VACANCY


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the resignation of Right Hon. Richard Bedford Bennett as member for the electoral district of Calgary West. I have accordingly issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) :: I have the honour to present to this house a petition from (La Societe St-Jean Baptiste of the Quebec diocese, bearing the signatures of 127,364 persons, vigorously protesting against all immigration whatsover and especially Jewish immigration; demanding with all the energy inspired by the instinct of selfpreservation that we maintain a rigorous policy of forbidding immigration; asking also that certain ministers do not permit the entry into this country of even a few immigrants by allowing them special permits or privileges which give access to Canada even when immigration is officially forbidden; and finally pleading that the Canadian government take all necessary precautions to prevent all immigration to this country.
The petition has been laid on the table of the house.



IMMIGRATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend the Immigration Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill might be very briefly and vaguely expressed by saying it is a bill for the protection of certain political refugees and of people on relief. The sections of the Immigration Act concerned are sections 40, 41 and 42, under which any immigrant who has not been in Canada long enough to establish domicile is liable to be deported under very summary proceedings if he has been guilty

of certain offences or crimes, some ten or eleven of which are enumerated in the sections. I might refer to one or two of them: polygamy; living on the avails of prostitution; being an inmate of an asylum, reformatory or gaol, and a number of other offences. These people are not liable to be deported; they must be deported, and the procedure is very precise. The clerk of the municipality must give information to the minister, who orders a board of inquiry. If they find the facts as stated the man or woman is deported forthwith. It is true that there is an appeal to the minister, but if the minister does not happen to be interested or if he is away the decision very often will be made on the advice of the very officials against whom the appeal is being lodged.
I have no particular complaint against the deportation of men or women who have been guilty of the crimes to which I have alluded, because they generally know what they are doing. But among the offences enumerated one was slipped in which I did not mention. The house will be surprised to learn that included amongst these crimes for which people must be deported is that of having been, at some time since 1910, guilty of having been on relief, or in other words a public charge. It might apply to people bom in the old country and who, coming out here, have met with sickness or misfortune. They and all their family are liable to be put in gaol and to be deported, along the lines I have indicated.
The purposes of the bill are twofold. The first is to give the board of inquiry permissive power-not compulsory power-to recommend against deportation of a person against whom the only crime, if one must call it that, is that for a period of perhaps only a few weeks he has been compelled to be on relief, through sickness or other causes. The other feature of it, which is perhaps even worse, relates to political refugees. It is bad enough to be arrested and put in gaol for no other crime than being hard up-because they are kept in gaol until the court of inquiry is held, and then they are deported forthwith. But there is worse, even, than that. A man may not be a British subject and may come from one of those countries of Europe where freedom is getting to be almost unknown. He may have expressed political views against the government of the day, or he may even have gone so far as to slip out at night in order to escape some penalty imposed upon him by reason of perhaps nothing worse than the racial origin of his grandmother or his grandfather. He may even have been guilty of the heinous offence of

Unemploy men t-Miners
having slipped out of a certain country with a few more dollar's of his own than the government of that country would permit him to have. He may, however, get away and reach British territory. If he is sent back, simply because he is guilty of being on relief, he may face a firing squad or a concentration camp or, more plainly, simply murder-because there is no question that murder has been encouraged, in large numbers, in some of the states to which I have referred.
I maintain it is inconsistent with the traditions of the British empire that a man who comes to this country shall not have freedom from political offences in the country from which he came. Certainly he should not be deported simply because he was on relief for a little while. We speak of everyone being free in a British country. May I point out that the bill only suggests-it does not compel- that in a case where a man's only crime is that of being on relief, and where his being sent home to his country of origin would almost inevitably mean the forfeiture of his liberty and property, and quite possibly his life, such matters should be taken into consideration, and if circumstances warrant he should not be deported. The bill excludes extraditable offences, or any offences which would be a crime in this country, and it leaves ample opportunity to take the very fullest means to get rid of the really undesirable or prohibited immigrants.
The effect of it would be that the board, and the government, will not be compelled as.they are now to deport people whose only crime may be that they desire that liberty of thought and speech and action which is so dear to all of us in the British empire.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. UNEMPLOYMENT



TELEGRAM FROM MINERS AT PASSCHENDAELE, N.S., AS TO NEED OF RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) to a telegram I have received, and which I presume he or some other members of the government have received, indicating a condition so serious and critical that I believe it is deserving of a statement from the minister.
The telegram is from Passchendaele, Nova Scotia, via Glace Bay, and is as follows:
Miners and their families of this town in dire need of relief or more work. Mines only tvorking two shifts. People are desperate. Afore work is not possible during winter. Immediate relief is necessary or men will be forced to take direct action as they cannot see families go hungry any longer.
That is all of the telegram which deals with the matter. It is signed by Michael Nearing, local union 4519, of the United Mine Workers. While I had not informed the minister I was going to ask the question, I have taken it for granted that he received a wire respecting the matter. If he has not, I shall be quite content to receive his answer to-morrow, if he prefers.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, a few minutes before the house opened I had received notice from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) of his intention to ask a question based upon a telegram similar to that just read by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). My information is that the condition referred to has been brought to the attention of the provincial government, which has always assumed the responsibility of allocating both federal and provincial funds available for distribution in connection with direct relief.


Robert James Manion: In regard to the message which I read, do I take it that the minister completely shelves responsibility? Does he assume it to be the responsibility wholly of the provincial government? Has he communicated with the provincial government in regard to it?


Mr. ROGERS:: With respect to the latter part of my hon. friend's question, I may say that immediately upon receipt of a telegram similar to the one he received the matter was brought to the attention of the provincial government. As he is aware, the provincial government under both the previous and the present administration, has been charged with the responsibility of deciding where and under what conditions direct relief shall be given. The dominion government makes monthly grants in aid to the provinces for that purpose.


Robert James Manion: Is it not so that a number of exceptions to that have been made by this government?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Such supplementary agreements with respect to works for the provision of employment as have been made have been brought to the attention of the house, either by the Canada Gazette or by the actual tabling of the agreements.
43U
Japanese Immigration



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) concerning the interdepartmental committee appointed about a year ago to investigate thoroughly the Japanese problem in British Columbia. I am of course not referring to the board of review appointed to look into the question of illegal entry.
A press dispatch from Ottawa contained in the Vancouver Province, reaching Ottawa over the week-end, after setting out that there has been the greatest secrecy about this inquiry, states that the results of the inquiry may never be made public. I should like to know whether or not the report of this interdepartmental committee will be made public and, if so, when it may be expected? I would point out that on March 4, 1938, the Prime Minister stated the committee had been instructed to report at an early date.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: That would be a proper question to put on the order paper.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection at the moment is that the interdepartmental committee which, as the hon. member has just said, .was constituted prior to the board of review, did make a report to the government, which was intended to be in the nature of a confidential report to guide the government in action which might subsequently be necessary. The action the government thought advisable was the appointment of a board of review, on which there were several representatives.
The board made a very full inquiry. Its report has been printed and tabled in the house. It may be that I am in error in saying that there is no public report of the interdepartmental committee; if I am incorrect in that statement I shall be glad to correct it at another time. However my recollection is that the only report which the government intended to make public is the report of the board of review.


Howard Charles Green: Then there will be no report from the interdepartmental committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the facts
are as just stated, I believe that to be so.



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, has the Saskatchewan government made application to the federal government for assistance in financing relief seed for the farmers this spring? If so, on what date; and when may we expect legislation to implement this request?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as to the
last part of the hon. member's question, namely that part in which he asks when he may expect legislation, I am afraid the only reply I can give is that the government cannot be expected to make a detailed announcement in advance as to its entire program of legislation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then, what
about the first part of my question? Has any application been received from Saskatchewan?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That part had better stand as a notice of question on the order paper.



BREN MACHINE GUN CONTRACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, so that there may be no misunderstanding as to the accuracy of the records of this house in further references to the matter in the press, I desire to direct three questions to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie).
First, will the minister explain his statement of July 1, 1938, as it appears at page 4524 of Hansard, to the effect that he never met Major Hahn prior to the execution of the contract with the John Inglis Company-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
.Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver): Let him go on.


Charles Grant MacNeil: -March, 1938, in view of his subsequent admission that he met Major Hahn in 1936?
Second, will the minister explain whether Major Hahn acted as the representative of the Canadian government during 1937 with reference to the Bren gun negotiations, and if Major Hahn received reimbursement for his expenses while abroad during 1937?

The Address-Mr. Heaps
Third, will the minister explain his statement of June 3, 1938, page 3555 of Hansard, to the effect that the contract was not obtained through the good offices of the Canadian government, in view of subsequent testimony on that point?


Walter Edward Foster: These questions should not be put at this time. They should be put on the order paper.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Minister of National Defence):: Possibly this is a question of privilege, although the questions as they have been put are not proper either for the orders of the day or for the order paper. Perhaps I may be permitted to answer the questions asked.
The answer to the first question is that my recollection as I stated it last year in the house is my recollection now, and that statement was honestly, honourably and truthfully made.
My answer to the second question is that the gentleman in question did not act as the agent of this government in 1937 and to the best of my knowledge he has not received any reimbursement for his expenses during that year.
With reference to the third question, the statement made by the Minister of National Defence last year was absolutely honourably and honestly made. If my hon. friend wishes to attack the correctness of any of these statements, he has the privilege of referring the matter to the committee on privileges and elections of this house.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, January 27, 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. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to represent in this house one of the four constituencies in the city of Winnipeg. In a comparatively few years Winnipeg has grown from a trading post to a city of 215,000 inhabitants. Within its borders are to be found all races and creeds and men of many different nationalities. It is these men and women who have built up the city of Winnipeg during the past sixty or seventy years. You will find there people of Anglo-Saxon descent, Ukrainians, Poles, Germans, and Jews. All of these people have contributed something toward the development
and growth of the city of Winnipeg, which is synchronous with the growth and development of western Canada. Winnipeg in itself typifies the general development of that part of our dominion.
During the twenty-two years that I have been in public life, thirteen of which have been spent in this chamber, it has been always my aim to try to bring about a closer understanding and more harmonious relationship among the various component parts of our population, not merely of Winnipeg but of the whole of the Dominion of Canada. I regret to say I have found that one of the main obstacles to that natural development of our people has been the fact that there are many politicians, in the west, as there are probably in other parts of Canada, who are too ready to try to obtain political advantage by exploiting racial feelings and misunderstandings. I have always tried to avoid that in my public life. There is however one thing of which I feel proud, and that is the fact that the people of all races and creeds have been ready to support me year in and year out during the whole twenty-two years I have been in public life.
We find to-day throughout the west a new Canadianism. This type of new Canadian is a credit I am sure to our educational institutions and to the dominion as a whole. I often wish that those who talk so much about Canada, but who have not been beyond the confines of a limited area, could pay a visit to western Canada and see this new Canadian who has developed there. If the people of the west and the people of the east could mingle a little more than they do at present, it would do much to bring about that closer understanding which I am desirous of seeing accomplished. It is with this type of new Canadian that Their Majesties the King and the Queen will shortly sojourn. Speaking for the people of the west, whom I know so well and intimately, may I say that no section of the Canadian people will give a more warmhearted welcome to their majesties than the new Canadians of western Canada.
We are living in a chaotic world, a paradoxical world. We are living in an age of inventive genius, and yet we see all around us so much misunderstanding and disharmony among the various peoples. One almost begins to despair of what is commonly called modern civilization. When I was a boy my parents had no fear when I crossed the road to go to school because there were no fast moving vehicles that made it dangerous for a child to cross the street. The fastest moving thing we had at that time was the ordinary horse and buggy, or perhaps one of those old-
The Address-Mr. Heaps

fashioned bicycles, to get upon the saddle of which it was almost necessary to mount to the housetop. Tremendous changes have since taken place. When I was attending school I can remember reading Jules Verne's famous book, Around the World in Eighty Days. I thought then what a marvellous thing it would be to travel around the world in eighty days; yet look at what the inventiveness of the human race has brought about in so short space of time. First we had the bicycle; then came the telephone, the phonograph, electricity, the motor car, and other fast moving machines such as the aeroplane, and so on. There is no limit to what inventive genius has been able to do, but so far apparently no one has been able to work out a formula by which this world with its welter of races and human beings can live together in understanding and a common brotherhood.
During the past few days there has been raised in this house the question of immigration and the question of the refugee. Representing as I do a constituency made up of a mixture of races, although it is preponderantly Anglo-Saxon, I feel I should be remiss in my duty if I did not make some statement with regard to these important questions, affecting as they do so many peoples, and touching principles with which I think most of the hon. members of this house are concerned.
So much, Mr. Speaker, has been said on this question of immigration that the facts,
I believe, ought to be known and given consideration and prominence. Certain hon. members have been speaking of immigration and refugees as if they were one and the same problem, with the same meaning and the same implications. There is a great difference between immigration and the problem of refugees. No one to my knowledge has ever asked in these times for an influx of immigrants in the ordinary sense of the word. No one has even asked that the country should be flooded with refugees. In matters of this importance people should not make rash statements without ascertaining the facts; nor should they deal in generalities.
What are the facts? Early last year a delegation of members of this house met the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and discussed the question with him. Subsequently a subcommittee of the cabinet was appointed to consider the matter, and a number of the members of this house had an interview with the subcommittee. The members of the cabinet present-and I think I am entitled to make reference to this-were four members who had been designated as a subcommittee to deal with this important question: the minister in charge of immigration, the Minister 
of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar); the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie); the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley), and the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret).
What the delegation requested was that a reasonable number of refugees of all races and creeds be allowed to come forward to parts of Canada where it was considered most desirable that they should settle. The number suggested at the time was five thousand men, women and children-approximately one thousand to twelve hundred families. All the members of the subcommittee at the time appeared to me to be sympathetic, and the members of the delegation present were prepared to give proper undertakings that none of the refugees would become a public charge. The number for which entry was requested was extremely small, in view of the need, but we felt that our government should show its sympathy in the matter; and to permit refugees to enter Canada and be freed from political, religious or racial persecution was in strict accord with historic Liberal principles.
But, sir, a new phase has now been injected into the problem. Everyone who has kept himself informed as to recent events cannot help extending sympathy to the refugees for the plight in which they find themselves, whatever their race or creed may be. Never in the history of mankind have human beings been treated so barbarously as they are being treated at the present time by fascist powers. Men, women and children, families which have been rooted for centuries in the land in which they lived, have been deprived and robbed of everything they possessed and ordered to leave the country, their only crime being that their racial origin or religious beliefs were distasteful to the powers that be or their democratic principles unwelcome in totalitarian states. The pitiful plight of all these people has aroused international concern. Almost every civilized country has definitely taken sympathetic action. Canada as yet has not done so, and I should like to see her take her rightful place with other democratic countries and show her sympathy in a practical manner. Great Britain, France, Holland, Australia and many other countries are giving asylum to tens of thousands of refugees, and in no place, to my knowledge, have they been a burden to the governments that have received them.
In regard to employment it might be well to mention that lately Sir Samuel Hoare said that in England eleven thousand refugees had given employment to fifteen thousand Englishmen. Speaking now with a knowledge of the conditions, and not from mere hearsay, I say that if our government had

The Address-Mr. Heaps
shown the same sympathetic attitude on this question, the same conditions could have obtained here.
May I point out that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, speaking in Saint John, New Brunswick, only on Thursday last, said that we owed a debt of gratitude to these refugees and that we should accept our quota of them. There is in this country as a whole a very large body of opinion to the effect that the government should extend the hand of brotherhood and friendship to these people. It is they who have been the first victims of fascist tyranny and oppression; who knows who will be the next?
I make this plea on broad humanitarian grounds, not for any one sect or creed but for all victims of persecution. It pained me last week, Mr. Speaker, to hear hon. members deny the plea of the refugee to the right of asylum. It seemed so inhuman. I am in a sense proud to have this opportunity of making such a plea and in a humble way to follow the teaching of ancient and modern religious thought so beautifully expressed in the words, "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you;" and if I may be permitted to add one further quotation familiar to us all, let us if possible have peace on earth, goodwill towards men.
I have no desire to follow at length this line of argument, but I do wish to call attention to certain remarks that were made in Montreal on the twentieth of this month by the Secretary of State. I quote his words as reported in the Montreal Gazette:
Despite all sentiments of humanity, so long as Canada has an unemployment problem there will be no "open door" for political refugees here, Hon. Fernand Rinfret, Secretary of State, declared last night in an address before the St. James Young Liberals Association.
The government of Canada, Mr. Rinfret said, has decided to date that restrictions on immigration from foreign countries are to be maintained. There is no intention, he added, to diminish those restrictions and as long as there is an unemployment problem the government will be opposed to doing so. "This is not only my personal opinion," the Secretary of State said, "but the policy of the government to which I belong."
Possibly with a cheering and admiring audience the minister's enthusiasm ran away with his discretion, as so very often happens. My criticism in the first place is that it is a most unusual procedure for a cabinet minister to declare the government policy at a meeting in a constituency, especially when it relates to a department not under his control. Further, and of more importance, any statement of government policy should be made on the floor of the house itself, and particularly so when the house is in session. I have already
referred to the fact that the Secretary of State was a member of the subcommittee, had been present at a meeting with members of the house and knew what the actual requests were. He knew that no request had ever been made from any responsible source for a policy of the "open door" in regard to immigration, or even in respect to refugees. Such being the case the minister has, to say the least, been guilty of misstating the facts, and has created a wholly erroneous impression amongst his followers. Already many of his supporters from Quebec have taken the cue from the speech of the minister and have drawn inferences which are wholly incorrect and not iq accordance with the facts. Statements have been made in the house which tend to create discord between the different races in Canada. It is exactly this kind of talk that is not desirable in the dominion at the present time. Anything which tends to create discord among our people is an obstacle to real progress.
A recent statement made within the past few weeks on behalf of His Holiness the Pope may appropriately be quoted at this point:
The thoughts and feelings of the holy Father Pope Pius XI will be correctly interpreted by declaring that he looks with human and. Christian approval on every effort to show charity and to give effective assistance to all those who are innocent victims in these sad times of distress.
Thus the head of the great Roman Catholic church joins with other Christian leaders in a plea for aid to the victims of cruelty such as the world has seldom seen.
The first few words that the Secretary of State used were these: "Despite all sentiments of humanity." I can hardly believe that anyone could have used language which sounds so harsh and brutal; yet it is given as a statement of government policy. Am I to assume that the government as a whole are devoid of sentiments of humanity? I can hardly believe such to be the case; it seems almost libellous on some members of the government whom I know. I do not think there is a more humane and considerate member in this chamber than the Prime Minister. I have met him under all sorts of conditions, and I know his kindliness and thoughtfulness for others. For a cabinet minister to claim that the members of the cabinet are devoid of all human sentiments is a rash statement which I think cannot go unchallenged.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Secretary of State is not here at present, but I cannot imagine his having made a statement of that
The Address-Mr. Heaps

kind. I think there must be some misinterpretation of the words or the meaning of them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Let me read from the
Montreal Gazelle. The very first words in the news item are:
Despite all sentiments of humanity, so long as Canada has an unemployment problem there will be no "open door" for political refugees here-


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: That is not what the hon. member was saying.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quoted the whole item
at first, and then I referred to that particular part. I think I was absolutely fair in my remarks; I did not take one sentence out of its context.


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will permit, he said the Secretary of State had said that the government have no sentiments of humanity. What the Secretary of State said was just the contrary- although we have these sentiments, so long as there is unemployment, and so on. That is quite different.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I adhere to what I
said. According to this news item, the Secretary of State started off by saying, "des-[DOT]pite all sentiments of humanity," and then declared that he was speaking for the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I imagine that the passage he has read is a translation of what the Secretary of State said. I should think the minister must in the first instance have said something about sentiments of humanity calling for a certain course of action, and he may have gone on to say that despite those sentiments of humanity certain things could not be done. The thing he referred to as not being possible vvas the open door, something very different from not considering a settlement in the best possible way short of an open door.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I can only go by the press reports. I have read the report several times. It would have been better had the minister left out all questions of sentiment in discussing the matter. Perhaps at another time the minister might explain in the house his own words. But it seems strange that on a question of this kind the Secretary of State should go to Montreal and declare the government's policy. Why should not the government's policy be declared in this house, so that there would be no misunderstanding? If the Prime Minister, as I suggested, wishes to declare a policy on this very difficult prob-

lem I think there is no doubt he could choose whatever time he desired for doing so.


Ernest Lapointe: Perhaps my hon. friend might also wait until the Secretary of State is here to listen to the charges.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It is not my fault that he is not here; it is his fault. I think it is the custom when the orders of the day are called for all ministers to be in their places, and to-day I did not see the Secretary of State in his place at all.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course they are slaves.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Had the Secretary of State been in his place to-day I would have notified him of my intention to deal with this question. I am glad however that the Prime Minister feels that an error has been made by the Secretary of State-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh, he cannot get away from these things. I am satisfied from the way so many of his supporters took up the cue that this report in the Montreal Gazette must be substantially correct. I do not believe that a paper like the Montreal Gazette, which is very fair in its news reports, would go out of its way to concoct a story on its own account.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend has not always been such a friend of the Montreal Gazette.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I said so far as its news columns are concerned. I have never complained about its news reports.
I do not intend to spend the whole of my time on this particular question of refugees. What I have to say may be condensed into a few words. I hope that hon. members of this house, irrespective of race, creed or political conviction, will use their influence in the direction of a better understanding among all sections of the Canadian people. I know how political parties sometimes function; I realize that in the past issues were raised on which it was felt one party might obtain an advantage over the other. Blit where common humanity calls for action I hope that no group will try to exploit the issue. In order to avoid any such possibility I suggest that the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition should get together. They could also if they wished call in the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, who represents a fairly large body of opinion in this country, and also the leader of the Social Credit group. The Prime Minister might make a statement to the house respecting the matter. I am of

The Address-Mr. Heaps
the opinion that such a method of approach to the refugee question would eliminate any fear of political advantage to one party or the other.
It has been stated further that labour is hostile to the admission of refugees to Canada, but I believe that generally speaking the assertion is entirely erroneous. First of all let me quote from a statement that was submitted to the dominion government on January 6 by the All-Canadian Congress of Labour. At page 15 of their submission this is what they say:
In the meantime, however, the plight of the refugees in Europe is forcing itself upon public attention, and, if only because the problem has become intensified by the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which was permitted by the Munich agreement and which at least postponed the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of young Canadians, the waste of enormous material wealth, and the piling up of an unbearable burden of debt, Canada is believed to be under a moral obligation to cooperate fully with all international bodies which are trying to relieve the situation, and also to provide a place of refuge within her own borders for an appreciable number of these refugees.
Even if it were necessary to maintain these immigrants, the cost to the nation would be infinitesimal in comparison with what war would have cost. The Congress therefore joins with the many Canadian citizens who have given this question careful consideration in urging that the government present to the forthcoming session of parliament such amendments to the Immigration Act as will permit the admission of refugees, under adequate safeguards as to number, occupation, or other conditions, and that it will assist in every possible way in the attempts which are being made to lessen the suffering of these unfortunate victims of inhuman and relentless persecution. It is felt, however, that any efforts to assist refugees should not involve trade or financial concessions to governments which hold refugees for ransom.
Let me go a step further.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before my hon. friend goes any further, may I ask whether he has what the dominion trades and labour congress had to say on the same subject?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was going to refer to
that, and I am glad that the right hon. gentleman has asked the question. So far as the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada is concerned, in the last year it has taken identically the same stand on the question of immigration-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is that?


Abraham Albert Heaps: -but it has not made any pronouncement at all on the question of refugees; and knowing as I do, the members of that congress and those that are affiliated with them, knowing their sentiments as I do -and I do not speak from mere hearsay-I can tell the government from my place in
this chamber that I do not believe there would be any objection from that organization if the government permitted a reasonable number of refugees to enter Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was present at the time the congress made their representations to the government and my recollection is that in their presentation they stated emphatically that while there was unemployment they did not wish to have any immigration of any kind into Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But I have had this question under consideration more recently with many people closely associated with the congress.


Ernest Lapointe: It is
only three weeks ago that they told us that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Prime Minister is mixing the question of immigration with the question of refugees.


Mr. REID:: They are immigrants just the
same.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is a difference between the two. The appeal on behalf of refugees is made on purely humanitarian grounds to allow people who are fleeing from persecution to come in, to give them the right of asylum, that old historic Liberal principle vindicated by men like Gladstone and Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman. I remember when certain refugees found it necessary to flee from Russia and obtained asylum in Britain. This was in 1905, and who was it that welcomed them? None other than the prime minister of Great Britain himself. And to-day, if I make a plea in this chamber for refugees of all races and creeds, I am at least appealing to the same liberal sentiments on the part of hon. gentlemen who now occupy the treasury benches.
In this group over here we are as well acquainted with the labour movement in Canada as are hon. gentlemen opposite. I have been associated with it for a considerable number of years and I still have the support of the members of these organizations. In fact, ninety-five per cent of the people in my constituency are working people, and I know that no working man or woman of any race or creed would object to the influx of a reasonable number of refugees as a humanitarian act at this particular time. I venture to assert that if reference were made to those people who to-day are functioning as the executive of the trades and labour congress and other officials of the trade councils across the country, there would be found, generally speaking, no objection to refugees being
The Address-Mr. Heaps

allowed to come here in reasonable numbers. I know whereof I speak when I make this statement.
I will now leave the question of refugees, having dealt with it longer than I intended, thanks to interjections from the opposite side.
The Secretary of State, probably in the exuberance of the moment or encouraged by the plaudits of his audience, also made reference to the unemployment situation. Let me quote from the Montreal Star:
He pointed out that the federal government was ready to assume the cost of unemployment insurance for the w-hole dominion, but the main obstacle was opposition from the government of Quebec.
I would ask either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Labour whether that is a statement of fact, whether the dominion government is prepared to assume the whole cost of [DOT] unemployment insurance in Canada, as reported in the Montreal Star of January 21, and purporting to give what was stated in Montreal by the Secretary of State. I do not know whether on this question he spoke on behalf of the government, and when I read it I wondered whether it was a new government policy being enunciated in Montreal. I suggest that the next time any minister of the crown is delegated to declare government policy it might be a wiser thing to have that policy declared from the floor of the house where hon. members can hear it and Hansard can take it down.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Has the hon. gentleman the statement that was made there?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have just quoted from the Montreal Star.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Read the statement on unemployment insurance.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will read again what the Secretary of State is reported to have said:
He pointed out that the federal government was ready to assume the cost of unemployment insurance for the whole dominion, but the main obstacle was opposition from the government of Quebec.
I wish to know whether that is a policy of the government, that is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The policy of the government with respect to unemployment insurance has been that as soon as this government receives power to deal with unemployment insurance as a federal matter the government is prepared to take over the entire cost of unemployment insurance-


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Prime Minister is getting into a little difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -apart from any contribution from any' province at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is qualifying the statement as contained in this paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under a contributory scheme of course.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But before the Prime Minister made the qualification it was stated that the government was prepared to assume the whole cost of a federal unemployment insurance scheme. That is what the Secretary' of State said in this item, and that is what I want to find out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Secretary of State was evidently referring to the situation as between the provinces and the dominion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What he said is obvious. He was probably playing a little bit of politics.


Ernest Lapointe: Why does not my hon. friend wait until the Secretary of State is here? I give him my word of honour that if I had to attack him I would wait until he was in his seat-and very often, he himself is not in his seat.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On Friday I was scheduled to speak to-day and we were talking about closing the debate to-morrow. I did not know whether the Secretary of State would be here, and if I did not get my turn to-day, I might not get it to-morrow.


Ernest Lapointe: Did my hon. friend tell him that he was going to lay a charge against him?


Abraham Albert Heaps: This is not a charge.


Ernest Lapointe: It is, based on the Montreal Star and the Montreal Gazette-


Abraham Albert Heaps: But that is not a charge. I am not making an insinuation.


Ernest Lapointe: -strong C.C.F. newspapers.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have never heard such childish remarks coming from the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I am surprised at him.


Ernest Lapointe: Reciprocity.	.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Thank you. To say I am making a charge against an hon. member of this house when I quote from a responsible newspaper what that hon. member is supposed to have said-


Ernest Lapointe: I say it is unfair comment.

The Address-Mr. Heaps


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Minister of Justice says it is a charge because I am quoting from a newspaper. In other words any hon. member of this house who quotes what another hon. member is reported to have said is guilty of making a charge.


Ernest Lapointe: Make it unfair comment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then we will say it is comment, according to my right hon. friend; even say it is unfair comment. It cannot be said that it is a charge. All I am trying to find out is whether this is government policy. Now I am told that the policy of the government is not what is purported to have been said by the Secretary of State, although the Secretary of State claimed to be speaking on behalf of the government at that meeting.
I am interested in the unemployment situation, and because of that I felt constrained to refer to this item appearing in a newspaper purporting to contain the remarks of a minister speaking for the crown. We have had an unemployment situation in this country since away back in 1930, and only a few days ago we heard the Minister of Labour talk about what the government have done for unemployment in this country. He was enthusiastic with regard to the achievements of the government in coping with the situation, and that was what I wanted to deal with principally this afternoon if time had permitted.
I find that in November, 1935, when the government came into power, we had 423,000 persons who were unemployed-that is according to the bureau of statistics. In November, 1938, exactly three years later, the number of unemployed according to the same authority was 398.000, or a drop of about 25,000 in that period of time.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I suppose the hon. gentleman would acknowledge that in each of those three years the actual number of wage earners in this country would have been increased by the entry into the wage earning group of those who were not within that group previously?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is perfectly correct, but does the Minister of Labour realize how many people returned to the old country during that period of time?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my hon. friend know?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No. Would the minister
expect me to know when the government does not know?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does my hon. friend seriously suggest that the number would be in the thousands?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes; some people put it at many, many thousands, yet there has been a drop of only 25,000 in that period of time in spite of all the efforts of the government. Then may I go a step further on that very point. Supposing my hon. friend the Minister of Labour, who held a very responsible and honoured position at Queen's university and who is a keen student of economics, had a group of students with whom he was discussing the unemployment situation, altogether apart from political considerations. What would he say about the period from 1930 to 1938? Undoubtedly he would tell his students that starting in 1930 there was a downward curve of industry in this country which reached its bottom in 1933; and that from 1933 there was a rise in employment, an increase in trade activities, which reached its peak in 1937. I know that is what he would tell his students; that is what any economist would say. What does that mean? It means that this period cut right across governments, whether they were Liberal or Conservative.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member has exhausted his time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not wish to take up more than my time, because I know there are many other hon. members who are anxious to speak. We will have other opportunities of dealing with this question.


Walter Edward Foster: If the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will conclude, Mr. Speaker. I know other opportunities will be afforded before very long to discuss this question of unemployment, as I have discussed it in previous years. But this parliament cannot ignore this very important fact, that of all the questions that confront us the most important are these questions of unemployment and the plight of our youth. I am pleased that the government have taken steps to deal with the youth problem; but as the minister stated in reply to the leader of the opposition, even if a minister were appointed in charge of youth that would not of necessity provide employment. But the other steps the government have taken as yet have not been able to provide more employment, and in my opinion the only way to deal with the problem is by so readjusting our economic conditions
The Address-Mr. Stewart

that both young and older people will have an opportunity to become self-respecting citizens.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the house for the courtesy in giving me these extra few minutes.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), who has just taken his seat, always makes a useful contribution to the debates of this house, and this occasion is no exception. He has brought forward the subject of immigration and the kindred subject of some haven for refugees. The absence from the speech from the throne of any statement whatever in connection with a matter of such importance to this country as immigration is, I think, a fair matter for comment. Of course the subject presents a contentious and difficult question. There can be no doubt, however, that the immigration policy followed, we will say, from 1925 to 1930 contributed in very large measure to the serious problem of unemployment we found in this country in 1930. There can be no doubt, further, that there is room in Canada for a class of selected immigrants who will be able to make their own way, who will be able to sustain themselves and contribute to the solution of the problems of this country.
The debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne affords members of this house an opportunity for general discussion of the problems of Canada and of conditions as they find them in their constituencies. It provides an opportunity to advance suggestions for improvement as well as to offer criticism of the policies of the government, and gives the individual member a chance to bring to the attention of the house and of the government local conditions and problems in his own constituency or locality. Before discussing the speech from the throne, the address in reply, the amendment and the subamendment thereto, I desire to deal briefly with a matter of importance to the constituency and that part of the dominion from which I come. I have referred to it on previous occasions. It is not a matter of purely local importance, but one of wider significance.
Last August the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States united in a very interesting ceremony in connection with the formal opening of an international bridge. Prior to the ceremony which took place at the bridge itself an honorary degree had been conferred upon the president by Queen's university, and on that occasion interesting addresses were delivered by the president and the prime minister. The occasion was one of unusual importance. Expressions
[Mr. Heaps.l
of friendship and goodwill were mutual, and the president took advantage of the opportunity to make a declaration of policy on behalf of the United States which was in advance of anything which had been stated previously in that connection. I heard the president say that the United States would not stand idly by and see any alien or foreign force invade the soil of Canada. It was an expression of goodwill which was appreciated, and it was acknowledged by the prime minister.
The bridge, the occasion for the ceremony, crosses the St. Lawrence river through the heart of the Thousand islands. It is not an ordinary bridge but is unique in that it consists of a series of bridges, there being a distance of about six miles between one bridgehead and the other. Use has been made of the islands in the intervening spaces.
Since the opening of the bridge nearly
100,000	motor cars have passed over it. At the date of opening the roadways were not complete; in fact they are not yet entirely completed. It has been said, and I think truthfully, that within a radius of three hundred miles from the bridge live one-third of the population of Canada and one-fourth of the population of the United States. This is a striking statement, and I make it simply to show the possibilities in the development of tourist traffic at this point. The amount of traffic has been beyond expectations, and is capable of great development.
The suggestion has been made that a national park should be established at the bridgehead on the Canadian side. Local committees have been set up to promote this undertaking. From time to time representations have been made. We are told the general policy of the dominion with respect to parks is that the province must acquire the land and turn it over to the dominion, and the dominion assumes responsibility for maintenance and development. There are however a few exceptions to the practice- perhaps not many. In some cases the dominion has acquired directly, either by expropriation or through purchase, certain lands for park purposes, as shown by a return brought down last session following the adoption of a motion I placed on the order paper.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) and the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) are thoroughly familiar with the conditions in the area I have mentioned. They have all visited it, and have information on the subject. A local committee has been formed, of which Mr. J. G. Mitchell,

The Address-Mr. Stewart
of Lansdowne, is chairman. Mr. Mitchell, was very active and influential in urging construction of the bridge and in a very large measure contributed to the undertaking. In company with others he and his committee are now interested in the area about Ganano-que, as far west as Kingston and as far east as Brockville, as to the possibilities offered for the establishment of a park.
I take this opportunity to impress upon the government, and particularly upon the Minister of Mines and Resources, under whose jurisdiction a park would come, and the Minister of Labour, who represents that part of the province, the desirability of taking some action towards acquiring land for the establishment of the park. If action is not taken in the near future values will be created and buildings of an undesirable type, from a scenic standpoint, will be constructed, with the result that to some extent at least the natural beauty will be destroyed. Values will be created which do not now exist, and, if action is not taken, in the end the government will be forced to pay a much larger sum to acquire land which, in the interests of the people of Canada, should be acquired for park purposes.
Let me urge upon the government and particularly upon the responsible ministers the necessity for action at this session; otherwise it will be too late and the costs will be very much increased. I urge the point not from any narrow local viewpoint or only from the standpoint of the constituency, but for the purpose of promoting tourist traffic.
The proposed visit of their majesties recalls the coronation of 1937. The impression made upon those who were privileged to attend, and upon the world at large, was very striking and beneficial. We were convinced that we were members of one family, one partnership, and we were reminded of the importance and the value of that association. We continue to appreciate all these advantages, but I fear that sometimes we shrink from sharing the responsibilities that relationship involves. We emphasize our rights, privileges and advantages, and we minimize our duties and responsibilities. We must be prepared to share responsibilities as well as advantages.
The banquet in Westminster Hall, which was attended by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, other representatives of Canada at the empire conference and the members of the delegation of the Empire Parliamentary Association, was an interesting and historic occasion. The king responded in person to the toast to the health of his
majesty. I believe that that was the first time that anything of that kind occurred. The thanks of those present were expressed eloquently and appropriately by the speaker of the House of Commons of Great Britain and by you, Mr. Speaker, representing the overseas delegates. We were all very proud and happy on that occasion, which was one of deep significance. Following the enactment of the statute of Westminster the relationship of Canada to the crown became a little different from what it had been before. The action of his majesty on that occasion showed an appreciation of that change and a disposition on his part to come close to the representatives of his people, whether they resided in a dominion or in a colony.
The visit of their majesties to Canada is a further manifestation of that disposition toward their subjects. The conclusion to be drawn from it is that the throne is not aloof or afar off, that it is not an institution above and apart from the people; it is set up in the midst of the peoples of the empire. We have an indication of their majesties' sympathies and desire to cooperate and live in the bonds of deepest affection and sympathy with their subjects throughout the empire. In the British commonwealth of nations the king reigns, but the people rule. We have a splendid manifestation of those democratic principles which we value so highly. I know that on the occasion of this visit the people of Canada will express their appreciation to the fullest extent. It is to be regretted that the visit of their majesties is to be so short, and that many people will not be able to see them. Their visit to the United States also has significance. It will tend to create a greater measure of understanding between the two democracies and a clearer appreciation of their common objectives and purposes.
The speech from the throne refers to the trade agreement recently negotiated between Canada and the United States. This agreement will be discussed fully and in detail at the proper time when the resolution and the bill are before us. The Prime Minister referred to the sequence of events leading up to the negotiation of this treaty. He did not go back very far. As I recall it, he went back only to 1935, when the previous trade agreement between Canada and the United States was negotiated. I hope that during the debate on the resolution and the bill we will have an opportunity of going back farther than 1935. It would be very interesting indeed if we had the time to go back to 1896 and trace the development of trade from that time on.
The Address-Mr. Stewart

There seems to be a disposition on the part of some hon. members on the other side of the house to create an impression that we on this side, particularly the members of the Conservative group, have no appreciation of the value of trade. Listening to some of the speeches one would think that we were entirely oblivious to or ignorant of the advantages of trade and that some appreciation of them had suddenly dawned upon hon. gentlemen opposite. One would think the government had suddenly discovered a new method of promoting trade and that nothing that amounted to very much had been done in the past in that connection. The history of trade in Canada proves that to be inaccurate and misleading.
It would be very interesting to review the history of trade from 1921 to 1930 and to find out w'hy the markets of the United States and many other countries were practically closed to Canada during that time. It would be interesting to find out why the Hawley-Smoot and Underwood tariffs were erected against us in the United States. Falling revenues, adverse balances and severe unemployment settled down as a cloud all over the dominion in 1930. Why was not the remedy of trade for those conditions found prior to that time? Then we come to 1932 at which time we find a lively appreciation of the conditions that existed in this country on the part of the government of that day. They realized the necessity of extending markets and developing trade, and successful efforts were made along those lines which resulted in the negotiation of the empire trade agreements.
Looking at what happened from this distance I am sure that the unprejudiced and unbiased opinion of all in this house must be that those agreements materially and substantially contributed to the prosperity that started in 1933 and continued through 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937. It was down a little in 1938. All this proves undoubtedly that at that time, as always, there was a lively appreciation of the importance of trade and a disposition to promote trade. There was a desire to make trade agreements wherever and whenever possible, provided they could be made on fair terms without sacrificing the interests of Canada.
Following the 1932 empire trade agreements we found a change in the attitude of the United States toward this dominion. They were much more disposed to negotiate and enter into trade agreements. In fact, when the Prime Minister went to Washington in 1935, immediately following his election and the election of his friends, he found that great progress had been made in the negotiation of a treaty between Canada and the United

States. So much work had been done that it took him only a few days to close up the transaction; and he will be able to tell us later, as he has done on former occasions, of the negotiations that led up to the completion of that agreement. He was very anxious to conclude it, and perhaps we are justified in assuming that because of his anxiety he made certain concessions at that time which were refused prior to the time he came into office, and that it was because of those concessions, which could not be secured by the United States prior to the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, that the completion of that agreement was possible in 1935. However, the signatures were put on the dotted line, and the result has been, so far as Canada is concerned, an adverse balance of trade.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) in his address to this house the other day, said in reviewing trade statistics that Canada had a favourable balance of trade with every country in the world except Italy and the United States. I suggest it is not unfair or unreasonable for the people of Canada to expect that they should have a favourable balance of trade with the United States when we have it practically with the rest of the world. When there are in that country 120,000,000 of people to purchase our products, and a much smaller number in these other countries, I do suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not unreasonable for Canada to expect that we should have a favourable rather than unfavourable balance of trade with the United States.
It is difficult for a private member to analyse and come to a definite conclusion as to the effects of a trade agreement such as the one that will be submitted to us, because the schedules are complicated, and items of the former tariff have been broken up and separated. But when the agreement comes before the house in the committee stage I trust that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) will be prepared to give the details of exports and imports of the various items, and to correlate the items of the agreement with the old tariff and with the items of the agreement of 1935. It will undoubtedly be found that there are in this new agreement some advantages here and there; it will also undoubtedly be found that there are some disadvantages in it; and it will be the duty of members of this house, representing their own constituencies, particular districts and particular interests, to weigh the advantages and disadvantages one against the other, and come to a conclusion. But there is one conclusion that we can come to safely, and that is that the completion of this agreement, whatever

The Address-Mr. Stewart
other results it may have, will result in increased unemployment in the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. MacNICOL:: There is no doubt about that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are now giving concessions for concessions which we are getting from the United States, and which concessions we should have secured in 1935 for the concessions we then gave.
Much has been said on the question of unemployment, and I can add very little to the enormous volume of criticism that has already been expressed in this house. The undertone of speeches even of the supporters of the government has, with very few exceptions, been one of disappointment, an expression of failure, and the hope that something may be done to improve conditions. It has been pointed out that the promises that were made in this connection have not been fulfilled. What about the commission that was to have administered unemployment relief? It has not materialized. Trade expansion, so far as there has been any, has failed to solve the problem of unemployment. Our young people have not been set to work.
I want to refer particularly with one group of unemployed, the transients. A plan of dealing with this class was adopted by the former government by the establishment of relief camps. It was never contended, Mr. Speaker, that that was the ideal solution, but it was an effort to do something at least for these helpless, homeless, hopeless people who were roving over the Dominion of Canada from coast to coast, riding on freight trains, travelling up and down the highways, homeless in every sense of the word. The municipalities would not recognize them; the provinces disclaimed responsibility. So the dominion government of that day said: This is a problem with which we should deal; we will establish places where these poor helpless and homeless men can be provided with food, clothing, shelter and medical attendance until they find work.
Some agitation grew up inside the camps; but worse still, the political agitation in this house and outside of it became so strong that, purely for political purposes, the opposition of that day determined to destroy the usefulness of those camps, and they succeeded. When they came into office they abolished them, as they had said they would do, but they failed to provide any substitute. Since then these people have been wandering over the country,
giving trouble in the municipalities, begging, getting into prison and all sorts of trouble. This government has particularly failed in recognizing its responsibility and its duty to the municipalities, to the provinces and to this group of unemployed. The Minister of Labour on one or two occasions intimated that camps might be reestablished, on a different basis. I suggest to him in good faith that he consider doing that now. He asked for suggestions, and has been given many in this house. Even the suggestions and recommendations of the employment commission have not been adopted. I have perhaps no reason to hope that he will adopt any suggestion of mine on this occasion, however I give it to him for what it is worth and in good faith.
I suggest that even at this late date-and it is three years too late-he reestablish the camps for these single homeless friendless men. Let him establish them on any condition that he likes. If the camps that were established were not on a sound and proper basis, surely he can devise some other basis. Surely he can find something better than public buildings in which to shelter these men. I suggest that, having established the camps, the men be taken into them, cared for, trained and strengthened, and that work be found for them. Let me suggest one way of finding work, namely that the government embark upon a program of building secondary roads throughout the dominion. The trans-JCanada highway of course must be completed, but there are thousands of miles of secondary roads in Ontario and other provinces that are in bad condition. These unemployed in the different localities could be set to work, and as far as necessary drafts could be made from the central camps of small mobile units of trained men for the purpose of improving the highways throughout the province.
Many excuses are given for the continuance of unemployment. They say the attitude of the provinces is hostile, we have not had the measure of cooperation that we should have had, there have been crop failures, and all the other excuses outlined in the speech from the throne. We did not hear of these between 1930 and 1935, although the same causes were there in just as aggravated a form, or more so than at present. But then everything was blamed, not upon drought or any other causes, but upon the tariff policies of the Bennett government.


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


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry, but I do not desire to trespass upon the rule. I shall take
442	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McLean (Melfort)
advantage of some other occasion to give expression to some of the thoughts and ideas that I have in my notes.
I propose to vote for the amendment proposed by my leader, because I am convinced that it exactly expresses the sentiments of the great majority of the people of Canada to-day.


Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) will not expect me to follow his remarks during the past forty minutes. I should like, however, to congratulate him on having at last got away from the mental attitude of his party in 1911 when they raised the cry of "No truck or trade with the Yankees."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I never raised that cry. We never raised it.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. gentleman's party did so; to deny it is to fly into the face of history. The record is clear.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Give it to us.


Malcolm McLean: I absolve my hon. friend, because I do not see how he, living so close to the boundary, and with the intelligence and kindness of disposition that he possesses, could have endorsed that cry.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I never did.


Malcolm McLean: I accept the hon. gentleman's word, and I am glad that his party as well as himself appear to be getting away from that mental attitude, and to approve trade with the United States, under some conditions at least. But it is remarkable that the trade agreement which has done so much to help trade in this country during the past three years was so nearly ready for signing long before November, 1935, but yet had to wait until a new government, motivated by a new spirit, came into power, before being concluded, and was then signed within a few days. A good part of the trade which we are enjoying to-day arises out of that treaty signed three years ago.
The only other point in my hon. friend's speech that I propose to touch upon is the relief camps. I would say that the people of Canada were abundantly pleased that the relief camps were abolished. Contrast the situation where thousands of young men were cooped up in unwholesome and unhealthy surroundings at a cost to the government of $40 a month, with the plan of this government under which men go out to farms or other employment in wholesome and healthy surroundings and are doing some work at least to give them an appetite for their food.


Mr. PERLEY:: On the highways.


Malcolm McLean: There is no need to go on the highways for lack of work under the scheme proposed by this government. On these farms men have an opportunity to earn their own living and get, in addition, $7.50 a month from the government of the province concerned and the government of Canada, and they have the satisfaction of knowing that they are doing something useful, and of living in wholesome surroundings. Who wants to go back to the twenty cents a day scheme, leading to conditions that brought about the riots, about which no one wants to think or speak, and which resulted in bloodshed in the capital city of Saskatchewan.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was not a camp.


Malcolm McLean: But the men were stirred to desperation by conditions in the camps. We cannot tie up large numbers of men in camps-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They were not tied; they were free to come and go.


Malcolm McLean: They came,
but apparently they were not free to go.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, they were free to go.	.


Malcolm McLean: When you keep men in camps like that without any useful work, they are bound to be discontented, and the same situation will always result. They lost their liberty and sense of opportunity and responsibility.


Mr. SPENCE:: They were fed and cared for; that is more than the present government have done.


Malcolm McLean: That is all I
intend to say about the address of my hon. friend.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is more than
enough.


Malcolm McLean: Why should I
waste time in threshing old straw? Before passing on, I should like to offer my sincere congratulations to the hon. member for London (Mr. Manion) the leader of the opposition. I wish him sincerely all the success that is good for him.


Robert James Manion: How much will the hon. member give me?


Malcolm McLean: I do not know how much that will be; I cannot measure my hon. friend so as to put limits on it, but I know he will take it from me as sincerely as I offer it. On behalf of my con-

The Address-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
stituency as well as myself I express the hope that he will meet with all the success that he and his party deserve in rebuilding their prestige in this country. At this time also I wish to express my own satisfaction and that of the people of my constituency at seeing the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) back in the house with a measure of strength and health. All the people of Canada, and particularly those of the province from which he came, watched with fear and later with sympathy during his illness; are gratified that his strength is returning, and sincerely hope that he will be able to go about his duties, and that in the months and years to come his old activity and energy, which were so great, will be restored.
I have heard hon. members in this house divide the speech from the throne into three parts, just as Julius Caesar divided Gaul. I intend to divide my remarks into three parts also, and I shall deal first with some of the claims set forth by certain hon. gentlemen opposite, because I think in some instances they have been less than fair to the province from which they come and less than fair to the government in power in Canada to-day. If I present to them my view of the truth, I hope that they will not be unduly provoked but will themselves determine whether that view as I give it is a reasonable exposition of what might be called the truth.
First, I would refer to some remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), a gentleman whom I respect and whom I have known for a long time, but whose manner of showing up his own country and its institutions in the worst light is one that I cannot possibly commend. As reported at page 75 of Hansard of January 17, he read a letter from a school-teacher in Saskatchewan, and simply left it at that. This teacher made the statement that she received a cash salary of S18 a month. I do not know whether that is true or not. The hon. gentleman gave no particulars of the district concerned, so that it is difficult to trace the statement and ascertain its accuracy or otherwise. I do know, however, that the people of Saskatchewan in recent years have taxed themselves, through the education tax, to such an extent that their government to-day is able to do with their money what in recent years was done with money advanced by this government. The grant from the provincial government to a school district such as that in which the lady in question teaches, if it is an organized district, is $30 a month for a one-room school, and that alone would provide a higher salary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Except that they do not get it.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) know that is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes, it is.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. gentleman knows it is not true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Most certainly it is.


Malcolm McLean: This is the truth: The government accounts now, as at all times, are paid, but not promptly on the dot because certain formalities have to be observed and some delays are unavoidable. But the money is absolutely paid, and I defy my hon. friend to say on a platform in Saskatchewan that the grants are not paid. They may not be paid on the last day of the school term, but he knows they are being paid.


Mr. COLDWELL:: But the teachers are not getting their salaries; that is the difficulty.


Malcolm McLean: If any teachers are not getting their salaries, the remedy for that grievance is for the teacher to take the matter up with the parents, and the parents with the board. Anyone who defames the people of Saskatchewan adds insult to injury if he says that the people of that province care so little for education that they will not see to it that their boards pay the teachers at least up to the limit of the grant which is provided.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend will agree that coal and other essentials have to be provided out of the grant and that only one-half of the Saskatchewan education tax goes for education.


Malcolm McLean: I have no objection to the hon. members explaining, but the more they explain the deeper they get into the mire. In addition to the grant, raised from $200 a year as it was under the friends of my hon. friend from Rosetown-Biggar-


Major James William Coldwell: Not my friends.


Malcolm McLean: They are not his friends? Why, my hon. friend was one of the midwives that brought forth the cooperative government in a Regina hotel some years ago.


Major James William Coldwell: I rise to a point of order. I would ask the hon. gentleman to be accurate in his statements. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) has good reason to know that the statement just made is not accurate.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not a point of order.
444	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McLean (Meljort)


Major James William Coldwell: It is a question of truth.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member says that in addition to the increased grant, which is now $30 per school month- and his leader said that this lady teacher received only $18-coal and other necessities are supplied to the school. This enables the school board to pay over the full amount of the grant.


Major James William Coldwell: Out of the $30.


Malcolm McLean: No; coal supplies do not come out of the grant. My hon. friend spent a great deal of his time in lauding conditions in New Zealand. Ordinarily my answer to that would be, if I wanted to belittle him, to ask him whether he had ever been in New Zealand. I shall not ask him that question; it would not be fair or reasonable. I shall tell him, however, that if he went to New Zealand he would find, taking into account climatic conditions, natural resources, the nature of the people and other factors, that all these circumstances themselves account for the present situation in that dominion, and they have no reference to anything beneficial effected by a semi-socialist government elected a few months ago. As the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deach-man) pointed out, when a change has been brought about in an economic system after that system has been in operation for a considerable time, and when wealth has been accumulated, it is easy to distribute that wealth and dissipate it, giving some appearance of prosperity for a little while. But that prosperity never lasts unless production is increased and marketing is put on a better basis.


Major James William Coldwell: As it has been.


Malcolm McLean: That remains to be seen. Has production been increased?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


Malcolm McLean: It must be borne in mind that there have not been crop failures in New Zealand as there have been in Saskatchewan, and that is one of the main circumstances which explain the state of affairs in that country to-day. Those are the reasons, and not the ones suggested by the hon. gentleman.
Let me now turn to the remarks of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). This government, he declared, is known as the do-nothing government. All I can say is, any government that can carry out an alleged do-nothing policy and yet be instrumental in increasing the national income to the extent of

three-quarters of a billion dollars per annum two years after their election is the sort of government that the people want. If, however, the hon. gentleman means by a do-something government that the government should be the sort of one that he and I have witnessed in recent years, with ministers junketing around at political banquets and picnics, burning up the highways at high speed, moving ceaselessly around so as to give one the impression of squirrels in a cage, under the delusion that motion is progress-if that is the kind of government he has in mind, then I tell him emphatically that it is not the kind of government the Canadian people want.


George Halsey Perley: Tell the house how many
trips your ministers made in the last six or eight months.


Malcolm McLean: If that were the issue I would tell the hon. member, but he can find out. The hon. gentleman did not tell us that he wrote to the departments at Regina responsible for the distribution of relief to inform them of conditions existing in the country if those conditions were not favourable. Oh, no. He confined himself to the details of a single court case in which his friend the leader of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan was one of the participants in the court proceedings, as he had a perfect right to be. Possibly the hon. member has from that source information to which I have not access. I would point out- and it is of the utmost importance-that friends in Ontario and Quebec, in the mari-times and other provinces, have in many instances, either out of their abundance or out of their little, contributed to help the people of western Canada in the time of dire distress which they have experienced in the past few years, and I wish to assure all such friends that what they contributed was not deliberately dissipated either by the government or bj'' any of the authorities. It is true that mistakes were made and wrong was done, but it was as a result of checking up by the authorities that wrong-doing was discovered and some men are to-day expiating their crimes in gaol. It is unfortunate that this is so, but human nature being what it is, such things will always occur. It has been so under past governments and is likely to be so to some small extent in the future.
I wish to call the attention of the house to one or two other matters dealt with by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. With reference to the question of wheat marketing he said:
The farmers of western Canada realize now that there must be some control of production, or at least some control of marketing. I am

The Address-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
not in favour of controlling acreage, but if I had the opportunity I think I could work out a scheme for controlling deliveries to the market. 1 had another resolution ready for the order paper-I do not suppose it will be reached this session-to the effect that the government should consider the advisability of amending the Canada Wheat Board Act to empower the board to control deliveries to it through a system of licensing producers to sell or deliver a given number of bushels per seeded acre, and that the permits to sell should be negotiable among the producers only.
I understand the meaning and implications of one of those sentences. The other I do not understand, and I am going to bring it to the attention of my hon. friend in order that he may elucidate it to the house at some later date. He is recommending that only a certain number of bushels per seeded acre could be sold. In other words, he is making a bid to keep the marginal lands under cultivation and to penalize the land with high crop returns. The land the dominion government wants to keep in use and under cultivation is the land he is willing to penalize by allowing only a certain number of bushels per seeded acre to be marketed. Surely that is too ridiculous for even a Conservative government to think of, assuming they had the opportunity to take such action. As to what he means by saying that the sale of these certificates should be permitted only among the producers, I am at a loss to know. I wonder if he is going to encourage some kind of speculation in dealing with these certificates. I leave him to answer that question at some later date; I simply draw the point to his attention now. There is one thing I want to thank him for. He said that after all he had seen, after all the years he had lived in the west, he was not a pessimist but was still an optimist in regard to the question of marketing of wheat. I thank him sincerely for that, because I have reason to believe he is on the right track in making that statement.


George Halsey Perley: I feel quite sure my hon. friend will support my scheme when I have a chance to explain it.


Malcolm McLean: That will be fine. Then the hon. member for Weyburn took up a good deal of the time of the house in complaining about Canada and conditions within this country. He talked about defence and suggested graft, until the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asked him where the evidence was. Then he withdrew the insinuation. But the fact is that he talked about it in this house; and if he had not been checked when he was, the hon. member would have been able to go out into the country and say he had dealt with the question of
graft in the House of Commons and that his statements had gone uncontradicted. So I think it was well that the point was raised. My hon. friend complained a great deal because, he said, we were selling abroad a certain amount of material which might be used for munitions. He went on to say:
But what right have rve to ask the Canadian taxpayer to contribute between $50,000,000 and $60,000,000 a year for national defence, while at the same time we permit armament manufacturers in this dominion to send a steady stream of aeroplanes, munitions and war material to the very countries against which this government is asking us to arm ourselves?
I remember that two years ago, when a small increase was asked in the defence estimates, my hon. friends over there kept saying, "Against whom are we to arm?" The hon. member for Weyburn has found out; we are aiming apparently against the people to whom we are sending a stream of munitions and armaments. My hon. friend nods his head. Well, perhaps I am not so well informed as he is, but I do not know of any country to which we have sent aeroplanes and streams of munitions that is likely to be in the field against Canada now or at any other time. If he refers to scrap-iron, nickel and matters of that kind, I think his attention should be drawn to the fact that to-day Canada has no monopoly on nickel and scrapiron. These commodities go into commerce and domestic trade everywhere, and it would be impossible for Canada to carry on business if it segregated or tied up its exports of nickel or scrap-iron to any country that might want those articles. It is true that an embargo could be placed against one or two countries; but at least my hon. friends have made some progress. They now know against whom we are arming.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am sure the hon. member would not want to mislead the house-


Malcolm McLean: Certainly not,
but I have the book right under my hand.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon.
member directed a question to me, and I should like to answer him. If he does not wish me to do so, it is all right.


Malcolm McLean: I shall be
pleased to answer a question, though that is greater courtesy than is usually shown me.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I asked the
hon. member if he would allow me to ask a question. He asked a rhetorical question about the shipment of aeroplanes. I ask him if he has looked up the licences issued last year for the shipment of aeroplanes and
446	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McLean (Melfort)
munitions to other countries. If he does so, he will find the answer to the statement I made.


Malcolm McLean: I cannot find
any question to answer there. It has nothing at all to do with the matter; it is not relevant.
Then my hon. friend spoke about the reduction of farmers' incomes in Saskatchewan in 1937. Unquestionably the incomes of the farmers of that province decreased in 1937, but I submit that to anyone reading the record or listening to the hon. member the suggestion was left that in some way or another this government had something to do with those low incomes in that year. In 1937 there was no crop at all over a very wide area of the country. In that year the wheat crop accounted for less than one-third of the farmers' incomes; live stock accounted for about twenty per cent, and dairy and poultry products accounted for the balance. That condition was brought about because the sun shone too brightly and the winds were too warm, so that a great deal of that area was scorched. But the hon. member does not say that. Oh, no; the income of the farmers was low in 1937. Of course it was; but why not be fair about the matter and give in this house, where so many pleas aave been made so often for assistance from other parts of Canada, the real reason why the crop was so short. I find in the Ottawa Journal of January 30 the following statement taken from the New York Sun:
It is now reported that a deposit of nickel in Celebes island, Netherlands East Indies, is to be developed by a Holland corporation, and it may be significant that the metal is to be extracted by a new process worked out by the Krupp establishment in Germany.
Twenty thousand tons of the Celebes ore were treated according to the new technique in the Krupp works in Germany and the results of the test are declared to have been "remarkably successful."
For years my hon. friends have been protesting against Canada selling nickel to European countries. They knew, or they should have known, that in Russia and other countries nickel was to be found, which could have been used but which was a little more expensive to treat than the Canadian nickel, but these countries could get it and use it if they wished to do so.
I should like to make just a brief reference to the time the hon. member for Weybuin spent on the McDaniel incident in Regina. He took unto himself the robes of the holy; he said, "We are a democratic party. We would not do things in that way." I want

to tell him that the day after the last provincial election in Saskatchewan, which was held on June 8, in some constituencies where members of his party were elected their supporters were around the next day looking for the jobs that had been- promised them before the election. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar shakes his head; nevertheless it is true.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let us have
the facts.


Malcolm McLean: I am giving the facts now.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is not
a fact; it is an insinuation.


Malcolm McLean: Some of my
Liberal friends, remonstrating with some of my hon. friends' friends, said, "Why did you do a thing like that? You knew you could not carry out your promise." The answer was, "Yes; of course we knew that, but what do you suppose we were doing? We were out to get votes."


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Give the
facts.


Malcolm McLean: I believe that
human nature among my Conservative and Liberal friends is no different from human nature among my Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends, but the Conservative and Liberal parties have been in training long enough, in preparation long enough-


An hon. MEMBER:: Too long.


Malcolm McLean: Too long in
preparation? Well, I shall leave it to any hon. member if it would not have been better if some of my hon. friends opposite had taken a little longer in preparation before stepping in with the promises they made. Perhaps then they would not have made the mess of things that has, as a result, been brought about in the province from which the hon. member comes. The old parties, so-called, are democratic parties; democracy is the only new thing in political economy in the world, not the autocracies to which hon. members opposite aspire. The old parties have had experience in dealing with these matters, and they know better than to make too many rash promises they cannot carry out.
The hon. member for Weyburn listed the things his party stands for to-day. I notice they are quite different from the things his party stood for three years ago, but even with that difference it would cost this country billions of dollars to put those policies into effect, and no one knows what the full result

The Address-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
would be. As far as one is able to check them up the results would be disastrous, but to-day his party does not emphasize the things it emphasized on the platform just three years ago. They talk about taking over control of the monopolies. Why, three and four years ago theirs was a regular socialist song. They were going to take over the natural resources, the means of manufacturing, producing, transporting, and distributing the wealth produced from the primary sources of this country. They have changed their minds in the interval.
Among the pleasant things I have to look back to in parliamentary life, among the things of which I am proud in connection with my party is that when six years ago in the House of Commons the Prime Minister of to-day (Mr. Mackenzie King), then leader of the opposition, enunciated the party's platform, he had behind him then, and has since, the full support of all his political friends across Canada, and that this platform which has been so largely implemented will still be the party platform until it is fully implemented, along with the other planks which naturally arise out of the progress being made in implementing the platform.
But the hon. member also says that in the interests of social security democracy is liable to be ditched because, forsooth, they say that if we cannot have liberty and security with democracy

well, then, let democracy and liberty go. I want to tell the hon. member-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nobody said that. The hon. member has not read-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Malcolm McLean: The hon. member for Weyburn spent minutes quoting prominent men, saying, .
I believe that Hitler is the greatest statesman in the world. Germany and Italy have solved their unemployment problem, and Canada should be able to do the same.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Keep on
reading.


Malcolm McLean: He states:
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that democracy is on trial to-day as it has not been on trial for centuries. I believe that democracy must be made to work, and that unless it can provide jobs for the unemployed, equitable prices for the farmers, and give opportunities and stability to the business and professional classes, democracy will be thrust aside in favour of some other form of government.
Is there any other form of government that has come so near to doing these things as the democracies? Is there any other form of government which has attempted to do these things?
My hon. friend says Germany has solved the question of unemployment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I did not say that.


Malcolm McLean: Well, when my hon. friend quotes a prominent man as saying it, and keeps on repeating it at every opportunity, surely he is endorsing it to some extent? If not, why does he advertise it?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Malcolm McLean: I hold here-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I rise to a point of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member must resume his seat.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But I rise to a point of order. The hon. member has deliberately misquoted me twice. I ask the hon. member, if he is going to quote, to quote me from Hansard, and not deliberately try to misrepresent the facts of the case.


Malcolm McLean: Mr. Speaker, I hold a copy of Hansard in my hand, and when I am through with it I shall be willing to pass it on to you, sir, in order to show you what I have read. I have tried to read literally- and I do not like to read-but these are the words of the hon. member for Weyburn, as they appear at page 277 of Hansard. In one instance his words appear at the head of the second column, and in the other instance, near the bottom of the second column. Then, the hon. member went on to say this:
We in this group believe in democracy.
Just as I was listening to his words I happened to look up, and there was my good friend, one of the finest democrats formerly in his party, the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor). The hon. member for Nanaimo was elected as a member of the party to which the hon. member for Weyburn belongs, and is still unspoiled as a democrat. Well, it is said that his party suggested that he should resign his seat in the House of Commons. He had been elected as a supporter of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, but as a democrat he was expelled from the party.
Then my eye wandered to the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Rowe), for whom I have great regard-but I am sorry to see him going - into poorer rather than better company. I wondered if my Cooperative Commonwealth Federation friends' organization in the constituency of the hon. member for Athabaska had passed a resolution demanding the resignation of that hon. member because he had gone over to another organization. No, I do not suppose they would do that.
448	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
He was talking about the social security which could be had. As I have said, 1 do not often read extracts from papers, but I like to have them under my hand. I have found an interesting one which applies to much of what my hon. friends in all parts of the house have been saying in these latter days, I am sorry to say. I know my Conservative friends do not mean it, and I know my social credit friends will try to get it in another way, but this is an extract from the Citizen of March 24, 1938, which has reference to a reverend gentleman who had just come to Ottawa, a man of very high standing in Canada, who had this to say about English "as she is spoken" in and around the parliament buildings. He told the Ottawa One Hundred club that "The nearer you get to the parliament buildings the more unintelligible the language becomes." There was much use of what he called "highfalutin" expressions, but as far as he was concerned, "social security means you're just dead beaten; that's all."
I hope the day will never come when the Canadian people will admit what my socialist friends told them during the last election campaign-that there are no markets anywhere. They would leave it to some great man to do the planning, the marketing and the producing. The last three years have demonstrated that there is the possibility of marketing and placing produce in the world market, if there is proper negotiation and proper trade legislation. While there are people in the world who are hungry for the goods we can sell, there is a market. I wish to say now-I may not have time later on-that the problems of Canada are still what they have been in the past, and what they are likely to be in the future.
We must produce at a lower cost a greater volume of goods in a form the people of the world will buy. We must be able to sell our products to the best advantage and by the best methods. We must have advertising, transportation and financing methods such as we have in Canada in a large measure. Then we must be able to take from the people of the world who buy our goods some of their goods in return, so that we can get paid for the wealth we are exporting to them.
At this point I should like to say a word to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) whom I am glad to see in his seat. I do not know whether I should congratulate him upon being where he is. In any event, I shall congratulate him upon being happy where he is, because I would very much rather see him happy than see him unhappy in another place which might be better for him. What I am going to say to him is not

very serious, but may I point out that as reported at page 317 of Hansard he seems to be worrying about the amount of United States capital invested in Canada. When the statement was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that it is decreasing and that we are paying it back, the hon. member denied this emphatically. I will admit that figures for "Canada 1939" are not absolutely up to date, but they are the latest information I could get. According to this publication the United States capital invested in Canada 1937 was placed at just $50,000,000 less than in 1935. I am sorry to see that it is down. As one who is anxious to see the natural products of Canada developed I should like to see that investment up.
The people of Canada do not owe it all to the people of the United States. Our good neighbours have come here and have made investments on their own responsibility, using their own judgment. Many similar investments are still being made, and I am happy that they are. These people have brought their capital here to invest. They have brought their wealth with them, and I hope that this year will show no decline in the amount of United States money coming to Canada. On the other hand I hope there is a large increase in the amount which comes in, which would have its effect by way of increased production of the natural resources of Canada and consequent prosperity.
When I was speaking to the hon. member for Weyburn a few moments ago I had picked up a small item dealing with unemployment in Germany. His interruptions were such that I omitted to read what I had intended. I hold in my hand an item from the Ottawa Citizen of June 24, 1938, which reads:
Field Marshal Hermann Goering's new ordinance making every man and woman in Germany, regardless of age, class or occupation, liable for a period of labour service, will apply primarily to Chancellor Hitler's vast building program, it wras made clear to-day.
Then it goes on to say:
Since official statistics show only 37,000 persons of full working capacity are unemployed in the Reich-the remainder of the 390,000 unemployed for various reasons being only partially employable-it follows, the paper says, that the great economic tasks under the four-year plan have been halted because, while plans, funds and materials -were ready, there was a shortage of workers.
I listened to the radio one night about two weeks ago and heard it stated that 200,000 German girls are to be called out to do labouring work. Standing by me in the hotel, near the radio, was a middle-aged man, one of those defeatist chaps, and he said, "Why does not our government do something like

The Address-Mr. McLean (Melfort)
that?" I listened to the rest of the broadcast, the last line of which was, "Nothing has been said about paying these girls for any work done." I looked around for the chap who wanted our government to do something like that-but he had vanished.
It saddens me to see the attitude taken by those who by virtue of their official positions, by virtue of their education and abilities, by virtue of the opportunities that this country has given them should be the natural leaders of the youth of this country. Instead of leading them to believe that there is defeat and nothing else in store for them, they should be telling our youth that there are more diversified opportunities in Canada for them to-day than there ever were in the past. It is true that to-day a man must go out and make his own job, perhaps more than he ever had to do before, but how can one expect any government to make jobs for all who come along? That cannot be done unless the government is to take over full control, backed up with bayonets like our dictator friends in Europe, and make every one work without any consideration or regard for the pay he shall receive.
This is not a new story for my socialist friends. I should like to quote what their national organizer, at one time a member of this parliament, had to say. The date I have on the clipping before me is November 22, 1933, and it quotes Mr. Garland as follows:
Mr. Garland emphasized the tragedy of the hopeless outlook for the rising generation, stating that the youths of to-day were being simply poured out into the world-with no prospect of any kind of jobs.
If these youths are being poured out into the world to-day, it may be that they find it hard to get jobs. But if they made use of the education they received; if they got out in the open places and took advantage of the natural resources of the country; if they were willing to fight against nature and try to solve their own problems with the education they had received, they would be much better occupied than in listening to counsels of despair. In the Evening Citizen of January 27, 1939, the following paragraph appeared:
Such great leaders and creators as Henry Ford, and "Boss" Kettering of General Motors, see nothing in the present confusion and cloudy atmosphere of affairs but big things ahead. They see in the inequalities and imperfections of to-day but the promise of a better and happier life ahead for all.
Teachers and schools are unable to put vision and will into people. These must be born with one and developed from within. And the more they are developed the more they spread and enlarge. Aspiration, nurtured in the human heart, acquires rootage that gives to dreams their everlasting foliage.
Neither teachers nor school can draw a map of the dimensions of a human being's area or limitations. What we are that is peculiar and distinctive to ourselves is what measures out our worth and which appraises us to the world. With what endowments we are born!
Let me say in all sincerity; let me say in all humility if you will, so you will consider my words, that what the government and leaders in this country should be trying to do is to secure better people, rather than trying to put people into better circumstances. Slums do not make slum people; it is slum people who make slums. Some encouragement should be given by the government-the scientists, biologists and statisticians can show them how because they can measure men; I admitted a short while ago I could not measure my hon. friend the leader of the opposition-so that we may have in this dominion people with better health, more sanity and greater intellectual energy. When that is done we shall be able to get away from many of the troubles we have to-day and have had during the last few years. Every boy and girl leaving school should know that at no time in the world's history have two and two made other than four. They should be taught not to listen to those who for their own advancement try to make them believe that two and two make five or six or eight, depending upon how they want to juggle things.
There is just one other item I want to bring to the attention of my good friend, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well). When the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) was speaking the other day, he dealt with the connection between communists and socialists. I shall not spend any time in going into this in detail, because I contend that the progress from socialism to communism is a logical move, step by step. There is, however, this difference. The communist is intellectually honest because he tells you where he is going, what he wants to do and how he intends to do it when he gets there. He deserves some respect, but the other chap camouflages too much. The hon. member for Cochrane gave full credit to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation for not associating with the communists. At that moment the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar interrupted, and said:
In a public statement in Saskatchewan last week, Walter Wiggins, secretary of the communist party, called for a united front behind the present Prime Minister of this country.
At which moment I said:
And your Saskatchewan leader asked them to unite behind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

450	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. McLean (Melfort)


Frederick George Sanderson: I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has elapsed.


Malcolm McLean: May I say just a few words more?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Frederick George Sanderson: With the consent of the house.


Malcolm McLean: I do not approve not keeping the rules of the house, and I regret they have been broken so often. I have, however, been delayed somewhat, and I thank you, sir, for the privilege of finishing. After my statement the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar interjected with, "oh, no." I looked up the Regina Leader-Post of January 9, 1939, in which I found a statement about this matter. After stating that Mr. G. H. Williams was the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the article continues:
In a statement, Monday, Mr. Williams replied to a call of the communist party relative to a united front of democrats. Mr. Williams said:
"We note that the communist party through their spokesmen, Mr. Wiggins and Mr. McManus, have called for a united front of democrats behind Premier King. The C.C.F. suggests that the united front of democrats should be formed behind J. S. Woodsworth (C.C.F. leader)."


Major James William Coldwell: A united front of democrats, not of the communist party.


Malcolm McLean: What I said
was that Mr. Williams replied to a statement by the secretary of the communist party that democrats should line up behind the present Prime Minister. To whom was the leader of the socialist party in Regina referring?


Major James William Coldwell: Democrats.


Malcolm McLean: In the first
place the call was from the secretary of the communist party for a united front of democrats to line up behind the Prime Minister. It was not for a united front of communists, it was for a united front of democrats. Mr. Williams then came into the picture and said that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation suggested that the united front of democrats should be formed behind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).
I am going to let it go with one further word of appeal to all hon. members. Whether or not they are ready to take my advice, I think they will recognize the worth of it. Let us get away from this defeatist attitude. Let us stop telling the youth of Canada that there is no chance for them here or elsewhere;./that unless we change our attitude these youths will be forced to follow some
	j i (
leader with some sort of planned economy. There are those who deride the Prime Minister for his love of history, but I think many would do well to read more. They would then find that tyrants have always come into power by promising quick solutions for the evils that were bothering the people at some particular time. They have always pursued the course that the tyrants of to-day are pursuing. The prophet Samuel told his congregation that the king they asked for would assess them one-tenth of all their flocks. One of my statesmen friends would go even further, and assess them one-seventh. I appeal to all hon. members to tell the whole truth about Canada. While times are difficult, our natural resources and climatic conditions are such that one properly located and equipped with sound health, mentality and intellect can make a living in this country.


Mr. E. J. WERMENLINGER (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on the motion now before the house, I should like at the outset of my remarks to refer to the proposed visit to Canada of our beloved king and queen. It is unfortunate that their stay in the Montreal district is to be of such sort duration, for only nine hours. Verdun is an independent city, completely detached from Montreal. We thought with the war record that we possess we would have been honoured with a short visit from our gracious sovereigns. Verdun is the third largest city in Quebec. Its population is fifty per cent French-speaking and fifty per cent English-speaking, and it has never had any racial or religious trouble. Out of a population of 20,000, Verdun sent 4,000 soldiers, or twenty per cent, with the expeditionary forces of 1914. We had thought that this loyal population, which now numbers 65,000, including hundreds of war veterans who fought with the imperial forces and who came to Verdun during the post-war years, would have been given an opportunity to see at close range our great king and queen. It would take only fifteen minutes for the royal visitors and their escort to come through the city of Verdun, and such a visit would be gratifying and inspiring to our population and of immense interest to our royal visitors because they would travel through a city named after the great French city of Verdun, the bulwark of civilization during the war years, and a city having the same motto as our own, "They shall not pass,"-I mean the enemy. They would travel along the old trail of the Indian tribes beside the beautiful St. Lawrence river, in its most .picturesque location, a few yards from the Lachine rapids and a short distance from the spot where in 1669 Cavalier de La Salle organized his expedition to find a great river which

The Address-Mr. Wermenlinger
was to lead him to China-in French, La Chine-, whence the name of Lachine-and where in 1689 the Indian tribes almost exterminated the French settlers of that day.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I make a digression. I wish the hon. Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) were in his seat, but I take this opportunity of bringing to his attention the fact that the monument erected and dedicated last summer to Cavalier de La Salle, the great French explorer, was erected at the wrong place. It was in Ville La Salle, in my constituency, that he lived. That is where he fought and where he started his expedition, and the monument erected by this government in Lachine has been erected in the wrong place. It is not the first time that politics have distorted history.
I shall deal particularly with one subject mentioned in the speech from the throne, and that is unemployment, which affects my constituency very seriously. In this connection I should like to read some correspondence and documents which I have in my hand. The first is a letter, dated January 13, 1939, addressed to myself, from the clerk of the city council of Verdun, and reading:
Dear Sir,-
Please find enclosed copy of a resolution of the city council of Verdun dated January 9, 1939, together with a copy of the statistics mentioned, and copy of a letter addressed to-day to the Hon. Norman McLeod Rogers, Minister of Labour.
Yours very truly,
A. J. Burgess,
City Clerk.
The letter to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is as follows:
January 13, 1939.
Hon. Norman McLeod Rogers, M.A.,
Minister of Labour,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-I am instructed by the council of the-city of Verdun to forward you the latest statistics on the unemployment relief situation in this municipality. This shows an increase of 50 per cent since this time last year in the number of unemployed who are receiving relief.
The council instructs me to draw to your attention the fact that this serious increase is apparently the opposite of the total trend! throughout the dominion, according to newspaper reports of the general improvement based upon supposedly authoritative federal sources.
His Worship the Mayor desires me to point out that the experience of Verdun is the same as that of the province of Ontario where, according to the provincial Minister of Public Welfare and Municipal Affairs, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, the situation in this municipality and in the province of Ontario are almost parallel. The city council is sure you will be interested to know that, when we abandoned direct relief on the 1st of August, 1937, in favour of a program of public works, our relief lists were cut 40 per cent in a few months. A slight increase was noticeable from January to May of 1938, after which a gradual increase has been recorded each week. Unemployment relief is given only to those who are in need and who are employable. Unemployables, such as infirm, the aged, widows, etc., are assisted through local charitable organizations.
In the light of the above facts, the city council cannot understand newspaper reports which state that, according to the federal authorities and even federal ministers of the cabinet, the unemployment situation shows substantial improvement.
The city council respectfully requests some enlightenment on such reports.
Believe me to be, sir,
Yours very truly,
A. J. Burgess,
City Clerk.
Here are statistics of the city of Verdun with respect to public works employment, replacing direct relief:
City of Verdun
Figures relating to employment granted for public works, with a view '	to replacing direct relief
Weekending Weekending Weekending Weekending December 28. December 29, January 4, January 5,
1.	Number of heads of	families	who	1938
received employment during the
week	 1,477
2.	Number of dependents of such heads
of families	 5,864
3.	Number of cases of individuals who
received employment during the
week	 65
4.	Total of items 1, 2 and	3.. 7,4065.	Total number of days	of	work..	..	5,294
6. Total amount paid during the
week	$17,763 57
7. Total amount paid during the
preceding week	$17,560 29
1937	1939	19381,007	1,509	1,0213,832	5,960	3,79676	66	884,915	7,535	4.9053,738	5,420	3,781$11,989 37	$18,265 80	$12,204 08$11,847 43	$17,763 57	$11,989 37
J. R. French,
Director of Finance and General Manager.
71492-29J

The Address-Mr. Wermenlinger
Then the following:
Statistics Concerning Relief Against Unemployment
Alderman Wilson submits for consideration a report from the general manager concerning ntatistics in connection with employment granted for public works in order to substitute it for direct relief, and draws again the attention of the council to the fact that unemployment in Verdun has increased gradually and is now 50 per cent higher than it was at this same time last year. Consequently, though the federal authorities, and especially the Hon. Minister of Labour, have frequently announced an improvement in the unemployment situation all over Canada, that improvement has certainly not been felt in our municipality.
A. J. Burgess,
City Clerk,
Verdun.
Those statistics concern only the employables who are fit for ordinary labour or trade work. What about all the others, those who are not registered, who are helped by their families or relatives? What about the single men who cannot obtain work, and others on public charity? In the Montreal Gazette of January 24, 1939, appeared an article indicating that charitable donations in the dominion are higher and will have to be higher; that the reports of fourteen federated charities in 1938 showed large increases, and that the total of these disbursements is appalling. But people do not want charity; they want work. It is true that the record of those who have given so generously during recent years should cause their names to be inscribed in gold letters on the parchment of history. But what about the broken morale; what about the loss of intellectual and physical power? That can never be replaced.
Having mentioned the amount of unemployment in Verdun, I wish to point out that an hon. member for Toronto said that
65,000	people or 14,000 families in that city were also depending on relief. We all know that at one time Montreal had 47,000 families on relief. I come in contact almost daily with our unemployed. I know something of their former occupations. The great majority of those living in the urban centres were formerly engaged in industry, directly or indirectly, either as tradesmen, craftsmen, specialized workers, or in the offices of manufacturers now on the down grade. Certainly people in the last category are not to be expected to work with pick and shovel, to crush stone or push wheelbarrows. They cannot do it. As far as the trades people in my district at least are concerned, we know that the construction of new dwellings is at a standstill simply because the people are unable to pay rents which will afford any
[Mr. Wermenlmger.l
return on the investment that would have to be made. Our industries are idle or bankrupt or working only part time.
Concerning pianos let me quote some correspondence sent out by a United States manufacturer :
Gentlemen:
Under the new trade agreement the duty on pianos is reduced to such an extent as to make it highly profitable to import pianos from the United States, particularly when they can be bought at a fraction of their true worth. With such values to offer you we hasten to communicate the details in order that you may lose no time in availing yourself of the possible profits.
For instance, we will furnish twenty-one pianos, harnessed to the car, at $500 or $600 for the entire lot. In both cases the pianos would be unrepaired uprights and the difference of one hundred dollars allows for the quality of the instruments, by which we do not mean to infer that you would not be getting an excellent buy at the $500 price, but as you know, there are all grades of pianos, and one hundred dollar leeway on twenty-one would permit us to send you very excellent instruments. Similarly, we can furnish you with guaranteed good player pianos, thoroughly gone over, at $55 each, in single lots, boxed, f.o.b. r.r. in New York.
After reading this I am more than ever in favour of a highly industrialized country. Our urban population is too numerous for the amount of industry now operating. We must try to prevent injustices which would be detrimental to any industry, from creeping into the tariff revision.
As my time is getting short I shall just read my leader's stand on protectionism, as laid down in his speech at Charlottetown. He said that protectionism should be reasonable and should not serve to exploit. With that I am in agreement one hundred per cent. He said further that he believes in the principle of reasonable protection for all industry, for the working man and for the fanner, but that there should be some compensations both for the east and for the west.
Regarding that particular item of pianos I could quote an article from the Toronto Globe and Mail dated January 12, which states that the United States duty on Canadian pianos is still 40 per cent, and that the new duty under this trade agreement will be 24J per cent with the excise tax eliminated as well as the old minimum valuation of seventy-five dollars. That is going to be absolutely detrimental to the piano-making industry. The workers in the factories will have nothing to do. It is an industry which was starting to get on its feet again. During the years of depression it was producing 400 pianos a year, whereas last year the number produced was 4,000. Now, with all this com-

The Address-Mr. WermenUnger
petition from the United States, the pianomaking industry will simply go to pieces. That is just one example.
Let me say a word about the steel industry. As we all know, a number of items in the steel tariff have been reduced, and this is a matter for regret in view of the keen competition our industry meets with from United States manufacturers with their huge output and lower costs, and also the greater competition from the steel industry in Europe, particularly the totalitarian countries. Naturally the steel industry in Canada is concerned about the effect of this agreement upon the fortunes of its customers who buy steel products for conversion into their finished goods, and whose rates of protection have been reduced.
Canada's tariff generally speaking can be said to be on a moderate basis; but if we consider the large number of people dependent on the manufacturing industry for existence, it is unfortunate that the protection afforded industry in this country is being continually lowered.
Other changes in the tariff are expected to improve the lot of the fisherman and the agricultural worker and agriculture generally. We can only hope-it may be but a pious hope- that Canada's loss in some instances will be more than made up in other directions, but it is problematical.
I have a few items here that I would have brought to the attention of the house. I shall name a few which affect industries generally and which aggravate unemployment immensely.
On compounded or manufactured sterilizers the duty in 1935 was 10 per cent, reduced in 1936 to 7i per cent, and under the new agreement reduced to 5 per cent with elimination of the excise tax. Imports from the United States in 1935 were $528,000, and in 1937, $702,000.	_
Pianos and organs I have just mentioned. In 1935 the duty was 30 per cent with a minimum valuation of $75. In 1936 the duty was reduced to 244 per cent, and it remains the same in 1938, but both the excise tax and the minimum valuation are wiped out.
As regards miscellaneous musical instruments and phonograph records, in 1935 the duty was 30 per cent, reduced in 1936 to 24J per cent, and in 1938 the excise tax is eliminated, another concession. Imports in 1935 were $196,000, and in 1937, $467,000.
As far as item 711 is concerned, goods not elsewhere enumerated, heterogeneous, including chemicals of a kind made in Canada, and manufactured food products, in 1935 the duty was 25 per cent, reduced in 1936 to 22k per cent, and under this new agreement brought down to 20 per cent, with elimination of the excise tax. There were three million dollars'
worth of imports in 1937, not counting chemical products.
What about the exemption clause under tariff item 703b? The figures show that goods brought in from the United States total $6,917,000 for the nine months ended December 31, 1938, compared with $5,263,000 in 1937, or an increase of $1,654,000, the largest item of imports being clothing. I have not time to read all the figures, but the second largest item was furniture and household appliances, $865,000. That is the exemption clause under 703b by which Canadian tourists to the United States, stopping over for forty-eight hours, may bring into Canada three times a year $100 worth of goods. Taking into account the loss of revenue from excise and duty; also the loss of business by individual retailers; consequently the loss on the part of industries directly concerned in the production of all these articles, and, further, the unemployment that would result from such procedure, have we not reason to be alarmed at the situation? I am informed that as a result of this new treaty there will be a loss of $18,000,000 through the elimination of the excise tax. Have hon. gentlemen opposite any idea of the loss of business involved, the discouragement to industry and the loss of morale among the working men who constitute the great mass of the population? If not, I invite those who have any doubt to pay a visit to our industrial centres in the most congested districts. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Lalonde) is reported in Hansard, at page 178, to have said:
Liberalism is in a word the antithesis of Toryism, whose sole ideal has always been, particularly in this country, the protection of the privileged classes at the expense of the
I invite the hon. member for Labelle to come and see for himself those great masses of unemployed, and to draw his own conclusion. I invite him to visit our industrial centres and find out for himself who is actually responsible for the chaos. I should like him to bear in mind, too, the promises of his leader on the night of October 14, 1935, when the country was assured that there would be no more adversity or poverty in
Canada.
General unemployment in industry is to a great extent responsible for high taxes. High taxes paid by property owners make it impossible, in my riding at any rate, to build new homes. More elasticity should be given the housing act and less stringent conditions should be demanded by the lending institutions. Otherwise it is useless to hope for a revival of the building trade and the employment of workers in these trades.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: It was nothing
compared with the promises of 1935. Between 1927 and 1935 the province of Quebec was paying, through imposts, through taxes, through stamps, through $8 per gallon on alcohol, through taxes on cigarettes and everything that could be produced, for the old age pensions of the other eight provinces. The government of Quebec, then led by Premier Taschereau, always turned a deaf ear to the demands of Mr. Duplessis, then in opposition, who wanted old age pensions in that province. That question was not even an issue in the election of 1935; but after the inquiry by the public accounts committee in Quebec an S.O.S. call was sent out by Mr. Taschereau because the ship was being wrecked. That was when he put old age pensions on the program. So. Mr. Speaker, the credit should go to the present premier of Quebec.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather tired to-night, having just returned from the city of Halifax, so that if I am not as bright or as dull as I usually am I hope the proper allowances will be made. It is a pleasure to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I believe there never was a time in the history of Canada when the eyes of the world have been more turned toward the north American continent,
and more particularly toward this great area, so large in extent but so thinly populated. As we all know our population is only about eleven million people.
To-night I have memories both pleasant and sad. I have memories of those who during the last session of parliament occupied seats in this chamber but who, during the recess, have been called to that bourne from which no traveller returns. I am sure every hon. member, including the ladies holding seats in the chamber, must mourn with the relatives and friends of those who have departed and who have won an eternal crown.
To hon. members on this side of the house and to those members of our group who, because of' our numbers, have to sit opposite,
I wish to say that we are a unit in support of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) who, in his duties, has been most assiduous and unselfish, who has not thought of himself for a single moment or of the criticisms which have been leveled against him Necessarily, with one as sensitive as he is, it hurts the heart, but it does not dull the mind or shade the intellect. Therefore, with that fine manhood and leadership he possesses in such abundance, he is to-day attempting to give the best form of government it is possible to give.
We are all human; we all err. On some matters respecting advancements which have been made I may not see eye to eye with some others; however, that may be due to the fact that there are elements or considerations over which the government cannot have control. There may be some elements in connection with government which are not discussed in the house, but which nevertheless exist. Perhaps it is best that they remain unknown to hon. members.
First of all may I congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) who comes as a new member from western Canada, and who showed a keen vision, great clarity of mind and a vocabulary equal to the task of expressing so truly and so well the feelings of his constituency as well as his personal feelings toward hon. members of the house and more particularly toward the Prime Minister and the members of his government. I should like, too, to congratulate the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier), the bright and valiant young man who seconded the address. I was moved the other day when I heard the suggestion that if an hon. member is to remain in the house-and that must be doubtful, even for me-he should study both languages, French and English, so that in terms of either language we may be able to converse privately and to understand each others mentality much better.

The Address-Mr. Finn
I learned with pleasure of the intended visit to Canada of their majesties in May. They come from the heart of empire, and as the heads of the British commonwealth of nations, their visit marks the first time our king has ever visited Canada. He comes not as the King of England, but rather as the King of Canada, and brings as the Queen of Canada his good wife, Queen Elizabeth. This visit indicates an advancement and a further development in the hearts and minds of people throughout the empire.
I should be remiss in my duty to-night if I did not recall the vision of that grand old man who was the leader of the Liberal party and who asked everyone who supported him to follow his "white plume." It was he who first laid down the doctrine of our being children in our mother's house, but mistress of our own. Not only was that visualized by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but it has become an established fact. By the statute of Westminster Canada is a separate entity within the empire, controlling her own affairs. Every act which is in conflict with the laws of Canada or with the Colonial Laws Validity Act must go by the board. Only one act does not come under the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, namely the British North America Act. At another time I shall deal with that matter, but for the present I must hurry on.
I know the welcome will be royal, and I know it will be wholehearted. I believe the policy adopted by the government of having their majesties meet the people, rather than having formal receptions and social functions, is the best one to follow. In that way the royal couple may feel the human touch of the individual, the poor man or the poor woman who will say, "I have seen their majesties, my king and queen." The Prime Minister and his government are to be congratulated upon the strong democratic stand they have taken, a stand which reflected the wish of their majesties.
It is gratifying to learn that while in Canada their majesties intend to visit the great republic to the south of us, and while there that they will be the royal guests of the President and the first lady of the United States. They will also have an opportunity of having a bird's-eye view of that country with its 130,000,000 people, and to tie more closely the bond which already exists between the United States and the motherland. The British empire was well blessed when, during the period of the war, between 1914 and 1918, a man of outstanding ability, a man of vision and of knowledge, was President of the United States. I refer to the late Woodrow Wilson. The United States is fortunate in having as its

President to-day Mr. Roosevelt, who is a liberal both in essence and in action. He stands, as we do in Canada, for the highest form of democracy. The influence which he wields will be a tremendous factor in the destinies of those democracies that still remain in the world.
I would be remiss in my duty if I did not in a kindly way express my genuine appreciation of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I am glad to see he is able again to resume his sea/t and carry on the onerous duties of his department. With the help which I am sure his colleagues and every other hon. member irrespective of party will be ready to give him, I feel he will be soon restored to the health he formerly enjoyed. I know he will prove to be an outstanding figure in the shaping of the destiny of Canada.
I come now to an hon. gentleman with whom I have had the honour of sitting in this house, although on opposite sides. Like myself he has grown a bit older and a bit grayer. I refer to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). It was no mean honour that was conferred upon him by the great Conservative party. He comes to this house well equipped with knowledge, vision, judgment and fairness. I believe that as he passes stage by stage to duties of greater importance he will prove himself equal to the task. I know he will add lustre to the list of his predecessors.
A moment ago I spoke oi those who had passed to the great beyond. I realize with a feeling of deep sorrow that the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, a former prime minister of Canada and the late leader of the Conservative party, is not with us to-day. He is on the ocean journeying toward the heart of empire. I felt it not only my duty, but an honour and a pleasure to go to Halifax for the purpose of attending a luncheon given in his honour. I consider myself his personal friend. As representing the constituency of Halifax, I considered that I should see him depart through the eastern gateway of Canada. He was a Nova Scotian as well as a New Brunswicker. In the early days there was no such name as New Brunswick; it was Acadia, it was Nova Scotia.


Mr. BROOKS:: There was in his day.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I am doubly glad. I
have not traced history as closely as my hon. friend, and I want to congratulate him upon the fact that he is tracing me very closely in my remarks tonight. Mr. Bennett brought to this house great ability and great knowledge. He was forceful, powerful, able, adroit and fair. All men in public life at one time or

The Address-Mr. Finn
another get a little heated and perhaps say things they would not say on second thought. But just as sure as I am standing here tonight I know that he has a heart dearer than Plutus' mine, richer than gold. I am confident that while he is in the heart of the empire he will always be true to the interests of Canada. I believe that in the future he will play no mean part in the future of that empire. I cannot conceive he will permit his political shade to overshadow his mind. He will be equal to all occasions and I am sure Canada may well be proud when he speaks in the interests of this dominion. I wish him now, as I did in Halifax, Godspeed. I know every member of this house wishes him a quick return to health and hopes that he may retain his vigour, energy and great ability so that these fine qualities may not be lost to Canada in his new home. It is wonderful to think that while differences of party, race and creed are extant in this parliament, yet we meet here together in harmony. We are all reaching out for a common goal. That goal is not earthly; it is beyond. There we will all be equal provided we all are equally deserving of entering the golden gates.
I come now to a question of paramount importance in connection with the address in reply to the speech from the throne. But before I go into the meat of my argument, I should like to congratulate the new Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty) upon his appointment to the honourable position he now occupies. He is one member of this house who has always been dignified, always kind, always pleasant and always fair. I know that any member, irrespective of politics,	who enters his	office will	receive thesame generous and fair consideration he has always given to every member, whether sitting	on this side of	the house	or	on theother. I regret the	illness of	the	formerpostmaster general, the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Elliott). I am glad to have learned from the lips of the Prime Minister that the hon. member will soon be able	to take his seat although	he	will be
unable to carry on the responsibilities of his former office. I am sure that he will meet with a hearty reception. He was a splendid postmaster general, always kind and ever ready to listen and learn, if the latter was necessary.
I come now to the lone wolf from the province of Alberta where social justice is so well distributed. Perhaps the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Blackmore) should be congratulated upon our having adopted one of the planks in his platform. We have taken the lone wolf; for the Prime Minister has
71492-30	[DOT]
appointed the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) as minister without portfolio to look after the interests of the great body politic in Alberta. He is to assist in the rejuvenation, not of Aunt Mary, but of that province of social credit. Those who are of the temple are searching, not perhaps for money, but for panaceas that will cure all ills and will be palatable, easily taken, and not have to be shaken.
The international situation, Mr. Speaker, is causing alarm and fear throughout the British empire, and in some instances it is no doubt causing remorse. I listened the other day to the address of the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain. While I do not agree,-and I suppose it is of little consequence to him whether I do or not,- with all the turns he has made in British policy towards the dictators in Europe, there is one thing that he has done, and done so completely and conclusively, that on Saturday last he was able to tell the world that Great Britain now stands with her back against the wall and will not budge another inch; that she is ready to go forward; that she wants peace, but is not ready to recede from his former position. Whatever failings Mr. Chamberlain may have apart from carrying an umbrella, he at least has had the courage of his convictions.
I should like to express my admiration also for Mr. Anthony Eden, who resigned from Mr. Chamberlain's government. Recently he paid a visit to the United States, and spoke in the city of New York. I listened to that speech, and there was not in it one word of vituperation, not a word of criticism of the government. It was the wholesome, pleasant, generous speech of a gentleman who was making a social visit to the United States with his wife, and he left upon the people of that country an impression which has done much to support them in their present policy of getting away from isolation, feeling that if democracy is to survive, that great republic to the south of us must, through its people, do its part. Mr. Anthony Eden is deserving of that tribute, and I think it should have been paid him before in this house; but perhaps there are so many other things to think of, and he is so lean and tall that perhaps he was not much in the eye of the onlooker. But he was not forgotten. I have not forgotten him. I am not tall, but I am a bit lean myself.
Let me come now, Mr. Speaker, to a subject which is very dear to the heart of an hon. member of the government who is sitting near me to-night and will give me inspiration, and something more than inspiration, I hope. I trust that he will give me



The Address-Mr. Finn
comfort-, peace and encouragement with respect to a problem that confronts the fishermen along our seacoast in the little province of Nova Scotia. I refer to the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud).
I want to congratulate the Minister of Fisheries upon the progress his department has made in bringing about certain reforms since he became the minister. Those reforms have been sound. Certain policies have been put into effect that have proved beneficial to a certain class of our fishermen. But we who come from the maritime provinces would be unfair to the fishermen of Nova Scotia if we did not acknowledge that they are poor and are suffering privations. The people of our province were visited last December by an act of God, through a gale which swept away their lobster pots and equipment and left the fishermen on the beach, as they say of a sailor when he loses his post aboard a ship. Our fishermen in Nova Scotia are to-day on the beach. But it is not so in New Brunswick or in Prince Edward Island because the governments of those two provinces, in collaboration with the Minister of Fisheries, relieved the fishermen of those two provinces of that worry; it has not, however, been removed from the fishermen of Nova Scotia. This is no fault of the hon. Minister of Fisheries. The federal money is there, ready to be spent. The fault lies, not, I would say, through indifference, but through procrastination, in the failure to come to a conclusion as to what policy to adopt in reference to the one-third to be contributed by the province of Nova Scotia.
I had rather thought that the premier of Nova Scotia, when he was in Ottawa not very long ago with reference to subventions for the coal and steel industries of the province, would have taken up with the government the plight of the lobster fishermen. The plight of the miner is not as bad as' that of the fisherman. The miner works for a wage, and the company sells the coal he mines; but the fisherman goes to sea, catches the fish, and then has to sell them. When the coal that has been dug by the miner has been brought up to the pit's mouth, his work is ended. The company then takes charge of the coal, sells it through its sales managers, and makes a profit; and their profits, I am sorry to say, are in some instances not disclosed.
I was nearly seventeen years in the legislature of Nova Scotia, my happiest days under the late Hon. George H. Murray, and I was in the government of the day when the British Empire Steel Corporation was incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Act of the province of Nova Scotia, with a

capitalization of half a billion dollars. The company could not obtain a charter from the legislature of Nova Scotia, nor could they obtain a charter here in Ottawa. They incorporated it with these limited powers; the president, the late Mark Workman, after his journey's end so far as that corporation was concerned, retired from the presidency, and two gentlemen, Mr. Wolvin and Mr. Norcross, came in and took charge. When they came, the city of Halifax gave -them a banquet which I attended, and at that banquet Mr. Wolvin said that he came to Nova Scotia to help the province, to build a shipyard, to mine coal and to give the province everything, and that he wanted nothing in return. The next day as I was asked by one of my colleagues what I thought of that speech, I said I was a bit suspicious of a man who came to give you everything and wanted nothing in return.
Under the presidency of Mr. Wolvin the British Empire Steel Corporation was thrown to the wolves. To-day we find that the parent organization is called Desco, and in Pictou county it is the Nova Scotia Steel, Coal and Car Company. It seemed to me that they were doing everything possible to build up Desco at the expense of the Nova Scotia Steel, Coal and Car Company, I believe it was only when they came to a realization that the public mind of Nova Scotia was aroused and that the legislature and government of Nova Scotia were the trustees for the people who own the mines, while the company is only a lessee, that there has been a reformation. To-morrow the minister of -mines for Nova Scotia, Hon. Michael Dwyer, takes charge as president of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. But he is under the president and directors of the Dominion Steel, Coal and Car Company. The president to-day of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company is a gentleman. I believe he wants to do what is right. But there are men who are associated with that company who through stock transactions have got the company into a position in which it should not be.
To-night, while it-is not my direct business, it is my duty to suggest that in considering subventions or further subventions to these companies the government must see that the miner is not detrimentally affected and, with that object in view, see that disclosure is made by these companies of their assets, their stockholdings, their prices; so that this government and this parliament should be in possession of the facts in order to be able to do the right thing; that in future there shall be some control over the development of these rich mines, and that a proportion of the profits shall go by way of wages to the miners who

The Address-Mr. Finn
work far out underneath the sea and sometimes never return to their homes and families. These are considerations broader than the policies of government or the opinions of financiers. They go to the very root of the future stability of our great coal industry in Nova Scotia.
I can remember the day when that province, apart from our federal subsidy, was almost entirely dependent for its revenue on the royalty of 12J cents a ton received on coal brought to the pit's mouth. With the extra taxation that has been imposed being in part declared "ultra vires" of the legislature of Nova Scotia, its income will be curtailed, and the needs are great, as they are in every province of Canada. I sound this note of warning, not because I want to prejudice the position of either of these companies in the minds of hon. members; but always there is some doubting Thomas and also there are arch schemers, and the arch schemer is the one that the government must watch. They should make a case that is clear, open and aboveboard; or, as we say in court, make a disclosure, in order that we may help them on a basis that will be fair to the company and fair to the miners who work so hard for a living.
This is only a suggestion I make; I have no interest, except that of the people and those who toil, whether in the mine, in the forest, on the sea or in cultivating the land. These industries are the backbone of any province and any nation, and Canada is a nation. As the central authority it is our duty, when we are asked for subventions and other assistance of a financial character, to see that full disclosure is made of the position of the company, so that we can deal intelligently with the matter when the legislation is brought down by the finance minister, and that it shall be made clear to these people that they must come to parliament with clean hands. I do not say that their hands are unclean, but it is only fair that they should make clear their case, there are many suspicions.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I am sorry to have to advise the hon. gentleman that he has exhausted his time.


Robert Emmett Finn: With the indulgence of the house there is just one further point I should like to make. Other matters can stand until the estimates are brought down. It is in reference to the lobster fishermen.


Walter Edward Foster: Do I understand that the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Robert Emmett Finn: I thank hon. members through you, Mr. Speaker. You have only done your
duty in calling me to order. But the rules have been suspended so often, that the trapdoor need not be closed, and I can say a word further in the interest of the lobster fishermen. I contend that the control of fisheries is a federal matter, one of the subjects which, under section 91 of the British North America Act, comes within the powers of the parliament of Canada and the Minister of Fisheries. In order that relief in aid may be granted through the government and through this parliament, I would ask that at the earliest possible moment the premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, be asked what he and his government intend to do. The fishermen cannot stand any further loan. These people cannot pay their bills to-day, having lost everything through no fault of their own. They have suffered a major disaster, and they should be helped in being reestablished in the industry. This is the time to do it because they have to cut the trees to make their floats and paint them; laths have to be bought to make the traps; twine has to be procured to make the space in which the lobsters go, and so on. These things could be done between now and the time when they will be able to take up lobster fishing again, in another month or two.
The minister has been sympathetic. He has done everything humanly possible for a Minister of Fisheries to do, but he has failed to get an answer from the premier of Nova Scotia and therefore the responsibility does not rest with him. It rests elsewhere, and I submit that the government should wait no longer if they cannot receive a reply that gives some promise of meeting the needs of the lobster fishermen along the coast of Nova Scotia and of providing for them, as the fishermen are being provided for in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, by cooperation between the two governments. I urge that the government act, and that the legislation, through a resolution if necessary, be brought down in order that any further delay may be avoided, so that in the meantime some ray of sunshine may enter into these destitute homes, many of which are in my own constituency, and that fear be dispelled. Then we shall have the satisfactiotL of having discharged our responsibility.


Mr. RODOLPHE LEDUC (Wright) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, may I first offer my sincere congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I am delighted at the success of my good friend the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier), who was a class-mate of mine at Ottawa university. I well remember having
The Address-Mr. Leduc

sometimes copied his Latin and English translations at which he was very good, and I frankly admit that were his speech not printed in Hansard, I should be tempted to copy it in its entirety.
I congratulate the hon. member on his success. He is an honour to his family and his constituency and I trust that he will be re-elected at the next elections, in order that he may fill the important role he is destined to play in the public life of Canada.
I wish to emphasize the good fortune which our country enjoys in having at the head of its government, in these troublous times, a man so able, so sincere, so patriotic and so truly Canadian as the present Prime Minister.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier is acknowledged as one of Canada's greatest statesmen. Future historians, who will be able to analyse and compare the lives and careers of the two great leaders of the Liberal party, will write in the history of our country that the disciple was comparable to the master.
The announcement of the visit to Canada [DOT]'in May next of Their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth has caused a spontaneous feeling of joy to the entire Canadian people. All the citizens of Canada will want to manifest their loyalty and fidelity to these two illustrious personages who represent for us the supreme authority.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal party has always been opposed to absolute protection. I have always been a believer in the Liberal tariff policy, according to which in order to sell to other countries we have to buy from them and consent to certain reciprocal concessions. In 1935 we concluded a trade agreement with the United States, and no one now dares to maintain that it was not advantageous to Canada. Nevertheless, the then leader of the opposition expressed the same fears and complaints as the present leader. I quote his words from Hansard, page 38, volume 1, session of 1936:
No man, however great he may be, can in twenty-four hours, forty-eight hours or seventy-two hours complete a trade agreement with the United States. And if he does-or did-it would have only one result, that he has been properly trimmed. I think the latter alternative will be the one which history will show fits the case.
Subsequent developments have justified the government's action and shown up the then leader of the opposition as a poor prophet. I am convinced that the agreements of November 17th last will be profitable to the farmers and lumbermen of my constituency. To the farmers, by opening important markets for their products; to the lumbermen, by facilitating the export of forest products, thus tending to decrease the unemployment existing in
IMr. Leduc.]
my section of Quebec province on account of the considerably reduced activity in lumbering operations.
Moreover, the present government has performed a national service. Indeed, is not the civilization which we hold so dear chiefly based on friendly relations between the Englishspeaking countries of the world? Between the Dominion of Canada, the United States of America, Great Britain and the other British Dominions? The agreements in question have strengthened the bonds of friendship which unite these two sections of the English-speaking world.
I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour for his untiring efforts towards finding a solution to the unemployment problem and, more particularly, for his youth training program.
Extension courses in agricultural subjects were given in my constituency under the Bilodeau-Rogers agreement.
I would suggest to the minister the advisability of including in that program the training of tourist guides. The house is aware that, every year, numerous tourists from abroad, in search of beautiful scenery, and of fish and game, spend their holidays in the wonderful county of Gatineau. They ask for trained guides. But, unfortunately, one cannot be a guide, no more than a carpenter, without possessing the necessary knowledge. Accordingly, the Minister of Labour would be well advised to discuss with Hon. Mr. Bilodeau the possibility of giving that training to some of our young men.
The government has announced its intention to increase the National Defence estimates by 863,000,000.
I also know that the question of building plants for the manufacture of war material is under study. In that connection, I would ask the government to give careful consideration to the memorandum submitted by the town of Aylmer to the Department of National Defence.
A few miles from Ottawa, there lies a town, once prosperous, in which some 150 families are now unemployed due to the closing of the industries that had made possible the development of that town. Good sites and abundant electric power are available in Aylmer, as well as unspecialized workers anxious to learn a trade and work.
I would therefore ask the government to give serious consideration to the situation of Aylmer before taking a decision in regard to the building of a plant for the manufacture of war material.

The Address-Mr. Leduc
(Text) I have so many friends both within and without this country, and especially in my own constituency, who speak the language of Shakespeare that I should be remiss in my duties of friendship and esteem if I did not say at least a few words in the language by means of which these friendships were born and nurtured. In the centre of my constituency, some fifty miles from the capital city, there lies a great stretch of uninhabited land, about ten square miles in extent, known as the plain of Kazabazua. The dense growth of red and white pine which formerly covered this plain has been completely wiped out by repeated forest fires, so that to-day this great tract of land produces practically nothing but a little grass and some blueberries. The soil is unsuited to mixed farming. I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to have the soil of this plain analyzed by the experts of his department, with a view to ascertaining its suitability for the growth of flue-cured or cigarette tobacco. Should the experiments show that with the use of proper fertilizers this kind of farming could be carried on successfully, tobacco farming could be taught to those who wished to take it up. This would make it possible to place several hundred unemployed families on the land, to the great benefit of my constituency. On the other hand, should the experiments reveal that the land is too poor for farming of any kind, steps could be taken to retimber this plain, which formerly constituted a real preserve of white pine.
Last session the house voted $100,000 for surveys and expropriations in connection with the boulevard and national park in the Gatineau hills. No doubt hon. members will be pleased to learn that the engineers have nearly completed the survey work and that within a few weeks the government will know the definite layout of the parkway and the approximate cost of the undertaking. I have neither the time nor the ability to describe the picturesque beauties of this region, close to the capital city, which hon. members will be able to admire in a few years, after the boulevard is finished. I desire however, to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) to include in the supplementary estimates a substantial amount in order to get the work under way and thus relieve unemployment and distress among the poor people of the southern end of my constituency.
(Translation) We are living sir, in very difficult times. Economists, sociologists and statesmen seek remedies to the economic evils affecting our people.
Unemployment has been acute since 1930. I admit that it reached its peak in 1933.
After that year, the number of persons under relief fell steadily from year to year. However it is still the most serious problem which our government must face to-day.
Successive governments have tried various remedies. I understand that the British North America Act prevents the present government from establishing unemployment insurance which would form the essential basis of a partial solution of unemployment.
The report of the Quebec Social Insurance Commission contains the following words, at page 203, on the subject of unemployment insurance:
Is it possible to establish unemployment insurance on a provincial basis in a federated state such as Canada? The answer is in the affirmative, for the example of Queensland, Australia, and of certain Swiss cantons prove the possibility. However, ordinary prudence suggests that unemployment insurance should be federal in character. It is very advisable to spread the social responsibilities over the whole country, for otherwise, the provinces which participate find themselves in a condition of inferiority with respect to the non-participants. It must not be forgotten that the expenses involved in social legislation should be incorporated in the net cost of production. If certain provinces do not enjoy the benefits of tariff protection, the industrialists of those provinces must of necessity aim at an equality in social obligations if they do not desire to embark on a policy of rivalry which is not only impossible to maintain, hut is unfair.
Moreover it is easily understood that the establishment of unemployment insurance in only one province would prove a great attraction to the unemployed in other provinces and that this social measure would soon prove a complete failure. One must take into consideration the absence of boundaries between the provinces and the natural facilities of moving about in the country.
For that reason, I am in favour of a constitutional amendment on that point. However, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding all their good will, governments cannot solve that serious problem by themselves.
Let us point out also that the responsibility of finding a remedy for unemployment does not fall only on the state. All citizens, and especially those who control the sources of production and the distribution of wealth,, manufacturers, merchants and bankers owe it to themselves to collaborate first of all, and then assist the state in finding a solution, so necessary, for a national problem.
Ever since my election as a member of this house, I have heard groups of members suggest that the whole problem would be solved if monetary reforms were proceeded with, and if the purchasing power of every one were increased. I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the evil is not so much in the present monetary system as in the wrong use that is made of purchasing power.
The Address-Mr. Leduc

I admit that there are people whose purchasing power is not sufficient to provide for their legitimate needs; in such cases, it behooves governments to step in, and even, under certain circumstances, to force employers to pay more reasonable salaries to their employees. On the other hand, what may be a fair salary for a single man, or a worker with, say two, three or four children, is inadequate for the head of a family of seven, eight or more children, and I consider that governments have the duty of helping the latter through a monthly or yearly allowance in keeping with his responsibilities. But, as I said, I feel that the trouble lies not so much in the lack of purchasing power as in the wrong use that is made of it.
I should like to illustrate my argument by quoting a few examples. Let us consider, for instance, the amount of money spent in Canada each year for alcoholic beverages. Statistics show that in 1937 a sum of $126,005,833 was spent for liquor. No one will induce me to believe that such a quantity of liquor was consumed by wealthy people only, neither can I be persuaded that it was used by tourists from other countries. Let us admit that, unfortunately, a large percentage of it is consumed by people of moderate means .and by the needy. And much could be said about the amounts spent every year in this [DOT]country for tobacco, and more particularly cigarettes. Statistics show that in. 1937 a sum of $80,703,231 was spent under that item. I could mention a number of other items of expense which are not absolutely necessary and which bring about poverty and hardship.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have too long been listening to those false prophets of better times to come who have prevented us from seeking the evil where it does exist and remedying it in the proper way.
The evil of the present depression lies in ourselves; we should study not merely the unemployment problem but the causes of poverty and the remedy it calls for.
I have read with some interest the four causes of poverty which were enumerated by the hon. member for Lethbridge in his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as reported on page 72 of the January 17 issue of Hansard:
What are the causes of poverty ? There are four. The first is debt; the second is taxation; the third is our faulty financial system-faulty either in its essential aspects or in the manner in which it is applied; and the fourth is our faulty method of distribution.
We all know that there are numerous other causes which have not been mentioned and which lead to temporary or permanent pov-
|>tr. Leduc.]
erty; for instance, temporary or chronic diseases; the loss of crops through drought, overabundant humidity or rains, frost, hail, and so on; the destruction of property by fire; labour strikes, etc. Those are real causes of poverty and hardship which governments can neither control nor avert.
However, there are other classes of misfortunes which affect a certain class of society through no fault of theirs; I mean the sick, the infirm, the prematurely aged, the needy mothers and the orphans; and there again, governments are in duty bound to extend their help.
I do say that if we wish to save democracy from a threatened failure, we shall succeed in doing so not in extolling freedom but in educating the whole population, using for that purpose the same methods all over the dominion.
Politicians should be the first to undertake such educational work. Instead of suggesting to the people that their problems, more especially unemployment, will be solved one day it would be preferable to tell them . frankly that poverty and destitution will never be banished from this world, for the words of Our Lord cannot be misleading and He did say:
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
I believe the time has come for men who sincerely wish to save our civilization to join hands in educating the people, and I take the liberty of making, not a suggestion, but a recommendation to the hon. the Secretary of State, with a view to helping those who may wish to devote themselves to that task. I recommend that he should have printed in both languages the report of the Quebec Social Insurance Commission, including the two encyclicals Quadragesimo Anno and Rerum Novarum and have it distributed first to all members of this house, of the senate and of the provincial legislatures, to the clergy, both Catholic and Protestant; to teachers, financiers, manufacturers and bankers; once those people know perfectly well the whole social question as it affects our country, it will then be easy for them to impart such knowledge to all classes of the population and to spread a sound doctrine; we will then be in a position to assert confidently that our unemployment problem has been solved.


Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, no one in the house is more pleased than I am at the possible visit of their majesties to this country next spring. May I emphasize the fact that I fully realize the great personal sacrifice which will be theirs.

The Address-Mr, Lennard
Respecting the speech from the throne I could not do better than quote the following editorial from the Farmer's Advocate of January 26, 1939:
If the speech from the throne -which set the wheels of parliament in motion at Ottawa does not conceal in well chosen words some very pleasant surprises, the present session will be a very disappointing one, so far as legislation is concerned. The intimation that substantial sums of money will be expended on public works has been received with alarm, rather than acclaim, and the reference to legislation dealing with agriculture conveys the promise that grain exchanges will be subjected to some needed reform, but no mention is made of an effort to find a solution of the serious wheat surplus. It is hinted that marketing legislation related to farm products will be brought forward, and this will be awaited with interest, for something will have to be done to lay the ghost of the Natural Products Marketing Act, which was enacted during the regime of a previous government, and constitutionally murdered by this one.
One great fact which in our selfish moments we are apt to forget is the British protection in past years to our foreign trade. We should be willing to show gratitude in return. What has Canada done in the last several years, so far as trade policies are concerned, to strengthen ties that bind the British empire? Nothing. I quote the following from the Toronto Globe of March 20, 1935:
Much tosh one way and another has been talked about the Ottawa agreements. They are not perfect, but this much at least can be said for them: They are agreements, and agreements to trade. The fact makes Ottawa all but unique in modern history. It also ensures to the people of the British empire an opportunity that they would do well to cultivate.
Then, I quote this from the Toronto Globe of November 15, 1935, just one month after the last general election:
Canada's exports increased $100,000,000. Sales to the United Kingdom and foreign countries show marked upturn in the twelve months period. Canada's external trade continues to improve. The increase in total business writh the world for the twelve months ending September, was slightly over $100,000,000 over the previous year. Trade with all parts of the world, except the continent of Europe, showed a steady rise.
Exports to the world in the year ended September amounted to $696,532,559, an increase of $58,428,968 over the previous twelve months, while purchases from the world totalled $539,256,521, an increase of $41,857,858. Sales to the British empire amounted to $345,049,567, an increase of $21,103,617, and purchases from the empire were $169,542,030 or an inerese of $16,557,770. Exports to the United Kingdom totalled $275,678,858, an increase of $14,245,014, and purchases from Britain amounted to $115,852,732, a growth of only $3,207,776.
A clerical friend of mine, addressing a large audience a few months ago and referring to the British empire, stated that in his opinion Canada was the garden of the British
empire, and concluded that part of his remarks by saying that he considered Wentworth county and its vicinity as the garden of Canada. Naturally I agreed with him. It is because of that, and because of the people who have made Wentworth the garden spot of Canada, that I am standing here protesting against the reductions which have been made in the duties on market garden products. It is not a question always of price, but these importations from the United States glut our market to such an extent that at times we cannot sell our produce. What would the forefathers of many of these people, the United Empire Loyalists, say if they knew that their descendants were being deprived of the very principles for which they fought? What is New Zealand doing at the moment to protect her industries and to tie up with the British empire to a greater extent? In this connection I should like to quote from a recent Canadian publication as follows:
New Zealand Restrictions May Affect Canadian Trade
Amplifying cables received last month by the Department of Trade and Commerce at Ottawa announcing control of the import and export trade of New Zealand by means of licences, W. F. Bull, Canadian Trade Commissioner at Auckland, New Zealand, further advised the department that "At the moment the long range effect of this legislation on Canada's trade with New Zealand is not clear. However, it is reasonable to expect that the movement of goods from Canada to this country will be restricted and in certain instances seriously reduced." Mr. Bull reports that the Prime Minister, the Honourable M. J. Savage, has stated that the import control was not a temporary measure to correct the exchange position, but a permanent measure to cushion or insulate New Zealand against depressions abroad. The New Zealand Prime Minister is quoted as saying, "We want to increase our trade with Great Britain. To the extent that we are able, we wrant to spend every penny of the sterling proceeds of our exports on buying British manufactured goods. The only sensible way is to select the goods we want to buy from Britain. It is all a question of scientific selection of imports.
This same method of import selection is the most effective way of building up our own industries. We are going to give New Zealand manufacturers a definite market if they can turn out goods. To the extent that they cannot, we will import goods from abroad. I want to say most emphatically that what we are introducing is not a barrier but regulative procedure."
I am protesting against tariff reductions, especially reductions on poultry, hogs, the products of the market garden, fruit farms and hothouses, as well as on the different manufactured articles produced in my part of Canada. The irony of it lies in the fact that a great percentage of those people who
The Address-Mr. Lennard

are opposed to these tariff reductions are or rather have been followers of the Liberal party. My Liberal opponent in the campaign of 1935 Stated that he was against a reduction in the tariff on fruits and vegetables, and I believe he made that statement in all sincerity because he is a fruit grower himself. Let me say right at this point that I know of hon. members sitting with the government who are just as much concerned with these reductions as I am. If they do not rise in their places in this house and speak against these reductions, the responsibility will be theirs. They will not be representing the people as they should.
We should encourage and make every effort to improve British empire trade instead of fiddling with this one-sided agreement with the United States. In this regard I should like to read part of an address given by the President of the United States, Franklin D. Roosevelt, before the American farm bureau at Chicago, Illinois, on December 10, 1935: He said:
Some individuals and groups are trying to stir up farmers against other phases of the broad recovery program. Dispensers of discord are saying the farmers are being victimized by the new reciprocal trade agreement with Canada, and are painting pictures of a great flood of imports of farm products rushing across the border.
Agriculture, far from being crucified by this agreement, as some have told you, actually gains from it. We export more agricultural products to Canada than we have imported from her. We shall continue to do so for the very simple reason that the United States, with its larger area of agricultural land, its more varied climate

That is one great thing in their favour.

and its vastly greater population, produces far more of most agricultural products, including animal products, vegetables and fruits, than does Canada.
In the case of the few reductions that have been made, quota limitations are set on the amount that may be brought in at the lower rates. On the other side of the picture, we believe, and most unbiased men believe, that the general increase in our trade with Canada, including the exports of our factories, will so add to the purchasing power of hundreds of thousands of wage earners that they will be able to spend far more than they do today for the products of our own farms, our own forests, and our own fisheries.
To supplement that I should like to refer to an Associated Press dispatch from Kansas City, dated May 20, 1936, as follows:
Says United States Trade Agreements Are Bearing Fruit
The trade agreement with Canada came into force January 1st, 1936. Exports to Canada during the first two months totalled $52,300,000 in contrast to $46,100,000 for the same two months of 1935.

Of even more striking significance is the fact that the increase of exports on items on which Canada granted (tariff) concessions amounted to 26 per cent, whereas exports of nonconcession items increased by only eight per cent.
What do these trade agreements do for the market gardeners and fruit growers of this country? The following is one shining example of how they are being sold down the river. The United States' attitude with respect to these new trade agreements is as follows:
Certain concessions were made, one a reduction on frozen blueberries from Newfoundland. Why? Because they say Canada has made concessions on American strawberries and other berries which cover a large volume of trade.
How in the world is that going to keep many of our primary producers from going to the wall?
On page 60 of Hansard the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is reported as follows:
Men will not put out their money to invest in the different industries. They are withdrawing their capital from industry. Ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who is sitting here to-night, how much of the investment of capital to-day is going into government securities at a low rate of interest in comparison with what took place in former years. It has deprived manufacturing industry and our primary industries, and the like, of the capital they need. Why is that?
I will tell you why. Industrially Canada is virtually standing still. Foreign capital has practically deserted this market. Except in mining there have been few industrial developments during the past three years. There has been too much tariff uncertainty and labour unrest without the compensation of domestic economic stability. The Prime Minister said that the great majority of the people of Canada favoured the trade treaties. I venture the opinion that not one person in a thousand, if he were asked to-day what he thought of the new United States trade agreement, would say that he knew very much about it. And ninety-nine manufacturers out of a hundred, if asked the same question, would answer in a similar way, that they knew very little about these agreements at the moment. For anyone to say that these new trade agreements are acceptable to the people of Canada generally is absolute rot.
As regards the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, it seems strange to me that the government should spend thousands of dollars annually to collect licence fees to enable a concern to flourish over which they claim to have very little control. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, what I suggested on one occasion last session, that if this radio tax is necessary, it should be placed on the price of the

The Address-Mr. Black
set at the manufacturing source, and should not be a nuisance tax costing thousands of dollars annually to collect.
The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) neglected to answer satisfactorily my question whether the ex-service men he will appoint as vendors of radio licences will receive their appointments upon the recommendation of officials of veterans' organizations; nor did he say anything as to recommendations from the veterans' assistance commissions, composed of volunteer bodies of outstanding citizens in the different centres across Canada. I will tell the house, however, who will make these recommendations. They will be made by Liberal members of parliament, by defeated Liberal candidates, and by the presidents of Liberal associations in the different ridings, and I doubt very much if there will be many ex-service men appointed.
Let us turn for a moment to the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). Last January, and again last July, he stated emphatically that in the matter of relief costs the responsibility was principally on the province and the municipality. But now there has been a change of heart, a change with which I believe the municipalities are thoroughly satisfied, their share now being 20 per cent of the cost. But what the mayors of the cities and towns of Ontario particularly want to know, and what I myself want to know, is this: Is this government sincere in this change of policy? Is it to be the permanent policy of this government? Or is it simply a red herring being drawn across the trail in an attempt to catch votes at the forthcoming federal election?
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, regardless of what conditions are, it is about time that Canada stated officially that she was with Great Britain in this her hour of trial, and in saying that I am speaking not for myself alone but for the great majority of the people whom I immediately represent in this house.


Mr. D. E. BLACK (Chateauguay-Hunting-don) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as I have the honour to represent a great number of French-Canadian voters, I take pleasure on this occasion in addressing my first words to this house in the French language, so as to show my esteem for them, for their language, their integrity, and their contribution to the progress and development of this country.
Our fellow citizens of French origin have done much to make Canada what it is to-day, by their loyalty, their industriousness and their honesty. We feel grateful to them for that. By our daily contacts, they have learned that they can always depend on my
cooperation, and my sense of justice. I shall always be ready to help them and to be a real advocate of good understanding between the two races.
I would like, sir, to be able to continue my remarks in French; but as it is not my language,-although I considered it my duty to learn it a little,-I shall have to continue in English.
(Text) Every one in my constituency of Cha-teauguay-Huntingdon, Mr. Speaker, deeply appreciates and takes great pride in the forthcoming visit to Canada of Their Majesties the King and Queen, and we shall be with them in spirit throughout their stay in Canada.
I should also like to take this occasion to express our thankfulness for the return to health and to his duties in this house of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). We trust that his health will continue to permit him to carry on his duties as Minister of Finance as ably as he has done in the past.
The new ministers who have been appointed to the cabinet are also to be congratulated, and we know that in the discharge of their duties they will meet with the expectations of the government.
May I also congratulate the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his election to the leadership of his party.
I feel that I am expressing the opinion of the citizens of my county and of the country at large when I state that we appreciated very much the calm attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in regard to the European crisis in the troubled days of September last. We know that he stands for peace, and if eventually this country is drawn into war, we shall know that it was the only alternative left and one that we were bound to take.
The counties of Chateauguay-Huntingdon, which I have the honour to represent, border on the state of New York, and in these two counties there are eleven customs ports with an efficient staff of customs and immigration officers, who are doing their utmost to carry out the customs and immigration regulations faithfully and well. Among the largest of these ports are Lacolle, Cantic, Trout River and Henrysburg. These ports daily take in by way of revenue some $3,000.
The county of Chateauguay, Mr. Speaker, is 73 per cent rural and has a total of 1,649 farms, with an average value of $9,000 per farm.
The county of Huntingdon, which I also represent, is also rural to the extent of 83 per cent of its population. The 1,784 farms there have an average value of $7,182. I would have you note, sir, that in both of these counties the values are above the
The Address-Mr. Black

average value of Quebec farms, that average generally speaking, according to the last census, being slightly over 86,000. Both of these counties are very favourably known throughout this entire country, as well as in the United States, for their high grade live stock and dairy cattle. The fact that we are doing considerable business with the people South of the border goes to show that our cattle are always in great demand among our southern neighbours.
As I do not wish to extend this debate indefinitely I shall confine my remarks to the advantages brought to us since 1936 as a result of the trade treaties which this government, upon coming into power effected with the United States. Being in the cattle business for a number of years I am able to bear practical testimony to the assistance given to our farming class by the commercial intercourse which we have had and are now enjoying with our neighbours to the south as a result of the three-way treaty, the benefits of which have already been experienced by our farmers. A comparison of conditions among our farming population to-day with those that existed in 1935 would not be amiss. In 1935 there was very little demand in the United States for our cattle, horses, hay and other farm products, compared with the demand that has existed since 1936. In 1935 I find that ordinary cows were selling for $45 to $50, compared with $65 in 1936 and $85 to $90 in 1937-38. Purebred stock was also selling during those same years at from $100 to $150 and upward according to quality. The duty on hay going into the United States in 1935 was $5; in 1939 it is $2.50. The duty on straw in 1935 was $3, and is now 75 cents a ton. Since 1935 the cattle trade of my county has greatly increased, not only with the United States but also with the United Kingdom. Farmers were receiving in 1938 prices ranging from $70 to $90 per head for two and a half year old heifers for export to the United Kingdom, and grade cows commanded for export to the United States $75 to $100, which was an unheard of thing from 1930 to 1935. Likewise, registered cows sold at from $125 to $200, and our supply was practically exhausted in 1938. As regards the horse trade, the $30 duty of 1935 exacted on horses entering the United States was replaced by a duty of $15 as a result of the trade agreement made between this government and the government of the United States.
I call attention to the fact that these are not estimated figures, but figures representing actual transactions. I challenge anyone to

gainsay the benefits that our farmers have derived as a result of the trade agreements with the United States and the United Kingdom. This shows that our government, our Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) and our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) are all duly seized of the importance of doing their utmost to help our farmers and other primary producers. We are very thankful for the policies of the Department of Agriculture, and may I say that our farmers appreciate any help afforded them in improving breeds and finding more markets for the profitable disposal of our surplus crops or other farm products.
That the farmers of Chateauguay-Hunting-don know their business is attested by the fact that many champion Ayrshire and Holstein cows and sires were developed by our farmers, and the counties are famous for their high-grade cattle. At the royal winter fair in 1938 the champion Ayrshire sire as well as the champion Ayrshire dairy cow belonged to farmers of my county, an honour to be proud of indeed.
Of great importance to our farmers, although perhaps not on so large a scale as dairying, are the treaty results obtained in our county as affecting apple growers. The interests of the latter have surely not been sacrificed, since our producers have on the British market a preference amounting to 92 cents a barrel over the United States shipper to the United Kingdom.
The great difference between Conservative speakers and Liberal speakers, as shown in this debate, is that the former are anxious about the manufacturing interests, while the Liberals, without sacrificing these interests, are concerned about the primary producers.
Before closing .my remarks I do not wish to allow this occasion to go by without giving voice to the satisfaction of the people of my county with the very favourable results which they have derived from the trade agreements with other countries, and especially with the United States. And let me say that in my opinion the best way to solve the unemployment situation is to improve the agricultural situation, to widen the markets for farm produce and to do all in our power to create a better buying power for the farmers of this country. Forty-six per cent of our population live on farms, and if they have adequate buying power this will go a long way towards absorbing unemployment, because the farmer needs more machinery, hardware, lumber, roofing, paint, fencing, furniture, clothing and household supplies. I have had thirteen years' experience behind the

The Address-Mr. Heon
counter in a general store and have personally witnessed the advantage to trade and commerce when farmers have good buying power.


Mr. G. H. HEON (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak half of my allotted time in the language of the majority of my constituents, which is French, and shall devote the latter part of my address to the expression of my opinions in the English language, because thirty-five per cent of the population of my constituency is of English or Scotch extraction. Each and all of my constituents are peace-loving, broad-minded Canadians, not at all concerned as to the creed or ancestry or language of their neighbours, but most respectful and considerate of each others' opinions. There are no racial, religious or linguistic disputes among the people of my constituency; we solved a long time ago the question of national unity and understanding by dropping from our vocabulary such expressions as "majority" and "minority," by treating one another as equal and by learning one another's language.
I have the honour, sir, to represent a constituency which gave to this country Sir John Abbott, a former prime minister, whose distinguished daughter, Doctor Maud Abbott, is a constituent of mine. Argenteuil also elected to this house the late Sir George Perley, whose sterling qualities and gentlemanliness were well known both in Canada and abroad. May I inform this house that such was the late Sir George Perley's generosity that I do not think there was in the constituency one destitute family which did not benefit at one time or another by his munificence. I could add that there is not one church, Catholic or Protestant, which did not receive at some time a substantial cheque. His material kindnesses, quite contrary to the kindnesses of some politicians I know, extended far beyond the pre-election periods.
(Translation). Mr. Speaker, the county of Argenteuil, which I have had the honour of representing for the past year, contains a historic site which is too little known.. I invite hon. members to visit it when they can find time to do so., It is on the spot where the picturesque Argenteuil village of Carillon stands to-day that was fought in 1660 the glorious battle of Long Sault where Dollard des Ormeaux and his companions saved the new-born Canadian colony. Such a visit would convince my hon. friends that a race which has gone through the test of such sacrifices cannot perish nor allow itself to be absorbed, and that the French Canadians of to-day are penetrated with the same love of their country and the same indomitable will to survive.
Our hon. friends of English decent would judge us much less severely if they studied our history-and they should study it; they would gain a better understanding of our intellectual outlook, of the legitimacy of our claims, of our honest and firm intention of upholding the rightful interests of our country by always placing, both in our foreign and our domestic policy, the immediate welfare of Canada before that of any other country.
On this point, I believe that the entire French-Canadian representation in this house, whether Conservative, Liberal or Social Credit, is unanimous or at least should be. We may as well state it right now, for the constitutional and political history of Canada has eloquently proved it:	the French Canadians,
whenever it has been a question of their best interests, have forgotten their petty political quarrels in order to unite under a common standard.
Circumstances which are none of our seeking and which we should have avoided, as well as an ill-advised foreign policy concerning which we have not been really consulted, may perhaps make it necessary for us-much sooner than some believe or desire -once more to forget party lines and join forces to defend what we consider the most sacred interests of our country.
I come from Conservative stock, Mr. Speaker, and I am not ashamed of my party. A political party that has given to the Canadian nation men like Cartier and Macdonald; that has supplied a prime minister like Tupper-who fell for having defended the French-Canadian minority in Manitoba against the great Laurier whom my hon. friends opposite constantly evoke to justify themselves and get themselves elected in Quebec-a party that has been able to attract to its ranks a man of the intelligence and ability of the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, is absolutely honourable and deserves to continue to play a leading part in the political life of Canada.
At the Conservative convention of July last I loyally and sincerely supported the candidature of the present leader of the party, because of all the candidates he was the one who, in my opinion, could best understand the French-Canadian Conservative mind. He is the leader of the party, and I must say in all fairness that his declarations regarding immigration have particularly pleased me and that I am entirely with him on that point.
The other day, my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Brunelle) did me the honour of mentioning my name in the course of the remarks which he deemed proper to make
The Address-Mr. Heon

in connection with the Conservative convention. I may say to my hon. friend that if he would only stop to consider what might happen during a national Liberal convention- if any credence is to be given to what is being rumoured in the lobbies of this house with reference to the proceedings at Liberal caucuses being held these days-he would remember that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
At the convention held in July last, I stated that if the Conservatives wanted to secure again the votes of French-Canadians- which they obtained in large numbers in the times of Cartier and Tupper-it was imperative for them to consider more favourably certain French-Canadian claims and opinions. I have nothing to withdraw from what I said on that occasion, and if I were to address a convention, meeting or caucus to-morrow, I would say the very same thing, and in identical terms. But, Mr. Speaker,-and in this I differ from some of my French-Canadian friends who sit at your right,-I am not so blinded by party politics and I am not so tied that I should have to vote for the party against what I should deem to be the best interests of the country, of my province or of my constituents. When I offered myself as a candidate in February, 1938, I asked my electors to give me full liberty of action; this they did, giving me twice the majority which had been obtained by any of my predecessors. I am thus their representative and I am constantly endeavouring to reflect their opinion. I shall vote in conformity with certain essential political principles in which I do believe and in accordance with the best interests of my constituents, even though this should bring me into conflict with certain statements made by influential members of my party. That is my conception of my duty as a member, and I shall ask my constituents to judge me by what I have done and shall do until the end of the session. I feel that I have not been unworthy of their trust and I am prepared to face them again at any time.
My hon. friend, the member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), expressed the fear that the situation of 1911, 1914 and 1917 would repeat itself. For my part, I hardly think that possible. We have developed and grown older since that time. The cruel experience of that period is so fresh in our memory that our compatriots could not submit willingly to the ill-usage due to the strange attitude of public men of both parties at that time. If the two older parties wish to avoid the creation of a third party which, as Hugo would say, "is already boiling in an- over-[Mr. Heon.)
flowing urn," they will have to give greater consideration to the purely Canadian sentiment and they must admit, more than they are prone to do at the present time, the opinion of those who believe that, as Andre Maurois said, "Men of canonical age do not possess the absolute right to legislate with regard to the ultimate fate of those of cannon-fodder age"-I'age canonique n'a pas le droit absolu de legijerer sur le sort ultime de I'age canonable-.
On that condition only will the two great parties preserve their prestige and keep the confidence of the electors. If my hon. friends on both sides of the house question the truth of my words, let them inquire from their unbiased organizers, their relations, their friends, the man in the street, the young men and women, the mothers and the wives. They will then learn the real sentiments of the Canadian public.
It is useless to go on deluding ourselves: the two great parties are losing their hold on the Canadian people. If they are to endure, and I think they must endure, it is high time for them to awaken to a realization of the facts and to regain the confidence of the industrial worker, the farmer, the business man and more particularly of our youth.
This house must remember that it truly remains the representative body of the people only so far as it reflects and expresses the people's opinions, only so far as it legislates in accordance with the present needs of the nation. If this government proposes to enact measures relating to matters that were not discussed during the electoral campaign of 1935, and if they fear a situation where they would consider themselves bound to pledge the revenues, the lives and the future of the nation, they should go back to the people in order to get the popular endorsation of every item of their new policy before binding themselves further. Having consulted the electors, and only then, the newly elected government will be in a position resolutely and constitutionally to follow the lines laid down for them by the Canadian people.
The five French-Canadian ministers, who I regret to say are not in their seat except the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), will understand my meaning perfectly. I may remark in passing, and in all sincerity, that I can well understand their anxiety. And perhaps they, too, can now better understand the true situation of the French-Canadian Conservative ministers during the last war.
It may be that at last we are to see the end of the everlasting charge of war and conscription with which our hon. friends of the Liberal party have managed to get into

The Address-Mr. Heon
power at general elections from 1921 to 1930. The hour of retribution is coming; it is approaching. I believe in immanent justice, Our hon. friends of the Liberal party will shortly have to defend in Quebec the policy which they formerly combated with the same fine sincerity which they are showing to-day. The most sincere of the hon. members opposite-one of whom is making a sign to me that it is not so-have already made confessions which do them credit but which irrevocably condemn the policy of their party, and that- nobody can deny.


Mr. DENIS:: The same thing could be said of your party.


Georges-Henri Héon: I have already said that I was speaking as a free man.
(Text) I wish to commend most warmly the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address. To the mover I express my wish that the short time he will spend in the house will be pleasant. To the seconder I express my thanks for having shown this house what the modem young Freneh-Canadian is: tolerant, bilingual and fully alert to the national issues of the day. I could not express my thought better than to say that as I listened to him the other day I was proud to think that I was a compatriot of his. There should be more men of his type in the house.
The McCullagh controversy gives me an opportunity to make this statement: I have been in federal affairs for only one year, but I am frankly discouraged by the apathy, distrust and lack of support the elected representatives of the people are receiving from those who should, through their influence and wealth, give of their time and efforts to inspire faith and confidence in our system of government. No man has the right to shout that democracy is in danger and must be saved if at the same time he tries to break up those institutions which uphold and guarantee democracy in this countxy. With the very difficult domestic and external situation, Mr. Speaker, this is no time to ask Canadians to distrust their public men and elected representatives, or to ask them to believe that they are a group of impotent misfits. Fair, intelligent criticism is always welcome; public opinion must be kept on the alert, but it is not fair to suggest wholesale wrecking of the constitution or a wholly impractical change in our system of government when public sentiment is already in a dangerous state of unrest. I am afraid Canada suffers from an overabundance of corner-store prime ministers and armchair opposition leaders, but it lacks men with courage to seek a mandate from
the electors, at some cost of time and money, who will come to this house to explain their theories and defend their viewpoints. These gentlemen, I imagine, keep scrupulously away from conventions and nominations, and usually can be found on the golf links on voting day. So far as they are concerned, they are getting better public men and better government than they deserve. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or this government has refused to give the air to some of the more radical proposals of Mr. McCullagh when the majority of the Canadian people already have done so.
Their Gracious Majesties, who are the sovereigns of this autonomous dominion within the British commonwealth of nations, have kindly consented to visit us. Let us hope that the international situation may not become such that we shall be deprived of the pleasure of seeing them, and all Canadians will pray that the trip may be thoroughly enjoyable to their majesties. In Quebec the king and queen will find Canadians of French descent and Canadians of English descent living together most harmoniously, extending to one another the most generous and courteous treatment, such as should be the case in all lands where dwell the two principles of British fair play and fair dealing. These two racial elements are united in a common loyalty and allegiance to that symbolic crown which to them represents autonomy, freedom, justice and tolerance.
Let no one doubt the loyalty of the French-Canadians to the king of their homeland. Such is the mentality of the average French-Canadian, and such is his fundamental honesty, that he cannot conceive of anyone doubting his respectful attachment to the king and the crown which he wears so nobly. The loyalty of my compatriots, Mr. Speaker, is not sentimental or boisterous; it is not expressed by continual, meaningless flag-waving; it is rather cool, deliberate, intelligent loyalty of mind and judgment, and I sometimes wonder if that does not offer a greater guarantee of permanence than the other kind. The second governor of Canada, Lord Murray, seemed to think along similar lines when he wrote the home government that the French-Canadians were-
-the bravest race on the globe, and would become the most faithful set of men in the empire.
And was it not Lord Elgin who wrote?
Who knows but that the last hand to wave a British flag on American ground will be the hand of a French Canadian.
Then, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that Canada is the one and only country to which the French-Canadian feels he owes his de-
The Address-Mr. Heon

votion, his love and his life; but though his heart will throb to the tune of 0, Canada, no Canadian will more sincerely or more piously sing to God that the king of this autonomous dominion within the commonwealth will be saved, made happy and glorious, and, most of all, victorious over all his enemies of to-day or to-morrow.
The speech, from the throne refers to federal-provincial relations. I need not dwell on these matters now, but it might not be amiss to state at this time that this whole subject is an exceedingly delicate one, fraught with dangers and difficulties. The sittings of the commission have shown how much concerned the eastern provinces are over the subject of their autonomy, while the western provinces seem willing to transfer to the federal government those prerogatives which they are financially unable to exercise. A detailed trip through the west last fall has convinced me that no finer, stauncher Canadians can be found than those in the west. They have gone through a terrible ordeal and have real grievances. It must not be forgotten, however, that the eastern provinces have had hard times of their own, and although I imagine they would be prepared to go to the extreme limit in generous treatment and reasonable compromise, apparently they are not willing at this time to consent to amendments to the British North America Act. Speaking for myself alone, and with no authority to speak but for myself, I would say that the apparent distrust Quebec places on any move to amend the Canadian constitution is the fear that, once the door has been opened, there may come later on some hostile majority which will deprive the province of the prerogatives which it values most-autonomy as to language, religion, education and local government.
There is much talk about national unity, and I imagine hon. members opposite are going to use that as a political catchery at the next general election. But I say to the house to-night: There is no surer way to augment the present disunity than to foster centralization and constitutional amendments at this time. Surely, with the situation as it is, we are not going to take the chance of provoking a cleavage between east and west. All other avenues must be explored before we resort to amendment and centralization.
Amendments will not put money into the pockets of our people, nor will they provide good crops for our western brothers. Centralization will not solve unemployment, nor will it bring back that healthy economic equilibrium which we once enjoyed. The remedy and the panacea lie elsewhere.

That famous parliamentarian, Burke, speaking in the imperial parliament when the Constitutional Act of Canada of 1791 was being discussed, said:
It would be pure folly to try to amalgamate two races with different languages and law. The constitution must be founded on human nature, if it is to remain stable.
These words should be borne in mind by hon. members at this time. It wrould be most unfair to suggest that the opposition to centralization is purely political and provincial. Provincial legislators I have had the honour to meet, from both east and west, are not at all devoid of patriotism and national spirit. They are only uttering the sentiment of their cabinets and other elected representatives of the people within their local assemblies. They should not, nor can they do otherwise.
Let us not forget the way in which we became a confederation, and those diversities which continue to prevail in race, religion and language. Whatever we do, we cannot change our geography, or the origins of our two main groups. And because we cannot do so there is, in my mind, just as much need for autonomy in local rights as there ever was. I have the utmost confidence that after the report of the Rowell-Sirois commission has been tabled and discussed, and an interprovincial conference held, cooperation and good will will prevail among the delegates of the dominion and the provinces, and some satisfactory solution will yet be found. I cannot say I have lost faith in the inherent ability of our Canadian public men to find a proper way out, just as they did in 1867.
The speech from the throne carries ominous warnings as to the international situation. I should like to express a few strictly personal thoughts on this matter. I want it distinctly understood that as I speak I am speaking for myself alone, and that no person in the house can be bound directly or indirectly by what I shall have to say.
First, I must confess that I cannot share the opinion which seems to be prevalent that we, the elected representatives of the people, should not dare discuss the international situation, or say or do anything which could be construed as meaning that we approve one policy or disapprove another policy of some country which apparently may be on friendly terms with us. There is a French proverb which says: "C'est du choc des idees que jaillit la lumiere"-"A spark of light will come from the shock of ideas." That could be very well applied to discussion of the foreign policy to be pursued by this country, in the face of a continental war. The attitude that

The Address-Mr. Heon
opinions cannot be expressed at this time is wholly undemocratic and contrary to our standards. If there ever were a time when public opinion should be enlightened and given the true facts of our present situation, it is now. I am sorry to say that in my opinion at least the lack of pronouncement by the government on its external policy, and what it would do in the event of a continental war, creates unrest among all classes of Canadian people.
The policy so far has been directed in such a way that all shades of public opinion have been given the impression that the government's policy was their own. Imperialists have been led to believe that this government was sufficiently imperialistic to please them, while the isolationists have been given some indirect reassurance by the pronouncements of some of the ministers.
The bare truth is that none of us can tell what the policy is, and we would all be hard put to define it at this time. Prior to the right hon. Prime Minister's declaration of January 16, 1939, wherein he stated that when Great Britain was at war Canada was at war, and that parliament would decide, we did not know where we stood. It is all becoming a little clearer now. But it took a long time to bring it out, and the isolationist element of the cabinet seems to have been finally overridden.
It is quite clear that the hesitant yes-and-no external policy of the government has gone by the board, and that we have joined for better or for worse the world-rearmament race. We have not been told where the danger of attack comes from. We have not the slightest inkling of where the impending invasion lies, although four thousand miles of sea must be crossed before we are attacked, and the combined sea forces of Great Britain, France and the United States appear to stand in the way of an invader. These combined sea forces would not bar the passage of the enemy through altruistic motives alone; they would firstly be defending themselves and their commercial sea-lanes.
Now, can this country be attacked by air? I should like to quote from the book of George Fielding Eliot entitled "The Ramparts We Watch" as condensed in the Reader's Digest of February, 1939, at page 68. Mr. Eliot, by the way, was major of military intelligence reserve, in the United States army. He states:
We need not fear air attacks from abroad. The record for distance flying is 6,295 miles, set by Russian fliers from Moscow to California. But for war operations, the aeroplane's radius of action is but one-fourth its maximum range; for the plane must return to its base, and it must be prepared to fight, to manoeuvre, to
waste time searching for its objectives. Moreover, warplanes must sacrifice fuel load for bomhs. All this brings down the warplane's range to less than 1,500 miles-about half the distance across the narrower of our two oceans frontiers.
Another military expert Colonel Frederick Palmer, writing in the Montreal Standard of January 28, 1939, says this:
We are perfectly secure. No enemy can reach our shores. Yet we have never been more apprehensive lest we be attacked. . . . Until bombing planes can go more than 800 miles with a full bomb load, an air raid across 2,500 miles of sea is out of the question. But what if they come on aircraft carriers? Italy has no aircraft carriers; Germany two building. An aircraft carrier without fleet protection is an egg-shell to our destroyers and cruisers.
If the opinions of Mr. Eliot and Mr. Palmer can be taken with reasonable assurance, the attack would not come from the air. Under these circumstances, and assuming that Mr. Eliot's and Mr. Palmer's opinions are the considered opinion of the majority of our military experts, what is the purpose of laying particular emphasis on air defence? I say, without any disrespect, it appears to-day, just as it did in 1914, that we are still the rich uncle from America; that we are bound again to help make the world safe for liberty and democracy. When Britain is at war, Canada is at war! What an admission to make when 70,000 Canadians are sleeping their last sleep in France, and we have a two billion dollar war debt for having followed this now-antiquated policy in 1914! We are not able to save our own people from poverty, hunger and unemployment, and yet we can afford the luxury of spending hundreds of millions of dollars and risking possibly another
100,000	Canadian lives, a full generation of Canadians, to help pay for the glaring blunders of French and British foreign policies made during the last twenty years.
We have had no share in the framing of these policies; we have not been able to cast one vote in approval or disapproval of the public men of the countries who framed these policies, but now we are considered important enough to rearm and stand by their mistakes with our Bren guns pointed at the enemy. Then we are not a north American nation; we are only a glorified extension of Britain and France in America! According to this government, when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war. What becomes then of the late Lord Stanley's declaration in Toronto when he was secretary of the dominions? I quote:
Is Canada at war when Britain is at war? Certainly not. Canada has entire responsibility of her own. She is a sovereign state and decides for herself.
The Address-Mr. Heon

In whom are we to believe? If the words of the Prime Minister are to be taken literally, that when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war, the foreign policy of Great Britain, whatever it may be, binds us to the extent that if the British foreign office decides upon war the decision applies to Canada de jure and de facto. That same policy propounded by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier existed in 1889 and 1914. We have grown since, but we are not free, autonomous Canadians. We still remain colonials in the truest sense of the word. The two billion dollar war debt, the 70,000 brave Canadians buried in France, the 40,000 gallant veterans we have with us, have not earned for this country the right to decide for itself! In my opinion, this automatic commitment to war is the very negation of the autonomous dominion status we are supposed to enjoy. All the shouting that was done from the housetops during the 1926 general elections as to our sovereignty and autonomy, all the trumpet blasts and accompanying fanfare which greeted the statute of Westminster were mere shams. It does seem to me that in the domain of foreign affairs we are still little boys. It seems that we should be seen but not heard when it comes to the question of war.
We are told that parliament will decide. Decide what? What can this parliament decide if we are to be automatically at war? Is it to decide the extent of the participation? We all know what that would mean. There are no half-measures in war; if we are in it we shall be in it to win. There will again be high-powered propaganda and the imperialistic press shouting and calling for "the last man, the last dollar and the last cent." If lion, gentlemen would just recall some of the editorials and flamboyant frontpage articles which appeared at the time of the Munich conference, they will easily understand what we may expect. Where will the Canadian voter be in all this? What voice will that body most concerned in war, the youth of this country, have in the matter? These two classes would not even be consulted. Parliament would decide. In my humble opinion this parliament cannot take upon itself the right to decide participation and extensive rearmament. The last general election was not fought on these issues, and the Canadian public has not expressed its opinion sufficiently for this parliament to know where it stands on these matters. If a state of national emergency is to exist; if this parliament is to engage this country in a future war, it should go immediately to the people and seek authority. Let us be frank and face the facts. Participation in a

continental war will, whether we want it or not, be an issue at the next general election. It will most certainly be an issue in Quebec.
I could not escape it in my own constituency even if I tried.
Colonialism or Canadianism 1 That will be the issue to be faced by most candidates in the forthcoming general election. I do not know what the verdict will be, but I refuse to think that colonialism is the regime under which the overwhelming majority of Canadians want to live to-day.
Sentiment must not be the deciding factor in an issue of this kind. There is not a single red-blooded Canadian who has any sympathy for nazism, fascism or the methods for which they stand. That is not the question. AVe must coolly and deliberately decide whether we shall forever mortgage this country's resources and man power, expend billions of dollars and sacrifice generations of Canadians for the benefit of those European governments which find it in their interest to enter into all sorts of secret agreements and manoeuvres for the balance of power. That is the question. Shall we become wedded to those intertanglements for which European politics have become famous? Shall we assume responsibility for all the vagaries of continental diplomacy which we cannot ever hope to prevent and on the course of which we have never nor shall ever be properly consulted? That is the issue.
I want to make it clear before I terminate my remarks that I am not a pacifist in the narrow sense of the word. I believe it is our strict duty to make this autonomous yet component part of the commonwealth invulnerable to attacks and invasion. If this government has been reliably informed that some foreign power has cast a covetous eye on this territory, and if this information originates from authoritative and unimpeachable sources, then it is our immediate and sacred duty to proceed with the speediest, most complete and most efficient plan for the defence of our homeland. I do not infer that we should never take part in any war. What I say is that any war in which we do take part must be a war in which something better than sentiment actuated by prejudiced propaganda is at stake. It must be a war that threatens our very liberty, independence and existence, and the issue of which would be of immediate vital concern to all of us. I say, my country right or wrong, but not fifteen countries.


Wilfrid Lacroix: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I desire to congratulate the mover thereof (Mr. Matthews) and to cite the

The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Montmorency)
seconder (Mr. Chevrier) as an example to all hon. members. I believe the hon. member for Stormont has given the house a magnificent example of bilingualism which is a credit to the race he represents.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Hynd-man) suggested on January 20 that I withdraw my proposed resolution asking the house to change the name of Canada from "Dominion of Canada" to "Kingdom of Canada," and the designation of "Governor General" to "Viceroy", and also that the viceroy should be a Canadian. May I assure the hon. member that not only have I no intention of withdrawing my resolution, but on the contrary I am eager to have it approved by the house before his majesty's arrival, in order that we may confer upon him a title in keeping with the statute of Westminster, the drafting of which is due to that eminent statesman, successor to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and French-Canadian leader, who represents in this house the constituency of Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).
Why should not Canada enjoy the same privileges as Ireland? Why should we not proclaim the fact that his majesty has been king of Canada since the imperial conference of 1926 and the statute of Westminster of 1931? We should indeed pray his majesty to consent to the amendment of his legal designation so that it may read as follows: "George VI, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and of the British possessions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, defender of the faith."
Canada having equal status with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations and being autonomous in its internal affairs and in its relations with other countries, I would go so far as to say that this house should ask the government of Great Britain to abolish the post of Secretary of State for the Dominions, which has become unnecessary, there being no longer any dominions.
Further, I am strongly opposed to the doctrine that when England is at war Canada is at war. In that connection allow me to quote from an article published on January 19 last in the Quebec organ of the Liberal party, Le Soleil. Under the heading, "The simple solution of a complicated problem," the article says:
By virtue of the Statute of Westminster and the principle of self-determination of peoples, we have the right to order our own national future, and the possibility of an early war makes it imperative that we should give the greatest care to our decision. This decision will have to be taken by the parliament of Canada, but it is the duty of all concerned, of
the younger element of the population particularly, to make their will felt by a body of representatives subjected to influences both visible and invisible.
In the statement he recently made on the subject the Right Hon. Mackenzie King expressed bis opinion, which is based on a tradition formerly acknowledged by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But when this illustrious Liberal leader disappeared from the scene Canada was only a potential nation still bound constitutionally to England and the British Empire.
This bond could not have been broken, in all probability, without recourse to violence, inasmuch as the majority of the voters were then in favour of this imperial subjection. Since that time the Statute of Westminster conferred on Canada, in international law, a political latitude equal to that of England. It depends entirely on us to make this theoretical emancipation more than an empty word.
The article continues:
It seems to be assumed on all sides that Canada would inevitably be drawn into any war directed against England. No account is taken of the right to neutrality. It is thus inferred that by a series of European or Asiatic complications the Canadian nation is irrevocably bound to the fate of an empire to which it still belongs. It would therefore be as a result of this bond that conflict would threaten to extend to America, thus drawing the United States, through the Monroe doctrine, in a world war. Such is evidently the English plan, but it is logically unsound. As a matter of fact, by its geographical situation and its continental interests, Canada is in duty bound to protect America against this danger. It can do so in two different ways: by leaving the empire; by accepting the Pan-American alliance offered by the United States.
Further on, the same paper says:
It must not be forgotten that if we permit the sending of volunteers at the expense of the government to help England, a conscription measure might follow, to the misfortune of our country.
What is the best way, Mr. Speaker, to protect our country in that regard, if not to create an independent kingdom and officially to proclaim our neutrality, thus placing ourselves on the same footing as the United States as regards any future intervention?
Let us not forget that in the event of foreign troops invading our territory the United States, by virtue of the Monroe doctrine, is obliged to intervene. Let us make such intervention unnecessary, and let us allow peace to reign for a few centuries more on this north American continent.
We should keep out of European troubles and complications. Let us loudly assert our neutrality, thus giving to our country the true independence which it has won. On those conditions only shall I vote for increased defence appropriations. Otherwise I shall maintain the attitude I have held in years past. Much as I regret it for the sake of certain of my friends, I shall continue with some of my colleagues to sound the note of alarm.
474	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Lacroix (Montmorency)
The other day the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) uttered these words:
Canada, however, should to-day be willing to join with other democracies in offering an asylum to a fair quota of sufferers, both Jews and Christians, in a broad humanitarian effort to relieve their distress.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member by saying that the finest humanitarian effort that we could accomplish would be to give employment and bread to the 322,000 Canadians who in 1937 applied unsuccessfully to the national employment service for work. Before thinking of providing employment for German, Czech and other victims of persecution, we should seek to provide work for our own Canadians.
It must not be forgotten that more than one-tenth of our manual workers are still unemployed. In the single province of Quebec, from 00,000 to 70,000 sons of farmers are seeking a piece of land to operate. Most of the Europeans that we are asked to admit to this country have not the slightest intention to settle on the land. They will remain in the cities where they will take the place of our own workers, who will be turned out of their jobs. World history shows that victims of political persecution have usually been forced to emigrate with only bare necessities and have had to depend on providence for the rest. Therefore those who think that by opening the door wide to immigration of these refugees we shall be adding to the country's capital, are greatly mistaken. All requests for the admission of political or other refugees should be energetically opposed because of the economic disabilities under which our fellow citizens are labouring.
I had the honour to-day to lay on the table of the house a petition presented by the most powerful national society in Canada, the St. Jean Baptiste Society, bearing 127,364 signatures, protesting against Jewish immigration. Canadians of French and British descent, let us unite against the danger which threatens us in that regard. The present state of our public finances and the commercial and industrial situation forbid our opening our doors to immigrants, especially foreigners who cannot be assimilated into our civilization and traditions, which are the sole guarantee of the unity so necessary to assure a prosperous and happy Canada. I am confident that the government will take this petition into consideration and refuse to amend the immigration regulations in the manner urged by certain classes.
It is not my intention to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but I thought it advisable to submit to the

consideration of the house the few observations I have just made.
On motion of Mr. Casselman the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Michaud the house adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
Tuesday, January 31, 1939