GOVERNMENT VESSELS


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I desire to present a petition signed by H. R. Boulton and 121 other officers, chief petty officers and petty officers of the vessels of the various branches of the dominion government service on the Pacific coast. The preamble states that these officers desire to express their loyalty to the service, and their desire to continue in it, but that they are handicapped by the conditions of their service which force them to maintain two homes. This makes it impossible for them to make provision for superannuation. They point out that the service would be greatly improved if men were encouraged by such a system to join the service and make it a permanent life job. The preamble reads:
Wherefore, your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable house may be pleased to pass legislation allowing us to come under the Superannuation Act.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MACNEIL BREN MACHINE GUN CONTRACT AND NOTICE OF MOTION FOR REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE

Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. Standing order 16, citation 158, of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads:
In the commons, on the 12th April, 1733, and on the 1st June, 1780, it was resolved that it was a high infringement of the privilege of the house, a crime and misdemeanour, to assault, insult or menace any member of the house, in his coming or going from the house, or upon the account of his behaviour in parliament; or to endeavour to compel members to declare themselves in favour of or against any proposition then depending, or expected to be brought before the house.
Last evening I was informed by an hon. member of this house that he had been requested by an official with some responsibility to the house to advise me to this effect: that if I persisted in proceeding with the motion
of which I have given notice to refer the Bren gun contract to the public accounts committee certain information relating to the administration of a veterans' organization in 1925 might be published in a manner that would cause me humiliation and reflect upon my personal honour. At the same time inquiries were directed to me by a number of hon. members and representatives of the press with regard to a report in circulation that I had withdrawn the notice of motion standing in my name. Under the authority I have quoted I therefore claim the right to exercise my privileges on two points.
1.	The officers of the organization concerned and public servants in possession of the facts assure me that all the evidence relating to the matter referred to can be made available for such inquiry as may be deemed necessary. I would welcome and facilitate such inquiry even though I was not at the time responsible to the house and was upheld in my actions by the organization to which I was directly responsible.
2.	In the performance of my duties as a member of the house, I will not submit to what I consider to be intimidation of this nature and regard it as a violation of my privileges and rights and a contravention of the rules and usages of parliament. I intend to proceed with my motion at the appropriate time and in accordance with the rules of this house.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As the hon. member has
made mention of an official of this house who it is alleged has made certain statements which the hon. member makes the ground for his citing of the rule of privilege, I wish he would give me the name of that official. As leader of the house I should like to know it.
With regard to proceeding with his resolution, I say to him that if he does not proceed with it the government will wish to. He may be quite assured that there will be no objection to proceeding with his resolution.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I shall be very glad to
place that information in the possession of the Prime Minister.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS FARQUHAR (Algoma East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) what is the stand of the government in regard to the enforcement of the Canada Temperance Act on Manitoulin Island, having regard to
r	COMMONS
Temperance Act-Manitoulin Island
the fact that the provincial government refuses to enforce it, claiming that it is a federal act and not part of the criminal code.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: The hon. gentleman kindly
gave me notice of his question and I have prepared the following answer:
The provisions of the Canada Temperance Act, since its first enactment in 1878, have never been enforced by the dominion. On the contrary they have been enforced by provincial or local authorities until the present instance involving Manitoulin Island. Of course, it is not desirable that the dominion should intrude upon a field occupied by the province.
The Canada Temperance Act is not distinguishable from other public statutes of Canada, such as the criminal code, the Lord's Day Act and the Juvenile Delinquents Act, the enforcement of which is carried out by provincial or local authorities in virtue of section 92(14) of the British North America Act-administration of justice in the province.
Mr. Justice Street of the Queen's Bench division of the Supreme Court of Ontario stated in Regina v. Bush, 15 Ontario Reports, 398, at pages 403 and 404, in effect, that subject to certain limitations upon its scope section 92(14) has effect to confer upon the provincial legislatures the right to, regulate and to provide for the whole machinery connected with the administration of justice in the provinces including the appointment, except judges, of all officers requisite for the proper administration of justice in its widest sense, reserving only the procedure in criminal matters.
Further, I do not think it can be denied that public order locally is, generally, maintained by provincial or local authorities.
With regard to the question as to whether or not the Canada Temperance Act is part of the criminal code, I think it is obvious that the said act is not part of the criminal code, but the prohibitions therein contained do, however, constitute criminal offences as indicated by Sir Montague E. Smith in delivering the judgment of the privy council in Russell v. The Queen, 7 Appeal Cases, 829. At page 835 he said:
The effect of the act when brought into force in any county or town within the dominion is describing it generally, to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors, except in wholesale quantities, or for certain specified purposes, to regulate the traffic in the excepted eases, and to make sales of liquors in violation of the prohibition and regulations contained in the act criminal offences, punishable by fine, and for the third or subsequent offence by imprisonment.
["Mr. Farquliar.]
In view of the above, my answer to the question submitted is that the responsibility for the enforcement of the Canada Temperance Act on Manitoulin Island does not rest upon the dominion.
I earnestly hope that ways will be found through cooperation within the limit of existing constitutional jurisdictions to cope with the situation described by the hon. member.



ANTHRAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). The Toronto Globe and Mail this morning carries a front page headline and news column to the effect that the Ontario health authorities have discovered deadly anthrax germs in some eighteen Japanese imported brushes, about which I asked a question in the house last Thursday. The newspaper goes on to state that the Hon. Harold J. Kirby, Ontario minister of health, has requested the federal government to ban importation of the type of Japanese brush involved. Will the minister assure the house that the necessary steps are being taken properly and effectively to carry out this request?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about the newspaper story to which the hon. member has referred, and he has given me no notice of his question. I shall look into the matter, and if a further answer is necessary I shall gladly give it.


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Health):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can answer the question, because it comes to some extent under the jurisdiction of the Department of Pensions and National Health. We received the news yesterday that some of the Japanese shaving brushes had been found to be infected by anthrax spores, and immediately an order in council was prepared-it is now before council and will in all probability be passed within a few days,-which will in future effectively exclude from this country any articles of that nature.



TARIFF BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) with

The Address-Mr. Weir
respect to an application that has been before the tariff board since December, 1936, a little over two years ago, with regard to the importation of vegetable oils. First, has the minister received any interim report on this subject from the tariff board? Second, does he expect to deal with the matter this year, and will he ask the tariff board for a final report on the subject? I quite understand that the matter is governed by statute and all that, but if the inquiry is not yet closed Canada would like to know whether or not it is approaching the closing point. It is now in its third year, and it has to do with an important matter involving considerations that are very disturbing to the interests of Canada.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend as to the importance of the matter about which he inquires. I have no recollection of an interim report, and I cannot say positively when the final report will be received, but I am expecting it for consideration during this session of parliament.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, January 31, consideration of the motion, of Mr. J. E. Matthews for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Manion, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Woods-worth.
Mr. W. G. WEIR (Macdonald):: Mr. Speaker, last night before the house adjourned I was dealing briefly with a few matters of government policy, the results of which this country can well feel gratified. Many things which the government has done are most commendable. I fear, however, they have not been sufficiently proclaimed .to the Canadian people. If the record of the government were better known, I am sure that what it has done would be more fully appreciated throughout Canada and much of the "blue ruin" talk we hear in this House of Commons would disappear like the mists before the rising sun.
I should now like to deal more particularly with the question of wheat marketing. I desire to say to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) that I think he would be serving his province and western Canada better if he pursued a more reasoned policy. He knows, as does every member of the house, that out of our total membership of 245 only some fifty-five members come from the wheat-growing areas of western
Canada. He knows further that when a final decision has to be made by the cabinet, out of the sixteen cabinet ministers only three of them, including the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), come from the wheat-growing areas of western Canada. This number was increased recently to seventeen by the appointment to the cabinet of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon). Therefore, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what party might be in power, that situation would not and could not be materially changed.
Some of my eastern friends are expressing concern over the possible loss to the government this year from the wheat-marketing policy now being pursued. I should like to emphasize two points in particular with regard to it. First, the farmers of western Canada are not getting SO cents a bushel for their wheat. The price being paid is 80 cents a bushel for 'No. 1 northern wheat in store, Fort William or Port Arthur. From this must be deducted freight, elevator charges, and the spreads between the various grades. When these charges are deducted, the price to the farmer is much nearer 55 or 60 cents a bushel than it is to 80 cents a bushel. Then in Manitoba we produce a great deal of durum wheat, for which the government guaranteed price at Fort William is 70 cents, not 80 cents, a bushel. It, too, is subject to the same freight costs, grade spreads and elevator charges, so the price with respect to durum is less than it is for common wheat. Manitoba is also a large producer of coarse grains, od which there is no consideration whatever from the government.
Second, I should like to say to my eastern friends that the money paid out in this so-called bonus, in fact the whole amount received by the western farmer for his wheat, is not now in western Canada. What has been paid out by the government by way of bonus has gravitated right back here to eastern Canada: in fact it is doubtful if it ever got out to the west at all. It has come back to eastern Canada through the payment of freight costs; interest, both governmental and private; taxes; and lastly, but not least, in payments for goods produced in eastern Canada and shipped to the west. I do not desire to pursue this matter further.
I realize the arguments which our eastern friends are facing from day to day and the difficulty they are having in explaining why the western wheat producer should secure consideration which is not available to them. I have yet, however, to hear a single one of them say that the western wheat grower was getting too much for his wheat. It is only

The Address-Mr. Weir

fair to point out that western Canada over a period of years has suffered what in reality has been a national calamity. Over half the population has been deprived, on account of conditions totally beyond its control, of any earning power. Therefore the resources of that area have been largely depleted; the assets have been liquidated, and there has been nothing to carry the producers over a time of low prices. The people of eastern Canada, I think, fully realize this because they have come to the assistance of these unfortunate people in a splendid manner, and it has been greatly appreciated by our western farm people, business men and others who have had to accept outside help.
A word with respect to the application of the bonus. We in western Canada have a grading system which the people of eastern Canada do not have. Through that system it is comparatively easy to strike the basis upon which a bonus, if desirable, can be set. Secondly, we have also a grain elevator handling organization, complete throughout the western provinces, and through its machinery it is comparatively easy, without setting up any other organization, to distribute the bonus. We have a complete organization already set up. A similar system does not exist in eastern Canada.
I shall leave that matter for the time being, and proceed to another phase of the situation. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), speaking a few days ago, placed on the record some figures relative to the change in the wheat acreage throughout the world. I desire to deal with the problem in a little different manner, putting it in this way: Our wheat problem has been brought about by a recession or a decline in the world's wheat trade. It is not that less wheat is being used, but that less wheat is going into world trade. At one time there was a world's trade in wheat amounting to upwards of 800,000,000 bushels a year; in one year, I believe, the figure reached almost 1,000,000,000 bushels. This has gradually dwindled down until in more recent years the figure has been about 540,000,000 bushels a year. This condition has been brought about by the nationalistic attitude of countries which were formerly large importers of Canadian wheat but who because of fear of war and other national considerations, desired to place themselves on a self-supporting basis in so far as food supplies are concerned. Until that fear is removed, and there is a greater appreciation of world trade, I fear that this country is going to continue to face a wheat problem and the effect on Canadian economy and particularly western Canada will be readily apparent.

We from western Canada adhere definitely to the principle that if we will buy goods from foreign countries, those countries will buy goods from us; and believing in that policy, we hold that every possible effort should be made by the government to extend the trading opportunities of this country in order to make a market for our natural products.
I do not like this idea of a government bonus. Western Canada, as a matter of principle, does not like it. Nor do I propose at this time to say anything with respect to the contribution that western Canada has made to eastern Canada through the policy of tariff protection, because I do not think such a discussion will help in meeting our present difficulties. I would point out, however, that should western Canada be forced to change its system of agriculture, eastern Canada will feel the effect on its agriculture in no uncertain way. We in western Canada can turn, if we have to, to other systems of agriculture. We can turn to dairy production, live stock production, poultry production, honey production, and several other lines; but in so doing we should immediately come into competition with eastern farmers, and then, instead of Canada having only a wheat problem on its hands, it would have a general agricultural problem as well. Western Canada is organized and has the machinery to produce wheat and other cereals. To do anything else it would have to change its entire set-up.
There was recently held in Winnipeg a wheat conference called by the government of Manitoba. It was attended by outstanding men from Canada and the United States, by representatives of boards of trade all across Canada, by grain men, by producers and, I think one can say, by all those who are interested primarily in western agriculture. It was made abundantly clear at this conference that western Canada's natural economy was that of growing wheat and that it would be most difficult to change very much even if it were desirable to do so. I should like to refer briefly to some of the results that came out of that conference. Following the conference, which lasted for almost a week, a committee was set up to continue the activities that had already been started by the conference. From a Winnipeg Free Press report I found this statement relative to the conference:
The picture painted by the conference showed a shrinkage in world demand for wheat of some 2,000,000 bushels a year. The demand from Great Britain was down five per cent; that from Germany, France and Italy down seventy per cent; from other European countries down thirty-three per cent. Against this, world supplies had risen by 15,000,000 bushels annually. The result spelled low prices.

The Address-Mr. Weir
The chairman of the conference was the premier of the province. The press report of his statement in closing the conference was as follows:
Among the problems he (Mr. Bracken) mentioned were the search for markets, lowering of producers' costs, international exchange, interprovincial trade in seed grains, more aggressive merchandising, industrial uses of surplus agricultural products, study of the western debt structure, and if the only way out was to fight for a share of a smaller market-how best to arm themselves? A western problems research council was needed to correlate the work of research institutions.
I set out this press comment merely to indicate the approach which is likely to be made to this problem on behalf of those particularly concerned with it in western Canada.
Last December it was my privilege to attend in Toronto a meeting of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce. This meeting was called to discuss agricultural problems and nothing else. I am bound to interject here that among those who attended I did not hear a single voice raised in protest against what this government is doing this year for the western wheat grower. Instead, there was a general recognition of the problem and a desire to do something to meet it. In particular, this meeting was called to survey the possibilities, through scientific investigation, and otherwise, of creating new non-edible uses for agricultural products. The chairman of the meeting was a very close friend of mine, a former provincial minister of agriculture of Manitoba. Mr. D. G. McKenzie. One of the things pointed out at this meeting was that agriculture was served well in Canada by scientific men, and that a great deal had been accomplished in the interests of agriculture by our scientists and technical men To cite one example only, the production of new rust-resistant varieties of wheat is illustrative of one of the far-reaching things that have been accomplished. Hundreds of other illustrations could be given. It would seem, however, that so far the emphasis has been placed on the idea of making two blades of grass grow where formerly only one grew, with little attempt being made to invent new uses for agricultural products.
Another thing pointed out was that agriculture in this country was competing not only with the agriculture of other countries, but also with the scientists of other countries. Germany, for instance, is producing from milk casein a material that is a suitable substitute for wool. A large percentage of her clothing both ordinary and high-grade is now being produced from forest products. As illustrative of what industry can do for agriculture, I was fascinated by a statement made 71492-34 J
by Mr. Henry Ford at the chemurgic conference in 1935. He said he was using in hit factory the following agricultural products:
60.000.	000 pounds of cotton; 500,000 bushels of corn, 2,500,000 gallons of molasses; 3,200,-
000.pounds of wool; 1,500,000 square feet of leather; 350,000 pounds of mohair; and an almost unlimited supply of soya beans.
At Atchison, Kansas, extensive experiments have been carried on to find new non-edible uses for farm products. Already some encouraging results have been produced. From oats three products have been developed and are now sold in the United States:
1.	From the kernel of the oat they have produced a product called "avenex," a fine oat flour with peculiar preserving qualities.
2.	"Levena" a pleasing perfume. Over
5200.000.	000 annually is spent for cosmetics in the United States. If, therefore, part of our oat supply can be directed to that type of market its usefulness is readily apparent.
3.	From the hull of oats a product called "furfural" has been produced. It is now recognized as a base chemical. The state of Missouri has found that by mixing it with a bituminous binder and with dirt there can be built a fairly satisfactory market road at a cost of around $2,500 a mile compared with $30,000 per mile for a concrete highway. The horse and mule population of the United States decreased between 1914 and 1924 by 10,000,000. One, therefore, can see the necessity of attempting to secure a substitute market for oats.
Alcohol is now successfully made from corn, sorghum, barley, rye, wheat and sweet potatoes. Gasoline carrying ten per cent of this type of alcohol is now being sold in
2.000	filling stations at prices competitive with gasoline. A plant at Atchison, Kansas, has a capacity to produce 10,000 gallons a day and uses 1,500,000 bushels of grain a year.
Dr. Hale of Washington, in his book Prosperity Beckons, writes in part as follows of the alcohol industry:
When this new industry-the alcohol industry -starting in this country in July of this year on a minute scale, with the first year's sales not to exceed $500,000, we can confidently predict the course of its progress. Within a few years there will be hundreds of agricrude alcohol plants under operation. Within ten years we should be closely approaching the 20 per cent alcohol blend for automobiles and an appreciable share of cellulose and other acetate markets. Perhaps $1,000,000,000 will not be out of the way in representing the alcohol industry in 1946. By 1956, just twenty years in the future, there is every reason to believe that this mighty industry will be producing fifty million gallons of agricrude alcohol at a selling price of between 15 and 20 cents per gallon with handsome profits. In all truth
The Address-Mr. Weir

we await that day in all candor. Its accomplishments in 20 years will have overtopped the sum total of revenues gained by the automobile and petroleum industries together in 1929.
Again, in another place in his book, he says:
Our fermentation industries in supply of agricrude alcohol will require the cultivation of at least 100 million acres of land in 20 years.
This surely is a move in the right direction. In Great Britain and in some other countries they are requiring an alcohol blend in all gasoline used in motor cars. Germany is extracting gasoline from coal, and we know also something of what that country is doing to supplement the use of wheat flour. In the dairy industry, through the introduction of new bacteria and a new process of fermentation, the varieties of cheese offered for sale have been increased from four major varieties to fifty-eight, with a resultant increase in per capita consumption of around three pounds to five and a half pounds between 1920 and 1937.
Further, it is pointed out that complete houses are now being built from agricultural material. Plastics, wall board and paints are now being made from waste lumber, cornstalks, flax and hemp. One readily appreciates the importance of housing, and if the objective can be only partly attained through the use of agricultural materials, and particularly waste agricultural materials, it should result in new sources of revenue to our agricultural producers.
The story of Doctor George Washington Cavers, the negro lad born in slavery, is no doubt known to many. Through scientific research he is credited with making from the peanut three hundred useful articles, and from the sweet potato over one hundred articles.
In this type of work it is already estimated that $150,000,000 of private and public capital has been invested in what they call the chemurgic industries of the United States. Further, under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of last year there has been set aside $4,000.000 a year for the establishment in the United States of four regional research laboratories, the sole purpose of which is to develop new non-edible and industrial uses for farm products.
I am not citing this or advocating it as a solution of our wheat problem or even our agricultural problem; I put it forward as something to which this country might well be giving attention. The utilization of our waste farm products and many of the products that are already going into uses which they have not been going into in the past,

may be one of the most far-reaching developments for the revival and revamping of agriculture in Canada.	[DOT]
Those who know our western agricultural set-up know it would be difficult to transform it very much. We are geared to the production of cereals, and any change would require a huge capital outlay and be difficult to bring about. Reduction of acreage is out of the question except in so far as it might apply to sub-marginal lands.
I therefore submit that a general scientific approach to the question of utilizing our agricultural products in industry and for nonedible purposes is worthy of consideration. Moreover it is essential that we continue to pay even greater attention to developments, scientific and otherwise, in other countries with which we compete agriculturally. Our research institutions should have every encouragement possible from this house and from the country as a whole to give heed to these problems.
If these agricultural problems with which this country is faced are not dealt with and every possible approach to their solution followed up, not only western agricultural economy but agriculture throughout the entire dominion will suffer. Western agriculture cannot hope to stand up under its present conditions and with prevailing prices, so if something is not done to relieve that situation I fear we may have a general break-down, resulting in a peasant type of farming which I am sure no one in this country wants to see. On the other hand, I am satisfied that western Canada, given a fair chance to sell in the markets of the world and a fair chance to buy in the same kind of markets in which we have to sell, given encouragement in the matter of research to find new uses for our agricultural products, and given rain and no grasshoppers, can once again become that great wealth-producing part of Canada which it has been in years gone by.
Mr. JEAN-FRANGOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): My desire in the first place is to congratulate very warmly the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply. They have done exceptionally well, and every one of us is proud to have them with us. I must also extend my congratulations to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). I have been a member of this house since the session of 1925. At that time the leader of the Conservative party was the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen who is now in the senate. The Hon. Mr. Guthrie, who is now the head of the transport commission, was acting leader of the opposition in the session of 1927. Then, after

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
the unforgettable Winnipeg convention, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett was chosen as the leader of the party. All these have come and gone, and now we have the fourth leader of the Conservative party. May I remind the house that the Hon. Mr. Hepburn some time ago paid him the same compliment that I did years ago to my revered leader. Mr. Hepburn said of Mr. Manion that he was human. So I hope, now that the leaders of both the major parties, and also the leaders of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and Social Credit groups, are all human beings, that the debate will proceed along normal lines.
An event of major importance is the coming to Canada of Their Majesties the King and Queen of Canada. It is the first time since the foundation of this country by old France that we have had a king and queen of Canada, and it is the first time also that they have come to Canada. Also on behalf of my constituents I give expression to our thanks to their majesties for having decided to stop at Riviere du Loup on their way home.
There is, sir, an event which has passed unnoticed to which the attention of the house must be drawn, one which has caused me the greatest surprise. In the Votes and Proceedings of Monday last we are informed of the resignation of the right hon. member for Calgary West, Mr. Bennett. The house cannot be the same without him. Not only did he add colour to the debates; he added magnificent technicolour. I feel his loss perhaps more than anybody else, because I was at odds with him more often than any other member of the house. Last year, on March 7, I spoke thus on the reported retirement of that gentleman from the party leadership:
Mr. Speaker, as one who never agreed with the policies of the right hon. gentleman who has just spoken, I heartily join the house in extending to him my very best wishes for happiness, good health and a full enjoyment of life outside the house.
Now my good wishes are unconditional. But the very same day, just before I rose to speak, the right hon. gentleman, who remains right honourable in spite of the fact that he thought fit to resign as member for a constituency which had elected him for a full parliamentary term, said this in his concluding sentence:
I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to thank the house for this manifestation of good will, which, perhaps, if it had been expressed in more strenuous times, might not have been necessary at all.
When I heard those words I was astonished. I thought that the right hon. gentleman did not have the good memory that he always
appeared to have. For instance, on March 31. 1932, the Canadian Press sent out the following dispatch:
Taschereau pays Bennett tribute.
I wish (said Mr. Taschereau, the former prime minister of Quebec) to pay this tribute to the Bennett government: They have done all in their power to relieve unemployment. I might add, the provincial government has been equally active.
I feel that the right hon. gentleman, if he had been present, would have interjected, "Was not that Mr. Taschereau the one whom I proclaimed the greatest Tory in Canada at a public meeting of the Canadian Bar Association in Quebec? Then I would not have insisted further. But if I take the Canadian Who's Who for 1936-37 I read in the autobiography of the right hon. gentleman a tribute from the Christian Science Monitor, one from the London Morning Post, one from Toronto Saturday Night and another from Maclean's magazine. Mr. Bennett was highly praised by his followers in and outside this house, but not one of them is mentioned. But on page 79 I find this tribute:
A sincere, hardworking Canadian citizen doing all that he can for his country.
That is signed by Hon. Charles A. Dunning. If Mr. Bennett were here, I would ask him, who is that Hon. Mr. Dunning? and without hesitation he would tell me to look at page 325 of the same book. I turn to that page and find this:
-engaged in finance and business as president and managing director, and consultant of several large corporations.
But, Mr. Bennett would say, that is not all; read the epigraph:
The highest type of public man, who enjoys the confidence of his countrymen.
That is signed by Sir Robert Borden. Then who is Sir Robert Borden? I can almost hear the right hon. gentleman telling me, "You have not read the book. Turn to page 103." When I turn to page 103 I see that the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden was the war-time Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative party, so I would not insist further. But if I read the Montreal Gazette of September 5, 1932, I find a Canadian Press dispatch which says:
Apart from being a distinguished lawyer he is a true son of Canada.
This statement was made by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at a bar association dinner in Banff in 1932 and referred to the right hon. gentleman of whom I have just spoken. But then the right hon. gentleman would reply, "Are French-Cana-dians cockneys? It would be just as easy to say that I am a true son of Canada." But
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

there is something more. Once in Montreal the first citizen of that great city stated that he had boundless admiration for the right hon. gentleman. That is not in Who's Who. Why? Perhaps the right hon. gentleman would interject at once, "Because none of my colleagues has ever said that he had boundless admiration for me." Therefore the right hon. gentleman would add that the last two gentlemen whom I mentioned were truly Liberals but that he could not use their quotations about himself.
There is one question that has been discussed very often in the press and by various speakers in this country; I refer to the question of democracy. Some time ago I read an article which appeared in the Montreal Daily Herald, dated December 5, headed, "Democracy a Failure? The Record Shames the Thought." It is a long article, but there is one very important thing missing from it. There is no definition of democracy. The editor circulated the following request:
Any comment you care to make regarding this editorial will be valued by the editor, The Montreal Daily Herald.
Then not long ago the Winnipeg Tribune republished an article which first appeared in the Deutsche Zeitung, a German paper, under the heading "The Great Lie. Democracies and Dictatorships." In this article, as well, neither democracies nor dictatorships are defined. Then a civil servant of great importance-although I do not believe in him at all -Mr. Dickson, deputy minister of labour, delivered a long lecture in which he said that strikes handicapped democracy, which is surely true. I did not have time to read the whole article. No less a gentleman than his worship the mayor of the metropolis of this country, according to the Montreal Gazette of January 16, said that democracy depends on politicians handing out jobs. To do that we must have the jobs to give. Then in the Montreal Gazette of January 23 Mr. Leo Dolan, chief of the Canadian Travel Bureau, is quoted as urging Canada and the United States to fight communism. No less a person than Sir Gerald Campbell, British high commissioner to Canada, according to a dispatch published on January 27, speaking in Toronto, called for-
-a united front of democracies, militant and armed, to work for peace against the threats of the dictatorship countries.
I should like to be permitted to read an article from the New York Times headed "Democracy must Cherish its Right of Laughter":
Man, as the saying goes, is the animal that laughs. The statement is not, of course, quite

accurate. The hyena laughs, as do certain birds, and the horse cannot always keep a straight face. However, man is doubtless the only animal who cannot live and keep sane without laughter. It is laughter that makes the behaviour of individuals and the absurdity of institutions bearable, and we need it because both individuals and institutions, to the end of time are bound to be more or less absurd on occasion.
These reflections are induced by some comments of Mr. David Low, the English cartoonist, published in the official organ of BBC -the British broadcasting agency. "Undoubtedly," says Mr. Low, "there is more that is inherently absurd in the world to-day than ever before, if only because of the greater contrast between man's vastly increased power and his use of it."
Ideas, if they are good ones, can stand being laughed at-so Mr. Low thinks. Christianity, the motor car and the income tax, he points out, all survived ridicule. Personalities are more vulnerable. The bigger the windbag the easier it is to poke holes in it.
"The leader who sets himself up as a god is," in Mr. Low's opinion, "asking for it. But does he get it? In countries now most supinely under a boss' thumb, where the healthy deflation of fly-blown personalities is most needed, it does not take place. American cartoonists have done wonders with Mr. Roosevelt's chin, but their Italian contemporaries, no matter how much their fingers tickle, dare not distort II Duee's massive lower maxillary. Where now are those rude artists who in former times helped bring a sense of proportion into the political life of Germany? Even Mickey Mouse is suspect, and Donald Duck would be interned at sight.
One concludes that there is no right a democracy ought to cherish more tenaciously than the right to laugh at anything and anybody it thinks is funny. Mr. Low hints that this right may not be safe in England. One would mourn its loss there, or in France, far more than its loss in Germany. Territories may be lost, spheres of influence may be contracted, the road to India or Tunis may be threatened, but civilization can survive if a joke continues to be called a joke and is not disguised as a great man or a great idea. For, appalling as some of the world's "great men" and "great ideas" are, they are also funny.
It is tragic laughter that would ring around the world to-day if all mankind were free to look at its predicament in its proper light. But it would be healing laughter.
On January 6 the Canadian papers carried a dispatch to the effect that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett had contended that the church has failed. The headline reads:
Cannot tell where and why, but states in practice philosophy of Christian faith little regarded.
Then the Most Reverend Doctor M. T. Harding, Archbishop of Rupert's Land, said prior to sailing for England, according to a dispatch dated January 13:.
Despite the disfavour with which we may view his policies, especially that of persecution, there is no doubt that Hitler is to-day the world's greatest statesman. He has disciplined democracy, an achievement sorely needed in our own country.

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
Then on January 16 the press carried the following:
Government and Democracy Have Failed Asserts Rt. Reverend Woodside
He agreed in a general way with the statement made recently by Right Honourable R. B. Bennett at Calgary to the effect that the church had failed.
"I am in general agreement w'ith that. The church has failed to do and accomplish much that we may have desired," said the moderator. "That is not to minimize her great achievements. The man who made that statement knows of her great achievements. But he was right in the sense in which he spoke, that the church has failed."
According to the press the same reverend gentleman stated on January 23 as follows:
"We are not of those who think or say that democracy has failed or is doomed," said Right Reverend Doctor J. W. Woodside, Moderator of the United church in Canada, preaching a sermon Sunday evening in Chalmers church on, "After dictatorship, what?"
The reverend gentleman should be very careful when making a statement like that. An honourable member of the senate I think made a conclusive answer to the statements of the moderator and the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. Senator J. J. Hughes is reported as follows:
If there are in the world at the present time, institutions which men founded and called churches, they may have failed or they may fail, and while the consequences might be serious they would not be fatal. But to say or to think that the church founded by God could fail shows such a misunderstanding of what Christianity means that the persons who so speak or think, while they may be good people and law abiding citizens cannot in reality be called Christians.
That appeared on the editorial pages of the Ottawa Journal of January 23, and I think a copy should be pasted on the wall of every schoolroom. The Ottawa Evening Citizen of January 26 contained the full text of a speech made also in Chalmers church by the Hon. W. D. Herridge, former Canadian minister to Washington. The heading reads:
Addressing Chalmers church men's association on "the new democracy," the former Canadian minister to Washington asserts Canada stands in a position to-day to beat back the tide if leadership can be found to take advantage of the new concept of democracy. Dominion must put its house in order first, and then it could promote a world structure that would dismay aggressors.
No one attaches much importance to the sayings, statements or speeches of the Hon. Mr. Herridge. We know that he has spoken so often of the new order without saying what it is to be that when we hear the word "order" come from his lips we consider one pays no attention to it. The New York Sun contained an exceptionally good editorial from which I quote as follows:
True democracy may not be a religion but it must be religious or it is neither true nor a democracy. Democracy without religious emotion is a watch without a mainspring. A philosopher can doubtless imagine a world in which the two would be separable, but in the world that is they never have been separable. In proportion as men have^ tried to separate them they have found their democracies unworkable and their religions sterile. But there isn't anything new about this, even though the discovery seem new to some of the discoverers.
Principal Douglas of McGill university, speaking in Toronto on October 15, urged discipline in democracy in the following words:
It is a word which in itself is a paradox, for absolute freedom results in the destruction of freedom and it is only restrained freedom which can last. Thus, whichever definition one elects to take, it is a contradiction, for the destruction of freedom converts it into something wholly different, and restrained freedom is not freedom at all.
A brilliant journalist, Mr. Bernard K. Sand-well, editor of Toronto Saturday Night, spoke in a similar vein at a dinner of the professional institute, held in Ottawa on November 29, 1938. The report reads:
Mr. Sandwell, in his racy address on "Some misconceptions about democracy," exploded the notion held by some anarchists and communists that people can get along without rules and regulations. If rules and regulations were necessary for so simple an operation as a game of bridge, how can they be dispensed with in government-probably the most difficult of all tasks ?
The hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) attended the annual gathering of the association of life insurance presidents, held in New York on December 1. He told the United States insurance heads that the nation was wedded to democratic ideals. The newspaper report reads in part:
"There is much demand that democracy be more efficient but none that democracy be curtailed and there is grumbling because parliament talks so much but no suggestion that parliament be muzzled," the speaker declared.
That quotation is from the Montreal Gazette, but in the New York Times of December 2, 1938. I find this:
Mr. Ilsley emphasized the point that Canadians are intensely saying: "in no country would a dictator have harder sledding."
He stressed the fact that Canadians are for law and order and asserted that the population of that country is divided along so many ways of thought that the leader of any cult of "ism" must expect prompt and intelligent criticism on a broad scale from the elements of the population to which he does not appeal.
A former member of the privy council a.t Westminster spoke in New York a few days after the Minister of National Revenue. After he spoke, I wrote to the minister and told him that he had paved the way to
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

Eden. On December 9, Mr. Anthony Eden made in New York city a most pathetic statement which I must read to the house. He said:
I belong, as do so many of you in this room to-night, to the war generation; to a generation which is sometimes referred to in my country as the missing generation. It is a generation which has, quite literally, been decimated. Almost every family has suffered, some have suffered severely and, as inevitably happens, we have lost our best. Yet perhaps the survivors of that generation have a special right to give their message to the world, to the vigorous, combative new world which is taking shape around us at this hour.
What was it that some twenty years ago we and you both fought to achieve? Men spoke of the war to end war, and, even if that seemed to some a goal beyond immediate human reach, we did have faith that the power of arrogant militarism would be destroyed, as we hoped, forever.
Twenty years after we can reflect ruefully how remote we are from the goal of our hopes.
Then he described democracy.
It is the essence of democracy that it provides constant schooling in this endless adventure which is the art of government. Democracy is a university in which we learn from one another. It can never be a barracks, where blind obedience is the first essential.
And then he states what he means by democracy:
Democracy must have the strength of the best tempered steel, not rigid, but supple. It must have the strength of the highest form of discipline-self-discipline.
Doctor R. C. Wallace, principal and vicechancellor of Queen's university, Kingston, said in Montreal on December 13 last:
The big advantage of other types of government than the democratic was their ability to move speedily when quick decisions were required.
I would impress on you in this critical period the necessity we must place on ourselves of disciplining ourselves from within rather than submitting to discipline from without.
That was a paraphrase of Anthony Eden's remarks in New York. He also said that the safety of democracy rests with every individual citizen, who should thoroughly acquaint himself with local, provincial and national governments and take an interest in international matters. He was inspired by a speech made in New York on December 1 last by Doctor Clarence A. Dykstra, who declared that:
As democracy was losing out in other nations of the world, it might be necessary in the United States to have all educational forces marshalled together to give Americans an understanding of its principles and problems.
He spoke also of education and suggested a vast program of education, calling upon

facilities of the press, schools, radio and the screen to fire people with ideals, and he asked if nationally America was invulnerable to dictator doctrine.
Then the Hon. Gordon Conant, attorney general of Ontario, said on December 2 last that drastic measures must be submitted to if the dictator states are not to overwhelm us with their form of government.
Then on Jan. 7 last the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett said in Edmonton that western Canada suffered from lack of discipline. The members of the house who were here at the time he was Prime Minister will remember that once, on the birthday of his then Minister of Railways and Canals, Mr. Bennett praised him for his spirit of discipline. Of course, the hon. gentleman who has now succeeded him as leader of the opposition cannot return the compliment at this time, but it is interesting to see that Mr. Bennett told the people who had supported him for so long that they were lacking in discipline.
To summarize, Principal Douglas of McGill spoke of "discipline in democracy." Mr. Sandwell advocated " rules and regulations of democracy." Principal Wallace of Queen's suggested that " we discipline ourselves." Mr. Anthony Eden said, "It-democracy-must have the strength of the highest form of discipline-self-discipline." Hon. Gordon Conant said, " Canada needs a stronger discipline." Mr. Bennett said "Western Canada suffers from- a lack of discipline." The hon. Minister of National Revenue was the only one who touched the right note when he stressed the fact that Canadians are for law and order.
I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the views of leaders of thought among the Englishspeaking population of this country at such length that my time does not allow me to refer to the admirable speeches that have been made on democracy by my archbishop, His Eminence Cardinal Villeneuve, primate of the Catholic church in Canada. In his view, if order is not maintained we may expect anarchy or revolution, and therefore what is essential in this country is order-order in democracy.
On January 4 last the Ottawa Journal in an editorial reproduced from the New York Times this passage:
Statesmen may blunder, falter and betray. Crude gangsters may take on pomp and put their trust in steel and high explosives. They may win local victories. They will not defeat democracy, because democracy, however defined, involves the highest aspirations of which humanity is capable. They attack democracy at their peril. It will, in the end, destroy them.

The Address-Mr. Anderson
May I conclude by reading what the Hon. Mr. Justice Dysart said at the Blackstone club in Winnipeg on April 10 of last year:
A man who thinks our state is based on democracy is under a delusion. We regulate trade, labour, children's welfare and many other aspects of life. That is all contrary to democracy.
This country is going to revert to absolute government if we don't do some hard thinking and work out some other form of democracy.
Democracy is advocated in many places, and not always in the right way. Democracy means the independence of the individual, within order in society. But if, instead of having order in society; if, instead of having government from above, we have government from underneath, we are exposed to anarchy and revolution. The word is pretty strong but it has been used by several leaders of the clergy as well as of the laity. Therefore, sir, it is to be hoped that Lincoln's pious wish that "government of the people, for the people, and by the people shall not perish from the earth" will hold good for this country. It will not perish, on two conditions: In the first place our Canadian fellow-citizens must have deep religious convictions; in the second place we should establish order in government, order in legislation, order in the public service; and thereby we shall have order in the public activities of this country.


Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the first matter referred to in the speech from the throne is the approaching visit of Their Majesties King George YI and his gracious consort Queen Elizabeth. That visit is a matter of great moment to the empire generally and particularly to this dominion. It marks the first occasion upon which a reigning monarch in Great Britain has set foot, during his reign, upon the soil of Canada or of any of the dominions. The present king has already visited this dominion, and was loyally received. His forthcoming visit will enable him to become acquainted with the changes which have taken place since last he was in our midst. On the present occasion their majesties will also proceed to the great republic to the south, having accepted an invitation to visit President and Mrs. Roosevelt at Washington. This splendid gesture will intensify the good feeling which exists between those two great democracies. It will form a striking contrast with some previous meetings in European countries, especially those which have recently taken place between those totalitarian executives the Fuehrer of Germany and the Prime Minister of Italy. Upon their visits there was a display
of armed force; the forthcoming visit by their majesties to the United States will be a display of peacefulness, harmony and goodwill which will intensify those good feelings that have existed for a long period of time. The people of Canada will hail with a great deal of pleasure the visit of their king and queen. Personally I regard it with much pleasure, and I know that my feelings are shared by everyone who resides in the constituency I represent. I hope that the welcome which will be extended to their majesties all over the dominion will be appropriate to the position they hold and to our association with the motherland.
After this reference, the speech from the throne proceeds to deal with defence matters. At the present time defence is a rather important subject. The minds of the Canadian people are set upon the protection of Canada and the empire. In the years immediately following the war Great Britain and all the dominions were more or less concerned to reduce their armaments-a praiseworthy object. The United States and other nations were similarly disposed, with the result that appropriations for armaments were greatly reduced. In later years Britain found to her dismay that she had disarmed to a very dangerous degree. Canada did the same, but since we were living in a peaceful environment it did not impress itself particularly upon our people. Yet, whenever the defence estimates, limited as they were, have come before this house in recent years, there have always been objections on the ground that they were too large. The feeling is expressed that to grant money for the purposes of defence of the country would inspire a warlike spirit-which of course is a fallacy.
In 1937 matters in this regard became rather more important, and Canada increased its appropriation for defence. Upon that occasion we were the spectators of an unpleasant exhibition on the government side. The minister was very much embarrassed to find that supporters of the government rose in their places and objected to those appropriations. But the vote went through. May I say that the members of the official opposition made no objection to those appropriations; as a matter of fact, they supported them, and would have supported them had they been increased in a reasonable amount. In 1938 the same thing happened. The government came along with increased appropriations and the opposition supported them. Now we are told in the speech from the throne that increased amounts will be required for purposes of defence, and this statement is implemented in the estimates which have been placed on the table.
The Address-Mr. Anderson

During the last two or three years Great Britain has been faced with very difficult conditions on the continent of Europe. In the speech from the throne, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)-for he is really responsible for the speech-states that his government is earnestly and intently watching the situation in Europe, and that at times it appears warlike. That is very true. The best way to judge of the interest of British people in the situation is to look at what has been done. Earl Baldwin, while Prime Minister of Great Britain, was faced with danger from the continent, and took the stern position that England must endeavour to keep peace in the world. He felt that she was not strong enough of herself to play the part of international policeman, but he used his best endeavours to attain peaceful relations. When Mr. Chamberlain followed him, the same policy was pursued. He applied himself most intently to preserve the peace of the world by continuing the friendship which existed between Britain and other nations. This resolve was shown in many ways. At the time of the war between Italy and Ethiopia Mr. Chamberlain did what he could to mitigate that most unparalleled and unwarranted attack by Italy upon an innocent people. His efforts did not stop the war, and Ethiopia was overcome.
Next came the war in Spain, a war between different factions of the Spanish nation. To a great extent it is a conflict between ideals or philosophies. The loyalists or the governmental party were practically socialists, along with the communistic element. The insurgents were the old monarchical party and very much of the fascist type. The result is that this war has been going on in Spain, and other nations of Europe are to some extent taking part. Britain has been the chief agent in maintaining non-intervention between the warring factions. It has been a difficult matter to hold the French back, but it has succeeded. That cannot be said of the two great autocratic nations, Germany and Italy. They have shown their hand clearly, having assisted the insurgent body; yet, notwithstanding the difference of attitude as between Mr. Chamberlain and the totalitarian executives, Mr. Chamberlain has pursued his efforts along the line of peace. While pursuing those efforts, as Prime Minister of Great Britain he was not forgetting the necessity of increasing her armed strength in the interests of preserving the peace of the world. He was not preparing for war. No war was being waged against Britain; no war or threat or any complaint that might lead to war was urged against Britain or any of the dominions. Mr. Chamberlain's whole effort was in the direction- of 
peace. His visit to the Fuehrer- of Germany was in the interests of peace. His government succeeded through Lord Perth, the ambassador at Rome, in bringing about an agreement between Britain and Italy looking to peace, and that agreement stood the world in great stead at a later date.
At every stage where matters became serious Mr. Chamberlain was still exerting himself along the lines of peace. Then there was the Munich crisis, with the events that led to the meeting there. Mr. Chamberlain was faced with this position. Hitler had succeeded a very short time before in absorbing the Austrian nation without actually drawing the sword. He was armed and was ready, but that nation was absorbed without any warfare. Then, having succeeded in absorbing Austria, the German republic made demands upon Czechoslovakia on behalf of the Sudeten German nationals living in Czechoslovakia. This course was pursued for a while, and Mr. Chamberlain was still urging measures of peace, not only by correspondence and telephone messages but also by sending representatives to the various parties. His government consented to Lord Runciman's visit to Czechoslovakia in a private capacity for the purpose of ascertaining at close range what was the trouble there. After several weeks there he returned to England, satisfied that the blame was not all on one side. At any rate the fuehrer took courage and with his armed forces ranged along the boundaries of Czechoslovakia, and gave an ultimatum to the President of Czechoslovakia to surrender to his terms-the autonomy of the Sudeten Germans or their absorption by the German nation-or face war within twenty-four hours.
Mr. Chamberlain was put to the test. How far could he go and what would he do? He was impelled by courage and determination to do all that was possible within human power to prevent war, and that was the time when he deserved, was entitled to and was looking for a sympathetic expression from various parts "of the empire. He got it from certain parts of the empire, and it was not an expression of war or a desire to go to war; it was an expression of approval of the tremendous efforts he was putting forward personally in the interests of peace. Our Canadian nation was silent. I think the least the Prime Minister and the government might have done on that occasion was to send a message of approval and congratulation to the Right Hon. Mr. Neville Chamberlain on the wonderful efforts he was making to prevent war and to preserve the peace of the world. But that was wanting.

The Address-Mr. Anderson
That was in September, 1938. Matters have gone on since, and we find that the fuehrer is still disposed to pursue his ambitions. Britain has increased her armed strength, not that there is any demand at all upon her to use that strength either at the moment or in the immediate future, so far as any part of the empire is concerned. There is no demand upon Canada, and there is no necessity, in discussing this question of defence estimates, to say that the estimates are for the purposes of defending the empire or sending forces beyond the borders of Canada. That might be necessary and it might be justifiable, but at the moment we are mixing up the defence of Canada and appropriations therefor with a much larger question, which is the defence of the empire.
We have heard some expressions in this debate, questioning whether we are justified in passing the large appropriations of this year which look as though they were intended for the defence of the empire rather than of Canada itself. May I say that as a Canadian of Scottish descent I consider myself as good a British subject as can be found in this house or anywhere else, and I am proud of the fact that Canada is a dominion of the British empire. Not only am I proud of that fact, but I believe that as a matter of necessity the future existence and destiny of Canada depend upon our continued association with this great commonwealth of nations.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred the other day to a speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier back in the days of the war or before, and quoted in a work by our former associate here, Mr. E. M. Macdonald of Nova Scotia. In that book Sir Wilfrid Laurier is quoted as having said, "When England is at war, Canada is at war." Well, that is true, but it does not necessarily mean that we are in the actual reality of war. We are subject to the same conditions as Britain herself. We are part and parcel of the empire. We glory in being a part of the empire. We consider it a privilege-yes more, a right-to be part and parcel of the empire. That privilege and right carry with them a parallel duty and responsibility: the responsibility to do our part in the defence of this great commonwealth of nations. What that part will be remains to be seen when the time comes.
It seems to me folly to spend time saying that we can declare our neutrality in case of war. I was going to use the word "insanity" in describing that attitude of mind. How can we be both in the empire and out of it? The moment Canada declared its neutrality, exercising the powers which we believe we
have obtained through the imperial conference and which are embodied in the statute of Westminster, we are out of the commonwealth. If Great Britain were at war with Japan, how far would Japan listen to our protests? She did not give much consideration to the protests of the United States in relation to China or to British or French protests against the methods adopted in making war on China, methods absolutely contrary to the rules recognized in modern warfare. Japan would laugh at our protests, and say: That is nothing; you are part and parcel of the British empire, we will bomb your cities and attack your people. That would be just as justifiable and just as likely to happen as what took place in Ethiopia and is happening to-day in China and in Spain.
As long as we claim and admit that we are part and parcel of the British empire, just so long have we a duty to perform by preparing to defend ourselves in such way that we become a useful and efficient part in empire defence. The defence of the empire does not depend on Great Britain alone. I admit that the greater part of the burden of defence falls upon the old motherland, but every part of the empire has its duty to perform. Every dominion, every possession, as well as the motherland must defend itself to the extent of its ability and according to its importance in the empire. Canada to-day is bound, for the sake of its own self-respect and in view of its future destiny as part of the empire, to spend the money that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) asks for in his estimates. As far as I am concerned I shall support those estimates quite freely.
In the speech from the throne reference was made to a defence purchasing board. This purchasing board was suggested by a recommendation in the recent inquiry. I am not at all surprised that the Prime Minister is thinking along that line. He has not forgotten how profiteering flourished during the last war, and the great abuses that took place in connection with the manufacture of munitions. While half a million men went overseas from Canada to assist the motherland when her existence was threatened, giving all they had, their lives, their homes and their property for the paltry pay of $1.10 a day, and such other amounts as officers got in addition, we had men at home profiteering, becoming millionaires through the manufacture of munitions. It is no wonder the Prime Minister has expressed himself as against such a thing happening again.
The Address-Mr. Anderson

When he was approached by an hon. member of this house and asked whether there was anything against private institutions in Canada taking contracts for the manufacture of munitions for the motherland, he was careful to say that he did not see any objection to that so long as the government of Canada was not involved. That letter is on record in connection with the inquiry that recently took place. The Prime Minister followed that up; he was afraid that it might not be enough. He appointed a committee to make certain investigations and report to him. That led to the appointment of an interdepartmental committee to inquire into these matters. That interdepartmental committee was, I believe, composed wholly of men in the civil service. Some of them were of the highest rank, such as the under secretary of state for external affairs, than whom there is probably not a more efficient officer in the service; Doctor Clark, the deputy minister of finance, and the commissioner of income tax, a very clever officer, and others. They investigated this matter of munitions and particularly the contract, known as the Bren gun contract, that the Minister of National Defence told us in rather gleeful terms had saved Canada a prodigious amount of money.
The Minister of National Defence was advised during 1936 and early in 1937 by the chief of staff, General Ashton, on three or four different occasions during the year, of the necessity of the manufacture of armaments under the control of the government. It was recommended that we should establish factories or industries for the purpose of their manufacture. In 1935 the imperial government, after four or five years' tests of this Bren gun, finally decided to accept it, and made a contract with the patentee. What did they do? The imperial government saw to it that the contract contained a clause that it would enure to the benefit of all the dominions. Another clause of that agreement, no doubt inserted at the instance of the patentee, was that these guns should be made in a factory controlled and operated by the government.
All this information was before the defence department when these Bren gun negotiations began. To what extent was it regarded or followed? I criticize the defence department in that regard. With all the information before them they pursued their own course, and what did they do? On October 9, 1936, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Plaxton) was in the city of Ottawa. He is a young, athletic, fine-looking chap, and one would imagine he should have a good memory. But he does not remember just whether he came to Ottawa in company with his friend Major Hahn or whether he met him here. I think it is pitiable

that a young man who has been entrusted with the franchise of a responsible constituency in one of the largest cities of Canada should have to admit that his memory did not serve him any better than that. What was he in Ottawa for? Some of his answers would indicate that he was here on departmental business, and I believe that may be true. If it is true, he remembered that. At any rate he did remember that on October 9 he took Mr. Hahn to the deputy minister's office and introduced Major Hahn to the deputy minister. Major Hahn had been interested in this matter by the brother of the hon. member, a reputable lawyer in the city of Toronto, a scion of a distinguished family. Their father was a man who served his people well; who gave his family an education and whose family to-day are upholding the splendid reputation which he enjoyed. A brother of the hon. member, Herbert Plaxton, became interested in an old building, called by some an old boiler factory, but which I shall call by its proper name, the John Inglis factory in the western part of Toronto.
That was during the summer of 1936. At one time this factory was probably one of the best known in Toronto. John Inglis, the head of that firm, was a splendid man, with great business experience, who enjoyed an extremely good reputation. Unfortunately for Toronto, and probably for Canada as well, he came to the end of his earthly existence a few years ago and was succeeded by an able son, William Inglis, who in later years was known to many of us as either chairman or president of the Canadian National exhibition at Toronto. William Inglis was cut off in the prime of life and died just three or four years ago, and after his death the John Inglis factory became practically dormant. It was closed down in the early part of 1936; in other words, it was a dead industry. The Inglis money was no longer available for the purpose of carrying on that factory, and no other capitalists were interested in taking it over. The machinery and equipment were designed for the manufacture of heavy material such as boilers, turbines and so on, and in the days of its prosperity there was not a concern in Toronto that could touch the John Inglis Company in these lines. It was entrusted with some of the largest contracts given for equipment of this kind; but all that ended before or during 1936, and that was the industry which Major Hahn, through the instrumentality of Herbert Plaxton, was interested in buying.
During the course of this interview on October 9, 1936, the hon. member for Trinity believes he did tell the deputy minister some-

The Address-Mr. Anderson
thing in regard to that plant. It is rather indefinite. They met in the office of the deputy minister, where there was set up one of the two Bren machine guns that had been bought by the dominion government in 1935. The hon. member for Trinity says he does not remember seeing the gun there at all. That is another wonderful exhibition of poor memory. Major Hahn does admit that he saw it, while the deputy minister says they both saw it and examined it, Major Hahn in particular. But he adds, "I don't think either one of them ever saw a Bren gun before." Major Hahn and his associates were represented as interested in buying, or as having bought, the John Inglis property, which was said to be capable of making munitions. That was the representation which was made, not only to the deputy minister but subsequently to the War Office in London.
Let us see what was the next step. Ten days later, on October 19, 1936, the Minister of National Defence was in his suite at the Chateau Laurier. Again the hon. member for Trinity and Mr. Hahn were in Ottawa, together with a gentleman named Cameron, head of the brokerage firm of Cameron, Poin-ton and Merritt of Toronto. The hon. member for Trinity had a conversation with the minister at that tjme, leading up to the introduction to the minister of Major Hahn and subsequently Mr. Cameron. Major Hahn was there for one purpose: to see what he could do, in his own interests and those of his group, toward negotiating a contract for something in the line of munitions. Would it not be reasonable to suppose that such a visit would impress itself upon the memory of the minister; that he would remember he had met these people at that time and discussed this possibility; that these men were introduced by the hon. member for Trinity, and that he had a conversation also with a Mr. Cameron in regard to some financing which might be necessary? But what does the minister say? He says that according to his memory the first time he ever met Major Hahn was on one occasion when he, the minister, had to go to Toronto to examine thi3 John Inglis plant. That is his statement, according to the evidence. His memory also is frail. He further said in his evidence before Mr. Justice Davis-and I am quoting this subject to correction, because for the moment I am relying on my memory-that the first time he had met Major Hahn was when the contract was signed.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: No; that is not correct.


Alexander James Anderson: He admits that Major Hahn corrected his recollection in that regard.
He still feels that whatever he said in the first instance was his memory of what had occurred, but he would have to give way to the credibility of a man who said something different. That was a gentlemanly thing for the Minister of National Defence to do in regard to Major Hahn. I want to say the same in regard to the minister as I have said in regard to the hon. member for Trinity. The minister is also a good Scot. He has a splendid war record; he is a good lawyer out in Vancouver; he is regarded as one of the best looking members in the house; yet his memory is most defective. We are being asked to depart from the regular procedure of parliament in asking for tenders from reputable contractors in connection with public contracts and to give them to a group of men, the members of which the minister says he did not know. In other words, he did not know who were associated with Major Hahn.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I regret to
interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has elapsed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Frederick George Sanderson: With the unanimous consent of the house.


Alexander James Anderson: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, through you, the members of the house for their indulgence. I shall not trespass too long upon the time of the house. It is strange that an hon. member should strongly recommend to the minister and to the deputy minister a group of men, the members of which he was not disposed to name apart from Major Hahn. As it turned out, in the first instance one member was a brother, and later on two brothers were in the combination. In the old days when I used to listen to political discussions in Ontario, we called that nepotism. I do not know what it is called to-day, but it is nothing but patronage being distributed to those who are related to one who happens to be a member of this house. I do not like it. I think it is objectionable. Of course the contract was not signed just at that time, but the negotiations continued.
I have outlined what took place on October 9 and October 19. On October 26, only seven days afterwards, we find the hon. member for Trinity, Major Hahn and Mr. Gordon Plaxton, a brother of the member, on the boat for England. They were following up things very closely. They did not give an opportunity to the minister or the department to inquire whether tenders could be received from other reputable concerns in the Dominion of Canada. These men reached England in the course of a few days and they endeavoured to
The Address-Mr. Anderson

interview members of the War Office with respect to a contract which they hoped to get, and which they since obtained. They kicked their heels around London for about ten days and were unable to obtain an interview. I suppose they took in the sights of Piccadilly, Hyde Park, Pall Mall, and probably a few other places. They became impatient after a while, and a telephone message was sent through to the minister asking for some assistance. That was worked through the Department of External Affairs, and that is how the Prime Minister becomes involved. He lent himself, consciously or unconsciously, to what was going on in the defence department. A letter was written and sent to the High Commissioner in London, the Hon. Mr. Massey. Through him it was handed on in the proper way to the War Office. In that letter Major Hahn was regarded as a representative of this government. I say that the Prime Minister as head of the Department of External Affairs should have been more careful. If he did not know of this; if the responsibility rested solely on Doctor Skelton, then I am sorry that Doctor Skelton, for whom I have the highest regard, has lent himself to this sort of thing.
Why was Major Hahn considered as the representative of this government in connection with contracts for munitions for Great Britain and Canada? This is monstrous. What about our industries in Canada? We hear a great deal of talk about unemployment and relief, but what efforts did they make to get something beneficial out of the money to be spent by the defence department for the manufacture of munitions? What did they do? They put this in the hands of Major Hahn and his associates, who were, unfortunately for the hon. member for Trinity, brothers of a member of this house.
Let me say a word about Major Hahn. He was a good Canadian and, while I am not sure, I believe he is a graduate of Toronto * university. He went overseas, gave good service, and rose in rank. He came back to Canada with imperial rank. He was wounded; he served his country nobly and he is entitled to every credit in that regard. As a man I do not think anything can be said against him to-day, and certainly nothing could be said about him at that time. Upon his return he decided to study law. The law society of Ontario passed a regulation to permit men returning from the front who possessed the necessary qualifications and were desirous of studying law to complete their course in two years. They were to take the same number of lectures and examinations, but the lectures were to be almost continuous.

The usual intervals between lectures were to be eliminated. Major Hahn took that course and became a lawyer. My son was one of those who took advantage of that regulation, and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor) was another who took that course. Up to that point these men were all on a par.
Major Hahn became a lawyer, but he decided he would not continue in the practice of law. Industry had a claim on him. We will assume that the war closed in 1919 because many of the important officers did not get back until that year. In 1923, after he had been admitted to practice in Ontario, Major Hahn became interested in the establishment of a concern known as the De Forest Radio Corporation, which carried on business in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey). That company carried on for seven years, and it was represented to the minister and to the War Office as being a successful business financially.
Seven years is not long in the existence or life of an industry. It was a large industry, but when the adverse winds of the depression struck it in 1930 it began losing money. It was under the administration and management of Major Hahn, and it lost money in 1931, 1932 and 1933. The reason was, he said, that competition was so great that he found it necessary to try to sell the business to one of his competitors, which was done. That was the Rogers Majestic, in Toronto, the operators of CFRB. It bought out the De Forest concern, and the major then dropped out of business. That was in 1934. Now what about that business? It went into the hands of a receiver immediately. The claims against the concern amounted to only $140,000, which was not a large amount for a financially successful concern in seven years, and yet when they came to distribute the assets, what was the result? The creditors got the munificent return of twenty cents on the dollar. Nevertheless that is the company which is represented to the minister, to the Department of National Defence and to the War Office in London, as being a successful one. Although it had not been running since 1936, it was represented to the War Office as immediately capable of turning out war material.
I do not want to trespass further, Mr. Speaker, on the indulgence that the house has been good enough to extend to me, but I should like in conclusion to say that the government of Canada should repudiate that contract. If it goes any further, the imperial authorities will feel that Canadians are not worthy of trust in matters so important as the manufacture and purchase of munitions.

The Address-Mr. Clarke (Rosedale)
I am not saying anything against the minister. He is one for whom I have had the greatest respect, but I do say that as a minister of the crown he has not exercised that caution, care, and regard for the welfare of Canada which he should have, and which the responsibility of his office demanded of him. I consider that the work of his deputy was positively reprehensible. I shall not apply that term to the minister. I shall give him some credit for having depended on his experts, as he said himself. But how far has he depended on his experts? It has been shown that he did not depend on them at all; that he did not know with whom he was dealing; that he did not ask tenders, as suggested by the interdepartmental committee, from such concerns as the Steel Company of Canada, the National Steel Car Company, the Dominion Bridge Company and other big companies in this dominion that are capable of carrying on this work, companies that have been in existence for generations and are to-day in a strong financial position and able to carry out government contracts with precision and accuracy, companies in which one can have absolute confidence. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. SLAGHT:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Alexander James Anderson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would submit it in writing, I should be glad to answer it. My reason for refusing to do so now is that I cannot hear him, and I do not want to make a silly answer. /


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I think I must accept the latter part of that statement.


Mr. H. G. CLARKE (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, may I first refer briefly to the wonderful speeches that were made by the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Undoubtedly they were the best I have ever heard on such an occasion, more particularly that of the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier), who gave his address in both English and French and with a fluency that I thought could not be surpassed. But a few nights ago I listened to the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon) also delivering an address to the house in English and French, and to my amazement his effort equalled, if not excelled, that of the hon. member for Stormont in its fluency in both languages.
I should also like to compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the good judgment he showed in the selection of his two new cabinet ministers a few days ago. I believe these appointments are very
popular indeed, particularly that of the new Postmaster General, the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty). I have known him for a long time. I know his genial nature, and how pleasant it is to be in his company. I know how able he has shown himself in getting things done; and in his appointement to the office of Postmaster General the Prime Minister made a wonderful selection.
Turning now to the speech from the throne, after listening to so many able speeches since parliament convened on January 12 last, I think there is little more to be said, but I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without expressing the gratification and the happiness that my constituents in Rosedale riding, Toronto, feel at the forthcoming visit of Their Majesties the King and Queen. Toronto is, I believe, one of the most beautiful cities in the whole world. In population it is the second largest city in this dominion. I have visited many cities in Canada, the United States, Europe, Asia and Africa, and I have always felt on my return to Toronto that not a city I had visited could compare with it at all. I have spoken of the happiness my constituents feel at having their majesties visit the city of Toronto for a short time this spring. But there is always the bitter to be taken with the sweet. Loyal subjects of the king and queen residing in Toronto are looking for an opportunity to greet their majesties, and what do we find? We find that this great city is imposed upon by being granted only the short period of eight hours for their majesties' visit. I do not know where the blame should be placed, or whether it is just another Liberal government error and the public must suffer for it.
I should like to allude briefly to a matter arising from the news received in Ottawa on Monday morning of the resignation by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett of his seat in the House of Commons. For many years he occupied a seat in this house as private member, as cabinet minister, as Prime Minister, and, for the last three years, as leader of the king's loyal opposition, the position he resigned last year. I shall not try to eulogize the many merits of so fine a gentleman and statesman, but I cannot let this opportunity go by without acknowledging his sterling qualities. I have often heard it said that a man is not appreciated until he is dead; but so far as the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett is concerned, he is very much appreciated while alive, and I believe that his name will go down in history as an outstanding statesman and gentleman and a great Canadian Prime Minister.
536	COMMONS
The Address-Air. Clarke (Rosedale)
May I say a few words also with reference to the present leader of the king's loyal opposition in the house (Mr. Manion). I have been in this chamber during the sessions of this eighteenth parliament. During that time I have endeavoured to do my best, and I believe the same is time of every other Conservative member. Our numbers are not very great, and each of us has had to put his shoulder to the wheel; but may I say that since the present leader of the opposition, with his charming disposition, his wonderful personality, his gifts of magnetism and leadership, his power to engage the cooperation of all members of his party, has held his present position, I have never seen such enthusiasm as exists to-day among all our members.
We have seen terrible happenings in Toronto during the past week. Nothing of the kind has occurred before in that city. It is a direct reflection on the inactivity of the present government in connection with unemployment, especially among the youth of our country. I refer to the arrest of a number of young unemployed single men. A few weeks ago, on the orders of the day, I spoke on their behalf to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), and what has happened since makes me wonder where we are going under the administration of this do-nothing government, which leaves our youth to suffer under the appalling burden of unemployment. There is one period in a man's life which either makes or breaks him- the period between seventeen and twenty-one. During that time a young man is moulding his future, and if he is allowed to go about in idleness there is a great possibility that he may do something which will injure him for the rest of his life. May I again urge that the government take immediate action to eliminate, as far as possible, this trouble and not spoil the lives of thousands of fine young Canadians who, if they are given a chance, provided with some useful employment, and not allowed through idleness to fall by the wayside, may be occupying to-morrow the seats which we hold to-jay.
I desire to make a brief reference to the recent trade treaty. To my mind, when the government enters upon treaty making with the United States it is going into pretty capable company, engaging with pretty clever people, people who generally make treaties for the United States and do not worry about the interests of any country other than their own. I do not intend to labour this matter, but I am concerned when I see the quotas which are being put upon exports of our goods to the United States. Imports to Canada from the United States are mostly manufactured

lines, and all the restraint that appears to have been placed by way of quota or any other deterrent upon their goods is the dumping clause. That seems to be the only thing we have done to hinder manufactured goods from being brought into Canada from the United States and taking away the employment of our workers in various lines of industrial production. Last fall, when I made several hundred calls in my riding, I discovered that in the industrial sections more men would be laid off because of this new trade treaty and the removal of the three per cent excise tax.
May I suggest to the government that as soon as possible they take action to abolish this burdensome sales tax of eight per cent which is a direct charge on all the citizens of this dominion. I have been waiting to hear that some legislation in regard to this matter will be introduced in the near future. It is very likely there will be an election before long and the government have made some reductions in the sales tax, but I think they should go further and assist the overburdened taxpayer by removing the tax altogether. In this connection I might quote from a letter, dated January 30, 1939, which I have received from the sales tax repeal association of Bay street, Toronto. It is a long letter and I shall read only a part of it. In reference to the eight per cent sales tax it says:
Not content with charging interest on overdue sales tax, the delinquent is liable for double the tax due, a fine in addition, and imprisonment, and no judge is allowed any discretion in the matter.
Can you imagine any more outrageous treatment of small dealers and struggling concerns than such penalties? These men are not crooks but good citizens, yet they are really treated as worse than criminals.
I shall not go any further in that connection. There is one thing I would mention, however, with regard to the relief problem. This has been a great problem to every municipality throughout the country. Organizations have been set up in every town and city to urge upon the government that they take over all, or at least a part of the relief burden, but so far only a small concession has been made, and most of the burden remains on the municipalities. If the government would remove this tax upon the municipalities, this would solve the housing problem and give employment to thousands of workers, and in a very short time we would return to prosperity. I do not think there is any doubt about that. Both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) have endeavoured to put many schemes into effect, but they have been only partly successful. I suggest that from the standpoint

The Address-Mr. Cleaver
of the private citizen and the businessman, it would be a sound principle to remove the heavy relief tax on properties and buildings. If that were done, building work would be proceeded with and there would be no question of unemployment.
One matter I cannot allow to pass without some comment is the radio tax. I protested last year against the increase in the fee from $2 to $2.50 per set, and where a man has more than one set he has to pay more. I was successful in having the minister agree that where an indigent person on relief had a radio it should not be necessary for that person to buy a licence in order to use his radio. That was only proper and I was pleased that the minister granted the request.
Another subject which I brought up was the freedom with which inspectors could enter private houses. On that point I received support from many fion. members. After all, no matter how small it is, a private house is a man's castle and he should not be bothered by having people running in and out of his home without proper authority. On that occasion I suggested to the minister that there should be an order from a supreme court judge, because I thought that would have a deterrent effect on inspectors. In this respect the minister did not fulfil his promise. When he brought in his bill I was sorry to see that he had omitted that part of it. I shall not go any further now on the radio question; I shall discuss that later when the estimates are under consideration.
I have tried to be as brief as possible. In my opinion the forty minute rule was adopted for speakers who have some special subject to explain-cabinet ministers and the like-and I am sure that the session could be considerably shortened if hon. members would be brief and not exceed the forty minutes. If hon. members would curtail their remarks as far as they reasonably could, there would be a saving of many thousands of dollars to the Canadian taxpayer.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Clarke) and other members representing urban ridings in Ontario have expressed great concern over the disastrous results to industry from the 1935 United States-Canada trade agreement, and their apprehension of the impending results, equally disastrous, that will flow from the three-way agreement that has recently been consummated. I have some figures which will possibly put their minds at rest on that score. If they turn up the record of industrial building during the period of the Bennett administration and then look at the
record of what has happened since in such building, I think hon. gentlemen who sit across from me will have their minds put at rest in regard to the effect of the trade agreement on industry. During the ten year period ending in 1930 Ontario industries expended an annual average of a little more than $15,000,000 on capital outlays for factories, warehouses and the like. Then during the five year period of the Bennett administration what do we find? We find that in 1931 industry was so confident upon the coming into power of the Bennett administration that it cut its expenditures on factory buildings in half. In that year industry expended $6,836,000 on capital outlay. In 1932 we reached an all-time low, less than $2,000,000, the figure for that year being $1,871,000. In 1933 there was some recovery; $4,700,000 was expended. In 1934 we slipped again, down to $4,306,000. In 1935 we slipped further, to $3,645,000. For the five years the total spent in Ontario on factory and industrial construction was $21,358,000, or a yearly average of $4,271,600.
After the Liberal administration came into office in October, 1935, and negotiated the United States trade pact of 1935 "which came into force on January 1, 1936, what happened? We all know that capitalists spend money in expanding their factories only when their business is expanding and when they have confidence in the future. In 1937 Ontario industries were so impoverished by the trade agreement and their owners so alarmed that in that year they actually increased their factory construction expenditures to over four times the 1931-35 average, or an amount greater than was spent in any year during the Bennett administration. In 1937 Ontario industrialists spent $17,933,000 in factory construction work. We not only equalled the average annual construction for the ten-year period from 1921 to 1930. but exceeded that average by over $2,000,000. This voluntary response by Ontario industry, in my opinion, answers once and for all the Tory charge that the United States trade agreement was harmful to industry in Canada. I suggest that it also accounts for the fact that the new Great Britain-United States-Canada trade agreement has met with practically no criticism by industry. But one thing left unexplained is the loud and continuous complaint by Conservative members with respect to the treaty. The reason for this I quite confidently leave to the good judgment of the electors.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Bren Gun-Point oj Order
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 2, 1939