Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) :: I desire to lay on the table, as requested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), all correspondence relating to the broadcast of Mr. George McCullagh.



LORD'S DAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Lord's Day Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BRUNELLE:: This bill, Mr. Speaker,
is similar to the one which passed this house last session, but which was rejected by the senate. Its purpose is to change the method of punishing those who violate the provisions of the Lord's Day Act. It is felt that the penalties should be more severe.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EMPIRE CONTENT REQUIREMENT AFFECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: A
Canadian Press dispatch from Hamilton. Ontario, carried in the local press this morning, under the headline "U. S. Fruit is Masked as Canadian Product." states that United States fruit is being canned in the dominion and exported to Great Britain under empire preferential tariffs. This charge .was made by delegates attending the Ontario Fruit Growers' meeting in Hamilton yesterday. Will the government give assurance to the house that these charges will be fully investigated at once and that such steps will be taken as may be necessary to ensure that the entire fruit content of each container of processed fruit exported to Great Britain is of empire origin?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, a letter was
addressed to me by the hon. member which, through no fault of his, did not come to my attention until just a moment or two before I entered the house.
My recollection is that the canners, at certain seasons of the year, when a supply is not available in this country, do import certain fruits for canning, which fruits are later exported. The rule, of course, is that in order to get the advantage of the preference in the British market there must be a certain percentage of Canadian content. I think it is fifty per cent, but I am not going to commit myself on that point because I am not quite certain on the point.
I need only say to the hon. member that I shall be very glad to make an investigation with regard to the matter.



OLD AGE PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: In the speech from the throne read
yesterday by the lieutenant-governor of Quebec I find the following paragraph:
Owing to the measures carried out by the present government, the old and the blind of Quebec are receiving monthly a sum of approximately one million dollars.
As this statement is bound to lead the people into error I should like to know from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) first, who established the old age pension in Quebec-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: I would like hon. members
opposite to be patient. First, who established old age pensions in Quebec; second, how much of the $1,000,000 paid monthly is paid by Ottawa?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	The hon. member advised me
a few moments ago of his intention to ask this question, and in the short time available I have endeavoured to obtain information which, if it is not complete, I will supplement later.
The old age pensions paid in the province of Quebec have averaged in the neighbourhood of $855,000 per month for the last three months. For the same period they have averaged about $29,000 per month for pensions for the blind.
With regard to the second question, the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec with respect to old age pensions, my answer is that it was initiated not by the present government of that province but by its predecessor. I should have pointed out this most important

The Address-Mr. Gardiner

fact, that of the $855,000 per month and the $29,000 per month seventy-five per cent comes from the federal treasury.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) whether the report of the inquiry into radio tubes which has been conducted by the tariff board will be submitted at an early day?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I have no report at the present time, but I shall make inquiries in the matter.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, January 18, 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.
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: There were two statements made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) with regard to wheat and the actions of the government in relation to wheat, and that part of the trade agreement which has to do with wheat, and which I wish to comment upon for a few moments.
The first statement was that every bushel of United States wheat that goes into the British market replaces just that much Canadian wheat. I do not agree entirely with that statement. Every bushel of United States wheat that goes into the British market does not necessarily replace a bushel of Canadian wheat. Every exporting country in the world is attempting to enter the British market, and practically every exporting country in the world does enter the British market. The extent to which we are not able to compete with our United States friends and with all other producers of wheat throughout the world may and does have some effect upon the amount of wheat which we can sell in the British market, but every bushel of wheat that goes into the British market from the United States does not necessarily prevent a bushel of Canadian wheat from entering that market.
Reference was made by the hon. gentleman to the so called six-cent preference which we have on wheat entering the British market. Before going on to deal with this in detail may I say that when we were asked by the British government to consider releasing them from their obligation to give a six-cent preference to Canadian wheat, we were not the only country in the empire asked to do this. Australia was asked also, and Australia consented. Australia is the greatest competitor within the British empire that Canada has in the British market. Australia consented and Canada consented. Why did these countries consent? Because we realized that if these two countries could sell all their wheat in the British market, if there was no other country permitted to enter that market, then the six-cent preference might have some effect upon the sale of our wheat in that
1927-	28	
1928-	29	
1929-	30	
1930-	31	
1931-	32	
Total 5 years
market, or upon the price that we might receive for the wheat we sold there.
However, the moment that either Australia or Canada has more wheat than it can sell in the British market, it must enter the world market in order to obtain a market for its wheat. Immediately we go into the world market outside of Great Britain we must accept the world price. I think everyone in this house will realize that in spite of sentiment the British always have been wise enough in a business way to buy their food products from the country in which they can get them cheapest, provided they are of the same quality. In other words, because of the good, hard business sense of the purchaser of wheat in Great Britain we. are forced on to the world market level. So far as we have been able to make out during the period this agreement has been in existence, the six-cent preference has not benefited the wheat growers of the western or any other part of Canada.
I should like to deal with a further question which was raised by the leader of the opposition. He said:
There is the question of how business going through our own Canadian ports will be affected.
He was referring to the removal of this six-cent preference. I think I can best answer that statement by calling attention to what has actually happened. Quite properly the leader of the opposition said that it is impossible for any member at this particular stage in the development of these agreements to determine just what the results are going to be. The agreement which put into effect the so-called six-cent preference was in existence from 1932-33 until January 1 last. Wheat has been going through Canadian ports for the last eleven years and longer. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bear with me while I place on Hansard the particulars of the shipments of wheat through Canadian ports for the five years prior to 1932-33 and the five years following 1932-33. What do we find? For the five years prior to 1932-33 the shipments were as follows:
Canadian wheat bushels	United States wheat bushels	Total bushels184.594,000	53,376,000	237,970,000229,952,000	46,779,000	276,731,00093,171,000	16,434,000	109.605,000148,620,000	9,988,000	158,608,000135,503,000	8.784,000	144,287,000791,840,000	135,361,000	927,201,000

The Address

Mr. Gardiner
For the five years following, the shipments were:
Canadian United States wheat	wheat	Totalbushels	bushels	bushels1933-	34	
127,650,000	682,000	128,332,0001934- 35	
95,216,000	____ 95,216,0001935- 36	
140,784,000	____ 140,784,0001936-	37	
124,590,000	120,000	124,710,0001937-	38	
63,575,000	5,259,000	68,834,000Total 5 years	
551,815,000	6,061,000	557,876,000
The total amount of Canadian wheat shipped through Canadian ports in the five years prior to the coming into effect of that agreement was 791,840,000 bushels; and the total shipped in the last five-year period was only 551,815,000 bushels. Of United States wheat 135,000,000 bushels were shipped in the first period, and
6.000.	000 bushels in the second period. That makes a total shipment in the first period of
927.000.	000 bushels, and in the second of
557.000.	000.
My hon. friends of the opposition will no doubt tell me exactly what came into my own mind when this matter was being discussed the other day, that a great many factors enter into the shipment of wheat through Canadian ports, and that this is not the only factor that might have a bearing upon such shipment. But the leader of the opposition the other day based his percentage argument on the fact that 84-9 per cent of Canadian wheat passed through Canadian ports in a certain year, the last year for which he had the figures, and only 15-1 per cent through United States ports. I call his attention to the fact that there were only 63,000,000 bushels shipped through our Canadian ports in 1937-38, in spite of the fact that it constituted 84-9 per cent of the wheat shipped through the different ports. But in another year, when the percentage figure was entirely different, there were
140.000.	000 bushels shipped through Canadian ports; in another year, 135,000,000 bushels, and in another year, 229,000,000 bushels. I venture to suggest that the people of Saint John and Halifax, if they are to be affected by this argument at all, would much rather have the conditions prevailing in production, acreage and marketing where there is an annual shipment of 229,000,000 bushels through our ports rather than the 63,000,000 bushels that went through in the year when my hon. friend's percentage argument seemed to be a strong one.


Mr. MANION:: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but has he the figures of the Canadian wheat crop in those various years?


James Garfield Gardiner: I have not the figures here, but I frankly admit that the crop has a
great deal to do with the figures, and that is the point I am trying to make, that the removal of the six-cer.t nreference has very little, if anything whatsoever, to do with the amount of wheat that is to be shipped through the maritime ports. As a matter of fact I looked up some other information which has a much greater bearing on the shipment of wheat through maritime ports than anything having to do with the six-cent preference, and this is the information I have. Most of the grain exported through Saint John and Halifax is drawn from Canadian bay ports and it is carried by water from the head of the lakes during the season of navigation. For a great many years past the Canadian railways, with respect to grain for export, have placed the ports of Saint John and Halifax on a footing of equality, so far as railway rates are concerned, with competing United States northern Atlantic ports-Boston, Portland and New York. In other words, you can ship wheat from bay ports on lake Huron for Halifax and Saint John for the same rate that you can ship wheat from Buffalo to United States ports on the Atlantic coast, and that will explain why a great deal of wheat under certain circumstances has gone through our Canadian ports. It is a special arrangement made through our board of transport commissioners and otherwise to give rates to our Canadian ports which will make it possible for wheat to pass through them. So that in addition to the crop figures in any particular year, you have this other factor which has a bearing on the shipment through Canadian ports.
And there is another which should be considered. Something was said the other day by way of comparison of the shipments through Canadian ports before the war and now. But in 1913 and 1914 the storage facilities in all the ports of Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and Saint John for the handling of wheat on the eastern borders of Canada amounted to only
9,000,000 bushels; in other words there were only 9,000,000 bushels of elevator storage in the harbours of eastern Canada in those years. In 1923 that had increased to 15,000,000 bushels, and quite a considerable part of that increased storage capacity was installed in the year 1922.
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

In 1928 there was space for 19,000,000 bushels and in 1938 for 21,000,000 bushels. I believe that that increase in the facilities, which was provided largely by the government under my right hon. leader during the time he was in power previously, had considerable to do with the increased shipments of wheat from our Atlantic coast, so far as it was not brought about by crop increases and otherwise during that period; and as my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) suggests to me, that is true particularly of the shipment of United States wheat. The facilities in our eastern ports to-day for the handling of wheat are much greater than they were before the war.
Something has been said with regard to the effect generally upon business of anything that might decrease the shipment of our wheat through these particular Canadian ports. I have in my hand a copy of an article published in the St. John Telegraph-Journal of January 10, 1939, which contains several columns of comment on this very question, but the only passage I shall quote reads as follows:
But, as stated, freight follows grain; and if St. John is to hold her place in world trade traffic, all the available pressure must be brought to bear now.
The federal government has bonused western farmers, at a cost estimated at $60,000,000, guaranteeing the price of eighty cents per bushel for grain which to-day sells for sixtyfive cents.
They go on to argue that because of that, and because of the importance of wheat to business in our Atlantic ports, the government of Canada should do something to see to it that wheat goes through our Canadian ports. The point I wish to emphasize in connection with that statement is that wheat is not only of great importance to Halifax, Quebec, Saint John and Montreal, but it is equally important in the business build-up of cities like Fort William, and of a city like Vancouver on our western coast. It is just as important to Vancouver as it is to any of these cities on the Atlantic coast that are mentioned in this article. In other words, as has been stated time and again in this house and throughout the country, wheat produced in the central part of this continent to be shipped to the importing countries of the world is a commodity that affects the whole financial set-up and business set-up of this country; and because of that, there are certain arguments that can be adduced with respect to this particular commodity that do not apply with nearly the same force to some other commodities.
I have not time to deal further with the question of wheat to-day; in any event there are so many resolutions on the subject on 
the order paper that I do not think it is necessary for me to say more at the moment. But I have put this information on Hansard so that it will be available to any member of the house who wishes to have it.
There has been some discussion since this debate opened as to whether the policy of the government was sound when we contended prior to the last election-and we have followed that policy since-that trade has a great deal to do with the settlement of unemployment and other problems having to do with the development of the Dominion of Canada. The argument was summed up by the leader of the opposition the other day somewhat to this effect, that under our agreement with the United States we were paying $40 per head for what we purchased from the United States while they were purchasing goods from this country to the extent of only $3.50 per head. Now if we followed that argument to its logical conclusion we in Canada would have to sell $2,400 worth of Canadian products per family in order that the Americans might be on the same per capita basis as the Canadians who are purchasing goods from the United States. In other words the argument of my hon. friend is reduced to ridiculous proportions.


Robert James Manion: Why not have the Americans increase their purchases?


James Garfield Gardiner: He started out to argue that the United States should purchase from us per capita as much as we purchase per capita from them. We, being the smaller country of the two, a country in its stage of development, a country producing great quantities of natural products which are consumed by a dense population, naturally sell a great deal to the American people; but if my hon. friend wants us to sell as much to
130,000,000 people per capita as they sell to us per capita, with our 11,000,000 people, the United States would have to buy $2,400 worth of goods from every family in the Dominion of Canada. If my hon. friend works out the figures he will find that that is correct. Anyone who follows out the argument knows that while that might be desirable for Canada, so far as the United States is concerned it would be an absolute absurdity.
Then we have the question raised whether this is a matter which could settle our unemployment problem, or whether the world situation to-day has had the effect upon our unemployment which we as a government maintain it has. I would call attention to the fact that experiences such as the present are not new. We had a similar experience

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
just fifty years ago; we had another twenty-five years ago, and on each of these occasions exactly the same results ensued as those produced by the influences of this present period. The other day I picked up a copy of a western paper which was edited fifty years ago by a gentleman who either at that period or a little later was a member of this house, and I was surprised to find in it this statement, in the editorial column-this relates to the year 1888:
From this distance war in Europe seems inevitable. War is a dreadful curse, yet it will put up the price of wheat.
Fifty years ago they were talking about the same influence as we have been talking about in these recent months.
A dispatch from Rome said France must sooner or later endeavour to break the iron circle in which the unity of Italy and Germany has bound her.
That statement is identical to one which might be seen on the front pages or in the editorial columns of a newspaper to-day. And everyone who remembers the eight-year period from 1888 to 1896, about the same in point of duration as the period of stress through which we have just passed, recalls that the conditions were similar to those we have just experienced. Unemployment was just as rife, unemployment camps were just as numerous, people were getting lower wages and lower prices than we are getting now.
But, not to prolong the argument as to what happened fifty years ago,, let us come down to twenty-five years ago. I ran my first election campaign in 1914, in the period immediately preceding the war, and I recall that the arguments at that time were similar to the arguments we hear now. I recall that in June of 1914 young men were sitting on the curbstones of the city of Regina and elsewhere waiting for jobs, in a period when we still had homesteads available in the western part of Canada. I recall that very shortly after that a disturbance arose which had been threatening the world for two and a half years and which convinced us as to what was the cause of unemployment. And recently, within the memory of everyone who is sitting in this house, no matter how young he may be, we have had proved to us that there has been an accumulation of causes leading to a similar result which was staved off in September of last year only by the efforts of Mr. Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Knowing that, we are convinced that the greatest problem which confronts the people of the world to-day is that of maintaining the peace of the world. I have said on a previous occasion, and I repeat it now, that if the world could be assured of peace during our
generation unemployment as a national problem would sink into insignificance inside of twelve months. Some of my friends of the opposition have twitted me with trying to explain away or in some way to remove from this government any responsibility it has in the matter of dealing with unemployment. If they tell me that trade has nothing to do with unemployment I will again place on Hansard the figures with regard to this matter. The figures are for December of each year:
Fiscal	Canada's trade Wage earners
year	(000 omitted) unemployed
1928-	1929	
$2,000,000	47,0001929- 1930	
2,400,000	' 90,0001930-	1931	
1,700,000	313,0001931-	1932	
1,200,000	472,0001932-	1933	
900,000	658,0001933-	1934	
1,100,000	580,0001934-	1935	1,300,000	465,0001935-	1936	
1,400,000	388,0001936-	1937	
1,700,000	356,0001937-	1938	
1,900,000	242,0001938-	1939	
(Down)	378,000
My hon. friend said the other day that trade decreased during 1938. I agree although I have not the figures. If trade has decreased, one has only to examine the unemployment figures for that year to note that unemployment increased. Further, one might examine the figures for the past ten years in Canada to realize that as trade went down unemployment went up and as trade went up unemployment went down. In other words the figures of trade, whether this government was in power or not, will convince anyone who examines them that in Canada trade has a direct relationship to unemployment.
What about the figures for the world? In order not to weary the house I will not read a long list of them, but they bear out the same idea:
World trade Unemployed
Year	index	24 countries1929	
100	4,225,0001932	
74-5	11,692,0001937	
97	5,769,000
In almost exact proportions to reductions or increases in trade, Canadian or world-wide, you have increases or reductions in the numbers of unemployed.
There is only one other matter I want to deal with, and it has to do with comments of a more or less personal nature. I would not have referred to the matter at all had the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) not made this particular statement. At page 48 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
Do I draw the conclusion that he was trying to flimflam Mr. Hepburn? He is supposed to be a friend of Mr. Hepburn. The talk is that he was one of the men mixed up with Mitchell in an attempt to overthrow this government. That was the kind of talk.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
And then I am asked whether I am a friend of Mr. Hepburn's. Well, I hope I am; that is a question only he can answer, but that does not mean that I must follow all my friends in all the courses they may map out for themselves. I should hope too that I am a friend of the leader of the opposition. I have known him, not intimately, but slightly, for some years and I hope I am a friend of his. But I trust the good Lord will preserve me from travelling the devious political routes which he has found it necessary to follow to reach his present position. I do not think it necessary that in order to be a friend of any person I should follow that person all the way in every direction in which he may desire to go in connection with political or any other matters. I do hope, however, that I can still sit down and discuss, both from another man's point of view and from the standpoint of the future welfare of the country, at any time, any question that may arise. I would even do so with my hon. friend in the hope of being able to convince him that he should come back to his first love. He says:
The talk is that he was one of the men mixed up with Mitchell in an attempt to overthrow this government.
I simply wish to make this statement finally. I have been in the public life of Canada since 1911. I have been a member of a house either provincially or federally for the last twenty-five years and I consider that in that time the highlights of the political life of Canada were 1911, 1917, 1929, so far as I am concerned, and 1934 as a completion of the experience. As early as 1911 those of us who sit on this side of the house had to make up our minds whether or not we were in favour of trade arrangements with great countries like the United States, and we made up our minds in spite of the fact that the majority of the people of the country did not agree with us at that time. We are pleased, however, to find them in agreement with us now.
Again, in 1917 as a member of the Liberal party I had to make up my mind whether I was going to follow the grand old leader of the party or do what looked like the best and easiest thing for the time being. I decided, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the future might have in store, I was compelled on that occasion to stand for the principles that he had taught me to believe in, and I stood by the leader of the party of that particular day.
Then in 1929, as the leader of a party in a province, I had to make up my mind whether I would throw down a mere minority on a matter of principle, or whether I would submit to defeat, and I adhered to principle and took defeat, with the result that the people of Saskatchewan said in 1934, what they were not

successful in saying in 1929, that they were prepared to wipe out the entire support of the principles that were put up in opposition to us in the election of 1929.
In other words I have found from my experience that it is a good thing to stand by principle. Personalities do not mean so very much in politics. Individual men do not mean so much in themselves. We happen to be fortunate on this side of the house in having our present leader. Someone said the other day that he was so much engaged in external matters that he had not time to deal with internal affairs. Well, I have learned to follow the leader of the Liberal party in Canada to-day because I know that when we are confronted, as we were in September, with one of the greatest crises that can face this world, we have the one man in Canada who is most capable of handling the situation to the satisfaction of the people.
Let me say this to my hon. friend. If ever I find it necessary to try to defeat a government in Canada I will try to defeat it from the outside. While I sit on the treasury benches of the dominion or of any province, any one who is writing editorials or taking any other action in connection with politics will be wise to check up the records. If he does he will come to the conclusion that I shall stay with the principles of the party no matter if the ship sinks. And I will say further that if ever I wish to oppose the government of Canada of which I have been a member I will do what my hon. friend from Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) did-I will leave the government, I will resign, I will relinquish the emoluments of office and go to the country and fight for the principles in which I believe. But if some friend should leave, I will not remain in the government until the people of the country defeat the government to which I belong, leaving the impression I am in agreement, and then say that my hon. friend was right by taking him back and having him sit on my right hand in this house.
. The position which we hold as a party in the Dominion of Canada, if we really acknowledge the trust that has been placed in us, is one that calls upon us to support principle, to support leadership, so long as it stands for principle, and to go down to defeat for principle if necessity requires it.


Hon. W. EARL ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), who has just preceded me, will pardon me if I do not follow him in all the variations of his argument. However, I am delighted to find at last that he and I have something in common, because I observe from the last

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Dufferin)
part of his speech, when he told the house the story of his life, that he met defeat in his life as I did in my native province.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) and the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) on the excellent speeches they made in moving and seconding respectively the speech from the throne. I am also glad to say that I express the truest sentiments of the people of Dufferin-Simcoe when I say that it was with genuine pleasure and sincere delight that I heard in the speech from the throne of the proposed visit to Canada of Their Majesties the King and Queen. I know that every citizen in my riding is filled with renewed British pride and security and hope as he anticipates the unique occasion of this proposed royal visit. When one listens, in this section of the empire, to those who underrate our British institutions, to those who prefer the red flag to the union jack, to those who would choose the "isms" of another people, and to those who would make our national security dependent upou foreign relationships, one may very well say that the proposed visit is not only timely and appropriate but almost a necessity. I hope that visit may bring pleasure to their majesties and inspiration to Canada. I hope our people, as they pray God Save the King, may in turn resolve to save this Canada as part of the great British empire. I feel sure that this visit will renew, in no small degree, our pride in our own country and, in a greater degree, bring renewed confidence in our own empire.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that we are about to lose from this house one of Canada's most colourful statesmen, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. It has been my pleasure and privilege to follow him during all his years of service as our leader on this side of the house, and I know his departure will be a loss to parliament and to the country. However, I am delighted to congratulate the hon. member for London (Mr. Manion) who has assumed the great task of Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. He brings to his task an excellent character, a unique personality and splendid ability. He represents true Canadian life. In every activity in which he has engaged he has been a star performer. He excelled in the field of sports; he excelled in the field of learning; he was decorated on the field of battle and he has been made a king's privy councillor in the field of parliamentary activity. I am satisfied that he brings to his task the qualifications to make not only a splendid leader of this party but an excellent prime minister of this dominion. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) smiles, but may I advise him that it will not be long now.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I was going to applaud the first part of my hon. friend's statement, but I checked myself at the latter part.


William Earl Rowe: I think I have mentioned the chief feature of the speech from the throne, that is, the announcement of the visit of their majesties; because even you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that the remainder of the speech from the throne is a somewhat tiresome document, written by his majesty's advisers who sit to your right. It is pretty well filled with the glittering generalities which have epitomized the political skill of the Prime Minister for a long time, and it brings very little relief to the people of this dominion. It mentions matters of defence, trade treaty policies and unemployment, but that mention only reminds the people of Canada of the insecurity, instability and uncertainty that surround those issues to-day. The remainder of the speech is made up of gestures, and excuses, before a new election, for promises which were made before an old election.
I cannot help but think, Mr. Speaker, that the reference to our defence policies does little to remove the insecurity that surrounds that issue in the minds of the Canadian people. I would like to commend the government, however, for their declared intention to remove the profits from the manufacture of munitions. Even though it is a year late I believe that is a most commendable step to take at the present time, and I am satisfied that the government will receive support from this side of the house in any effort that may be made to control such blood money in these difficult times. However, I do feel that the people of this country, in connection with defence, are not concerned so much with the details of a certain contract or even the general details of the defence department. I believe our people are more concerned with the details of a definite national defence policy for Canada. I have not heard any hon. member to your right, Mr. Speaker, tell us where this defence policy might lead if an unfortunate crisis should arise. They have not told us that they stand shoulder to shoulder with the British Empire; and just yesterday in another place we heard the government leaders state that they were not even sure that the old land would stand by us.
I think it only fair to ask whether our defence policy is as strong as some may

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Dufjerin)
assume it to be. It is not nearly as strong, I submit, as it should be. I do not want to be misunderstood. I will support this government if they spend two dollars for every one dollar they are now spending in connection with defence. I believe that in the past all governments failed to assume their proper share of responsibility in connection with preparing for any crisis that might arise, a crisis that in these days sometimes seems almost inevitable. I sometimes think it would be better to spend more, knowing where we were going, rather than less if we did not know where we would be when the need did come. Is ours to be a more or less imaginary, independent defence policy? Is it to depend for its chief source of strength on some magic plan of economic appeasement to avoid attack; or in time of trouble is it going to be clearly in line with that of the friendly country to the south; or will it consist of closer cooperation with the mother country? I do not know the reason for all this mystery that surrounds this important department. One often wonders if a policy of this kind can be maintained as a political convenience for an era of peace without defining upon whom we are going to depend if an era of war should arrive.
I have already stated that the trade treaties of this government do very little to remove the instability and insecurity which exists to-day in regard to trade matters. I regret to say that I have not much confidence in the government opposite in regard to fiscal matters. I have seen them in action and I think I understand the tendencies of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I saw his party in power before 1929. I saw them in opposition in more difficult days, and now I have seen them in power for the last four years. I well recall the number of trade agreements that were brought into this house between 1925 and 1929. We were told that they would give the farmers higher prices for their products and allow them to buy where they could buy the cheapest. And I recall that in almost every instance those agreements opened the gates wider for the importation of cheap finished products, sweatshop articles produced in foreign countries, at the same time facilitating the export of raw and unfinished products from Canada. It. has been my privilege to observe these things at close range, so I cannot help it if I am a little suspicious at the present time.
I was amazed to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) suggest to-day that because we have fewer people we should buy

more than the United States buy from us, with their much greater population; and having large resources we should allow them to sell us more than we should hope to sell them. I could not help thinking, "Oh for the days of 1911." Unfortunately I was not able to vote, but I thank the Lord that reciprocity was defeated without me: I cannot help recalling the arguments laid before us in those days. We were told how 120,000,000 people- probably it was about 115,000,000 then- would buy so much from 10,000,000 people, and that we could hope for a great development. I recall also the tendencies of trade and the fiscal policy of the administration in those years. I cannot help recalling that before 1929 the government of that day rode on the crest of prosperity throughout the world and derived the advantages of bountiful harvests at home. As the minister to-day made his argument which he hoped the maritime people would read, I could not help thinking that the maritime people would be surprised to find him comparing drought years with bountiful years.
During those years the government boasted of prosperity, and yet it failed to give employment to our own people. I recall that the government's fiscal policies between 1921 and 1929 left us, in the latter year, at a point where we were buying a million dollars worth of goods every day the sun rose, goods of a class or kind our own workmen could have manufactured, more than we were selling. To no small extent that is the reason why between the years 1921 and 1930, the time to which the government to which the minister has referred held office, more people left Canada to find employment in the United States than were bom in this country.
What further evidence could we have of the weakness of a fiscal policy which could not survive even in days of bountiful harvest and world prosperity? Yet to-day we are asked to believe that this same policy of fiscal laissez-faire will bring about economic appeasement which will make all well. The Minister of Agriculture pleads of course for world peace. The Prime Minister prays for world peace and good weather, in order to bring back prosperity as in years past. We were told during those years that we must not provoke the United States. We are now told that we must take the lead and show the magic way by a new plan of economic appeasement. We are told we must make our tariffs lower than those of any other country, and all this during the most highly competitive industrial period of our age.
It is not my purpose on this occasion to review at length the Canada-United States

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Dufferin)
agreement. I do feel however that I must make some observation to indicate how it appears to me. We are told by the Prime Minister that the agreement will be brought down in the near future. I cannot help thinking that the Canadian people as yet have not studied it carefully. The doubt I entertain as to the treaty-making ability of the party sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, is not relieved to-day. I view the proposed treaty with much more alarm than I should like to express.
I observe that last year we bought from the United States $130,000,000 worth more of goods than we had bought the year before of a class or kind which could be made by our workmen who are tramping the streets today. This condition to no small extent can be traced to the weakness of the trade agreement of 1935. For that reason I am asking how we can have much confidence when we view the agreement and find it is proposed to reduce the tariffs to a point lower than that which obtained in 1935. Not only is the tariff placed at a point lower than it was placed in 1935, but it is reduced on a greater volume of goods. The United States can reduce its tariff only to the extent of fifty per cent. We lower ours all the way along the line, and all for fear we may provoke them and for the purpose of developing this great policy of economic appeasement.
I observe the three per cent excise tax is removed from the produce of United States manufacturers, but the eight per cent sales tax is left on the Canadian manufacturers. One cannot help but view with alarm thr advantages gained under the treaty by twenty five or twenty-six other countries under thi= most favoured nation provision. These advantages are given to the sweatshops and cheap products of other countries and there is very little hope for a quid pro quo.
As a farmer I can see very little advantage for the apple growers in the east or the fruit and vegetable growers in the central part of Canada. Not only do they lose advantages in the British market but under the proposed treaty they will meet new competition in their own. I can imagine the advantages which will be paraded before the producers of western Canada by the Minister of Agriculture. The producer will be told that he can ship more cattle than he could last year. But that producer will find that by a peculiarly smart provision he has a larger quota when he has less to sell and a lesser quota when he has more to sell.
To my mind the treaty bristles with dangers, bristles with possible destruction for the major industry of Canada, and offers very little to the other primary industries. As I see it, it is
a sacrifice on the altar of a so-called economic appeasement. It sacrifices the great advantages gained in the empire agreements of 1932 and accentuates the weaknesses of the 1935 agreement with the United States. It surrenders jobs to United States workmen and forfeits the three per cent excise tax so sadly needed for our revenue. Yet we are told that we should support it, because it is a step towards the economic appeasement of the world.
These are only a few of the first impressions I have gathered from the proposed treaty. In the light of the government's record I would say that the most alarming feature is the basis of fear upon which the treaty seems to have been made. Do not let us confuse the issue. Sound and solid trade policies in Canada have never in the past and will not in the future interfere with or prejudice our friendly relations with the great republic to the south. Do not let anyone camouflage the issue by telling us that until we give the people of the United States everything they want they will be provoked. There seems to be a suggestion that we should throw down our barriers to permit the sale of mass production from the United States, in order that we may get our raw products into that market so that they may fabricate them. The suggestion is dial unless we do that we will be guilty of some form of provocation or that we will not be working towards economic appeasement and that we will be endangering those cherished and friendly relations which we have long had and no doubt will continue to have, no matter what type of policy we may pursue.
We might just as well say that the spineless and haphazard fiscal policies of this government would soften the stubborn and heartless military policies of some European dictatorships. We might as well say that you must give everything, if you are going to have peace, even with a friendly country. The economic appeasement of the world is a high and lofty motive. I commend the Prime Minister upon having made that reference. But as long as we have ablebodied men in Canada pleading for jobs to restore their morale, men whose wives should be spending more earned money and thereby improving our prosperity, I say that our first duty as Canadian public men is towards the economic appeasement of the idle men in Canada.
This brings me to the subject of unemployment. The Minister of Agriculture has said that in those years when we had great prosperity only 100,000 or so were unemployed. I can remember the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) stating, I believe in 1928, that 1,100,000 men had left this country between 1920 and 1930 to find employment.

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Dufjerin)
The hon. member says there were only 100,000 left at home that were unemployed. Why should there be any unemployed after all the boasting of prosperity that we heard?
May I remind him that during the years 1931, 1932 and 1933, when the party to which I have the honour to belong was being condemned and criticized by the opposition because there were a few hundred thousand unemployed in Canada, according to a return by a department in Washington over 400,000 Canadians who had gone to that country to find jobs had returned to Canada and no more were being allowed to enter. Why would we not have unemployment?
Unemployment is a condition that gnaws at the very heart of this young dominion. I was disappointed the other day when I read a speech made in Montreal by the Minister of Agriculture. He said that fundamentally we had no unemployment problem at all. I could not help thinking of the days that are gone and the years that are past when I sat in this house and heard the present Prime Minister say in 1930 that there was no unemployment. Yfet we have the Minister of Agriculture stating now that there were a hundred thousand unemployed. Just a few days after the Prime Minister made that statement he had to call out the militia and the horse guards to keep them away from the front of the parliament buildings. They did not see the problem then and they do not see it now.
This is and has been a national problem. The man who first saw it as a national problem was the former leader of this party, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Bennett). He recognized it as a national problem and in 1930 called a special session to deal with it as such. However, I think he would be the first to admit that perhaps he did not go as far as he should have gone at that time. Since 1929, since unemployment was assumed as a national problem, we have spent one billion dollars. What for? To give direct and work relief. But we have not even touched the real problem itself. We are waiting for the fears of war to disappear, we are waiting for bountiful crops, we are waiting for the curtailment of wheat production in other countries; we are trusting to the peace of the world and the Lord of the weather. We are relying too much on the policy of laissez-faire and do nothing.
It is no longer a problem merely of dealing with the man or the woman who is unable to work. That problem was dealt with long ago. Even Queen Elizabeth with her poor laws gave relief in 1601 to the poor people who

were unable to work. This problem is not one of direct relief, but it is the direct responsibility of the national government. It is a problem not confined to the boundaries of our own nation but one that goes into international circles. It is not a matter of dealing with poor people who are unable to work; it is a matter of providing employment for the employable men and women of Canada.
A commission was set up by this government to investigate the labour situation. Every time this government is faced with a problem it appoints a commission and prays that there will be an election before any action has to be taken. To my mind it is most important and essential that the major aspects of the relief problem should be dealt with by this government. No longer can the government rest upon its oars and say the municipalities should deal with this form of aid. The municipalities can deal with those who are unable to work, but responsibility must be assumed by this government for those who are able to work. We must differentiate between the two. We must have a new outlook on the unemployment situation. It is national in scope and it should be a national responsibility. The provincial governments may be left to deal with those who are unemployable, with those who are unable to work, but the larger issue of employment should be met by national measures. It should be under national control and be assumed as a national responsibility.
I hope that before another election comes around this government will be prepared to assume responsibility rather than continue to dodge the issue. We hear there is to be an unemployment insurance policy for Canada. I submit that the people of this country do not want an unemployment insurance policy, they want an employment assurance policy. That is what our people need. We want the assurance of work for our people rather than insurance against defeat and relief. We take out insurance against damage by hail, by storms, against death and so on. Perhaps that is why this government is suggesting an unemployment insurance plan. Apparently they admit the death of the issue, apparently they realize the hopelessness of it all unless the weather changes and the peace clouds rise.
I could elaborate upon this if I had more time. There are national advantages that lie behind an employment assurance plan and there are dangers that bristle in an unemployment insurance plan. One of the great dangers in relief is the loss of morale and initiative by those who accept relief for nothing. This problem should be fitted into the fiscal policy

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Duflerin)
of the government as well as any public works plan. There should be some recognition of the problem by the dominion and the provincial governments. I regret that at the present time it is being found quite difficult to have a friendly conference by the so-called happy family of Liberalism as it is constituted in disunity to-day. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture has said that all is well and that this danger is soon to disappear.
If the government recognizes this problem as I have indicated it sketchily there will have to be a readjustment in the revenues of the dominion and the provinces. Everyone who has any knowledge of industry and finance knows something of the inequitable burdens imposed by the many variations of duplicate taxation. No doubt the adoption of a national employment assurance policy would require some adjustment in the revenues of the provinces. I do not want the Prime Minister to think that I am critical of everything he does, because I have seen him do some things that would have been, done even by the leader of the opposition. However, I do suggest to him that I believe the time has come when we should deal with this matter as a national problem. Consideration should be given to national revenues in order that this national emergency may be met. In this connection I would suggest that all income tax be placed under the federal authority. More than that, the stock transfer tax and the corporation tax might well be transferred to one central body. I do feel that if that were done and the federal government assumed full responsibility for a national employment assurance scheme, our people would be satisfied to meet the obligations it would involve.
Income taxes more than any other form of tax should be used for the protection of income. In other words, the mass income of the earning . people of Canada may very properly be the bulwark protecting income for the employable masses of Canada. If my proposals were accepted, which would involve the income tax being more broadly based than it is at the present time, and those earning income in Canada had an opportunity to contribute to such a plan of national employment assurance, I believe that no one would be averse to making an income tax contribution to a sound national employment assurance plan applicable throughout this dominion.
I do not want to be understood as suggesting that this should be the only tax to be diverted to the federal treasury, although I suggest it is the most important one; I believe that the other taxes I have mentioned
might well be considered in this connection. I do not wish to labour the point as to what advantages would accrue, but I know that there are few in business or industry to-day who would not say that it would be a great relief if they even paid the same amount of tax as they do to-day into one central fund rather than to half a dozen different sources. If some definite effort were made by the government along this line it would go a long way towards encouraging industry.
I consider that the capital and earnings of industry other than those paid in salaries, wages and dividends, should be free so far as possible from tax impositions in order that some of the shackles may be removed from industrial enterprise and national expansion.
The adoption of such a policy would not only be a step in the direction of doing away with the duplication of taxation that exists to-day, but would mean a corresponding saving in the cost of administration.
There might be some objections, it is true, from those who believe that we are centralizing too much authority in the federal government. But I do not believe it ever was the intention of the fathers of confederation that we should be nine sovereign states within a state. It was never their intention that the provinces should flout and exploit the very basic sovereignty of their autonomous rights. I do not believe that a limited centralization of authority along some of the lines that I have suggested would constitute any premature centralization that might aggravate the disharmonies inherent in a federation. The whole system seems to me to have grown almost out of hand. It was not expected that the provinces should surrender their sovereign rights, but I believe that the fathers of confederation intended much to be left to the good sense of the men they hoped would be in power, knowing that there must be some things that are definitely federal in character and others definitely provincial. I do not believe you can wipe out functions that are definitely provincial, but there are certain forms of taxation that should be centralized in the central body, for primary and productive efforts. There are certain functions that are definitely provincial, and others that are definitely national in character and which must always be considered a dominion responsibility.
I believe the government should give careful consideration not only to a plan of national employment assurance but to plans for reducing the cost of government in so far as our constitutional machinery will permit. There is only one way in which

The Address-Mr. Rowe (Dufferin)
it can be done and that is by the time-honoured British custom of conference, compromise and conciliation between the provinces and the dominion, and I want to compliment the Prime Minister in this connection. I believe that he has excellent ability and can achieve something through conference, compromise and conciliation between the provinces and the dominion. I hope that something along that line will be done in order to bring about a more friendly relationship between the provinces, to show the way to those who are to-day confused by the present duplication of taxation, to give hope to those who are tired of waiting for jobs and relief to those who are disappointed in the present lack of action.
I can conceive of no plan or ideal of national service that is more necessary at the present time or more worthy of a democratic people than something along these lines. I can conceive of no national policy which would more effectively protect, encourage and develop the ideals of democracy than one which will gainfully employ our people and thereby assist them to reestablish themselves-a policy that will give gainful employment to those who seek jobs, a type of employment that will enable the family spending their earned income to keep their self-respect. I think that is the only way in which we can hope to restore confidence in our institutions and in national leadership.
The people of this country are pleading to-day for a national policy. They are pleading for a national hope, for a release from a policy of laissez-faire and do-nothing, before doubt, discontent and disunity further threaten the progress which our people desire.
May I commend to the government and their supporters, and especially to the Minister of Agriculture, who I regret is not in his seat at the moment, the issue of the Financial Post of January 7 last, where they will find, neatly compiled, editorial comment from newspapers representing districts both of our near east and the far west. Among these are-


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman has exhausted his time.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Finish
the sentence.


Walter Edward Foster: With the consent of the house.


William Earl Rowe: I do not wish to trespass beyond my time, Mr. Speaker, but if I have the consent of the house I shall take only a moment to finish. I hope that the government will read this
[Mr. W. E. Rowe.)
editorial comment in the Financial Post coming from newspapers representing practically all sections of Canada and including the Toronto Telegram, Fort Erie Times Review, North Bay Nugget, Brantford Expositor, Winnipeg Free Press, Northern Pas, Saskatoon Star, Calgary Albertan, Swift Current Sun and Prince Rupert News. I shall quote only a short extract or two.
The Prince Rupert News "sees all faces turned to Ottawa for action." It recalls that Laurier did not have to be prodded into action but that the present Prime Minister seems to be lagging in leadership. It says:
What the country sees to-day is that many people are idle, and having no Liberal leader, they are listening to subversive leaders who will destroy them as those who followed the [DOT] pied piper were destroyed.
The Swift Current Sun speaks in similar vein. It refers especially to the vicious, demoralizing influence of Canada's present relief policy. It urges the need of leadership in respect of unemployment and relief to end the moral and social stagnation of the present situation. It says:
There is at present a most vital challenge to the statesmen and leaders of Canadian national life, which to our mind is paramount to all other problems, that of finding some solution to the unemployment problem with which is tied up the moral and social stagnation which it engenders. Everyone is agreed that continual dishing out of relief cannot ever solve the dilemma; it merely hastens the evil day when the national structure would crumble because the fibre is eaten away.
Happiness, contentment and national wellbeing come only by honest work and an adequate recompense giving a measure of security for the people. The course we are drifting along now is an unpractical one and a vicious one because it is destroying something which wont be built up so easily again.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for my overtime, and I trust that the government may give what the country is asking for, the action which they promised in 1935.


John Charles Landeryou: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne, I am sorry to say, does not indicate any effective solution of the many difficulties that confront the people of Canada to-day. There is no solution offered for the many problems which have vexed our people now for many years, and many of which have increased in severity since the Liberal party have occupied the seats of authority. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has stated that the present administration is a do-nothing government. With that I agree. But we must also remember that the government of which the hon. member himself was a member occupied the seats of authority in the years 1930 to

The Address-Mr. Landeryou
1935 and were defeated, in fact suffered the greatest defeat that party has ever experienced.
Reference has been made to the coming visit to Canada of Their Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth. All classes of the Canadian people view with pleasure the coming visit. However, greater pleasure would be evidenced in many quarters if economic conditions which now obtain in Canada were not in such a chaotic state, if the widespread and needless suffering and misery which now abound in this country had been corrected by the present administration. In the speech from the throne we find the following words:
The government shared in the general sense of relief that the appalling disaster of war, which threatened Europe during the month of September last, was averted, and in the recognition which that crisis manifested of the widespread will of the peoples for peace. They are hopeful that the efforts now being made to find a solution for the specific differences which are causing friction will meet with success. They recognize, nevertheless, that time is required for these forces to work, and that the possibility of further tension in the meantime must be faced. In this situation, the government have considered that the uncertainties of the future, and the conditions of modern warfare, make it imperative that Canada's defences be materially strengthened.
Two years ago, the appropriations for defence were substantially increased, and a beginning made on a program of modernization to safeguard the country from the dangers of attack. The government intend to pursue this policy vigorously, and to propose to parliament that the program of defence should be further augmented, and that particular emphasis should be laid upon air defence.
Thus we find that the government recognizes the danger in the European situation and intends to take steps to preserve Canada's national integrity against attack. In so far as the danger of attack is concerned I am not greatly alarmed, for I cannot think of any nation in Africa, in Asia or in Europe which could consider at the present time or in years to come any successful invasion of this country; and I say this after considering the statement recently made by the President of the United States to the effect that that republic was prepared to come to the assistance of Canada in case of attack. However, in view of existing conditions I am not opposed to the government strengthening Canada's defences providing the money expended will be issued debt free. The last war created much hardship; many problems arose, and I believe that the method we used in financing that war was responsible for a great many of these problems. We must take the profits out of war. It has been estimated that it cost $25,000 for every soldier killed in the last war. Someone was making a profit out
of every body that lies on the fields of battle. It was blood-money. We are opposed to the method pursued during the last war of piling up debts which future generations are left to face.
The mad race for armaments has been going on in the world for many years. Billions of dollars have been spent. Tremendous wealth and energy have been expended. Germany, a country smaller in area than the province of Ontario, and with a population of over seventy millions of people, has spent billions of dollars. France, small in area, with a population of over forty million people, has spent billions of dollars on armaments besides providing for the needs of her people. Italy, also small in area, with a population of approximately fifty millions, has spent billions of dollars upon instruments of destruction. The same is true of England. Thus we find that in the four countries I have mentioned, where more than two hundred millions of people live, billions of dollars have been appropriated for the production of implements of war. How is it that Canada, having a large geographical area, with a population of approximately twelve million people, with more natural resources per capita than are possessed by any other people on earth, cannot maintain its institutions? How is it that our educational and health facilities are being undermined? How is it that municipal, provincial and federal governments are unable to finance the social and economic legislation which they feel is necessary? How is it that we are told that the deficits of the Canadian National Railways will bankrupt Canada? All this in spite of the fact that Canada is fifth among the great trading nations of the world? Something is radically wrong with our economic set-up. There is no good reason for the widespread suffering and want which exist in Canada, where we have only twelve million people, willing and anxious to provide from its tremendous natural resources all the commodities they may desire.
I wish to refer now to some questions by Mr. Hellmuth and some answers by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) as contained on page 10 of the report of the royal commission on the Bren machine gun contract. The question was asked by Mr. Hellmuth:
So that there has been no change in the actual policy of the government, or of the Minister of National Defence, that government ownership is the best and that the next is competition ?
The answer was:
Quite correct, provided you will give us the finances, the money.
The Address-Mr. Landeryou

Q. Yes; if you do not have money you cannot do anything?
A. Money is everything; when you are running the Department of National Defence you can t run it without money.
Q. I put it before you here, that the best plan is government ownership?
A. I thoroughly agree with you.
The minister said that there were two very definite schools of thought in the department and that he assumed all responsibility. One school, he said, was headed by the then chief of general staff and the other by the deputy minister, for both of whom he said he had equally great admiration.
The minister said that General Ashton (the then chief of the general staff) was very insistent upon the development of government arsenals and that the former chief of general staff, General McN aught on, evolved a very comprehensive scheme for Yalcartier which would include practically all the requirements of the Canadian forces.
That was considered after I went into the department and I found that the cost of it would be something between $30,000,000 and $35,000,000. With my meagre $25,000,000 or $30,000,000, what could I do with a scheme like that?
I heartily agree with the Minister of Defence that money is everything. You cannot do very much without money. But I would remind the government and particularly the Minister of Defence that in 1935 the Liberal party went to the people of Canada with the outstanding promise of monetary reform. They stated that control of money and credit should be restored to parliament and considered as its most sacred obligation. They further stated that money and credit would be issued to meet the industrial, the public and domestic need. That promise has not been fulfilled, in spite of the declaration by the Prime Minister that all the promises of the Liberal party have been carried out. We find now that the Minister of National Defence is unable to carry out the policies in which he and his advisers believe. Why? Because they are short of money. I have no hesitation in saying that many of the other ministers who sit on the treasury benches are faced with exactly the same problem. They find it impossible, on account of lack of money, to pursue many of the policies they and their advisers support.
Increased purchasing power is Canada's most urgent need at the present time. Municipal and provincial governments as well as the federal government are in need of more money. The consumers of the country are in need of more money to purchase commodities and services that can be-produced and rendered in Canada. When we advocate increased purchasing power for the Canadian people, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) at once sets up straw men and begins to knock them down. Others say that we are out to turn the printing presses loose and flood the country

with Bank of Canada bills. We have never advocated such a policy. All we say to the government is that they should have our monetary system reflect our collective ability to produce and render goods and services in Canada; that when there is idle labour and unused material, money should be issued so that that unused material and idle labour can be brought into production. We say, go thus far. Issue purchasing power so that the amount of money available in the hands of the people will be sufficient to equate the value of the goods and services that can be produced and rendered in Canada. In other words, make financially possible that which is already physically possible.
Before the election in 1935 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that in the next parliament a great battle would be fought with the money powers. Instead of battling with the money powers they battled with the provinces. They have battled with the provinces on many occasions. They have battled with the money powers against the provinces. They have even battled with one another. It is no wonder the premier of Ontario declares that he is no longer a Mackenzie King Liberal; no wonder the farmers of Saskatchewan advocate secession; no wonder the Liberal government of that province forwards a resolution to the federal government requesting them to carry out the promise with regard to monetary reform.
The policies pursued by this government are gradually undermining confederation and democracy in Canada. Ways and means can and must be found of correcting our economic ills without the surrender of any of our democratic rights, without centralizing authority in this government, without establishing a dictatorship, without making the provinces either politically or financially subservient. The democratic rights of our people can best be preserved by maintaining provincial autonomy.
The election slogan of the Liberal party in the 1935 campaign was "King or chaos." Unfortunately we got both. Where is the cooperation that was to exist between the federal government and the provinces? Among many things, the trade tariff and monetary policies pursued by this government have worked inimically to the best interests of many sections of Canada. The disabilities from which those sections are suffering must be corrected. I see no indication in the speech from the throne that the government intends to discuss these matters with the provinces apart from the possible discussion of unemployment. One would be led to believe, after listening to speeches made by members of the Liberal party, that all the loyalty in

The Address-Mr. Landeryou
Canada was wrapped up in the bosom of that party. Let me say, however, that Alberta and we who represent that province are as loyal to confederation as are any of those who now occupy treasury benches, and I am sure the same could be said of the other provinces and their representatives, no matter to which party they may belong. However, any slogan of "King and unity" to replace the "King or chaos" slogan of 1935 will not be accepted by the Canadian people unless definite action is taken to remove the many injustices from which they are suffering.
Reference has been made to the new trade agreement recently signed by Canada and the United States. We are in favour of world trade, but not of trade war. We believe that more attention should be paid to the development of Canada's home markets. Much could be done in the development of our coal, oil and sugar industries. In fact, I have read recently many editorials in the Halifax Herald depicting the terrible condition that exists in connection with the miners and fishermen of Nova Scotia. I visited the coal mining areas of Alberta and asked in one particular section what the problem was there. They said that it was simply a problem of unemployment and partial employment. They said that if an order could be secured for two million tons of coal their troubles would be over. We import from fifteen to seventeen million tons of coal every year. Why talk about blasting our way into foreign markets when we cannot secure our own?
Let me read from a pamphlet put out by L. R. Lipsett, K.C.. LL.D., O.B.E. Under the title, "National Coal Policy for Canada," the author writes:
Had the provinces of Ontario and Quebec during the past thirty years, taken a broad view of what was necessary for the prosperity of Canada as a whole, and had those provinces adapted themselves to using Canadian coal, much might have been done to redress the adverse trade balance, but eastern Canada blindly continued to import millions of tons of American coal, for the sake of immediate sayings in expense, regardless of the fact that this was bound to make other provinces, sooner or later, unable to pay for the goods they manufactured.
Results, apparent to everyone to-day, might well have been foreseen for a number of years past, had a longer view been taken by the eastern manufacturing and financial interests, by the Canadian railways, and by the various governments from time to time in power.
The drain on nation finances.
The second outstanding fact which emerged from a study of the problem from the national standpoint, is the enormous annual drain on Canadian resources necessary to pay for importations of American coal. In the coal statistics for Canada (Coal Statistics for Canada, 1936. Page 18.), published by the dominion bureau of statistics, it is stated that
about $450,000,000 were sent out of Canada during the last ten years for imported coal, practically all of which was sent to the United States of America. This was the figure paid to the American mine owners for coal, and when the railway freights from the American mines to the Canadian border are added, the money sent out of the country during these ten years, would far exceed $500,000,000, or a sum of over $50,000,000 each year.
Consider for one moment what this sum, it it had been kept at home, would have meant to Canada, and the effect it would have had on the balance of trade as between Canada and the outside world. Consider also the effect, during these past ten years, of the creation within Canada of this $50,000,000 of new wealth each year, and its contribution to the wellbeing of the country, and to the problem of unemployment, vdiich has been so acute during most of the period.
If one assumes that $5 per day would represent an average day's wage, then this $50,000,000 annually sent out of Canada would represent approximately 10,000,000 days work each year, or enough to give employment to well over
40,000	unemployed men for about eight months each year.
Direct prosperity would certainly accrue to the Eastern manufacturers and workers who would receive substantial orders, not now forthcoming, as a result of the enormously increased buying power of the workers and operators in the coal producing areas of Canada, and of the railways and railway workers, who would benefit by its transportation.
I ask the government to consider passing much needed social legislation. If they would reduce the age for qualification for the old age pension to sixty, this would provide an opportunity for employment for thousands of young men now tramping the highways and byways of this country in search of work. If they would provide pensions to widows of ex-service men who saw service in actual theatres of war, they would also be helping a very worthy class. From the letters I have received from many of these widows, I know how difficult it is for them to establish the fact that the death of their husbands could be attributed to war causes. I should like to read a letter from the Canadian Soldier Non-Pensioned Widows' Association:
We the Canadian soldier non-pensioned widows request you to give your consideration to the following:
First the sacred promise made by Canada's War Prime Minister-The Right Honourable R. L. Borden-"That, Canadians we are proud of you, you can rest assured that you and your kin will never suffer, Canada owes that to you for the great honour you have brought to our great dominion."
Since the great war ended many of our Canadian heroes returned, but through their great sacrifices have gone to an early grave, leaving their dependents in unfortunate circumstances over which they had no control, have been forced to exist upon unemployed relief. As the widows of pensioners are receiving a full pension we request that as our loss is equal to theirs that we also be fully pensioned.
The Address-Mr. Landeryou

We gave our consent for our husbands to give their all for our glorious empire, that it would he maintained for the honour, glory and benefit of civilized Christianity-we therefore ask that the War Prime Minister's promises be upheld.
I also have received a request from the city of Calgary that this government pass legislation to provide financial assistance to expectant mothers during the period of their confinement. The letter states:
The special health committee of the council of the city of Calgary, in meeting recently, gave consideration to a report from the city's medical officer of health, Dr. Hill, wherein it was stated that infant mortality in the city of Calgary, as elsewhere in the Dominion of Canada, was overly heavy due to the fact that expectant mothers were not being given any financial assistance either by the dominion, provincial or municipal governments. Dr. Hill believed, and so stated in his report, that the situation in this regard could be considerably improved upon if an expectant mother was assured some financial assistance during the period of her confinement.
I should like the government also to consider the advisability of reducing the age at which the blind may qualify for pension from forty to twenty-one years. That has been done in New Zealand.
Just here I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), as follows:
This statement is proven by what has occurred in New Zealand, where a government with philosophy and ideals similar to those which we advocate has been able since 1935 to assist the people of that country to solve problems which, according to the speech from the throne now before us, seem insoluble.
I thoroughly enjoyed the address of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, but I cannot agree when he attempts to say that the ideals and principles of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are being implemented in New Zealand, or that the government of that country is attempting to translate the ideals of his party into reality there. I have read many speeches delivered by the Prime Minister of New Zealand and his colleagues, and in them I find no reference whatever to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation or to socialism. I should like to read the statement made by the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Hon. M. J. Savage, when he was questioned as to his connection with the social credit organization:
The Prime Minister (Hon. M. J. Savage) said the leader of the opposition had accused the government of having made arrangements with the Douglas credit organizations. Now, what were the Douglas credit organizations trying to do? They were trying to get for the people the things that the people were capable of producing. Well, who had a better right to them than the people themselves? There was any amount of room for difference of

opinion about this; that, unless the buying power of the people was enough to equate the value of their production they would never get out of the mudhole which the last government created for the country. Unless the buying power of the people increased with the increasing production, what was the use of increasing production?
They had the right to govern in the financial sphere; and everything they did in that sphere *was based on the public credit. Had not the time come for basing their money system on the goods they produced and the services they rendered to each other?
Then, from the report of another speech made before eight thousand people at the King Edward barracks, Auckland, I quote;
The Prime Minister said that unless the government of a country controlled the credit of the country it could not control anything else.
"I don't suggest that this means socialization. ... I am not prepared to predict what will happen to the money system in this or any other country at any long period ahead, but I do believe that there can be no freedom unless the mass of the people have freedom to buy, and that is economic freedom. Without economic freedom no nation can ever be free." The clear objective of the labour party was to make money the servant of man instead of the master.
So I believe the government of New Zealand is attempting to implement the principles and ideals for which the social credit party of this country stands. I should like to refer also to a statement by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), appearing at page 60 of Hansard for January 16, 1939:
Men will not put out their money to invest in the different industries. They are withdrawing their capital from industry. Ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who is sitting here to-night, how much of the investment of capital to-day is going into government securities at a low rate of interest in comparison with what took place in former years.
Then he went further:
Labour and capital are both essential to production, and whatever paralyzes one paralyzes the other in the matter of effective production.
There are many factors that enter into this industrial paralysis. I do not believe it is as simple as saying that when capital is paralyzed, labour is idle and industry slumps. I believe that if the consumers of this country had more money, that money would be spent on goods and the wheels of industry would turn once more. The reason for industrial paralysis is not any fear of something external; it is the definite knowledge in the minds of those who control capital that if they were to invest their money in creating more products of industry, the people would be unable to pay for them; for to-day, as for many years past, we find the great production of Canadian industry

The Address-Mr. Fleming
being disposed of on the instalment plan, fifty cents or a dollar down and a dollar when you catch me. If we have to mortgage the future in order to purchase these goods to-day; if we have to allow these loan shark companies to loan millions and millions of dollars to the consumers in order to complete the purchase of goods bought on the instalment plan, it should be apparent to all that the only thing this country needs is more purchasing power. Municipal, provincial and federal governments require it just as much as the consumers require it. I plead with the government to take definite steps to deal with Canada's social and economic problems, so that a greater measure of peace, happiness and prosperity may be made available to all.


Mr. H. R. FLEMING (Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks this afternoon I should like to offer my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
During the parliamentary recess the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) again demonstrated to the Canadian people that he is one of our greatest statesmen. His handling of the international crisis through which we passed deserves the approbation and gratitude of the entire nation. His conception of the Canadian angle of the problem was dominated by past pronouncements made in this house and to the Canadian electorate; and while jingoistic newspaper writers from coast to coast thundered against him, he remained steadfast to those pronouncements and never once made a false move or issued an unconsidered statement.
We also have reason, Mr. Speaker, to be proud of the calibre of the men in the public life of this country. May I congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his election to that high office and also upon gaining a seat in the House of Commons. He took the stand of a statesman and followed the best of British traditions when, in our hour of greatest peril, he offered no criticism of the government, but said that he was ready to stand by and aid in any emergency. That was the stand of a statesman and a soldier, and one which has enhanced his reputation in the hearts and minds of many Canadians. Such chivalry is characteristic of only one race, the Irish, to which he belongs.
Another event of extraordinary interest has occurred in the interval since parliament prorogued. Their Gracious Majesties the King and Queen have agreed to visit these shores, the first reigning monarchs ever to visit a dominion. We are deeply honoured and
jubilant. Their visit will do much, if such were needed, to reaffirm our belief in the soundness of our political alliances. Their visit to the United States we may be confident will also do much toward cementing the friendly feeling which exists between the empire and the great democracy to the south of us, whose long and mutual accord and respect we deeply value, and of which we are so justly proud. No words of greater import were ever uttered in human history than when last summer at the opening of an international bridge, in the presence of the king's representatives and in the presence of the Prime Minister of Canada and responsible ministers of the crown, the President of the United States said that if Canada were ever attacked the United States would not stand idly by.
The visit of their majesties will give us an opportunity of showing them our loyalty and devotion to their persons. It has been my fond hope that my constituency might have had an opportunity of giving such a demonstration. While I realize that their majesties' time is limited, I thought it would have been a nice gesture on their part if they could have visited the largest German and Icelandic settlements in Canada. Many of my constituents come from the Munich area in Germany, where Mr. Hitler and Mr. Chamberlain signed the famous peace pact to keep peace in our time. The constituency of Humboldt would have given the king and queen a reception which might in other places have been surpassed in grandeur and volume but nowhere else in sincerity.
In the interval between the prorogation of the last session and the opening of the present one we have become parties to the signing of one of the greatest trade pacts ever negotiated in history. From a long term point of view I cannot help but believe that it will have tremendous beneficial effects, both economically and politically. But Mr. Speaker, as I review the accomplishments of the present government and of our own political term in office, and as I have listened attentively to the proposals in the speech from the throne, I begin to wonder how long it will be before the government will be willing to face fairly the fundamental issues, instead of permitting itself to be occupied merely with details of administration.
In my view we have been following the proper path externally. Faced with high tariff barriers throughout the world we have negotiated trade treaties with nations who have wished to trade with us. We did not simply sit back and trade among ourselves, an attitude which would have been disastrous
The Address-Mr. Fleming

to our position as the fifth trading nation of the world. In our political relations with other nations at least we have made no serious errors.
Of course there is the question whether or not we are putting our full weight behind our empire defence scheme. But generally speaking, under all circumstances, I think we have done perhaps considerably better than could be expected. On the other hand, internally, we seem to be floundering around, not that we have made so many mistakes. Someone will say, "Well, if you are speaking of social reform, the answer is that we cannot do anything until the federal government has more power." Any practical man will say, "Do it anyway"-and I am glad to find in the speech from the throne that this is the attitude of the present administration when it says:
My ministers recognize that the plight of those who are still unemployed cannot await necessary constitutional amendments, nor the summoning of any conference. They are prepared therefore, notwithstanding constitutional impediments to effective action, to join with the provinces in a further determined effort to meet the immediate situation.
Once again I think the Prime Minister is on the right track, but progress along that track seems painfully slow. There is no sense in passing laws, if they are to remain inoperative. There is no use in passing laws if they are to be thrown out by the courts. As I hear hon. members opposite and people throughout the country criticizing royal commissions, I often wonder why members of the House of Commons and members of the Senate could not occupy positions on those commissions just as well as impractical university professors and editorial writers on the newspapers. In every session, after the opening days, the Senate adjourns. As a matter of fact it has just adjourned for about a month. In that chamber there are men occupying high positions in the state, men who are privy councillors of the empire, men who stand high in the business, financial and economic world. Why could we not place them on commissions, instead of appointing royal commissioners? In that regard I agree with some hon. members opposite when they say that every time we face a knotty problem we appoint a royal commission-and then the government does what it wanted to do anyway. The only thing I can ever say for a royal commission is that the government has a splendid goat at its disposal, and if the recommendations of the commission do not work out satisfactorily it can be blamed.
I am not complaining that we are not doing good. My complaint is that we are not

doing enough good, or at least not getting round to it fast enough. That is the attitude of the people in my constituency. The British North America Act should and could have been amended long ago, but I hold the suspicion that in the minds of some members of t'he government and many members of the house there lurks this thought: If you amend the British North America Act, there goes the best alibi you ever had in your life. I say this: If we do not amend it, we shall drift into a mess for which we shall never be able to find an alibi.
In what manner did the speech from the throne convey to us the fact that we are facing a critical, if not a crucial, period in the history of Canada and the world at large? We came through one world crisis, and we have no assurance that we shall not have to face another one in the near future. The speech from the throne contains many first-class suggestions, but why do we dislike to face realities? Why do we struggle so hard, to preserve the impression that we are still dealing with the "common round"; that the world around us is not changing, that the affairs of men move smoothly, and that we can be smugly complacent about the situation? National and world economy has become a hopeless tangle. Production for need has become all mixed up with exploitation for profit. In Canada we see poverty and desperation. When we have nearly a million people on relief and the granaries are filled with wheat, do we take the wheat and put men to work making bread for those who have none? No; we plunge the country farther into debt by borrowing money to get the bread. Goods are sacrificed for profit not only in this country but in others. Brazil dumps coffee into the ocean; California throws oranges on the dump heap; British Columbia allows her apples to rot in the orchards; the United States deliberately slaughters her hogs. While all this is happening, in my constituency there are children who have grown from babies and have never seen an apple or even an orange. There are hundreds and hundreds of families who for years have used roasted barley as a substitute for coffee-and yet we stick to this worldwide valorization.
What do we contribute to the problem? Before the house there are bills and still more bills, talk and still more talk, none of which touches the vital problems with which we are concerned. In my opinion no harm and perhaps a considerable amount of good would be done if, during an entire session, we threw every petty problem into the future and tried

The Address-Mr. Fleming
to work out a remedy for the defects of our political, social and economic organization. If that course did nothing else, at least it would permit us to see clearly the difficulties which confront us.
It is all too easy to think, in terms of ourselves and our supporters, of the problems of the moment. In other words, we think of those matters which, to the dominion as a whole, are only small. If we could solve the big problems, most of the small ones would never arise. If we do not solve the big problems, our power to solve them may be taken away from us. Those are neither idle words nor a threat, but a statement of grim reality.
Undoubtedly the biggest problem of all is the present plight of our people. "The people keep the government, but the government does not keep the people." By this I do not mean that we should keep the people on relief. The people ask for an opportunity to earn a living, and we give them charity. They do not want it; we do not want it, and the country cannot stand it forever.
Mr. L. T. Hobhouse, in his book on Liberalism, British Liberalism-and I consider that the excerpt I am going to give is equally applicable to-day to Canadian Liberalism- says:
The right to work and the right to a living wage are just as valid as the rights of person or property. They are integral conditions of a good social order. A society in which a single honest man of normal capacity is definitely unable to find the means of maintaining himself by useful work is to that extent suffering from malorganization. There is somewhere a defect in the social system, a hitch in the economic machine. Now, the individual workman cannot put the machine straight. He is the last person to have any say in the control of the market. It is not his fault that there is overproduction in his industry, or if new and cheaper processes have been introduced which makes his particular skill-a drug on the market. He does not direct or regulate industry. He is not responsible for its ups and downs. But he has to pay for them. That ' is why it is not charity but justice for which he is asking.
That, Mr. Speaker, to me is Liberalism.
The individual cannot right conditions by himself, and so he looks to the government to do it. What is the government's answer? Direct relief cannot remain indefinitely the answer. We should do away with relief as soon as possible. I do not believe that we should let the people starve. But there seems to be a conception that because we are keeping the unemployed, we are relieved of all obligation to help them to secure employment.
But what have we done about our basic obligation as a state, which is to secure conditions under which mind and character may
best develop by themselves? It is to me ridiculous, it is stupid, it is asinine that crops should be ploughed under, that fish should be thrown back into the sea, that hogs should be slaughtered, when so many people are starving or living barely above the subsistence level. Do we need people to work, to produce and feed them? They are more than available. We are supporting them in idleness. Do we need land and resources with which to produce? Millions of fertile acres are lying idle for the plough of the husbandman, waiting for their riches to be turned into gold. Idle men and idle acres do not add up to prosperity. And, Mr. Speaker, agriculture, our basic industry, lies crushed and bleeding from a thousand wounds. The leader of the Liberal party, now Prime Minister of this country, on that eventful night of October 14, 1935, issued the following statement to the Canadian people:
We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
A back-to-the-land movement will not solve that problem because hundreds and hundreds of our experienced farmers on the plains of Saskatchewan and of western Canada are starving. The problem goes deeper, much deeper, than that.
One step that will have to be taken is to provide more money for productive purposes, for individual enterprise, and coincident with that there must be a better price to the primary producer for his products. If fewer people are to get more and more of the money, through a system which permits excessive profits to the few, then we can continue to expect more and more people with less and less money; and when less becomes nothing, the state has to support them.
For a long time I have been a believer in sound money, as some people call it. For a long time I have worshipped at the shrine of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), when he was Premier of Saskatchewan and while he has been Minister of Finance here. But, Mr. Speaker, the more I have read and the more I have studied the solutions that have been offered by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), and other monetary reformers, the more convinced and persuaded I have become that we must get more money into circulation, even though we have to use methods of inflation. I do not think we need to be afraid of inflation,
The Address-Mr. Fleming

but we have been afraid of it ever since it was tried in the old post-war days in Germany. But in Germany they have inflation to-day, and Germany is apparently one of the most prosperous countries in the world. What I cannot understand is this:	If there
were a war to-morrow we would get all the money we wanted. It seems to me that you can get all you want for destruction, but as little as can be spared for construction.
As to the feverish armament race that is now going on in the world, on the one hand I can see the necessity for the empire rearming, but on the other I cannot help being suspicious about it. Of course, if we are not armed, we are certainly a temptation to ruthless aggressors, and surely our September scare must have indicated how rapidly we could all be drawn into the whirlpool before we knew anything about-what was happening. In a madly rearming world, can we afford to remain blissfully insecure, while greedy nations eye our undeveloped wealth as one of the richest prizes on earth? Yet, no matter what we do in the way of armaments, I think we should let the world know we are certainly on the side of democracy, justice and peace.
But we cannot shirk much longer our responsibilities as part of the empire. The motherland is not going to force us into doing our part, but she has made known her desire that she would like the dominion to be able to look after its own defence. On the other hand, the world situation is far from hopeless. There have always been divergent opinions in the world. If. those who are in the right have the intelligence, the courage and the morale of their convictions, they will win through. It is not inconceivable that the totalitarian states and the democracies can live and work together in peace. It is not any more for us to say that Germany should have this or that type of government than it is for Germany to say that democracies should give up their priceless privilege of freedom. Surely we who live in the democracies should count our blessings. But we cannot talk too enthusiastically about the virtues of democracy until we prove that democracy has those virtues. We would be better advised to spend less time in criticizing the Hitler regime and more time in bolstering up our own weaknesses. The best criticism anyone can give of a dictatorship is a perfectly functioning democracy.
Our freedom was hard won. Our forefathers paid for it in blood and tears. Are we to be unworthy of that heritage? Are we to let the world slip back into the dark night of oblivion because of our ineompet-

ency, because of our neglect, because of our failure to see our problems and to see them whole? Or shall we keep the beacon light of democracy burning to light the rest of the world which has taken the by-path back on the road to freedom?
Democracy is not perfect. It is as fallible as the people who compose it. In the democratic state, though the good generally prevails because the majority must be pleased, special or malignant groups cannot thrive for long, as larger groups will generally turn them out of power. On the other hand, it is true that the majority does not always realize its power, or even that it is being exploited. That is when an intelligent leadership is so desirable and necessary.
Conditions in most parts of western Canada this year, Mr. Speaker, have been, to say the least, desperate. It is a combination of poor wheat markets over a period of years, and no wheat or anything else to sell because of drought, grasshoppers and rust. Fortunately this year those who were lucky enough to have rust-resistant wheat had some grain to sell. The government fixed a price of eighty cents a bushel. This was done, I trust, after mature thought by the government, and not as the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) said, as the result of a by-election in the constituency of Humboldt. I do not know what we should have done if the government had not set a price for wheat. I believe a panic would have resulted in western Canada.
We all realize that the self-sufficiency policy of most countries in the last decade has led to a curtailment of our markets and to an increase in the production of wheat. But it sometimes seems to me as if the people of eastern Canada, and even Premier Hepburn and Premier Duplessis, wanted to add a few frills of their own and to turn the world's great wheat basket into a wastebasket.
The wheat farmer mostly competes in the open market to sell his products. But in order to produce he must buy his implements in a protected market, and we find right now that the western farmers and many of my constituents are not so much interested in the price they receive for their wheat as in getting the commodities which they use reduced in price. As to wheat this year, with the fixed price, the concession that we have made in the British market will not alter the selection greatly. What effect the six cent preference we enjoyed had on the actual market was sometimes disputed; but the selection would be vastly altered if we did not have that fixed price for wheat. So it further indicates to the government the necessity of retaining it over a period of years.

The Address-Mr. Fleming
In giving up the British preference, what compensation has the west received? We were hoping that we could see a fairly certain gleam that there would be a reduction in the price of our tools of production or in our cost of living. Two things are of main importance to the western farmer, farm implements and gasoline. Gasoline was not mentioned in the trade treaty; and there is no lowering of the duty on United States implements coming into Canada. This may help the Canadian manufacturer; I do not know; but it certainly will not have any effect in cutting down the price of farm implements. In fact, I am not emphasizing the point because experience has shown us that even if the duty is cut, it does not succeed in lowering the price of farm implements to any great extent, if at all. When you take the duty off the manufacturing companies raise the price anyway. Shortly before the trade agreement was made public, the implement companies turned round and lowered the price. This was perhaps not so much related to what the tariff will be, as to the fact that there was not the tariff to bear it. After the duty was cut in 1935, the price of farm implements actually increased.
I have no hesitation in saying that the price of gasoline and the price of farm implements are out of all proportion and are far too high. Every investigation, including our own and the inquiry in the United States into the price of farm implements, has sustained that fact. The reason that reductions in duty will do little to force the price down is that there is a combination which acts as an international monopoly.
In the report last summer of the federal trade commission upon its investigation into the agricultural implement and machine industry in the United States, this statement is made:	.
The effect on prices of this concentration of production is such that, with respect to the most important farm implements, the prices established by the leading manufacturers, especially International Harvester Co. and Deere & Co., constitute, in so far as the machines are of closely similar character, the price level which all manufacturers observe.
The small companies generally cannot sell their products for more than the established prices of widely accepted similar products of the large companies; nor do they feel free to sell for less than the price leaders for fear of starting a price war in which their large and financially stronger rivals would have all the advantage.
Lest their prices be out of line, it is the practice among lesser manufacturers to await the announcement of prices by the leading companies at the beginning of each season before announcing their own. Similarly, the price leadership of the large companies is followed
in price changes made during selling seasons. In general, any price reductions are restricted to implements or machines for which the leaders of the industry have announced reductions.
In summarizing the effect of concentration on prices, the trade commissioner's report states:
It does not take either imagination or insight to perceive that the same sort of thing obtains in Canada, where the market is dominated by subsidiaries of the American companies.
Not only do the rich get richer and the poor poorer, but it seems in these days as though the small corporation and the small business man have no chance at all. In the meantime the consuming public suffers. Let me quote again from the federal trade commission's report on farm implements. They say:
Domination of the farm implement and machinery industry by a few leading manufacturers has resulted in the maintenance of the prices of their products at levels far higher than those of farm products and of the prices of other manufactured products of somewhat comparable material and labour. There was a more or less general decline in the prices of farm machinery from 1929 through the years of severest industrial depression. 1932 and 1933. However, this decline was slight in comparison with the decline in the farm prices of the principal farm products.
What can be done? Government fixing of a maximum price level would not, I think, be advisable because either labour or the quality of the goods would suffer. Yet if some way cannot soon be found to make the implement manufacturers toe the line, the government will have to set up manufacturing plants under the control of the government; or if we do. not want to do that, we shall have to make arrangements with some other countries, like Germany, and get them to manufacture our implements and bring them into this country, because the farmers of western Canada absolutely cannot go on as they are doing for another period of years; conditions are going from bad to worse.
Something also should be done about the price of gasoline. It would not surprise me one bit, if we had an investigation into the price of gasoline, that we should find that the same international monopoly exists as is to be found in connection with the price of farm implements. Whatever it is that is sustaining the price out of all proportion to prices of primary products, the government should not wait until next year but should certainly take some steps this year to eliminate this condition.
No problem in this country demands so much immediate attention as the welfare of the primary producer, particularly the farmer. If the farmer is prosperous, never fear but that
The Address-Mr. Fleming

the city will be prosperous. One part of the problem is for the farmer to obtain a reasonable price for his products. Another part is that he should not have to pay an unreasonable price for other goods. To-day he is caught between the scissors. He is cut to the bone on the price paid to him for his products, and at the same time the pittance he receives for his goods is cut deeply by the price of the tools of production and the charge for the amenities of living.
No trade treaty ever designed could satisfy everybody. It is impossible at one and the same time to please the producer and the consumer. But the general object of such a treaty should be for instance, to permit Canada to sell in the United States goods which the United States is unable to produce as efficiently or in sufficient quantities, and to permit the United States to come to Canada with goods which we cannot produce efficiently here. If there is to be some sacrifice, it should be in the artificial industries. I would not look with favour upon destroying industry. I should be seriously concerned if for one moment I thought that by taking off the tariff we should be destroying the factories in the riding of the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser); but that consequence is always a debatable point. But if the factories where the hon. member for Northumberland lives, are making exorbitant profits in a protected market, and at the same time bleeding to death another part of our economy, not only do 1 fail to see the value of such protection, but I think it is vicious.
There are a number of items omitted frorr. the trade treaty which I should have likeo to see included. Yet the real test of the treaty, and only time will tell, is, will it result in a freer flow of goods between this country and the United States? For England we are a convenient factory to have in case of war, but she too can make better arrangements with her neighbours. Of course we do not wish to lose the British market, and I do not think we shall. But the United States is our natural market. Sometimes I think it would have been much better for us from the first if we had been trading from north to south in place of from east to west; if instead of travelling along a four thousand mile line we could have traded over a few hundred miles between the north and the south.
Definitely, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the treaty is a step in the right direction. It has lowered duties on a broad front, and it is designed to exchange goods. That is what we need if we are ever to get back to prosperity. It also links us with the two great trad-

ing nations of the earth. It has long been my view that belligerent dictators would be most vulnerable to an economic union of the democratic states. Democracy is worth fighting for, but we do not have to go around with a chip on our shoulder talking about the totalitarian state. Democracy is such a magnificent ideal, it would be a shame to let it perish from the face of the earth because of our incompetence or because we were unable to mould it to our purpose. If we could make this land and the system under which we live so desirable that the peoples of all countries would wish to come and live here, never fear, it would not be long before other countries would accept our system of government. No man can teach an entire nation for long. The people in Germany turned from democracy, just as the people in Canada will turn from democracy if the government of Canada and of the other democratic nations will not try to make the people happy and contented, but rather hold them down as economic slaves. In the name of the people of Canada, in the name of people with more ability than I have, I appeal to this house to do something for the starving inhabitants, and for the farmers, of western Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. A. MARSH (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am not an old member of the house and therefore I am not a critic, but I think those speeches were very fine indeed.
Before proceeding to the matter of the speech from the throne, I should like to say a word about the opening of parliament and the delivery of the speech in the senate chamber. This may be regarded as a secondary matter, but I think it needs to be said by someone.
Each year the opening of parliament is a much anticipated event. We might even say it is the outstanding event of the year, because parliament has the power to add to or take away from the welfare of eleven and a half million Canadian people. From all parts of Canada come the commoners, members of the senate, their families and friends, business men and various people representing all phases of Canadian life. The focus of this

The Address-Mr. Marsh
interest is the speech from the throne. Seated in the senate chamber, in the galleries, back in the foyer and thronging the corridors are representative Canadian people, waiting, hushed with expectancy. The speech begins, continues and ends, and except for those people within a radius of perhaps twenty feet of the speaker the one hour message is not heard.
It is far from my intention to criticize the speaker. His Excellency the Governor General, the representative of the king; but I do think the senate chamber, which at best is a difficult place in which to hear or be heard, should be equipped with an amplifier, which I believe could be installed very easily, in order that those who have come so far, for such an important event, might hear the speech from the throne rather than read it in the morning paper over a cup of coffee. As I was standing at the back of the senate chamber I was considerably embarrassed by the conversation and noise going on about me; yet I could not criticize those who were chatting, because I knew they could not hear. I submit that all the dignity of parliament and British traditions, each of which has a meaning to us in Canada to-day, requires that the speech from the throne be heard as it comes from the cultured lips of the governor general. In fact, I would go further and suggest that hundreds of thousands of loyal Canadians would like to hear the speech from the throne over the air. I am sure the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would allow that.
I have listened to the excellent speeches on the address that have been made so far. We have heard from hon. members from the east, from the west, from the north and from the south, and I think there is no doubt that this parliament is problem conscious. We know the problems that beset our country today, but I would point out that we knew those problems last year, the year before and the year before that; yet we have not gone very far towards solving them. It is very seldom that I find myself able to agree with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more), but he asked a very pertinent question. It was this: Does the government know what to do? The next question was:	If
the government knows what to do, will it do it? The next was:	Has the government
power? If the government has power, will it exercise that power?
From the press, from the pulpit, from newspapers throughout Canada and in private conversation with thinking men and women we have heard these questions asked:	Has
democracy failed? Has the government failed? Has community life failed? Has the family failed? Has the individual failed? Has the church failed? All these questions have been asked, and they have been answered by various people in various ways. I should like to take those questions now, put them all together, and unhesitatingly answer yes to all. Having done that, we can get ahead with the serious business of government.
There are some problems, Mr. Speaker, that are sapping at the very blood stream of Canadian life to-day. They are problems that are serious, and in this year of our Lord 1939, at this session of parliament, it is our job to do something about them. Therefore I say to the government-because we are in opposition here; we are handcuffed, tied hand and foot-"Give us legislation, and we will not obstruct it. Give us some policies and if they are any good we will not delay them. We will do our very best to augment, to push through, to pass any bills that are based on sound policy." But may we not flounder again as we have floundered during the past three years?
It is quite fresh in the memory of hon. members that last year we sat for almost six months. We wore the seats out of our trousers, while the man on the street was wearing the soles off his shoes hunting the job that it was our duty to create for him. We waited for the budget. The business men of Canada, the manufacturers and merchandisers, cannot buy; they cannot plan; they cannot budget until the financial statement of the government is brought down. We waited through February and March and April and May. I think it was June 16 when the budget was finally brought down for consideration in this house. In the meantime what was happening? In the city of Hamilton, where I live, there was very little smoke coming out of the chimneys, and there were very few wheels turning in our factories. There were men and women walking the streets of our city, while other men and women were working two or three days a week, getting very slim pay envelopes and depending partly upon relief.
What can we point to with pride in the work of last session? I should like to be fair; I should like to give credit where credit is due. There was a little housing; yes. Good. There was the removal of the sales tax on gopher poison, heavy harness and a few building materials. Good. The farmer buys heavy harness once every seven years, but at least it is a start. Then there was the

The Address-Mr. Marsh

removal of the sales tax on material for the making of fishermen's nets. Wis there anything else? Was there anything about unemployment insurance? No. Was there a reduction in taxation? No. Was there closer harmony between the provinces? No. Was there greater economy in spending? No. Was there any increased revenue from the customs tariff? No. Were there increased exports? No. Decreased exports? Yes.
Then, Mr. Speaker, after several months had gone by, we came to the bill to assist municipalities to relieve unemployment by making available to them $30,000,000 at two per cent. When this legislation was enunciated I was quite enthusiastic about it; but when we went into the provisions of the bill, we were sobered with the realization that the number of self-liquidating projects was extremely limited. Then we found that the bill could not come into operation until the provincial legislatures met, and at that time they had all prorogued for the summer. So it was necessary for them to be called together before the municipalities could take advantage of that act. How successful has that legislation been? How much of this $30,000,000 has been made available to the municipalities? I speak subject to correction; but my information is that out of the $30,000,000 only $2,900,000 has been made available to the municipalities of this country, with nothing being spent in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario. That is a ten per cent success as far as this legislation is concerned. A business man would have very great difficulty in operating his business if, in any policy, he had only ten per cent of success and ninety per cent of failure.
1 should like to place on Hansard a news item from the Toronto Daily Star, under date of January 17, 1939:
Premier Hepburn's refusal to have Ontario guarantee low cost dominion loans for self-liquidating public works has tied up thirty-three Ontario municipalities. They wished to share the $30,000,000 made available by Ottawa last year, for such works as electric light, sewer and water systems.
The two per cent money was available if the loan was guaranteed by the province. Quebec and Ontario refused. In the other seven provinces loans aggregating $2,900,000 were made.
Ontario's attitude halted Toronto efforts to secure aid for its large sewage disposal scheme, but thirty-three other municipalities did make applications which are pigeonholed until the provincial guarantee is forthcoming. The applications are:
Owen Sound, city hall; Pelee township, draining system; Morrisburg, school; London, sewerage system; Burlington, water scheme; Kirkland Lake and Port Arthur, water and drainage systems; St. Thomas, nurses' home; Geraldton, water and sewerage systems; Hawkesbury, 
school hall and rink; Gravenhurst, sewerage Bystems; Western Ferris township, water system; Bowmanville. waterworks; West Lome, waterworks; Dymont township, sewerage; New Toronto, sewerage; Blind River, water and sewerage system; Hamilton, water mains; Larder Lake, water and sewerage; Etobicoke, sewerage; Harrow, town hall; Arnprior, electric light plant; Sault Ste. Marie, public market; Timmins, water and sewerage; Oshawa, city hall; Peel, school; Elmira, school; York township, electric plant; Delaware, school.
East York and North Bay were other municipalities which sought loans for various purposes.
I believe enough has been said respecting the self-liquidating project's measure for the municipalities.
On Monday last the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in impassioned language pointed out the cares of his office and the multiplicity of duties which were, his as Prime Minister of the country. I honour him in his position and I honour him because of his consciousness of his cares. But I feel myself called upon to say that he grossly overrates the impact which we in Canada have to make on world conditions. I believe that he grossly over-values the importance of Canada in world affairs, and that not one of his duties as Minister for External Affairs is as important as hand-to-hand contact and eye-to-eye conversation with the man on the street, his family, his sickness, his security, his job. The Prime Minister of Canada is out of touch with the common, ordinary man, and, if so, he is out of touch with Canada, because it is made up of common, ordinary men.
What is the greatest contribution we in this country can make to the world? What contribution can we make to world sanity and world business? What is the greatest contribution we can make to that highest of all pinnacles to be reached by human achievement-world peace? It is this, that we clean up our own door-step and solve our own problems. Do that, and we shall have made the finest contribution we could make to the British empire and the world at large.
I was much impressed with the speech made by our beloved leader (Mr. Manion). He pointed out that Great Britain has solved much of her difficulty through taxation-by collecting three times as much per capita, through customs and tariff charges, as we do in Canada. And yet under the trade treaty which was signed recently-and I shall have more to say about it at a later time-this government is prepared joyfully to lose a three per cent excise tax, which brings in about $18,000,000. Nevertheless it is content to continue to saddle the Canadian people with a sales tax which hits at the very root of the

The Address-Mr. Marsh
necessities of life, and which comes out of the pocket of the man who has to buy sugar, flour, shoes and those commodities he needs for his home and his work. We still have the sales tax; we still have the cheque tax; we still have the sugar tax. The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris) brought it out very clearly, that in 1936 we collected $372,-
000.000 in taxation from the Canadian people, whereas in 1938 we collected $516,000,000 and, as he has said, the job is gone. I wonder how long a business man would stay in business if he practised the same methods our government has been practising for the last three years? With decreased revenues, would not a cutting down of expenditures seem to be a solution to the problem? Why should we spend money we do not have to spend?
Perhaps it may be urged that trade is the answer. A few days ago the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen pointed out in the senate that last year we exported $200,000,000 worth less of products and imported $90,000,000 less than we did in 1937. Now that we have opened our market to 120,000,000 people, what is going to become of our industry? It seems to me that in view of diminishing revenues there is only one way out, and that is to spend less money.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) never misses an opportunity to speak about his native county and, following his example, I should like to say a word about Hamilton. A few years ago in that city we were faced with bankruptcy. Our bonds were no good; our credit was not good. The mayor of Hamilton took it upon his shoulders to adopt a pay-as-you-go policy. It was his thought that if he took a dollar from the taxpayer of Hamilton, spent only ninety cents of it and put away the other ten cents to pay off our debt, conditions would greatly improve. Mr. Speaker, I am a very fortunate man; I have five children. As yet I have no grandchildren, but perhaps, being an optimist, I shall have. What right have I to spend a dollar that belongs to my children? What right have I to spend a dollar that belongs to the unborn child of a future generation? What right have I to borrow money which a future generation must pay back with interest, in order that I may now live?
I do not know how the home owner can continue to own his home. I do not know how the young man can buy a home, if the burden of taxation, which is greater than old Sinbad the Sailor ever carried on his shoulders, is permitted to continue. I should like to place on Hansard a submission made to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations by the Canadian Chambers of Commerce on May 30, 1938.
71492-Hi
Real estate taxes.
At the time of confederation, wealth was represented mainly by land, and consequently the chief source of taxation was real estate. Times have changed, however, and wealth has come to exist in many forms. In more recent years, also, municipalities have had to bear a new financial responsibility in respect of social and welfare services which was not contemplated when their taxing powers were granted. The burden of these new services has fallen upon real estate to such an extent that the result has seriously affected the tendency of Canadians to own their own homes, retarded the construction industry, and undermined the value of investment in real property.
Last March, speaking about the federal responsibility for direct relief, I said:
I desire now to say just a word or two about the ability of the property owner in Hamilton to pay his taxes. In 1930 arrears of taxes in our city amounted to $1,107,710 against an assessment of $165,440,160. Seven years later what do we find? We have tax arrears to the amount of $2,488,555 on substantially the same assessment, or a trifle less, namely, $164,127,200.
I had the figures for 1938, but I appear to have mislaid them. They show a picture worse than that for 1937.
From the evening paper of to-day I read where the mayors' association has met in Toronto. Our Ontario mayors are trying to do a good job of setting their house in order, and to do so they need help from the federal government. I shall not read the whole of their resolution, but shall be content to record the two following paragraphs:
That the municipalities of Ontario, in the preparing of their 1939 budgets, absolutely refuse to budget for or pay in excess of thirty per cent of their actual expenditures for relief.
That in case the two governments contribute less than seventy per cent toward relief costs, the municipalities will cut relief to conform to the amount paid by them plus the thirty per cent contribution by the municipality.
We should pay attention to this mayors' association. They are setting their house in order, and they are trying to do a job that requires the cooperation of this government.
We must face up to another problem, and this is one for this and the next government. Surely there is room in the various phases of the administration of this government for the curtailment of expenses. Where shall we find it? Perhaps the railway problem furnishes food for thought. I shall not discuss it in detail, but let me say that thirty years ago the ordinary section gang was composed of six or seven men. Their job was to take care of five miles of track and roadbed. To-day three men constitute a section gang. We have not been practising economy from the top down. Four men in each gang have been put out of work, but I submit to the Minister
The Address-Mr. Marsh

of Transport (Mr. Howe) that he should focus his attention upon private cars, luxurious hotels and the general supervision of the railroad, instead of cutting down the section gangs. More money will be saved and more men will be given work on the tracks and in the roundhouses.
I should like to say a word or two about royal commissions, though previous speakers have already mentioned this matter. The government does not seem to have shown a flair for economy in the numerous royal commissions that have been appointed. This afternoon I was very much taken with the address of the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming). While he was speaking I wanted to say, "Hurrah! for Ireland." He said that too many royal commissions had been appointed, and he advanced the argument that perhaps these commissions should be made up from members of this house. Certainly a commission should not be doing work that we as members of parliament are paid to come down here to do.


Harry Raymond Fleming: I said also that the members of the senate might be able to do it.


John Allmond Marsh: I agree thoroughly with my hon. friend, and I should like to place on Hansard a short newspaper article about commission government. It says:
Actually, a royal commission represents the confession of a government that it doesn't know what to do about some given thing; or-what is just as bad-the confession of a government that it doesn't propose to do anything about a given thing. A. P. Herbert of Punch-
I may say that Mr. Herbert is a member of parliament as well as a humorist-
-hit the thing off perfectly in his famous poem:
I am the royal commission on Kissing,
Appointed by Gladstone in '74;
The rest of my colleagues are buried or missing;
Our minutes were lost in the last Great War.
But still I'm a Royal Commission,
My task I intend to see through,
Though I know, as an old politician,
Not much will be done if I do.
There is another problem which we have to face, which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) pointed out. This is a matter that concerns governments, present and future. Since 1930 Canada has spent $900,000,000 on relief. More and more it is being impressed upon the members of the House of Commons and upon thinking men throughout the country that relief without work is an unsound policy which results among other things, in a decadent manhood and womanhood, meanwhile placing a heavy burden upon the shoulders of the thrifty.
HVIr. Mavsh.J
I should like to say a word or two about the problem of youth. Last night when I should have been preparing this speech I went down to the railway committee room to attend the meeting in connection with the dominion-provincial youth program. We saw an interesting film entitled "Miners in the Making." I wish to compliment the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) upon the start he has made, but I suggest that this problem is so serious, so far-reaching and so affects the very fundamentals of Canadian life that we should not be simply puddling around in the shallows, we should be getting right down to the depths of this problem. I learned that 22,421 of both sexes had been trained, or rather had been enrolled, but that only 2,319 had been placed in industry. When you break up the total of 22,421, you find that 15,796 received physical training, which is quite worthy, but only 2,319 young men and women had been trained and placed in industry or other gainful employment.
I submit that the greatest investment in Canada is not our forests of white pine, yellow pine and pulpwood; it is not our mines of nickel, gold and radium; it is our Canadian youth. May I give some conservative figures concerning our youth problem, and I will underestimate rather than overestimate. I have it on good authority that 280,000 young men and women between the ages of sixteen and twenty-six are unemployed, and that of that number 72,000 have never had a job. Last year we voted $2,000,000 for the reestablishment of youth. Mr. Speaker, if an international crisis should arise and it should be necessary to defend our country, we would take that army of youth, put rifles on their shoulders and equip them for war. We would find $100,000,000, if necessary, to do it. Cannot we find $10,000,000 or $25,000,000 to equip this army for peace? If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) were in his seat, he would probably criticize me and say that I am inconsistent, in that, in one and the same breath I am suggesting a curtailment of expenditure and an additional expenditure.
My thought is this: We can take the young men of Canada and put them in employment camps. We can further, on a large scale, the work that has been started in afforestation and reforestation, in mining, in the building of roads up into the north country and on flood control projects; we can put them to work in the husbanding and re-creation of the resources of our country.
Now, if we solve our youth problem, if we solve our unemployment problem, we shall solve fascism, communism, nazism, and many

The Address-Mr. Marsh
other secondary problems that beset this dominion. If we do not solve these problems, then we cannot complain if a nation with iron in its blood comes in and possesses the land that we regard as rightfully ours.
The speech from the throne places a necessary emphasis on the question of national defence. When $33,000,000 was voted in 1937 for national defence, I think most of us thought that vote was wise. When $31,000,000 was voted in 1938, we thought it was wise. The government now announces that $60.000,000 will be spent on national defence. I think we should be proud of that vote. If the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) has not already done so, I should like him to take into consideration the recruiting of the material resources of the nation for national defence. It is just possible that our national defence is based on the standards of twenty or thirty years ago. I hope that when his estimates are brought down they will contain a vote for the establishment of a staff school in order that toolmakers, expert mechanics, captains of industry and others in the mechanical world may learn something about the making of 1939 ordnance. I hope it will never be necessary to fight a war in Canada or to defend our country, but the fact remains that the incidents of the last few months have been sobering.
I also hope that it will be made as easy as possible for military units throughout the country to attract the right kind of young men into the national service. I remember well bringing to the attention of the Minister of National Defence in the house last year the fact that staff officers in the various militia units had sometimes to bring in military accessories required by the unit from another country, because they could not be purchased in Canada, and I asked him if something might not be done to relieve them of the cost of paying sales tax and duty on these items. I pointed out then that we should not as a government try to make money out of a man's patriotism. The minister's answer was that the matter did not lie within his department but within the Department of National Revenue. I hope that in the meantime he and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley) have gone into a huddle in order to see that our good officers who are trying to build up their units do not have to pay money to the government for the privilege of being patriotic citizens.
Not long ago I went down to the armoury in Hamilton and I saw young lads wearing low oxfords, and they had stretched their
puttees down to try to cover them. The militia endeavours to build up their units by appealing to a man's pride in his personal appearance; yet one sees seven or eight different shades of khaki, ranging from a dirty yellow to a dark brown, and old boots that are worn out at the soles. I am not a military man, but I have heard it said that to have a good soldier you must keep him well shod and fill his stomach. Well, Mr. Speaker, some of those boys have not yet been able to find a job. They have not even a decent pair of boots in which to turn out on parade.
The motive force behind our militia units to-day is the veterans who served in the last war, and they deserve our best cooperation.
Just another word about equipment. How much of the equipment that you find in our armouries to-day is up to date? In Hamilton to-day in the armoury we have guns twenty-five years old. We have modernized them to the extent of putting pneumatic rubber tires on them, but they are still the same old guns. Concluding my remarks upon national defence may I say that the most valuable class of man power in Canada to-day, and I am sad to say it, is the returned veterans. They are better equipped to go to war because they know something about it, and it is too bad that our young men should not have been trained in national defence.
Just a word about the newly signed trade agreement. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is reported in the Ottawa Journal of November 19 last as saying:
Employment would increase for two reasons: first, through greater activity stimulated in the primary industries:	second, through an
improved domestic market for Canadian manufactures, arising from the greater spending power of primary producers.
The minister knows as well as I do that the primary industries in this country employ only 100,000 people, while the secondary industries employ 900.000 people, or almost one million. It is the secondary industries that are going to suffer from this trade agreement. Take iron and steel, for instance. The national employment commission reported that manufacturers of iron and steel products, who should normally employ 100,000 people, had dropped 35,000 from their payrolls since 1929.	The trade agreement hits at the
secondary iron and steel industries. The imports in this- group from the United States amounted in 1937 to $22,000,000, subject to the old rate of duty which was thirty per cent. The new rate is the lowest ever. Take, for example, the basket tariff item for iron and steel products, 446A; the imports were $4,000,000 in 1933, and under the trade agreement of 1936 they rose to $10,000,000. With
The Address-Mr. Marsh

the lower duties in effect in the new agreement, where will the Canadian manufacturer of iron and steel fabricated products be? Our imports will double or treble under the new lower duties. The same applies to brass and copper products, imports of which jumped from $2,000,000 in 1935 to $3,000,000 in 1937; and to aluminum, imports of which jumped from $721,000 in 1935 to $1,727,000 in 1937. Again, machinery, exclusive of electrical apparatus and motor cars, was imported to the extent of $50,000,000 in 1937. This item represents the maximum of labour content, and yet the imports in many lines will double if parliament passes this trade agreement, So I say to the Minister of Labour that for every one extra employee engaged in primary industry

I am talking about the hewer of wood and the drawer of water-five artisans now engaged in the secondary industries will lose their jobs.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in the United States, and in Great Britain, before these trade agreements were signed, the authorities called into conference manufacturers and business men. They are the men who know what the effects of the agreements are likely to be on trade and industry. In Great Britain for example, there were called into consultation; Lord May, chairman of the import duties advisory committee; Sir Sydney Chapman and Sir Allan Powell, members of that same committee; also Sir Percy Ashley, the secretary. The federation of British industries was represented at the conference in Great Britain, and the Hon. Oliver Stanley, president of the British board of trade, was also called into consultation.
Finally. Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are looking forward with unparalleled interest to the approaching visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen. May we see to it, above all else, that the boys and girls of this country see their king and queen? What do we matter? It is upon the shoulders of the younger generation that a greater and a better Canada is going to rest.
In the meantime may I beseech this government to shed its Rip Van Winkle mantle, arise from its long sleep, and bring down legislation early, so that when the king and queen come here in the month of May we shall have a better Canada to show them. Goodness knows, Canada needs a government.
On my way up to the chamber to-night I passed the parapet on which the snow had newly fallen, and two boys, seizing their opportunity, had written their names in the snow. They had seen their opportunity and had seized it. Never in the history of Canada, Mr. Speaker, has the extremity been so great, and never the

opportunity so present for writing bold and courageous laws for a new Canada. I say to the government: You have failed. You have come to the last page of the book, and the book is now about to be closed, with little having been done to better conditions in this country.


Mr. A. J. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as I do not want to trespass on the valuable time of the house, I will be as brief as possible. First of all I should like warmly to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on the excellent way in which they have performed their delicate task. May I also offer my most sincere congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the splendid address he delivered the other night. Such a speech not only raised him still more in the esteem of his own followers, but, I am sure, made a profound impression on all hon. members. On the other hand, the speech of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has been rather disappointing. I recognize that his duty is to criticize the actions of the government, but it would have been more in keeping with his position as party leader had he formulated constructive ideas instead of dwelling on the same old stories and launching mean attacks against the Prime Minister who will go down in history as one of Canada's greatest statesmen.
I listened with pleasure to the congratulations offered by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) to the prime minister of Great Britain for his action in the tragic days of the latter part of September. By these actions, Mr. Neville Chamberlain saved the world from the most appalling disaster. During those grim days, when the peace of the world hung by a thread, Great Britain, through her prime minister, made wonderful history.
Now, sir, I want to thank the government, on behalf of the victims of the terrible fire that destroyed the village of St. Luc de Matane, for the aid given them on that occasion. Those unfortunate people lost, in the course of a few hours, the result of several years of toil, labour and sacrifice. Thanks to the aid received from the provincial and federal governments, they once again feel confident and they will always keep the memory of the generous deed performed in order to help their village to rise from its ruins.
There is a question of great interest at the present moment on which I do not wish to dwell to-night, and that is the proposed admission in Canada of European refugees. However, I should like to avail myself of this

The Address-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
opportunity clearly to define my attitude on that matter. For my part, I am unequivocally *opposed to the project. It is difficult enough, at present, to find work for our own unemployed without assuming new responsibilities.
I would fail in my duty as representative of the electoral district of Matapedia-Matane, were I to miss this opportunity of calling the attention of the government on the precarious situation in which our workmen find themselves during this winter. Owing to special circumstances, lumbering operations have been greatly reduced and accordingly a great number of workmen lost their livelihood. They are courageous men and what they are asking for is work. The government should start public works, without delay, especially in the industrial centres which suffer particular hardships.
The speech from the throne states the government's intention to expand its long range program of public undertakings as a means of relieving unemployment. I have already suggested to the government ways of ending this calamity in my section of the country.
My district offers great possibilities of development. Thousands of unemployed could be permanently established therein, but on condition that means of communication be provided, giving access to the interior of Matane county, which penetrates triangularly to the heart of Gaspe peninsula.
During the budget debate of the session of 1937 I had the honour of proposing to the government a five-year plan providing for means of communication giving access to immense forests which are going to ruin because of the ravages of the saw-fly and also because they have passed the age of maturity. Such a plan would also bring about the opening of a new territory eminently suited to colonization. During that debate I spoke as follows, on March 4, 1937, as recorded on Hansard:
Since we still have acute unemployment, since all the remedies which have been used so far have proved to be mere palliatives and have not given the expected results, since the calamity of unemployment threatens more and more to disorganize our economic system, why not consider a scheme for the development of our resources on a large scale? How many countries are there which would not like to own the wonderful heritage with which Providence has blessed us, in order to make it productive ?
Industry will never be able to absorb all our working men. Yet, it is imperative that we should give up the baneful policy of relief initiated by the former government, which has spoiled our people in teaching them to rely upon the nation for their upkeep.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, work is what is needed. Work for our honest unemployed who are courageous and find it humiliating to be
always appealing for help. Work for our young people who are losing their spirit through idleness.
Later, that is last year, when speaking, as I am now, on the address in reply to the speech from the throne and pleading before this house the case of our rural young people, I spoke the following words which are to be found in Hansard of February 1st, 1938:
When, looking at the map of my constituency,
I notice a vast district, comprising the townships of Laverendrye, Catalogne, Gravier, Clark, Casault, Lagrange, Bontet, Duniere, Richard, Cuocq, Leclere, Joffre and Baribault, which have never been opened to setlement,
I cannot but think that all the unemployed of my constituency could find work there. I reflect that there would be good prospects for all courageous and proud young men who are not afraid to face those hardships and sacrifices which, sooner or later, must be the lot of those who wish to succeed in life. I reflect that there would be good prospects for all our spirited young men in whose veins still flows the blood of the early settlers who opened to civilization the shores of the St. Lawrence. And I know, Mr. Speaker, that these young men are still numerous in my constituency, but they are awaiting the time when the government will open for them the way to those areas and help them to make a start.
Another essential undertaking closely connected with the development of my constituency is the improvement of Matane harbour, in order to make it as soon as possible a deep-water harbour. By its geographical situation Matane is destined to become a very important seaport. It is the natural outlet for the entire western section of Gaspe peninsula, including the interior.
Mr. Speaker, I know the people of my county. They are courageous and proud. They do not want charity; they want work. The government will, by granting my requests, contribute in a very large measure to the development of my district, while providing a large number of men now unemployed and penniless with the means of earning an honourable living.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, reference has been made by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth), to the formalities at the opening but when the blowing of trumpets and the tumult and the shouting of the opening of parliament die, what will the harvest be for the working people of this country? It is not so much what the speech from the throne contains as what is left out. So far as any good to solve the economic problems of this country is concerned, it puts me in mind of old Mother Hubbard's cupboard. The government of the day have no constructive suggestions to give to the country how to solve the economic problems we have,
The Address-Mr. Church

and the duty is on the government of the day as long as they are the government to solve these problems. In a rich country like Canada, which has long been coveted by the dictators, with its magnificent natural resources, there should be nobody out of work. On the billboards during the last general election the government party made this reference to unemployment. "Vote Liberal and end unemployment." Well, all I know that they have ever done for unemployment is to find employment for a lot of useless commissions with their secretaries and lawyers and all that kind of thing. Right here in Ottawa they have established a great basic industry to solve the unemployment problem. It is known as the ambassadors' cure for unemployment, and ambassadors with three-cornered cocked hats, swords, epaulettes, spurs and all the rest of it are going to go to all the capitals on the seven seas to represent Canada. With its separatist policy, which this government is now pursuing, the appointment of all these ambassadors simply tends to separatist policies so fatal in war and destructive in peace. Reference has been made to the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to Hitler in Berlin. The right hon. gentleman wanted to get Hitler's point of view, and he did; and Hitler certainly got the Prime Minister's point of view. Hitler knew how to shape his course when he discovered the separatist tendencies of the dominions. In the same way Emperor William in 1914, when he found a want of unity in the empire, after getting separatist views of South Africa and other dominions, decided to cross the Rhine, allowing treaties to become mere scraps of paper. And now Hitler is on the march. He has added Austria to Germany and is now going on to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Canada imposed sanctions against Italy and then repealed them, and after Ethiopia had been conquered, this foolish sanction policy drove Italy into the German orbit.
I find so many evasions and so many platitudes in the speech from the throne that I see no hope of the government's policy solving any of the economic, problems of the country. Reference is made in the speech to the coming of the king and queen. It is not the first time that the present king will have been in Canada. I saw him at the Falls before the war, when he was a midshipman, and at that time he showed a keen interest in the industrial progress of Canada and its people. On this occasion he will receive a hearty welcome from the Canadian people, not because there has been any change in his title. He is now being described by the high-
sounding title of King of Canada, but he has always been King of Canada. The British sovereign has been King of Canada ever since the treaty of 1763, so that high-sounding titles and coronations in India, Australia and elsewhere, which might satisfy the vanity of a few people who believe in the policy of separatism, are not at all necessary either by law, statute, usage or custom to make his majesty King of Canada. It seems to me that we are becoming more American than the Americans, and the capital of Canada is coming to be known as the Washington of the north, and Washington the Ottawa of the south. I doubt whether we have not been driven into the American orbit for keeps.
When the king does come to Canada I hope it will be recognized that the union jack is the only Canadian flag. It has been hauled down in South Africa and southern Ireland, but it has always been the flag of this country and I hope it will continue to be. Similarly, God Save the King is the only national anthem in Canada. It is both a hymn and a prayer, a prayer to the Almighty for the preservation of the king, the throne and the safety of his majesty's person and subjects. There has been no other national anthem in Canada since we have been a country. I was at a patriotic dinner function the other night, and at the conclusion the audience stood at attention and sang another anthem, O Canada, but that is not and was not the national anthem of Canada or our empire. I remember on one occasion when I was mayor of Toronto, some of those who attended a similar function in Massey hall, myself among them, declined to stand up when some other anthem was sung. As I say, there is only one national anthem for this country, and that is God Save the King.
We have lost one of the most brilliant men in the public life of Canada in the retirement of the former leader of this party (Mr. Bennett). He will sail at the end of this month for the old country, and I predict for him there, in the heart of the empire, as great a future as he has had a past in Canada. He is a marvellous man, a statesman and a patriot. He has been succeeded by our new leader (Mr. Manion), whom I have known since he was a medical student, who is very well liked, a man of good ability, a splendid type of Canadian, and in addition to that, one who is a returned soldier. I believe our new leader will give a great account of himself, as he has done already.
I should like to have seen in the speech from the throne a declaration in favour of the Christian religion in Canada. The Christian religion to-day, it seems, is being driven

The Address-Mr. Church
from pillar to post. Christianity is a part of the law of England, and by the constitutional act of 1791 it automatically became a part of the law of Canada. The National Conservative party of Mr. Chamberlain have made it a plank in their platform in England.
May I now say a few words with regard to the domestic policy of this government. After all, there is too much time and attention given to foreign affairs, since we are, as in 1812. for defence completely dependent on Great Britain. While foreign affairs are important, it must be remembered that we have to look after eleven million people in our own country, and I am surprised that in the speech from the throne there is not a single, definite, concrete proposal that promises any relief to the masses of the Canadian people, those whom Disraeli called the suffering millions. Canada has no policy but drift in matters of trade, defence and migration. In the speech from the throne there is no reference to these topics, nothing at any rate of a really concrete nature, though there are a lot of platitudes. One of the problems which this government has done nothing to solve is the problem of unemployment and distributism. What we should aim at is to restore Canada to the position she held under Macdonald, Laurier, Brown and Cartier. Canada was then a democratic country based and built upon the practical recognition of the principles of private property and freedom. But there is no freedom for the man who is at the mercy of arbitrary economic factors which are beyond his control.
One of the most important problems facing this country to-day was referred to in an address over the radio the other night, by the president of the Globe-Mail. Mr. McCullagh. namely the old way we have as a system of government. I believe this is the fourfold problem of constitutional, parliamentary, cabinet and law reform, and until these are satisfactorily dealt with we cannot have any economic reform. Let us take, first, constitutional reform. The constitution is three hundred years old. We have made no progress. As Mr. Grattan O'Leary said in a recent issue of Maclean's magazine, the executive have captured the government of Canada. It took over one hundred years of strife, turmoil and bloodshed for,the mother of parliaments to get control over the executive, but where is parliamentary control in Canada to-day so far as the expenditure of money is concerned? Nowhere. On February 17, 1937, I introduced a motion to provide that, instead of 245 members in this chamber holding a postmortem into the public accounts and estimates of the dominion, there should be estimate 71492-12
committees for the purpose. We should have the municipal system under which departmental heads could appear before an estimates committee and reductions made there. This,
I have no doubt, would result in a considerable saving to the people of Canada in the maintenance charges of the country. But the government will do nothing about it. The same apathy has marked their attitude to the questions of parliamentary, cabinet and law reform. We are behind the times so far as these important questions are concerned. Indeed, it seems to me our constitution is well on the way to be upside down at the present time. I should like to bring in a bill dealing with the question of referendums in Canada. Then the people would have some chance to rule. The referendum would be held on the same day as the general election, as in the case of the municipalities. In that way we might get some expression of opinion on two of the most important problems which this country is facing, over-government and over-taxation.
The municipalities had their revenues reduced in 1918 when the dominion government invaded the income tax field. In my opinion the federal power should assume the full cost of relief and should also give direct aid in connection with public health and hospital deficits. Canada spends about three and a half million dollars on the health of animals, but all it can spend on the health of humans is about S400,000. As I see it, the the first duty of a government is to look after the health, peace, welfare, comfort and prosperity of its people. The city of Toronto has spent $7,524,513 on relief, of which the city contributed over $2,700,000, the balance being divided between the federal and provincial governments. At a meeting of the Ontario mayors yesterday at Toronto it was stated that in future the municipalities might have to pay forty-five per cent of the cost of relief. If that should be so, the municipalities will face bankruptcy. In 1915, when I first became mayor of Toronto, seven and a half million dollars was all the money we had to spend in controllable expenditures. Real estate cannot stand any greater burden of taxation.
There is a bonus or subvention given to the city of Ottawa by this government in exchange for fire, police and water services. Every grant has a principle behind it, and in this case I believe the principle should be extended to the other large municipalities of Canada, all of which have federal public buildings within their boundaries, and give exactly the same kind of service.
Ontario has been most unfairly dealt with by this government. Under the Municipal

The Address-Mr. Church

Assistance Act, which was passed in the dying days of last session, provision was made whereby the municipalities could borrow money under certain conditions, if such loans were backed by the province. Owing to certain differences of opinion between the federal and provincial leaders of the Liberal party, how-iver, Ontario has been denied any relief in this direction, although Owen Sound wanted to build a city hall; Pelee township wanted to build a drainage system; Morrisburg wanted to build a school; London, a sewage system; Burlington, a water system; Kirkland Lake and Port Arthur, water and drainage systems, St. Thomas, a nurses' home; Gerald-ton, water and sewage systems; Hawkesbury, a school, hall and rink; Gravenhurst, a sewage system, and so on. These municipalities cannot qualify under that act because of the difficulty between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Premier of Ontario. That is too bad, because I look upon the principle of confederation as being similar to that old Cornish battle-cry, "Each for all and all for each," and there should be equality of treatment as between the federal government and all the provinces on these relief measures.
A moment ago I was referring to the amount spent on the health of humans. Today, right down in ward 2, which the Prime Minister's grandfather once represented as mayor, there are many people who are in rags, starving, and living under terrible conditions. Reverend Mr. Wilson, pastor of King Street United Church, a very prominent man in Toronto, speaking at a luncheon recently said:
"We are striving to give the less fortunate boys and girls of the district a chance to gain a measure of success in life," declared Mr. Wilson. . . . "I have visited homes in this district where babies were born without even a towel to wrap around them," he told his listeners.
In my opinion the time has come for the dominion to increase its grants for public health, hospitalization, control of cancer, .and so on. How can the government look after the health and welfare of eleven million people if they spend only $400,000 a year on it?
I think it is time for a change, and I for one am sick of coming here and seeing such a bill of fare as is proposed in the speech from the throne, and all the hopelessness, inefficiency and do nothing policy in it.
I should like to offer one or two constructive suggestions to the government. I believe this country is afflicted with anglophobia on the radio, in the press and elsewhere. They have these debates over the radio, in the newspapers and elsewhere, by means of which (Mr. Church.]
people who do not even belong in this country can put before the people what they have to say in regard to foreign affairs. Such statements are full of half-truths, and they are believed by many who hear them. Our gaols are full of youths whose only fault is that they cannot find a job. There are forty-eight of these institutions in Ontario, and most of them have been condemned by a royal commission as unfit for human habitation. Last week I referred to a case in Timmins, where the magistrate sent seven high school boys to gaol for thirty days because they had no place to go, while he criticized the parliament of Canada in no uncertain terms for what it failed to do in not trying to solve the youth problem. Yesterday the youth council met in Ottawa. Some measure of relief for the youth of our country was adopted by this government after it had been suggested from this side of the house in 1936, 1937 and 1938. Many of us felt that the government in some way should utilize the services of the two hundred thousand youths who leave school every year, and that students in the universities and high schools might work in the summer in the development of our natural resources. That would be very much better than the export of brains from this country that has gone on in the past.
Even our history books are found wanting, in my opinion. Green, the great historian, whose History of England was Woodrow Wilson's favourite history, has been taken out of the high schools and other books substituted. I also believe greater care should be observed in the appointment of judges and magistrates, and that the bars should be consulted in regard to them. It is my belief the Magna Charta is becoming a dead letter in this country. People are sent to gaol for vagrancy, when they cannot get work, and there are fifty thousand youths roaming the country, riding the rods, looking for jobs. We have imprisonment for debt. Two years ago I introduced a bill asking that the law of England should be adopted here.
I believe that instead of abolishing appeals to the privy council, we should have some definite measure of law reform which would help the working people of this country, and lead to people not being sent to gaol for debt or imprisonment without bail, in most instances.
Recently the Toronto Globe referred to bylaws which are passed by federal commissions. This parliament confers on commissions and officials of the government the power to make rules and regulations, which even this parliament has not power to enact, and which are thus given the force of statute. In my

The Address-Mr. Church
opinion, these by-laws and regulations should not be passed until they have been approved as being intra vires by the Department of Justice, which gives legal advice to the government and the various commissions which it creates.
I notice that there has been some talk in the Ottawa newspapers to the effect that the east and west blocks, those historic relics of confederation, which have housed the brains of our country and where the privy council has met since we have been a country, should be torn down. To some people the past seems nothing but error, but I look upon it as modern desecration to see such buildings and memorials torn down and replaced by others, when at one time they housed the best brains of Canada and great men like Macdonald, Laurier, Tupper, Borden, Bennett, King and Meighen.
I might say something about the high cost of living. As a matter of fact I should have expected something about the high cost of living in the speech from the throne. Three years ago there were some references sent to the tariff board for an inquiry having to do with motor cars, motor trucks, radios and other articles. What has happened to those references? When will parliament see the reports? I have received letters from my constituents, but I have seen no results of the efforts of the board. These letters complain that radios, motor cars, motor trucks and refrigerators cost thirty-five per cent less in the city of Detroit than they do in Windsor. I believe in adequate protection; I am strong for it; but I also believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) should place in the tariff schedules regulations whereby the manufacturer would get a fair profit on his capital, leaving some protection for the consumer and labour.
After all is said and done, where is the enemy of protection? The enemy lies in about five per cent of the manufacturers who want to grab all the benefits for themselves, and leave nothing for labour or the consumer. I believe some returns have been made in the interim by the tariff board to the minister, and something should be done along this line.
I have read where the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has made some observations. May I add in passing that we were pleased to see him at the winter fair. In his speech in Montreal he made some observations about unemployment. If he had studied the Couzens report made to the United States senate and Mr. Purvis' report made to parliament a year ago, he would have found that unemployment in many forms will always be with us. There will 71492-12j
always be large numbers who will not find work. I suggest the minister would be far better employed if he urged the government to give us some relief in connection with the intolerable conditions which now exist.
In the time left at my disposal I should like to refer to foreign affairs, to the Chamberlain policy, to the experience which has been gained through history, to pacifism and to education as they relate to these problems. I do not agree with the policy of silence in Canada about foreign affairs and about Canada's defence policy as set out in the speech from the throne. " Trust the people " should be the policy. The policy of silence has been condemned in England and the world over. If Britain fails, the whole world will go with it into outer darkness. The peoples of the empire and of the world will lose civilization, freedom, peace and the freedom of religion we enjoy. I am opposed to a policy of spineless pacifism and to the continuous making of pacifist speeches. I am opposed to a policy of letting the old country go it alone and bear the whole burden of the costs.
Let us not forget the lessons of history in connection with these matters. It was the armed strength of the barons and the suppression of tyranny in the days of King Johr which made Magna Charta possible. The disarmament of the free is the tyrant's chance now as it was in the days of King John. Guardians of freedom must always be on guard. So far as Canada is concerned, may I point out that an unarmed Britain simply invites invasion and insult and, in the end, extinction. Before God to-day Britain stands as the trustee for the peace of the world, but she cannot go it alone. Other states of Europe, the smaller states, look to England as if she were the policeman of the world. But she cannot do it alone, because these weaker and smaller states now follow Germany; they simply follow the leader or the crowd.
Great Britain seeks no conquest for herself, but wishes only to establish the Kingdom of God on earth and to bring about a greater freedom of religion and of civilization, a freedom of the press and of the pulpit, of the legislatures and of the universities.
If one were to accept the views of the Prime Minister and his officials in the Department of External Affairs, one might be led to the conclusion that they were conducting their own foreign policy, a policy of silence. That policy has been condemned in the British House of Commons. According to a report in the Times of March 18. 1938, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaking before the parliamentary press gallery, said:
The Address-Mr. Church

If the people are not allowed to know the facts; if they are not allowed to know what their rulers choose them to know, then that people are in danger of being led to embark upon a course which may presently lead them into disaster.
Then, on March 24, the Prime Minister in the British House of Commons defined the commitments of Great Britain which might lead to armed intervention for purposes other than our own defence or the defence of possessions within the empire. In the course of his statement he said:
There remains another case in which we might have to use force, under the covenant of the League of Nations to bring help to a victim of aggression, even though there should be no direct obligation to take such action.
Since those words were spoken, many things, for the greater part disastrous for us, have happened. Many policies are dead. Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Daladier, when signing the Munich agreement, drove the last nails into the coffin of the League of Nations. It is time the Prime Minister of Canada permitted the people to know the facts of the situation:	A policy of silence is condemned
by the Minister of War in the British House of Commons, the Right Hon. Leslie Hore-Belisha; it is his view that it is better to be candid than to conceal the truth. He went so far as to tell the British House of Commons about the deficiency in the defence preparations in the city of London. He said they were not prepared for a war, and that Great Britain would have to make greater sacrifices. Edmund Burke said that government is a practical thing and not an agency to please and aid the fancy problems of ordinary politicians.
Before the war of 1914 Lord Roberts asked for more defences. I can recall no more sad or tragic spectacle in the history of the British empire than Lord Roberts pleading for an armed Britain, and that something be done about armaments. But he was laughed at by leaders in the government. He died in the early days of the war, but lived long enough to see his prophecy fulfilled, and to hear the sound of the guns. It is admitted that if his advice had been taken and the facts known of war near at hand, England would have had 400,000 men ready when Germany engaged in the first battle of Ypres, with a further 120,000 reservists for each additional year, and the fortunes of war would have been different. But before the British forces were ready, the western front had frozen into the deadlock of trench warfare, which was to last for almost three more years.
If democracies are to be preserved, then all Canada must accept certain sacrifices. It is

worth while, when we realize the awful possibilities of last September. The people of Canada should know the facts. So far as Italy is concerned, sanctions were invoked, but were not enforced. I say that this government has adopted a policy of isolation.
Do we remember the isolationist and pacifist speeches made in the House of Commons in 1937 and 1938 by government members from the province of Quebec? Do those speeches now represent the policy of the government? Have they a different policy on foreign affairs and defence for each province in the dominion? I think the people in Canada are entitled to know what the policy may be before it is too late. It is all very well to depend upon the United States; we welcome them, but I am here to say that the Johnson act will prevent Hitler, France or Great Britain from floating loans in the event of war. On top of that there is a resolution about munitions. The policy of the United States government is well known. At the present time America speaks with two voices. One is the ambassadorial voice of the president and the other is the congressional voice of the senate and the house of representatives who have the say. I believe that Canada has been criminally negligent in defence matters. A national survey should be made of our man power, our industrial power, our food power and everything like that.
They are critical about Chamberlain at Munich, but he did all that could be done I know of no dominion more responsible for that policy of disarmament than Canada which urged it. They scrapped the finest ail force, the finest navy and the finest army the world had ever seen. That was MacDonald-ism. What was the result? You cannot build up a force like that in a day or a generation. The result was that Great Britain was found to be unarmed. Mr. Chamberlain saved civilization and the world at Munich. It may be only a postponement, but he did all that was possible until Britain is fully armed.
What are we doing about youth in this country? I gave the government a policy last year. The Hon. Ernest Brown, Minister of Labour in England, has been trying to get them to do something for youth over there. His policy is set out in a report which appeared in the Times of September 11. He made a tour of the unemployment centres. Speaking at a civic luncheon held in the town hall at Liverpool, he said:
Last month, between the ages of 18 and 24, there were 74,034 unemployed in Liverpool, Bootle, Birkenhead and Wallasey. Assuming that one-third of these young men, say 24,700 are physically fit to join the army-if one-third should not be fit, what a reflection on our public health and education authorities-*

The Address-Mr. Church
This is what he should have said to the young men, according to the National Review:
Look here, young fellows! Employment is vailing for you in the army. If you take it you will get food and clothing; free housing; pocket-money; instruction and physical education; you can learn a trade, if you have not already mastered one, at a vocation centre before your seven years' service are up; also, while serving, you will earn deferred pay. You can widen your outlook by going abroad, and you can qualify yourselves to enter Sandhurst and get commissions. You may have heard a prime minister emphasize the slogan "Safety first." Young men! it is safer to be in the army than to walk on a public road in England. We lay these conditions before you. Should you decide not to take advantage of them, you must get a living wage elsew-here; but do not expect your fellow men who are at work to contribute to your maintenance and idleness.
I do not propose this policy for Canada, far from it; but I do contend that this government, having spent $900,000,000 on unproductive relief, should consult industry and labour as to a policy, adapted to Canada's special circumstances for our youth now on the dole.
I am not suggesting anything compulsory; it should all be voluntary. We should have a suitable Canadian apprenticeship system like what they have in England. Our youth should be given an opportunity to learn a trade as well as obtaining other education; they should set part time employment and part-time education. They should be able to obtain at least a little pocket money, clothing, food, a home, deferred pay and security, instead of being forced to go round filling up the prisons of this country. A Presbyterian divine speak-_ug in Toronto yesterday said that unemployment is the main reason why so many of our vnufh find themselves in our gaols.
This government has negotiated a treaty with the United States but it is simply a political treaty. We have lost the British preference of six cents per bushel on wheat which we obtained after twenty-six years. This preference was granted to Canada, Australia and the other dominions, but it has been taken away. We have also lost the three per cent excise tax. That means a loss of $18,000,000. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) should be providing for that in his budget, and then the government should use this money to relieve real estate and the municipalities, and increase our social services, as I have suggested and as has been suggested also by the head of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth). Something should be done along that line.
Something should be done for our youth. Some of the brightest minds in the country are to be found in our high schools; yet many of these youths are simply riding round the
country. They come from some of the finest homes in Canada, but quite often they find themselves in gaol simply because the only thing against them is that they cannot get a job. I think the time will come when it will be shown that this agreement with the United States is very bad for this country. We have given up our preference on wheat in the British market which may never be regained. Governor Landon and the republican party are pledged to the repeal of this treaty. What will be the result when that happens? We shall have lost our preference, and our steady market in Great Britain, our best customer. Canada and the other dominions will be driven into the Washington orbit, and I fear that *Washington will become the economic centre of the British Empire. The government has no policy along other lines. The policy of the government in reference to this treaty has been condemned by many capable authorities, and I shall probably have something to say again in connection with it.
I am sorry to see that politics and spending of money like water have again entered into the operation of the Canadian National Railways. The government has given its consent to the completion of the new terminal at Montreal at a cost of over twelve million dollars. I should like to read some questions that I now ask the government here in this debate:
X. Has the government given its consent to the proposed completion of the new Montreal terminal of the Canadian National Railway and at what cost and on whose recommendation was the work asked for started?
2.	Will any plan of the said work be tabled and the reports relating thereto?
3.	Was parliament asked to sanction said work and when?
4.	Is the work to aid relief and relieve unemployment?
5.	Did the government meet the corporation of the city of Montreal on the subject or others ?
6.	Does the province of Quebec contribute anything to the cost of the work or were they asked under relief and municipal assistance legislation to sanction or aid said work?
7.	What sums have already been spent on this work and by whose authority?
8.	Has the board of transport for Canada been asked to sanction such huge expenditures or report on them or their necessity as recommended by-
(a)	Drayton-Acworth report.
(b)	The Duff report on railways.
9. Will the cost of said work be raised by taxation from income or capital or will it be raised from income from sales or income tax or will part of it be raised for relief works by the government ?
10.	What efforts were made at coordination or to eliminate deficits before such work was started ?

The Address-Mr. Church
11.	Have any objections to such an uneconomic work been received and from whom?
12.	Will any reports on relief or the necessity of relief works of this kind be tabled and will other cities receive similar aid of unemployment relief works and be heard direct by the government instead of being directed to the provinces under the municipal assistance relief legislation?
13.	What reports are in existence as to the financial, economic and engineering features of the work ?
14.	Will preference be given to Canadian labour and Canadian industries in its construction ?
15.	What other purely municipal relief undertakings and works in Montreal have been undertaken by the government either above or in conjunction with the province for the last three years of record?
16.	Does the action taken or to be undertaken now supplement the provisions made by the Honourable the Ministers of Public Works and Secretary of State during the winter of 1938 in the by-elections for the House of Commons in the district of Montreal and reported fully by Canadian press at the time?
Again we are to have politics and inefficiency in the Canadian National Railways. There is very weak management in that road. With a deficit of $50,000,000, I am sure the people of this country will oppose this extravagance which is not necessary from an engineering or financial or railway standpoint, and we should have a joint committee of both houses of parliament to try to solve this railway problem. I made this suggestion last year, but the government rejected it.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, practically four days have been taken up with this debate; the flow of oratory still continues and the end is not in sight. It becomes increasingly difficult for those of us who are on the back benches to contribute much in the way of constructive thought so late in a debate of this kind. The leaders of the two main political parties have gone over the issues so thoroughly and carefully and have taken up so much time in doing so that those of us who are compelled to follow them find it almost impossible to make the contribution we would like to make.
The mover (Mr. Matthews) and seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne are to be congratulated upon the excellent manner in which they carried out their tasks. Their speeches show what can be accomplished by speakers when the range of subjects has not been curtailed in any way by those who have preceded them. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) upon the speech he made on Tuesday. He always contributes something constructive to

every debate in which he takes part. I want to say the same to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) who spoke this afternoon. I cannot agree entirely with all they said, but their remarks upon monetary reform were of special interest to me.
It is always a source of amusement to me,, when I hear the leader of the government or the leader of the opposition or a private member speak about the result of a by-election. It is always looked upon either as an endorsement or condemnation of the policies of the government. The mover of the address (Mr. Matthews) stated that the voters of Brandon had emphatically endorsed the platform of the Liberal party by returning a Liberal member. He said that his election was generally looked upon as an endorsement of Liberal policies by the people of western Canada. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) was quick to cite the by-election in Waterloo South as showing the attitude of the east. I well remember when the Edmonton East by-election was fought. Some cabinet ministers before the election result was announced were foolish .enough to state that the result would clearly indicate how the west felt about Liberal policies; but when the result was actually known, we heard nothing about the west or what it had to say about the party system in general, or about the Liberal party in particular. I think it would be just as well if we dropped this old line of talk because it has been worked so long and so often that people are getting tired of hearing it.
I was very much interested in the computation which was made by a member of the Conservative party of the length of the speech from the throne this session. He told us that he had compared this speech with other speeches on similar occasions and found that the speech this year was the longest for many years past. The leader of the opposition, as reported at page 22 of Hansard, said:
In spite of all the criticism that has been heaped upon these two parties, I believe that they have done fairly well in the government of Canada throughout these years.
An interesting computation which might be undertaken by the same Conservative member, or by a Liberal for that matter, would be to calculate what these two parties have contributed towards the debt of this country since 1870, during the last seventy years since confederation. It might also be of interest if the same gentleman would compute what Liberal and Conservative governments in the provinces have contributed by way of debt to the debt structure of the provinces. The total is astounding. On January 1, 1936, the

The Address-Mr. Marshall
total debt of municipalities, provinces, and the dominion stood at $6,950,000,000; in round figures; on January 1, 1937, it had amounted to S7,249,000.000; on January 1, 1938, it had reached a total of $7,267,000,000; on January 1, 1939, according to the information I have here it had risen to a grand total of $7,449,000.000. And now there stands on the order paper a resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) asking parliament to give him authority to borrow, by way of loan, the sum of $750,000,000.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, from whom that money will be borrowed. We hear a great deal about the widows and orphans in this country. I wonder if they have anything to contribute towards this loan. In my humble judgment, they have already contributed all they had towards loans in the past. I do not think any private individual or any group of individuals has enough money to make up the amount of this loan. But I believe that it will be borrowed from the creators of money and credit, the biggest legal racketeering concerns in the country, the bankers and their allies and associates, the financial institutions. And finally, in due course, the people of Canada will be called upon to foot the bill by way of taxation; and the interest, which is not created at the time the principal is created, will have to be found as well. I think the day is not far distant when the people of this country will call for an accounting from these two old parties, and in due process of time I believe they will go out of existence just as the snow vanishes before the summer's sun.
I listened with careful attention to the leader of the opposition as he "cussed" and discussed the policies of the present government. Most of his criticisms were merited, but I should like to say to him in a kindly way that his speech was more destructive than constructive. It appeared to me that we were witnessing the same old drama that has been played so often during the last seventy years, of the pot calling the kettle black. That is exactly what it amounted to, and I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that their speeches deceived no one, particularly those of independent mind who do their own thinking. for their speeches were nothing but smoke screens.
I should like to make a few comments on one item which was discussed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Col dwell) and later referred to by the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). It is true that the matter was touched upon this afternoon by a member of my own group, but I
offer no apology for reopening it. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar described very carefully and exhaustively the benefits which had accrued to the people of the Dominion of New Zealand through legislation which had been enacted by a labour government, a government which went into power in the year 1935 and was reelected in 1938. He stated further that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group of which he is a member was advocating the adoption of measures similar to those carried out in New Zealand. Let me assure him that this group of which I am a member are advocating similar measures, but with certain provisos. I assume that were the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to take over the government of any province or even the government of Canada, they would follow along lines similar to those in our sister dominion. Let me hasten to assure the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation that in spite of the fact that Major Douglas, the father and founder of the social credit philosophy, visited New Zealand some years ago and conferred with leading men in that country, we as social crediters do not claim that this philosophy is being practised in New Zealand at the present time. The government of New Zealand has not yet-and I use the word " yet " advisedly-commenced to put any social credit principles into effect; so that we as a group will not quarrel with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar if he claims New Zealand for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. However, I believe there are certain facts which he in particular and the country in general should know. It is a well known fact that the labour party was returned to power in 1935, and they obtained on that occasion fifty-three seats out of a possible eighty. How was that election won? That is the question. I propose to read a paragraph from an article which was published in the New English Weekly, London, England. The first paragraph reads:
A lifetime spent in New Zealand, including the first six months of the present labour government's regime, enables me to endorse the claim of the latter to be the first labour government in the British empire elected to power as well as to office.
Standing on the main plank cif monetary reform, this government rode to victory by an overwhelming majority in November, twelve months ago. That election was notable, for every daily paper of any consequence was actively engaged in opposition, and an unprecedented amount of money was poured out for propaganda of the most violent nature by the banks.
This is the part to which I wish to draw special attention:
Yet the counter-effect of two to four years' hard spade-work by over three hundred social
The Address-Mr. Marshall

credit groups throughout New Zealand was sufficient to immunize the electors when it came to the test.
I notice that when I mentioned the New English Weekly, some hon. members on the opposite side of the house seemed to think it quite a joke. Perhaps that is not a very responsible magazine from which to take an article, and perhaps one might question its authenticity; but I have before me the report of a speech which was made in the city of Edmonton, and the authenticity of which no hon. member, more particularly my hon. friends sitting to my right, can doubt. In the summer of 1938 a splendid young woman from Edmonton visited New Zealand. I do not know her particularly. I know of her; I know that she is a woman of culture and intelligence. She is a teacher in that city. She went to New Zealand and studied conditions there carefully. Her name is Miss Mary R. Crawford, and she is the treasurer of the Alberta Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. In her opening remarks she had this to say:
The people of New Zealand have the light of social justice shining out brightly upon them, and compared to them we are laggards. I think it is time we began to catch up.
Going on with her talk, she said;
Social credit has been a corridor through which thousands of New Zealanders had marched to an acceptance of labour principles.
But, she said, social credit had not elected a single candidate in the 1935 election. That is very true, because social credit did not put any candidates in the field in that election. Continuing, she said this:
People in New Zealand were vitally concerned with monetary problems, and social credit apostles had served to heighten this already acute interest by their crusade.
So I think that we as a group of social crediters should be given some credit for the victory of the labour party in the 1935 election. Some of the legislation which has been enacted by that government since they were elected in 1935 has been, to say the least of it, wonderful. These are some of the things they have done:
A basic minimum weekly wage fixed by government decree of approximately twenty dollars, taking the pound's value as five dollars. In addition, an arbitration court must see that wages allow an adult male worker "to maintain a wife and three children in a fair and reasonable standard of comfort."
All citizens in New Zealand are entitled, as of right, to complete, universal, free medical and hospital care from general practitioners. This includes full maternity benefits, as well as special provisions for invalids of a minimum of five dollars per week for an adult incapacitated for work.

The forty-hour, five-day working week, without any loss of wages.
Old age pensions payable at the age of sixty instead of seventy as in Canada. The pension is more than 1J times as much as that here.
I should like to see, and every member of this group would like to see, this government bring in legislation to provide for old age pensions for people at the age of sixty, yes, and even lower than that.
A system of unemployment insurance already in force.
The government pays a guaranteed price to dairy farmers-back-bone of agriculture in New Zealand-and the price must remain stable the whole year. It also set up a primary products marketing department to handle the export and sale of dairy produce. The government owns all dairy produce intended for export and takes the loss, if any, itself. Profit goes to the farmer.
Farm hands obtain a month's holiday with pay each year.
These are some of the amenities of life which have been brought to the people of New Zealand by the labour government, and I, for one, heartily commend that government for what they have done. But I take exception to the manner in which these blessings have been brought about. Let me quote again from Miss Crawford's speech-and in my opinion this lady is just as good an authority as can be found anywhere. This is what she says:
This elaborate social service program, Miss Crawford explained, is financed by a charge of one pound per person to register for these benefits, plus a further tax of one shilling in every pound upon all wages, salaries and income.
To my mind that is where the nigger is in the wood pile. These amenities have been brought to the people of New Zealand by means of an elaborate system of taxation. It takes $5 to register, five per cent, or one shilling in every pound, of wages, salaries and income. It is my firm belief that these blessings can be brought to the people of Canada, and they must be brought to the people of Canada, without an increase in taxation. I believe this can be done through the medium of controlling the currency and credit of the country and using that currency and credit in terms of the public need. They are not doing that in New Zealand at the present time, and that is the point. That is where we, as social crediters, do not agree with the prime minister of that dominion. The hon. member for Huron North said, in the course of his remarks:
... I suggest that hon. members keep these things in their memory-

The Address-Mr. Lalonde
Things which he had spoken of earlier in his speech.
-for a year or two and then pass judgment when the test of time has brought its result.
Well, he is not foolish enough to think that Premier Savage is going to remain idle, doing nothing within the next year or two. When Premier Savage spoke at Auckland before 8,000 people, he said:
. . . money must be provided for production, and money must be provided for consumption. Unless a country could buy what it produced, trade expansion was impossible.
. . . unless the government of a country controlled the credit of the country it could not control anything else.
It is therefore my humble but firm judgment that the battle which should have been commenced in 1935 by the Premier of New Zealand is just beginning now. He is just about to find the stillest opposition of his life when he comes to fight those who control the currency and credit of his country.
May I now for a moment speak to one who used to have a seat very close to these two reform parties. I realize that the matter is not covered by the speech from the throne; but if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will leave his Beauchesne's Par-liamentry Rules and Forms in his desk for a little while and forget about it, I shall take a few minutes to say what is on my mind.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has moved over from these groups. I do not believe he will be happy with his former love unless his party makes far-reaching changes in their program. In the last session of this parliament, on March 31, 1938, he had the following to say. I quote from page 1911 of Hansard. Speaking of the price of cattle he said:
There is serious distress; in fact, the interjection of the minister tempts me to point out that the price of cattle to the farmers in Canada is not a fair price or one based upon the law of supply and demand at all. It is fixed in Toronto by the heads of the packing institutions, and that condition is unfair to the farmers. I am going to have more to say about that later on. I feel strongly on this question, because next to grain, if not indeed equally with grain, the marketing of live stock is one of the largest items in the production of newr wealth in this country. There is no question in my mind-and I have given the matter a great deal of study-that the farmers of Canada are to-day, and have been-I was going to use the word "defrauded"-deprived, and unjustly deprived, of millions of dollars annually that they should get. I am prepared to prove that, and I shall do so one of these days. I am almost tempted to proceed with an analysis of these conditions, but I did not rise for that purpose to-night. When it is suggested that these conditions apply to other commodities, that is true, but there is nothing in the whole realm of activity in Canada to-day
comparable with the unfairness in connection w'ith marketing live stock.
Then he was followed by the Minister of Agriculture who said:
With regard to the last few remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay East, while there may be a great deal of truth in the statement that we are not obtaining enough for our cattle. I think it is pretty well agreed, particularly by those of us who are raising cattle, that there is a feature of the present situation which should be mentioned u'hen we are discussing it from that point of view'.
May I say to the hon. member for Kootenay East that these w'ords of his are known to every farmer and every cattleman in Alberta. They were the subject of a long discussion on the floor of a convention held in the city of Calgary under the auspices of the rural municipal districts association, where a resolution was passed calling upon the government to take immediate action. I hope the hon. member will take the earliest opportunity- perhaps during this debate

to lay bare all the facts, as they are known to him. Should he succeed in getting action in remedying this abuse, I can assure him that he will win the gratitude certainly of all cattlemen living in Alberta and, I am sure, of all cattlemen in the west.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) said in this house during the session of 1936:
Now may I say a w'ord by way of reminder, because I want to warn the government and the Liberal party to-day that if I am right in my conclusions as to the way in which the public has interpreted these promises that w'ere made as pledge before election, if they are not fulfilled then it may be that the Liberal party is placing its footsteps on that trail of broken promises which leads not only through the valley of humiliation but down deep into the abysmal depths of eternal oblivion.
I want to bring those w'ords back to the minds of hon. gentlemen sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell them that danger-signals are flying all over this country, and I hope the Liberal party will heed those signals before it is too late.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, although by tradition the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne is an occasion for one side of the house to exalt the policies of the government and for the members of the opposition to decry them, the words of praise that I shall have for the government are in no way dictated by that custom, but by the government's record itself. In rising to speak on behalf of the county of Labelle I am performing a duty commanded by justice and equity.
The Address-Mr. Lalonde

I hold it as a principle that it is the duty of all Canadians to preach and practise Canadian policies. I submit that the policy enunciated in the speech from the throne and which has been preached and practised for the past three years by the government of this country is essentially Canadian and that therefore it is the duty of every patriot to give it his loyal and sincere support. It is unnecessary, Mr. Speaker, to dwell on the first -of these statements. According as our young country, in the course of time, acquires the characteristics and forms of an independent state; according as through the slow but natural evolution of its national life, it obtains its majority rights and takes at the concert of nations the place of honour to which it is entitled; according as on its territory there develops a population deeply rooted in traditions of order and of peace; according as Canada, through her immense natural resources and the work of her children, increases her influence among the nations of the world, every Canadian worthy of the name owes it to his country and his race to promulgate and put into practice just and reasonable laws and a truly Canadian policy.
I say that the policies of the present government, taking into account what economists call intangible factors and what I would call unforeseeable factors, are truly Canadian.
There is only one policy worthy of that name, and that is liberalism as we, federal Liberals, understand it. Far be it from my mind to advocate that partly political and partly religious liberalism, or, if you wish, that partly economic and partly religious liberalism which our opponents, especially in the province of Quebec, are prone to connect with the liberalism of Laurier. By Canadian liberalism, I mean the political doctrine which glorifies individual freedom as far as it can promote individual and social welfare. Set against excessive nationalism of which it is the absolute antithesis, such a doctrine curbs the arbitrary demands of the powerful and the pundits by promoting free and legitimate competition. Canadian political liberalism owes its existence and its principles to French liberalism which, at the outset, was opposed to the absolute power of monarchy. Under the Restoration, it was the policy of those who fought the government of Louis XVIII and Charles X and sought the return of the conditions prevailing after 1789. Victorious in 1830, liberalism became conservative in 1848, as it was then opposed to socialism. Since then, liberalism has been the name assumed by parties advocating civil and political liberty and fighting extreme theories, whether of the right, the center or the left. To-day it is

particularly the policy of those who fight state socialism, antireligious sectarianism and all attempts at dictatorship springing either from the right, the center or the left. It is, in a word, sir, the antithesis of toryism whose sole ideal has always been, particularly in this country, the protection of the privileged classes at the expense of the masses.
The foregoing statements lead us to the conclusion that liberalism as practised in Canada provides the ground for the full flowering of practical and theoretical freedom in the economic field. In conclusion, it can be safely stated that, in safeguarding the liberty of man and his most cherished aspirations which include his complete freedom of thought and speech, our political liberalism stands as the irreducible opponent of autocracy, of monopoly and of dictatorship.
Set against the dictatorial nationalism and excessive racism condemned by the Pope himself, our political liberalism has been able to accomplish great things for our beloved country. It has created and built up the code of a truly Canadian policy, as we shall see.
It is under a liberal government that our country conquered its sovereignty, later consecrated by the Statute of Westminster in 1931. It was by affirming the doctrine of reciprocity in 1911 that Laurier, with a display of self-abnegation which will go down in history as one of the most moving of all political sacrifices, became an exponent of the purest liberalism. Then in 1935 his successor, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), continuing the tradition, negotiated the first treaty of reciprocity with the United States, thus destroying the remaining vestiges of absolute protectionism so dear to the heart of our Tory opponents. Finally, on November 17, 1938, the prime minister signed in Washington a second treaty of reciprocity which will stand as the climax of the sovereignly human accomplishments due to the political liberalism of the present government of Canada.
I could praise this treaty by pointing to its beneficial results for the farmers and lumbermen of my constituency, as it will open a great market for our agricultural products and will tend, by a freer export of forest products, to reduce the latent unemployment existing in that part of the province as a result of a considerable reduction in lumbering operations. But the treaty will do more than that. In addition to its practical effects and its important pecuniary advantages, it will become one of the effective means of strengthening national unity in our country.
It is no secret that this unity is threatened. Underhand campaigns of chauvinism and separatism inspired by a presumptuous egoism

The Address-Mr. Lalonde
have shaken the structure of confederation. Inhabited by people of different races and religions. Canada has to fight to maintain its national life.
It is greatly to the credit of the Prime Minister and his government to have been able to accomplish the marvellous feat of maintaining in stable equilibrium these contrary forces and dissimilar interests and to make of all these heterogeneous parts a viable whole that is called Canada. Amendments and additions will soon have to be made, in order to adapt the terms of the federative agreement to the needs of-the various groups. Without destroying anything, we should seek to build a finer and larger structure. I am confident that the present government of this country will safeguard the rights of the Catholic and French minorities and guarantee them the full exercise of their privileges. Our national unity which was threatened by the world crisis is stronger and livelier than ever, following the setbacks of nationalism and the victories of the present government's political liberalism. This treaty, affecting the most cherished interests of all the classes constituting the great Canadian nation, will re-establish this spirit of solidarity and unity on more solid bases.
In the international field, the policy of the present Liberal government has been Canadian.
There may be some who prefer to the thoughtful and prudent statesman some buffoon of present-day politics. I prefer the wisdom of the present Prime Minister to the saucy verbosity of some of his opponents.
When the European dictators, driven by the imperious necessity of a display of strength essential to the maintenance of their prestige, and swollen by a pagan racism, had Europe within an ace of war; when in a moment of folly they demanded, gun in hand, further ransoms and further conquests, the entire Canadian people stood in those tragic hours behind the traditional serenity of their Prime Minister who had promised that parliament alone would decide the question of Canada's participation in foreign wars. This statement, Mr. Speaker, is the consecration of the Liberalism of Laurier such as we practise it.
A certain Montreal daily newspaper sought in its edition of January 18th, 1939, to spread about the government and its leader a falsehood that common sense itself will refute. Because the Prime Minister of Canada read passages of a book which quoted a statement of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who had said in 1910 that when England is at war Canada is at war, this paper concluded that the leader of the government was ready to launch the country in an adventure of military conscription should England be drawn into a conflict. It took good care, though, not to quote in full Laurier's words, which were these: "When England is at war we are at war and exposed to attack." That is an altogether different matter and, besides, in 1910 the imperial tie was an all-powerful factor. Our colonial and dependent status implied certain obligations on our part, and bound us, as it were, to the mother country's destiny. But the wonderful emancipation brought about by the statute of Westminster freed us from that responsibility. Had the leader of this government issued such a fateful proclamation, our very independence would have been sufficient to ensure our right to declare our neutrality. But there is no need to give more publicity to that misleading announcement. Further on, the same newspaper admits that the policy of this government as regards participation in foreign ware is that parliament, only is supreme, not the government. I am not surprised that the semi-official organ of the nationalists in Quebec should have availed itself of this opportunity to do some hair-splitting in order to launch an anti-militaristic campaign in my province. They cherish the hope of setting up a national federal party, which would merely be, under another name, the old tory party with which no one wishes to be associated in our province. They fondly expect a repetition of the tragedy of 1911.
There is no occasion for doubting that, belonging as we do to the British Commonwealth, even as a free and sovereign partner, we may sooner or later, have to decide whether we should bleed our country white in order to protect the empire's interests. But I do say, most emphatically that the liberals remember too well the bloody experience of 1917, that we believe our patriotism to be at least as sincere as the patriotism of those worthy writers who may be publishing reputed newspapers; that, conscious of our responsibilities as representatives of the people who do not want war we are against any such venture, and that, as long as this government is in power, the Canadian people should have a feeling of security. The leader of this government took a clear cut stand when he said "Parliament will decide."
I now say to my compatriots that they need not fear to follow Mackenzie King rather than the leader of the opposition whose endeavour for military conscription in 1917 is still remembered by the people in my province.
I do say, Mr. Speaker, that such a policy is truly Canadian. That is how our beloved country has gained in international matters, the respect of other powers. Of such achieve-
The Address-Mr. Lalonde

ments is history made and future generations will find in it the record of a steadfast man who was a genuine Canadian.
Of course, an increase in the national defence estimates is forecast in the speech from the throne. I shall purposely withhold my opinion, but I understand that the Government will deal with the matter in the light of our financial resources and of the geographical position of Canada.
I now wish to congratulate the leader of the government on the very fine speech which he delivered last Monday. On that occasion the two leaders have tried conclusions. The right hon. the Prime Minister has fulfilled the expectations of connoisseurs in besting his opponent with his unimpeachable arguments, his rousing dynamism and the moderate tone of his remarks. The maiden speech of the Conservative leader was awaited with much interest in Ottawa. Being the successor of one of the most aristocratic and' well informed parliamentarians he owed it to his followers to rise at least to the heights of eloquence and sophistry where the former Tory leader had soared. It should be admitted that his task was indeed tremendous. Let me say right now that the present leader of the opposition has completely failed. He has disappointed his own followers. He has gladdened his opponents. Where his predecessor was trenchant and curt, the new leader has been vague. While the former resorted to sound reasoning, the new Conservative leader has discarded logic and delivered a speech replete with irrelevant puns and anecdotes. While the former could put the speech from the throne to a thorough analysis which sometimes led to sophistical conclusions cleverly clothed with a semblance of common sense, the latter has only touched lightly upon that piece of parliamentary oratory which is persistently referred to as the speech from the throne without extracting therefrom anything substantial.
Then the liberal leader replied. It was a triumph for him. Never within living memory had he attained those sublime heights, in such a spontaneous, moving and complete manner. Realizing his superiority over the man who had just failed in his task and summoning all the eloquence at his command, he dazzled the entire house. The leader of the opposition had reproached the liberal leader with being ignorant of the plight of the people and having never endured the suffering of the toiling and despairing masses. He had stung the lion to the quick. With sparkling eyes, with menacing gestures and in ringing tones, the liberal leader described with sobs in his voice the hardships of his forefathers, obscure heroes of pioneer days, valiant knights of the primitive exiles, who

have inscribed on the portals of our country their heroic deeds. And when he spoke of his dear old mother, whom he so dearly loves, his indignation rang in thunderous words hurled at the conservative leader. He had avenged the honour of his name, he had avenged his party. He had wiped out the insult.
Under the guidance of such men, I have no reason to doubt, much less to betray. Rather is it my duty to implore the coming generation to follow in the luminous path beaten by them.
Let them not be guided by false gods and false doctrines. Has not past experience taught us that the Liberal party of Laurier and of King has always been the beacon indicating the true road? Has not the political liberalism that we uphold always been the real liberating doctrine? Does not history teach us-and how truly!-that each Liberal administration since 1867 has restored to Canadians a certain amount of happiness and prosperity by combating the evil effects of protectionist nationalism and tearing away piece by piece from the Tory oligarchy the remnants of Canadian liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the resolution moved by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), which eloquently sets forth the record of a truly Canadian government led by men who have no other earthly ideal but to give the best of themselves to their country and to their fellow-men.
Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood) r Mr. Speaker, I am happy to make my first words those of congratulation to both the mover and the seconder of the motion at present before the house. I am sure that we all listened to the speeches of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) and the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier), appreciating not only their ability but their agility to speak so well when there is so little they could say. We all admired particularly the synchromesh ease with which the hon. member for Stormont changed from one language to the other. I am sure that all the congratulations that have been showered upon him this week have been absolutely sincere.
My second words are words of congratulation to my hon. leader (Mr. Manion). I offer congratulations to him not only upon his election to the leadership of the National Conservative party of Canada, but upon assuming his position as Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We regard ourselves as being peculiarly fortunate in having a man of his calibre as our leader, whose

The Address-Mr. Massey
record as a Canadian is as distinct as it is distinguished. He has made a magnificent contribution to Canada both in time of war and in time of peace, and his presence in this house brings to it that which alone his own presence can bring.
I would congratulate him further upon his maiden speech as leader of the opposition. All of us who listened to him last Monday realized that his absence from the house for three years had served to sharpen rather than to dull the edge of his sword. We admired the forthrightness of his presentation. He did not dodge points by the recognized device of verbiage, but his presentation was forthright and to the point, and the acclaim that it received from Halifax to Victoria is one of which he must be duly proud.
My next words are in connection with an event to which we all in this country look forward. We are happy and proud that Their Majesties the King and Queen are to visit Canada this May. From coast to coast they will receive a welcome of spontaneous loyalty and devotion from those who live in this dominion. We are proud, yes, and happy, yes; and we anticipate that we may be able to demonstrate to their majesties that Canada as a dominion in the family of empire remains in the position where she has always been.
This evening, Mr. Speaker, I am fully conscious of the necessity of discussing some of the major problems that are confronting this dominion; but it is not my purpose tonight to ventilate my views and opinions on matters which have already been discussed at some length by those who have spoken before me. There is still plenty of time and opportunity before this session is completed for me to present what I feel to be the views of my constituents on all these vitally important matters.
To-night I wish to deal particularly with one matter which is of farther reaching importance than many are apt to consider, a matter which strikes at the very roots of the liberty which we enjoy in this country and for which our forefathers fought and bled. I do not wish to appear platitudinous; but let us remind ourselves that the liberty and freedom we enjoy includes the right of free speech, free assembly, free association, and free worship. For centuries these rights have been our priceless privileges. They have become basic in our scheme of things. By no possible stretch of the imagination can they be considered to be a policy of this or of any other government; for they are fundamental to our democracy, and any abridgement of
these principles strikes a blow which is directed at the bedrock upon which our nation and our empire have been built. They are principles the practice of which is a privilege and the equal right of all free men, whether their means be mediocre or whether their means be great. They are principles that apply equally to all citizens.
As a citizen of Canada I respect those rights regardless of who exercises them. As one in public life I may protest with all the energy of which I am capable against what my opponent has to say; but I will protest equally against any curtailment of his right to say it. When we speak of free speech we are speaking of liberty, which is the inalienable right of all citizens of Canada and of Great Britain. It is only when that liberty is grossly abused to the extent of licence that any restrictions upon it should be tolerated at all.
I postulate, Mr. Speaker, that this is the principle which has motivated the action of successive governments in Canada from confederation down to the present day-the present day, when we are faced with the first example of the restriction of free speech, if not directed, at least condoned by this government in general and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in particular in his speech on Monday last.
The argument that I am about to present deals with this principle, and may that be noted. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular individual

let me make that clear beyond peradventure of a doubt.
The particular instance of which I am about to speak concerns a man who notoriously and rather recently has attacked me bitterly both in his paper and on the air. I have no axe to grind for Mr. George McCullagh, or his Globe and Mail, as I have already said it was just over a year ago that he launched his attack on me, and I in return attacked his policies and his newspaper with no small degree of fervour. Let it further be noted that I have no knowledge whatsoever of what Mr. Me-Cullagh has in mind to say in his next four scheduled broadcasts, no more than I had any knowledge whatsoever of what he was going to say in his first broadcast.
Still further let me state that my criticisms are directed against no one individual; that I have the highest personal regard for those who are directly responsible for the present situation. May I say that my own personal dealings with the broadcasting corporation, its officers and government representative, have been of the happiest. Thus it is that I am virtually amazed at this recent turn of events. It has been my pleasure to have
The Address-Mr. Massey

many dealings with the broadcasting corporation, and my regard for its officers and its government representative has sprung from actual experience. In many ways I feel that the management of the broadcasting corporation are to be heartily congratulated upon their efforts to date; but the recent action on their part, which has received so much publicity not only throughout Canada but throughout the United States and Great Britain as well, cannot be allowed to go unchallenged by those of us who sit in this house.
Let me review briefly, Mr. Speaker, the events that took place between Mr. Mc-Cullagh and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the last two weeks or so. On January 3 Mr. George McCullagh, publisher of the Globe and Mail, applied for the use of the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in order to present to the public of Canada in a wider way than was possible through his newspaper the views of his paper concerning matters of public interest. He was to broadcast as publisher of the Globe and Mail, and not as an individual, the newspaper to use him as their air mouthpiece. Mr. McCullagh telephoned his request to Major Gladstone Murray, explaining to him the nature of the talks that were to be given, and stating his willingness and preparedness to submit his script in advance for approval. It was pointed out by Major Murray in a letter confirming the telephone conversation, that Mr. McCullagh's application could not be accepted, and it was suggested that he take part in the corporation's Sunday evening forum, which would require him to accept the subject allotted to him and to speak for fourteen minutes on one occasion. Mr. McCullagh wrote Major Murray on January 4 protesting and making his application anew. The following day Major Murray replied in a letter which quoted rulings recently approved by the board of governors, including this. I quote:
No individual may purchase network broadcasts for his own opinions.
It is important to note that in this letter Major Murray also observed:
These rulings which apply also to individual CBC stations but not individual privately owned stations, were the subject of most careful consideration.
Surely it is obvious from this statement in the general manager's own words-I am not using mine-that under the policy of the corporation time could be booked on privately owned stations for the broadcast of individual opinions. In accordance with this obvious conclusion, confirmed by Major Murray's letter of January 5, Mr. McCullagh proceeded to

secure time on all the privately owned stations in Ontario, nineteen in number, I believe, for the period from five to five-thirty p.m. on Sunday afternoons for a series of five broadcasts to commence on January 15. On January 6, Mr. McCullagh received a further communication from Major Murray suggesting that he participate in a forum with Professor Taylor, of McMaster university, on the prosy subject, "Canadian trade-in what direction?" Mr. McCullagh replied to the effect that there were many problems which he wanted to discuss and that he did not wish to be limited and governed by an academic subject handed to him by any corporate body of the government. He further informed the corporation that he intended to broadcast over the available privately owned stations in Ontario,-which was, of course, as I have noted, in accordance with Major Murray's letter of January 5. On January 12, Major Murray again wrote Mr. McCullagh, and from that letter I quote the following paragraph:
While the whole matter of private stations network is under review the board of governors has instructed that no permission for new commitments on non-basic networks shall be granted until at least the board has received the representations of private stations at the next board meeting which is expected to take place about the middle of March.
Let it be noted that as late as Thursday, January 12, three days before his first scheduled broadcast, Mr. McCullagh was denied the use of the privately owned Ontario stations on a non-basic network. Here, I postulate, was a new ruling on the part of the board of governors of the broadcasting corporation, and it is frankly so admitted in Major Murray's letter, for he says that this matter will not be under review until the middle of March.
I state here that no such occurrence has taken place before in the history of Canadian broadcasting and accordingly it appears clear that for some reason discrimination has been shown against Mr. McCullagh. That is the only possible interpretation of the action taken.
Feeling that a gross injustice had been done to him, Mr. McCullagh found a means of circumventing the restriction of freedom of speech by the corporation, and placed his speech upon wax and distributed the discs to the privately owned stations that were not permitted to be tied up in a non-basic network, while he himself conducted a live broadcast from the single station CFRB. I listened with particular care last Sunday afternoon to Mr. McCullagh's remarks. I have before me a verbatim copy of those remarks. The address was, I suggest, of

The Address-Mr. Massey
definite and great interest to the people of Canada. It attacked no one in particular, but it challenged the people of Canada to attain to better government through determined action. His efforts were obviously directed to arouse the electorate to build up responsible government and demand courageous leadership. Whereas he was not very complimentary to any one of us in this house, no one can say that his speech was either damaging or destructive, but on the contrary it was constructive and will without doubt do good.
This statement, may I again remind hon. members, is coming from one who is a prejudiced witness in regard to Mr. McCullagh, for the last time when Mr. McCullagh was on the air, a year ago, he vigorously attacked me personally. No matter what Mr. McCullagh said; no matter who Mr. McCullagh is; no matter what Mr. McCullagh represents, I repeat that the broadcasting corporation has assumed and taken unto itself rights never in the world given to it under the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936. When I make that statement I know whereof I speak. As the Prime Minister reminded me when I took the liberty of interrupting him when he was speaking on Monday evening, I was on the committee which submitted the report from which the bill was drawn, and that report passed the committee unanimously. But I certainly had no thought in my mind that such an action would be taken based on the legislation drafted from the report of that committee.
I think we have covered certain phases of this subject, perhaps a bit hurriedly and perhaps not completely; but I do feel, and feel very definitely, that an injustice has been done Mr. McCullagh, and therefore I hesitate not at all to bring this matter to the attention of the house.
I should like to say further that not so very long ago-I believe it was under date of January 14-the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) was interviewed by that very able correspondent in Ottawa of the Toronto Daily Star, Mr. Robert Lipsett. I have in my hand the Star of January 14, in which there is a report of the interview with the minister. May I summarize what the minister had to say to Mr. Lipsett:
1.	. . . Nor was the application of existing regulations in his, Mr. McCulIagh's, case any different from what it was in at least twenty previous instances.
2.	It is a fundamental principle applied everywhere where there is network broadcasting that no individual may purchase time on any network to broadcast his Own opinions.
3.	A privilege granted to Mr. McCullagh could not be withheld from others, nor could a privilege denied others be granted to Mr. McCullagh.
4.	The government had nothing to do with the decision on Mr. McCulIagh's application. "I did not learn of it until I received a copy of the correspondence from Major Murray."
In the first instance, the minister states that this case is no different from at least twenty previous instances. He cited one case in particular, that of a broadcast which was to be delivered by Sir Edward Beatty, permission for which was refused. I regret to say for the minister's sake that Sir Edward Beatty saw fit to deny this statement and stated that he knew of no such instance in his own experience; and it is rather unfortunate that the minister selected that case. Sir Edward further reminded his interviewer that on several occasions he had broadcast addresses coast to coast over CBC stations. I urge the minister, if he cares to reply to this speech, to give to the house his other nineteen "instances."
The Minister of Transport also stated that wherever there is network broadcasting no individual can purchase time on any network to broadcast his own opinions. Well, of course that statement is absurd, absurd because it is untrue. Such regulations may exist; but the minister knows this, that, if so, they certainly have not been carried out in Canada and the United States. Time and time again in both countries this has been the case. Let me quote section 326 of the United States radio law of 1934, which is in effect to-day:
Nothing in this act shall be understood or construed to give the federal commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, or no regulation shall be promulgated or fixed by the commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication.
Contrast the Canadian point of view that we have had manifest in the last few days with that held by the United States. It was a matter of interest to the Toronto Daily Star, and accordingly they had a reporter in New York city make several calls on the broadcasting station headquarters. In reporting the interview, the reporter, on January 16, asked a question of the heads of one of the broadcasting companies:
"Suppose the publisher of the New York Herald Tribune wanted to buy time, would you sell it?"
"I doubt very much we'd sell it," said Mr. Babb of NBC, "but we'd give it."
They would be willing to have a responsible individual broadcast, so far willing as to give him the time. The minister has only to look
The Address-Mr. Massey

across the border to the United States to find there the example of Rev. Father Coughlin who, every Sunday afternoon, broadcasts from the Shrine of the Little Flower his personal views which are aired over a network of forty-six United States stations and for which he pays. I have in my hand a copy of a statement that appeared on the front page of the Globe and Mail on Monday last in which he said he broadcasts over a network of forty-six stations. Father Coughlin further says in part:
"I would not care to comment on the situation you have outlined to me," he told a reporter, "but' if Mr. McCullagh should ever find himself unable to reach a broad enough audience through Canadian stations he will be welcome to use this chain at any time."
To compare the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation with the policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in this regard is also absurd. The question of the airing of opinion cannot possibly arise in Great Britain because the British Broadcasting Corporation is simply not in commercial business, sells no time. It is not on a commercial basis but is self-supporting, and therefore a situation such as has arisen here could not possibly arise there.
Let us come back to Canada. I give the minister the example of Colonel George Drew who as recently as last November repeatedly aired his opinions to the province of Ontario through an Ontario network. At that time Colonel Drew was merely a private citizen, an individual holding no office whatsoever in any political party. Now, the most amazing example of all, which shows, I think, that there must have been some discrimination against Mr. McCullagh, more clearly than any that could be given. He had been sold a network before. He was sold a network in October, 1937, and he broadcast over a number of Ontario stations! He was just as much an individual then as he is now. Why should he be able to broadcast in 1937 at the height of an election campaign, if he cannot broadcast now? Can it possibly be that in 1937, in his broadcasts, he was obviously going to support the Liberal party in Ontario, whereas in 1939 it was presumed by many that he would attack the present Liberal government at Ottawa?
Let us recall the statement made by the Prime Minister in the course of his remarks on Monday. He used this language, which will be found at page 12 of Hansard:
I simply wish to say that the government has had nothing whatever to do with refusing any application that has been made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Neither the government nor any member of the government had any knowledge that an application had been made to the Canadian Broadcasting Cor-

poration by the publisher of one of Toronto's leading newspapers, nor had any member of the government any knowledge that such an application had been refused.
As lion, members know, the business of controlling and regulating radio broadcasting has been placed by this parliament under the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is an autonomous public body and with which the government does not interfere and has no desire to interfere.
Does the Prime Minister mean to tell the people of Canada that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not only the power to execute a policy but, further, the right to establish a principle which affects the basic foundation upon which this country has been built, a principle which touches the very quick centre of our national life? Has any department of this government the power to restrict the time-honoured rights of the individual

free speech, free assembly, free association, free worship, or anything else to which the individual is entitled? Is any department, commission, corporation or company, responsible to the government of Canada, and owned by the Canadian people, free to upset established principles without any question on the part of the government? Yet that is exactly what has happened.
The action of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is extraordinary from many points of view. Do hon. members realize that the decision taken in regard to the McCullagh matter by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation denies to the individual a privilege that is enjoyed by our political parties in Canada? If Mr. McCullagh claimed membership in a party instead of professing independence, as he does, he could without any question obtain time on a coast-to-coast network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. But as he is an individual he is denied that right, a right which would be his were he a party man. What skinny justice is here? Let those who state that just because he has a wealthy organization behind him Mr. McCullagh should be denied the privilege of broadcasting his opinion, consider the accepted practice of the various broadcasting companies including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation every Sunday evening carries the Ford hour, which brings to the listeners of Canada the delightful music of the Detroit symphony orchestra.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Mr. MASSEY:: Surely.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite inadvertently, he is
not correct. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has never carried the Ford hour.

The Address-Mr. Massey


Denton Massey: I was thinking of Charlie
McCarthy, but I saw the minister and I forgot Charlie. I meant to say that over a network in Canada the Ford hour is carried on Sunday evening. This program goes over a network in Canada.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am sure my hon. friend
wants to be accurate, but that statement is not correct. There are one or two stations in Canada that are connected with the Columbia Broadcasting Corporation, perhaps two, and they carry the Ford hour, but it is not a Canadian network in that these stations are not connected in Canada.


Denton Massey: The Ford hour has not
been changed in Canada through this act.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Not to my knowledge.


Denton Massey: It is presented to listeners
in Canada over single stations or a network, and this program is on the air for one purpose only, as the minister knows, and that is to sugar-coat the pill of Mr. Cameron's own opinions. We have fifty-five minutes of orchestral and vocal or instrumental music, and Mr. Cameron's speech, in which he airs his personal opinions. This is a case where one of the most mightily wealthy corporations on the continent is permitted to buy time without question on Canadian stations for the purpose of airing opinions.


Walter Edward Foster: It is eleven o'clock.


Ernest Lapointe: Move the adjournment of the debate.


Denton Massey: I shall be through if I may be allowed to speak five minutes longer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Denton Massey: Thank you, your honour, for the courtesy. The purpose of the broadcast in question, the Ford hour, is to air vigorous political opinions.
Again, a short time ago, one of the wealthiest corporations in Canada. General Motors of Canada, Limited, purchased time on a coast-to-coast network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. For what purpose? To permit the airing of Mr. Beverley Baxter's personal views concerning the government and the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. That was the program.
Let us go even farther. I postulate to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who so tactfully disclaims any responsibility for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, saying that the administration of policy is entirely in the hands of the corporation, that this powerful organization, maintained by a nuisance tax on the public, is being used
for political purposes and for furthering the interests of those who sit on the treasury benches. At regular intervals this autumn radio addresses have been made by various ministers of the crown, and made at the public expense; and in my opinion these addresses in great part have been little more than cunningly-designed political speeches, in an attempt to show the country, in spite of what the public may think, that these ministers after all are really capable men. I have endeavoured to obtain copies of these speeches to make quotations from them in order to justify the point I have just made, that they are political in character. Unfortunately, according to my information, the printed word will not be available for another fortnight.
In his speech on Monday night, however, the Prime Minister himself admitted that he could use the radio when he wished to do so. Let us listen to his words, as they appear at page 66 of Hansard-.
-the Prime Minister of Canada cannot be going back and forth across the country making political speeches and making personal appearances before local audiences. He has this House of Commons to speak in. What better forum is there in the world? He has the radio to speak over. Is it not much better to give a few nation-wide addresses in carefully chosen words-
Then I am afraid the right hon. gentleman did not become very complimentary, but I am sure he was facetious.
[DOT]-than to be given the kind of oration to which we have listened this afternoon and to-night?
Then too, at the public expense there comes blasting into our homes a forum conducted by various individuals, college professors and other men. I have listened to many of these forums. Some of them have been passably good; others have been ridiculous, and some have been fatuous. Still others have been destructive, irritably and irrationally anti-empire, iso-lationistic and bound to do harm rather than good in these days when Canadian unity is being so severely tried.
As I come to the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, let me again impress upon hon. members that my purpose in taking up the time of the house this evening on this matter has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. McCullagh as an individual, or his Globe and Mail as a newspaper. I am not concerned with what Mr. McCullagh has to say or what he thinks; but I am concerned, as I think every member of this house should be, when we lodge power in any one man or any small group of men to pass on one of the basic principles upon which this country has been established. And I am further concerned when one of the ministers of the crown, to
The Address-Mr. Massey

whom this body is responsible, washes his hands of the matter and says, "This has nothing to do with me. It is a question of policy for the corporation." I am also concerned when the Prime Minister of Canada himself, who has made such eloquent speeches on constitutional rights and constitutional authority, disclaims any responsibility for the action of a body appointed by his government which abridges these rights, and makes the amazing statement in this house that he is prepared to back up that action. Let me quote from page 14 of Hansard:
Mr. Woodsworth:	May we not have the
assurance of the Prime Minister that the
fovernment will stand behind the Canadian iroadcasting Corporation in this matter?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	I think so, yes.
That is a typical answer from the Prime Minister.
Just because a man may be possessed of a substantial quantity of this world's goods is no reason why his rights should be abridged or his voice unheard. Surely those who discredit this point of view are inconsistent when under the dictates of their worthy desire for justice they champion the right of free speech for him who is not so well to do-and all power to them in their effort-but why in the name of justice should they wish to restrict the right of him who happens to be well to do? I am firmly of the opinion that free speech is the right of any man, be he well to do or possessed of the most modest means. It amounts to this: Either we have free speech in Canada or we have not. Either we have free assembly or we have not. Either we have a free press or we have not. Either we have free association or we have not. Either we have free worship or we have not.
May it be remembered that there was a committee which submitted a report from which the present broadcasting act was drafted. I sat on that committee, and I know what was the purpose in the minds of those who approved that report. I postulate that the present action of the corporation goes far beyond the intent of that act, as admitted by the general manager of the corporation himself when he said that to settle this matter there would be a meeting of the board of governors in March. The corporation was to administer policy, yes; to administer policy independent of but subject to review by the Minister of Transport, yes; but to establish principle? No; a thousand times no!


Clarence Decatur Howe: Would my hon. friend permit a question? He is very familiar with the broadcasting act. Can he quote any paragraph of that act which gives the Minister

of Transport or the government power to interfere with a decision of the board of governors of the corporation?


Denton Massey: Would the minister state
for a single, solitary moment that if any civil servant attempted to abridge any basic national principle, he, the minister, would simply say, "That has no bearing on me at all. That is his job"?


An hon. MEMBER:: It is not the same
thing.


Denton Massey: It is exactly the same; of
course it is.


Clarence Decatur Howe: May I point out that no member of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a civil servant. They are employees of the corporation.


Denton Massey: All right. Would the minister sit quietly in his place if some action were taken by an officer of the Canadian National Railways that grossly contravened established business practice; and, under questioning from this side of the house, would he rise in his place and say he could do nothing about it? He would not, and I have heard him do otherwise.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I make that statement twenty times every session-and there is that word " twenty " again.


Denton Massey: I think the minister picks that word " twenty " out of the hat rather glibly. When he makes his speech I am going to count carefully how many other " Sir Edward Beatty's " he has in it. I will guess nineteen.
I was relieved when the Prime Minister, speaking in this house last Monday, stated that a committee would be set up this session to review the activities of the broadcasting corporation. I need not take time to quote his words, but the remarks of the Prime Minister in that connection may be found at page 55 of Hansard. So much to the good, but let me urge the Prime Minister, and in his absence the Minister of Transport, that in setting up this new committee they keep clear of such terms of reference as were given the committee that sat last year, which terms were so cramped and restricted that, as the result of their interpretation by the chairman of the committee, no witnesses other than officers of the corporation could be called. In protest against this decision two members of that committee withdrew and sat no more.


Mr. McNEYIN:: The two members referred to, withdrew for political purposes.


Denton Massey: What is that? Who is speaking?

The Address-Mr. Massey


Thomas Bruce McNevin: I said it was very likely
for political purposes.


Denton Massey: I think it was exactly for political purposes; that is exactly why witnesses were not called, and I thank the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario, for putting the words in my mouth. So I say, let the terms of reference to (he committee this year be sufficiently broad that any witnesses desired, whether or not they be attached to the corporation, may be called. As a test case let Mr. McCullagh appear before that committee and state his position, along with the officers of the corporation, so that the committee may weigh this matter and determine to their own satisfaction whether there has been any discrimination against Mr. McCullagh. Public opinion has been aroused, particularly in certain sections of the country, by this highhanded action on the part of the corporation, and that public opinion demands satisfaction at once.


Ernest Lapointe: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that he move the adjournment of the debate? We are already ten minutes past the time for adjournment.


Denton Massey: I am glad to move the adjournment of the debate.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has
exhausted his time, so he should not move the adjournment of the debate.


Denton Massey: I move the adjournment of
the debate.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has exhausted his time.


Denton Massey: I think I moved the adjournment of the debate before you, Mr. Speaker, informed me of that.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend cannot move the adjournment of a debate in which he is no longer able to take part.


Denton Massey: I cannot quite see that.
I had one further statement to make, and I would have been glad to make that statement, but the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) asked me not to make it to-night but to move the adjournment of the debate, which I did. Now I find myself faced with the ruling that I am through. If I had asked for one moment more I am sure the right hon. gentleman with his great courtesy, which I and all members of this house recognize, would have assented readily.


Ernest Lapointe: If my
hon. friend has only one or two more sentences, all right; but it is ten minutes after eleven, and I think many hon. members would like to see the house adjourn.


Denton Massey: To oblige the Minister of Justice I said I would be glad to move the adjournment of the debate; otherwise I ask for the privilege of making my closing statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Walter Edward Foster: I understand that when the Minister of Justice suggested that the hon. member might adjourn the debate, the right hon. gentleman was of the opinion that the hon. member had a few minutes left to speak. I find from the clerk of the house that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), when he said he would move the adjournment of the debate, had exhausted his time to speak.


Ernest Lapointe: Go
ahead, if it is going to be short.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, if there could be unanimous consent of the house, and if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) pleases, the hon. member would require only a few more minutes.


Walter Edward Foster: Well, if it is only a few minutes more-


Denton Massey: Before I take my seat, let me point out that the matters which have been dealt with in the speech from the throne, and with which I purpose to deal from time to time during the session, are matters to which I am by no means insensible this evening. Let it not be said I have neglected them; for I shall deal with them, as I stated in opening, from time to time during this session. Let me now merely state, Mr. Speaker, that I am supporting whole-heartedly the amendment moved by my leader to the motion that is before this house. I shall not support the amendment to the amendment, which is designed cleverly and adroitly by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woods-worth), who moved it.
I oppose monopolistic control and exploitation just as heartily as any member of this house, and despise it in principle and in result, but I shall vote against the amendment to the amendment for the obvious reason that a vote for it, as it is worded, would be a vote in favour of socialism in Canada, and that I do not support.
I thank your honour, hon. members in general, and my hon. friend the right hon.
188	COMMONS
Canada-United States Trade Agreement
Minister of Justice in particular, for the courtesy extended to me in allowing me to complete my speech at this hour.
On motion of Mr. Howe the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the house adjourned at 11.15 p.m.
Friday, January 20, 1939