
in the past, except that we should keep it in mind, and I am simply drawing the attention of the people of my riding and of Canada generally to what has taken place. Then, when the time comes, we shall offer our policies to the people and leave them to decide. I have every confidence in the intelligence of the people of Canada, and when they see the road travelled in the past three years by this Liberal administration, there is no doubt what their verdict will be.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Mr. CRERAR:: Hear, hear.


George Ernest Wood: The proof of the pudding is in the eating.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Ernest Wood: I am very glad hon. gentlemen agree with me on that. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been condemning this government for taking the position that Canada's prosperity largely depends upon our export trade. Remember, Canada is a nation of eleven millions of people, with a great wealth of natural resources, and it is only by marketing those resources of the farm, the forest, the fisheries and the mines, that we can bring back to this dominion the money that is necessary for its development. Have we made any progress in that regard?
In 1935, the year before the present administration came into power, our exports amounted to $69.11 per capita. In 1937 they had risen to $96.23. In 1938, according to the estimate of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), and assuming our population to be still eleven millions, our export trade had receded slightly to $88 per capita. How does that compare with the export trade of other countries? Great Britain's export trade amounted to $56.83 per capita, and the United States, a country which hon. gentlemen opposite always hold up as an example, and which they try to follow in their policy of ex-clusionist tariffs, had an export trade amounting to $25.83 per capita. Compare that with our $88 per capita in 1938. That seems to me convincing evidence that a reasonable amount of progress has been made.
After all, the success of any country depends largely upon the prosperity of its internal industries. Money is timid, and if there is anything a man will fight for it is probably the little bit of savings he has. In my opinion it is extremely necessary, even though the leader of the social credit party (Mr. Blackmore) will not agree with me, that money should receive its fair share of reward in our economic life. Let me point out what industry has contributed to the prosperity of the country. In 1935, total dividends paid out
by industry amounted to $222,629,000, and in 1938, that had gone up to $315,000,000, or an increase of almost S100,000,000. That represents what industry received as the reward of its efforts. I am not so sure that the employment of labour has wholly kept pace with the rewards of industry, but I might point to another record I have from the bureau of industries-and this relates to my own constituency in particular.
I have the honour to represent a part of the city of Brantford, and so I take this opportunity to show what progress has been made in Brantford city and in the town of Paris. I find that the total number of employees in Brantford in 1935 was 6,002, and in 1936 the number had gone up to 6,384, a pretty fair increase for one year. And what about the wage bill? The wage bill had increased in one year, under Liberal administration, $660,000. Take next the town of Paris, with a population of 4,000. There has been an increase of employees from 1.151, to 1,221. with an increase of $158,219 in the wage bill. And that is only one year. I am satisfied that the figures for 1937 will show a large increase and 1938 will be a long way ahead of 1935.
I have under my hand a bulletin published by the commissioner of the city of Brantford, and I find recorded therein that in two and a half years fifteen new industries have been started-not very large, because all the industries in that community start on a small scale. In that community, if there are any savings the people try to put them back into industry so as to develop an industrial organization that will create goods and services for the people. I do not think we have any reason to be downcast. We are making progress. After listening to the pessimistic speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite, who are always looking down, who have their noses in the gutter all the time, stirring up filth, and who, if there is anything wrong, are great artists in throwing it into our faces, I think it is time to call attention to some of the nice things in this dominion.
For instance, consider the fact that we stand fourth among the exporting nations of1 the world. We were in the sixth place in 1935; today we are fourth, and though it is true that in 1938 exports may have declined to some extent, it must be remembered that we had a poor crop in 1937. Surely there must be something in the Canadian people; surely there must be some good in the administration of the affairs of the country, when we have been able to find markets and have risen to the fourth place among the nations of the world in selling the products of our
The Address-Mr. Wood

labour. These are facts that cannot be denied, and I would ask the leader of the opposition and his followers to peruse these figures carefully and to see if they can honestly rise in their places in this house and indulge in criticism.
Our national debt, it is true, is considerable, but the Liberal party is not responsible for the great portion of it. In 1935 the national debt of the United States was much lower relatively than the national debt of Canada, but to-day our debt is $23 per capita less than the debt in the United States. It has generally been characteristic of our Conservative friends opposite, on all occasions, to hold up the United States as an example, to refer to that country's tariff and the way in which its affairs are administered. But when it comes to an election, those same gentlemen opposite have a way of wrapping themselves up in the flag of loyalty and talking imperialism as though they had a monopoly of the loyalty of Canada. The Liberals, however, prefer, in the matter of administration, to follow the British policy rather than that of the United States. While conditions have been depressed in the past year, if we take into consideration internal and external trade we shall find that Canada's trade has receded only 16 per cent, whereas the trade of the United States has receded 46 per cent. It shows that the Canadian economy is so built up by wise administration as to be able to withstand the impact of conditions such as we have had to face in the past year. These are things the people have a right to know.
At this point I should like to quote a famous authority on trade. I do not want to take up the time of the house in reading extracts, because I do not like to read either my own speeches or the opinions of others. What I have to say is the product of my own mind. I represent the people of Brant; I believe that they sent me here to give expression to the views which I think they hold; and I have always endeavoured to follow that rule. I shall, however, depart from it on this occasion to quote briefly an opinion expressed by Sir George Paish, who has been quoted before. He says:
Progress has brought railways, steamships, motor cars, airplanes, telephones, telegraphs and the radio. All countries are joined together into a single unit. Why should not each part of the world give what it can to the welfare of the entire world? The result would be amazing prosperity.
Bear in mind, there is no limit to the possible trade of the world. I am convinced that as soon as we can get things on to the right lines, there will be an expansion of trade such as we have not even dreamed of. There is not one physical thing lacking to bring about a vast expansion of trade. The only thing lacking is mental capacity and courage.

The first, and vital, thing is that the nations should trade freely with each other. There is no doubt about it.
The second thing is, again open money markets to the capital and credit needs of the world. You cannot have prosperity unless capital and credit are freely available. The difference between periods of prosperity and periods of depression during the past century came through the fact that when there was confidence, and capital and credit were flowing freely, you had active trade, and when there was no confidence and no movement of capital and credit there were trade depressions.
I am satisfied that if our good friends opposite would be more cautious; if they would refrain from undue criticism and not try to undermine the morale of the people, and if my good friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and of the Social Credit party would desist from preaching their unsound theories, we should find that money which is now hidden would soon be brought out and would be invested in industry, with the result that there would be an enhanced standard of living, a standard higher even than it is to-day.
I notice that the other day the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole) made some rather extravagant remarks with regard to the integrity of hon. members on this side of the house, suggesting that every time they voted they must have qualms of conscience. Perhaps he can tell me how a man can conscientiously issue a cheque, knowing that he has nothing in the bank with which to meet it. That is absolutely the theory of social credit; they want to issue money upon the credit of the country, upon its natural resources. But I know that if I issue my cheque and sign my name to it, and have no funds in the bank, there is no use in my telling the judge when I go before him that "I intended to have some here," or "I expect to have a good crop and in two or three years I shall have some money and you can cash my cheque on that." But that, as I see it, is exactly social credit, and nothing else.


Mr. QUELCH:: I suggest that the hon. member is deplorably lacking in knowledge of social credit.


George Ernest Wood: I am prepared to admit to the hon. member that I am lacking in understanding of it, although I have tried hard to see whether there was some sound theory in it.	'	_
I was brought up in a home where life and religion were taken seriously, where I was taught that wealth was the result and product of labour; that only by the application of labour to our natural resources could you get any results, and that you could not get them before you applied the labour. Failure to

The Address-Mr. Wood
recognize that is one of the reasons why we are suffering to-day. I am inclined to take the view that if we had all our people employed in creating national wealth, our difficulties would be solved.


Victor Quelch: Why does not the hon. member employ them, then?


Mr. GARDINER:: Why does not the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) hire one of them?


George Ernest Wood: Personally I am employing all I can afford to employ. As the hon. member has raised the question, let me say that I believe it is the duty of those of us who are in a position to employ labour to endeavour to do so. I commend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) for having drawn attention the other day to that point. Industry must rise to the occasion. I have drawn attention to the fact that they have received this year in dividends around 8319,000,000, and I believe it is their duty to put into employment some of the unemployed men in their particular communities.
I remember that when I was a boy my father spoke of a depression which existed in the early nineties. At that time 60 per cent of the population of the dominion lived on farms and only 40 per cent in the cities. What happened? Did the farmers put these men on relief? No; during the winter these men snuggled in, did chores and cut wood so that they would start at least on equal terms the next spring, go out to work for eight months and get wages. But we have lost that pioneer spirit. Until we get back to some of the sober realities of life, we shall never come out of this depression. You cannot continue to mollycoddle people and give them something for nothing. I am inclined to think that it is just as wrong to take money from some people and hand it to others without any return, as it is to take something for nothing.
I notice that the service clubs have taken a great interest in the problem of unemployed youth. I believe that if they would organize in various cities and endeavour to meet the needs of these people, there are many things they could do. So far as men with money are concerned, there are plenty of farms they could buy, and they could put some of these men now on relief upon the farms. This would increase the value of the farms, and I believe those who took this course would eventually be rewarded. But if people who have means do not rise to the occasion and make some voluntary effort towards the employment of the unfortunate people in the cities, I hate to think what the future has in
store for us. If the unemployed continue to increase, they will eventually have power and will attempt to try out some of the isms which are advocated by our friends opposite. The advocates of these isms may be sincere. I am not going to question their sincerity-I think a great deal of these hon. members personally -but I know what would happen if ever their isms were put into effect. There has always been a group of people who are never satisfied with the existing condition of affairs; not that they ever do anything to make them better, but they have acquired the habit of finding fault with everything, of always looking down in the gutter to find something wrong. You may change your economic system-as far as I am concerned I do not care what kind of system we have; I made a living in the past and can make one in the future-but you would have the same people then complaining about the new economic system who are complaining about the present one; for if you have it in you, you are going to rise to the top, no matter what kind of system is in operation; and if you have not, the only thing those who are more fortunate can do is to take you by the hand and help you along.
A great deal has been said with regard to the unfortunate position we are supposed to be in. While I am making an honest defence of the government, I am not saying that everything is right. Everything never was right. But I do believe it would be wise for us to draw attention to some of the good things we have to-day. Something has been said about the standard of living. In my view there is no such thing as "a" standard of living; we have eleven million people and eleven million standards of living. Be that as it may, let me remark that there are some men who would get 820 a week and by the time they were fifty years old would be prosperous; others, although receiving the same income, would always be poor. So I do not believe there is any way of defining what a standard of living is. The fact of the matter is that the Canadian people to-day have the highest standard of living of any country in the world; I do not think we need take second place even to the United States. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that for every eight people in the Dominion of Canada there is a car or a truck? You could load everybody in the dominion in a car or truck and get them right out of this country without making a second trip. In only one other country can that be done, and that is the United States; they have one car or truck to five people.
It may be our good friends across the way would like to go to Russia or Spain or some other country and enjoy the fruits of the economic system there. In Russia, where one
The Address-Mr. Wood

rides one hundred and fifty walk; in Germany, where one rides ten walk. The hon. member for Red Deer made allusion to the fact that Germany did not have any unemployment, and recommended that we take a leaf out of Germany's book. Let us admit they have no unemployment in Germany, but neither have we any forced labour or compulsory military service to keep our people employed. I think hon. members should be very cautions about making such statements. In the constituency that I represent, Brant, there are more cars registered than there are in some of the countries of central Europe.
We ought to appreciate some of the good things we have in Canada. There is a radio in practically every second home in the dominion. We enjoy many of the luxuries of life which are not obtainable in other countries, and I think it will be just as wise if, instead of refusing to show appreciation of the advantages we have, we take into consideration some of the blessings we enjoy. The fact is that we have so many blessings and such a high standard of living that we think we are entitled to them without making very much effort. I do not think there is a country in the world where people can make a living with as little effort as in Canada. I notice the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) muttering something over there; I do not know what it is.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
gentleman should try his hand on a homestead in Saskatchewan.


George Ernest Wood: Can the hon. member for Weyburn speak from experience? I am quite willing to start at scratch with him at any place, if he will take me on. I think I know something of pioneer life. I am a grandson of one of the old pioneers. We were brought up on oatmeal porridge and the bible. We hear a great deal about the youth movement. I had the advantage of a good father and mother, who have since passed away. I do not want to say anything unkind, because they were the very best; but they used to wear the high top-boots, and, believe me, they could start a good youth movement themselves. No; I have my doubts as to whether the hon. member for Weyburn has ever done a good day's work in his life. I am prepared to admit that he has the ability-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to inform the hon. gentleman that I did something he probably never did; I served my time in a trade and am a member of a trade union. I have done not one day's but a good many days' work in my life, and after having done so I have never spent my time in making fun of other people.


George Ernest Wood: I would not want to take away any credit that the hon. member really deserves, because I feel that he will need all the credit he has in order to carry him through. I was merely speaking from my own observations and the general opinion I had formed of him. I grant that he has ability; he is a member of the cloth, and I want to tell him that he and I are on common ground in our religious views. But, sometimes, when one of the family goes wrong, it makes one feel the worst, and I feel that perhaps the hon. member for Weyburn would make a greater contribution in his chosen profession than he could make as a member of this House of Commons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have taken up all the time to which I am entitled.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Robert James Manion: The house sits until
eleven.


George Ernest Wood: In passing, I must say I am sorry Hansard has to take down everything I say, but I have a personal connection with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), because I know some of his family and he knows some of mine.


Robert James Manion: We shall not tell on each other.
Mr. W.OOD:	The hon. member for St.
Paul's (Mr. Ross) the other day made a remark in which he emphasized some of the difficulties facing the city of Toronto. Well, Toronto has the highest tax rate of any city in Ontario. I know they are having some difficulties, but they enjoy more luxuries in that city than in other parts of the country, and I do not think they should object to paying for the privileges they enjoy. They want to get out from under their debt, but they want the rest of us to assume some portion of it. I had occasion to go through the records concerning the province of Ontario, and I found that Toronto had a per capita tax rate of S66.40. Next highest was the city from which the leader of the opposition comes, with $63.60. That might be a fairly good warning to the Canadian people; if that is the way he has left the city of Fort William, we should be very cautious about inviting him to administer the affairs of this country.


Robert James Manion: I left Fort William some time ago.


George Ernest Wood: The city of Brantford had a per capita tax rate of $46.70 while the rate in the township in which I live was $20. The hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. War-

The Address-Mr. Leclerc
ren) mentioned the fact that some of the rural municipalities have led the way in good financing. I would say that at least they have refrained from going into debt, and it might be a good thing if some of our cities would adopt the more frugal methods that are followed in some of these one-horse towns, as they are often called. If you are going into debt, you should assume the obligation of endeavouring to repay that debt. I agree with Mr. McCullagh in one thing, at least; I believe we can pay our debts if we really take steps toward that end, and we should see to it that we do not go further in debt. I agree with the policy of paying our way as we go.
Well, Mr. Speaker, since you have seen fit to give me the time, I am going to direct attention to how we spend our money. In 1937 we had a national income of $5,000,000,000, and how did we spend it? We spent about $1,000,000,000 for government, federal, provincial and municipal. Of that amount some $300,000,000 went for interest on our debts. We spent $135,000,000 for education, $100,000,000 for relief, $5S,000,000 for soldiers' pensions and $38,000,000 for old age pensions, of which over $28,000,000 was contributed by the federal government and a little over $9,000,000 by the provincial governments. We spent $35,000,000 on defence. The balance went for hospitalization, administration of justice and other servicesv
As I have said, we spent $1,000,000,000 for government. How did we spend the other $4,000,000,000? We spent about $1,000,000,000 for food; about $500,000,000 for clothing, which amounted to only about 13 cents per capita a day; about $300,000,000 for housing; about $200,000,000 for furniture, and $300,000,000 for fuel. In other words, we spent about $2,000,000,000 on food, clothing and shelter. This resume was taken from Toronto Saturday Night and was prepared by Mr. W. A. Kague. I am not going to be responsible for its accuracy, but I did check many of these figures with the Canada Year Book, and found them to be approximately correct.
As I have said, we spent $1,000,000,000 for government and $2,000,000,000 for food, clothing and shelter, leaving $2,000,000,000 to be accounted for, in connection with what might be termed non-essentials. How did we spend that money? In the first place we spent $300,000,000 on automobiles, some of which no doubt are quite necessary. We spent $125,000.000 for liquor, half of which of course returned to the revenue of the country. We spent $90,000,000 for tobacco; $45,000,000 for theatres, and $45,000,000 for other amusements,
including S25,000,000 for horse-racing, baseball and other games. We spent $150,000,000 for doctors and lawyers. I do not know how much the leader of the opposition 'got out of that, but I believe he would be better practising his profession than in endeavouring to try to cure the ills of the country.
There is one point to which I should like to draw attention, and that is that we spent $10,000,000 more on the church than we did on tobacco. We spent $100,000,000 on the church; $60,000,000 for books, magazines and newspapers, and $50,000,000 for telephone and telegraph services. We spent $100,000,000 on the tourist traffic, while at the same time $250,000,000 was spent on tourist travel in Canada. We pay to banks, insurance companies and brokerage and other financial services. We buy musical instruments, sporting goods and jewellery. We support the barber, and various other tradesmen.
But what I do say is this, that I believe we can assume the obligation which has been placed upon us. I do not think there is any short-cut to it except to get down to business. We may have to sacrifice some of these nonessentials, but I think any hon. member who will take the trouble to make a comparison with any other country of the world will find out that the Canadian people do enjoy a higher standard of living, higher possibly than that of any other group of people. As I have said, unfortunately we have the poor; they are always with us. It is our duty to do our bit towards trying to assist them to get back to the sober realities of life, even though this means sacrifice to ourselves.
I should like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this extension of time. May I say in closing to the leader of the opposition-and it is described as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition: Be loyal to Canada. Be frank and truthful, and if you are going to tell some of the facts, tell all the facts. We know there are some unfortunate conditions, but I believe we should blend with them some of those fortunate things the people of Canada do enjoy.
Mr. JOSEPH H. LECLERC (Shefford) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I do not wish to trespass unduly on the valuable time of the house. I desire first of all to congratulate the hon. members who proposed and seconded the address on their excellent performance of this important task. My special congratulations go to the young and modest member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) who has done honour to his constituency. On behalf of my compatriots of Quebec province I am happy to offer him
The Address-Mr. Leclerc

my respectful homages and to salute in him a public man who is at the threshold of a promising career.
I also wish to offer my congratulations to the two ministers who have just recently joined the cabinet, as well as to the new leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Manion) to whom I wish a long tenure of office.
Mr. Speaker, the government deserves commendation for its constant efforts to re-establish normal conditions in this country. I am pleased to note the keen interest the King government is taking in the training of our youth. Once it is better understood and practically administered, the youth training plan will certainly prove very useful.
I am certain that the new trade agreement with the United States will prove of great benefit to the farmers of the eastern townships in the sale of their products, particularly maple sugar. On the whole, 1938 has not been too bad a year for agriculture; prices kept up satisfactorily until the end of the summer, 'but there is room for improvement. However, there is a dark side to the question; that is over-production of dairy products, particularly of butter. Although our exports in 1938 were practically at the same level as in 1937, we had in storage at the beginning of the present winter an abnormal quantity of butter which brought about a decline in price and afforded our opponents an opportunity to make political capital with the aid of unsound arguments.
In his speech of January 20, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hyndman) said that the price of butter, in December last, was only 21 cents a pound, compared to 26 cents in December, 1935, and he ascribed that decline to our imports of last winter. Seeing that Tories use that argument from one end of the country to the other in order to mislead the farmers, let me, sir, give the actual facts. The hon. member for Carleton may be in good faith, but he evidently does not know anything about the subject because his statement is not borne out by the facts. It is true, as the hon. member said, that we imported last winter, from New Zealand and Australia, 4,271,373 pounds of butter. But does he know that, at that time, we were short of 10 million pounds for the ordinary needs of the country; that, as a result, the retail price of butter jumped to more than 40 cents a pound, and that a number of organizations of housewives in our large cities decided to boycott that product?
Imports are harmful when they hurt the producer; they are justified when they have

the effect of protecting the consumer. Had we not imported butter, last winter, who would have benefited by the high price, which would have jumped to 50 cents a pound and even higher? The farmers would certainly not have derived any benefit from it, for, during that period, butter production was at its lowest; speculators would then have reaped huge profits at the expense of consumers, and prices would have become prohibitive for the labouring classes.
Mr. Speaker, judging by the speech delivered by the hon. member for Carleton, it would appear that quite a number of members of this house do not have the slightest knowledge of dairying. If I may be permitted to use a financial term, I should say that in the case of butter the fiscal year ends with the month of April. At that time of the year, the stocks in storage are usually at their lowest. The year's production begins on May 1, when any large surplus may have a depressing influence upon the new butter-making season.
Mr. Speaker, in order to prove conclusively to the house and to the farmers of this country that the imports of last winter have not affected the prices now prevailing, I may say that on May 1, 1938, there were only 4,677,240 pounds of butter in storage in Canada, as compared with 6,125,243 pounds on the same date in 1937, when no imports had been made. The year 1938-39 thus began under the best possible conditions, there being only a minimum quantity of butter in storage and no imports having been made since that date. If the hon. member had seriously wanted to enlighten the electors of this country, he could easily have looked into the reasons for the drop in the price of butter since the beginning of this winter. The first of these reasons is to be found in the abundance of rain and in the excellent condition of pastures during the season of 1938 which have resulted in an increase of over 20 million pounds in the production of creamery butter, with no corresponding increase in consumption. The second lies in the high prices of butter during the winter of 1938, which caused a large number of people to speculate in the hope of reselling their butter at the top prices of last winter. It would be interesting to know the number of merchants, business men, professional men and others in our rural communities who have speculated in butter, and bought last June at 25 and 26 cents, thus holding prices above the export price at a time when we should have been shipping our surplus production. If it had not been for that speculative craze, the price of butter would have fluctuated normally. We would have exported our surplus production which

Standing Committees
has disturbed the market since the beginning of the winter, and the Christmas and New Year holidays would have been better enjoyed by the speculators. But they should feel happier at the thought that the money they have lost in speculation has fallen into the pockets of the farmers and buttressed the prices during the season of abundant production, which is better than the high prices in winter and low prices in summer which we had been getting from 1931 to 1934.
Mr. Speaker, while I have made clear the causes which have affected the market for that product during 1938, it does not necessarily follow that I am content with allowing the price of butter to find its own level, as dairying is the main branch of the farming industry in Canada, and the one on which the greatest number of Canadian farmers are dependent. That industry deserves more consideration than it has received in the past.
I am pleased to notice the interest w'hieh my fellow members, especially those from the eastern townships, are taking in that matter. But were I alone in promoting the interests of that industry and of the farmers who depend upon it, I would do it apart from eveiy political consideration. Liberalism is broad enough to allow its representatives to hold views which they consider in the general interest. I hope that before the end of this session the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will realize the necessity of creating an organization empowered to fix a minimum price for our dairy products and to export any surplus left over and above the country's requirements.
Following this brief analysis of the present situation of the dairy industry in this country, allow me. Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, to define my attitude on another burning question, the question of immigration, concerning which many petitions have been received. In spite of the deep sympathy we feel for certain persecuted peoples, we must remember that charity begins at home. We have enough unfortunates to help at home without opening our doors to those from abroad.
On motion of Mr. Golding the debate was adjourned.
special committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the house, as follows:



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs:
Anderson
Beaubien
Bertrand (Laurier)
Both well
Cahan
Douglas (Queens)
Factor
Fleming
Fournier (Hull)
Gariepy
Kirk
Lawson
Little
Maclnnis
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre)
McCuaig
McLarty
McLean
(Simcoe East) McNiven
(Regina City) Massey Mitchell Pelletier Pouliot Power Thorson Turgeon Veniot Walsh Warren-29.
(Quorum 10)
RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES Messieurs:
Barber
Bertrand (Laurier)
Bonnier
Brown
Cameron
(Hastings South) Clark (York-Sunbury) Chevrier Cochrane Crerar Damude Duffus Dupuis
Elliott (Kindersley)
Emmerson
Fiset
Francceur
Girouard
Gladstone
Gosselin
Grant
Hamilton
Hansell
Hanson
Harris
Heaps
Howden
Hushion
Isnor
Jean
Johnston (Bow River) Lockhart
Maclnnis
MacKinnon
(Edmonton West) MacMillan MacNieol McCann MeCallum McCulloch Mclvor
McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River) McNiven
(Regina City) Maybank Mills Mullins Mutch O'Neill
Parent (Terrebonne)
Pelletier
Pouliot
Ross (Moose Jaw) St-Pere
Spence
Stevens
Stewart
Streight
Sylvestre
Vien
Walsh
Wermenlinger Young-60.
(Quorum 20)

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 10.47 p.m.
Friday, January 27, 1939