PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 8, respecting The Quebec Railway, Light and Power Company.-Mr. Parent (Quebec West and South).


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to amend, the Supreme Court Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short explanation to make with regard to this bill, which is different in some respects from the bill I introduced a year ago.
This bill is entitled an "Act to amend the Supreme Court Act." The Supreme Court Act was first enacted in 1875, and section 47 of that act now appears without any change as section 54 of chapter 35 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. This bill proposes the repeal of section 54 and, by way of its amendment, the substitution of a new section in a modified form.
In the earlier colonial period the governor of each of the British American provinces and the members of his council, who were selected and appointed by the governor, were constituted a court having supreme appellate jurisdiction in the province. Governors in council then exercised both political and
judicial functions and an appeal from their decisions was allowed to the king in council, who then exercised political and judicial supremacy over all possessions and dependencies of the crown.
Appeals from the governor in council of a colony to the king in council at Westminster were regulated by a statute enacted by the parliament at Westminster known as the Judicial Committee Act of 1833. By the regulations made by the government at Westminster under the terms of that act appeals from the governor in council to the queen in council were restricted in commercial matters to cases in which the judgment appealed from was £500 or more.
In 1841, in a Prince Edward Island case, Samuel Cambridge, to obviate a multiplicity of suits, petitioned for leave to appeal from a judgment of a lower court of the amount of £135, although under the governor's instructions an appeal from a judgment of that amount did not lie either to the governor in council or the king in council. The judicial committee, Lord Brougham, then Lord Chancellor, presiding, declined to entertain this appeal and rendered its opinion that the appeal of Cambridge from the judgment of a lower court in the colony, other than the king in council, could not be entertained by the judicial committee under the terms of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833. Thereupon Lord Brougham introduced and the parliament at Westminster enacted a bill which has since then been known as the Judicial Committee Act, 1844. This act provided for the admission of appeals to the judicial committee from any judgment of any court of justice within any British colony or possession abroad. It thereby allowed appeals direct to the judicial committee from any minor court in any province or colony.
The fourth of the Quebec conference resolutions of 1864 stipulated that the general parliament then proposed for Canada should have power to make laws for:
The establishment of a general court of appeal for the federated provinces.
Section 101 of the British North America Act, 1867, subsequently enacted that:
The parliament of Canada may, notwithstanding anything in this act, from time to time provide for the constitution, maintenance and organization of a general court of appeal for Canada.
During the parliamentary session of 1875 the Supreme Court Act was enacted, constituting such a general court of appeal for Canada. This act, in the section which I am now proposing that this parliament should amend, declared that the judgment of the
[Stage Direction]
Abolition of Privy Council Appeals
court, that is of the Supreme Court of Canada, "shall in all cases be final and conclusive." That declaration is again affirmed in the amending section now proposed.
But the judicial committee at that time took umbrage at the declaration of the Supreme Court Act that the judgments of the court should in all cases be final and conclusive, and prepared and submitted to the government at Westminster a memorandum in which they declared that to abolish this controlling power and abandon each colony and dependency to a separate court of appeal of its own would obviously be to renounce the last and most essential mode of exercising the authority of the crown over its possessions abroad.
Thus it clearly appears that eight years after the enactment of the British North America Act, 1867, Canada was still regarded as a colony, dependency and possession of the crown, over which her majesty's most honourable privy council, that is, the government of the United Kingdom, should continue to exercise dominion and supervision, although even then there was in Canada a growing consciousness of nationhood, which demanded that within well defined limitations the prerogatives of the crown should be exercised in respect of Canada by his majesty on the advice of the king's privy council for Canada.
Since then changes have gradually been effected in the constitutional powers of this dominion until the statute of Westminster, 1931, enacted that, except as to the provisions of the British North America acts, the powers of the parliament of Canada shall include the power to repeal or amend any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder, in so far as the same is now part of the law of this dominion.
In the exercise of the power then conferred this bill now proposes the repeal of the Judicial Committee Acts of 1833 and 1844 and of all orders, rules and regulations made under the said acts, in so far as the same are part of the law of Canada, in order and to the end that the judgments of His Majesty's Supreme Court in Canada which are rendered in the name and on behalf of his majesty, may, instead of the judgments of a committee of his majesty's government at Westminster, be and be deemed to be the final and conclusive exercise of his majesty's prerogative in all legal and constitutional controversies arising in respect of Canadian affairs.
As all such legal reforms should be effected without undue haste and with due regard for the public interest, the second

section of this bill provides that the proposed act shall come into force upon a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council, published in the Canada Gazette.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
An hon. MEMBER:: On division.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the house will, I am sure, regret to learn that the Hon. John Campbell Elliott has thought it advisable for reasons of health to tender his resignation as Postmaster-General. Mr. Elliott's resignation has been accepted by His Excellency the Governor General. I am glad to be able to say that Mr. Elliott has told me that once relieved of the responsibilties of office, he hopes to be able again to take his seat as a member of this house and to continue to serve in that capacity.
I should like to lay on the table the correspondence which has taken place between Mr. Elliott and myself with respect to Mr. Elliott's resignation. Perhaps hon. members will allow the correspondence to appear in Hansard and thereby avoid the necessity of reading it at the moment:
Postmaster General Canada
Ottawa, Dec. 31st, 1938.
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.
My dear Prime Minister:
While I have regained a good measure of my former health I feel as mentioned in a recent conversation that in the public interest I should not longer look forward to being sufficiently restored to strength at an early date to again actively assume full responsibility for the administration of the Post Office Department, and that before entering on another year, I should ask you to accept my resignation as Postmaster General.
In reluctantly requesting you to relieve me of the duties of the portfolio with which you entrusted me over three years ago I should like to express to you my sincere appreciation of your kindness and cooperation during the years that I have been a member of your government and the pleasure it has been to have been associated with you and all my other colleagues.
It is a real satisfaction to have been in the government during the time that the various

The Ministry-Postmaster General
trade agreements which have been made during this parliament were effected. I confidently hope that they will have a highly beneficial effect upon the trade and business of this country and upon the success and happiness of the Canadian people.
It will always be a source of pride to me to have had the privilege of serving under the leadership of one who will rank in history among the greatest upholders of democracy and whose public services have so materially strengthened the structure of the British commonwealth.
It is my sincere hope that you will be spared to give to this country the benefit of your guidance for many years to come.
With best wishes for the New Year,
Yours sincerely,
J. C. Elliott.
Ottawa,
December 31, 1938. The Honourable J. C. Elliott, M.P.,



D.C.L., K.C.,

[Stage Direction]
Postmaster General,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Elliott:
I have just received your letter of to-day, in which, for reasons of health, you ask to be relieved of responsibility for the administration of the Post Office Department, and tender your resignation as Postmaster General.
As you are well aware, I have all along shared the hope that the impairment of your health would prove but temporary, and that, with rest and change, you would be in a position to continue to administer the affairs of the Post Office Department over which you have presided since the administration came into office in 1935.
I am delighted that your health is so much improved. I agree, however, with you that, instead of continuous improvement in your physical condition, you might encounter a setback were you, either immediately or in the near future, to attempt to resume the duties and responsibilities of a minister of the crown. In your own interest, therefore, as well as in the public interest, I feel you are right in asking to be relieved of the duties of your present office. I shall accordingly, early in the New Year, recommend to His Excellency the acceptance of your resignation.
I shall be deeply sorry to lose you as a colleague in the government. For over twelve years we have been together in the House of Commons, and, of that time, for more than seven years have sat together at the council table. I cannot be too grateful for the loyal and helpful cooperation which you have given me as leader of the party and of the government during the course of those years. I should be distressed indeed did your retirement from the government mean your retirement from public life. Happily, the reverse. I believe, will prove to be the case, and that the restoration of your health will be much accelerated by freedom from the duties and responsibilities of office. This, I trust, may mean for you many years of continued public service.
I thank you warmly for the much too kind personal references of your letter. I need not tell you how deeply they are appreciated, coming as they do from so close a colleague, and so old and true a friend.
May I add that my regret at losing you as a member of the government will be shared by every one of our colleagues. All, however, will rejoice that our association in the House of Commons is to continue, and we shall all hope for the early complete restoration of your health.
With every good wish for the New Year, Believe me, as always,
Dear Elliott,
Yours very sincerely,
W. L. Mackenzie King.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency has to-day been pleased to appoint as a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada and as Postmaster-General, Norman Alexander McLarty, K.C., member for the electoral district of Essex West.
His Excellency has also been pleased to appoint James Angus MacKinnon, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Edmonton West, a member of the King's Privy Council for Canada and to be a member of the administration and minister without portfolio.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
offer my hearty congratulations to the two hon. gentlemen who have been admitted to the King's Privy Council for Canada. I have not the honour of knowing at all well the hon. gentleman who has been made Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty). I know a good deal more of the hon. gentleman who has been appointed minister without portfolio (Mr. MacKinnon). I am sure that so far as within them lies they will do very good work as members of the government, and I heartily congratulate them and wish them well.
I am very sorry that Mr. Elliott's health makes it impossible for him to carry on his heavy duties as minister, and I wish him a full recovery to health.



UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
.ARREST OF SINGLE UNEMPLOYED MEN IN TORONTO
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: On Friday last I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) a question about a number of single transient unemployed men in Toronto who were to come up for trial last Saturday. Since then I have

Arrest oj Single Unemployed Men
been informed, and I presume the minister has had the same correspondence, that these young men have been remanded for a week, in which event they will come up for trial next Saturday. As the matter is so urgent I am bringing it up again to-day. The letter I have received states that there are some five hundred single unemployed men in the category of transients in Toronto, and as the Minister of Labour is to speak in the debate to-day, if he does not wish to answer at the moment. I would ask him in his remarks later to inform the house what responsibility the dominion government takes in respect of this very serious situation in Toronto.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): My information with regard to this matter corresponds with that just given to the house by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). The commissioner of welfare of the city of Toronto, Mr. Laver, was in Ottawa on Saturday, and brought certain information to me with respect to the transient situation in that city. I have since communicated with the Hon. Eric Cross, minister of public welfare in Ontario, and hope to be able to make a further announcement within a short time.


Mr. H. G. CLARKE (Rosedale):: I am pleased to see that the question I had prepared to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) has been asked in part by our leader (Mr. Manion). I should like to ask further if the minister will intercede as soon as possible in behalf of the unemployed seventy-five persons who are in the Toronto gaol.


Mr. ROGERS:: As has been already stated to the house by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), the men who were arrested for violation of a city by-law have been remanded for a week. Any action to be taken with respect to the matter will be considered in the interval.



SITUATION IN AYLMER, QUEBEC-SUGGESTED EMPLOYMENT ON GATINEAU PARKWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RODOLPHE LEDUC (Wright):: Can the Minister of Labour tell the house whether any steps have been taken to deal with the critical situation in the town of Aylmer caused by lack of work and failure of the provincial government to arrange for granting relief to the needy?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): The situation in Aylmer was brought to my attention by the hon. member who has just spoken, also by the mayor and a number of members of the council of the

town of Aylmer. Following that interview I wrote to the premier of the province of Quebec bringing to his attention the fact that a sum of money amounting to $115,000 had been allocated to that province for the rehabilitation of older unemployed persons, and suggesting that, since that money had not been taken up by the province of Quebec, it might be possible that a portion of it could be diverted for the relief of this situation in Aylmer. The suggestion has been made that a considerable number of people in that area could be usefully employed on the Gatineau parkway. I have not yet received an answer from the premier of Quebec, but I am hopeful that either through an answer from him or in some other way early action can be taken to relieve the situation of which the hon. member has spoken.



FISHING INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. FINN (Halifax):: May I direct the attention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) to the lobster industry on the west coast of Nova Scotia, starting at Cole Harbour in the county of Halifax and running westward to the southeastern end of Digby county which is a part of Yarmouth county. A major disaster occurred there as the result of a terrific gale which swept away their traps and equipment. I wish it to be well understood that I am placing no blame upon the Minister of Fisheries or his department. My representations were made nearly six weeks ago. Upon coming to Ottawa, an amount of money was appropriated, namely $100,000. After the amount was fixed-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. Will the hon.
member put his question now?


Robert Emmett Finn: I will ask the minister the question. I was going to relieve him of responsibility, but have been stopped, so therefore he will have to take it. I should like to ask whether the government of Nova Scotia, which has been interrogated many times, has given any final answer. In connection with that, I would ask the minister that all correspondence between the provincial government and the dominion government with reference to the reestablishing of the lobster fishermen be placed upon the table of the house.


Walter Edward Foster: That is not a question which should be put on the orders of the day.


Robert Emmett Finn: I cannot hear you, Mr. Speaker.

Radio-Broadcasting Privileges


Walter Edward Foster: I said that this is not a proper question for the orders of the day. It should have been put by the hon. member on the order paper.


Robert Emmett Finn: I was not so advised, Mr. Speaker, by the clerk of the house. I was advised the other way.


Walter Edward Foster: It should have been put on the order paper as a notice of motion.


Mr. KINLEY:: With regard to the difficulties of the lobster fishermen of Nova Scotia, may I ask the minister whether he did not make a suggestion or offer to contribute towards the relief of these men?


Walter Edward Foster: That question should be placed on the order paper and not be asked on the orders of the day.


John James Kinley: I asked the question only because I feared that there might be some confusion in view of the answer given the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Finn).


Walter Edward Foster: No answer was given the hon. member for Halifax.


John James Kinley: Perhaps the minister would like to answer my question, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries):: In order to keep the record straight, I understood you to rule, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Halifax did not ask a question but asked for the production of papers. In reply to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley) I may say that his statement is correct. An offer was made by the Department of Fisheries to the government of the province of Nova Scotia looking to cooperation for the relief of the situation in that province.



FISH TRAPS IN PACIFIC COAST WATERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I
have to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud)-perhaps he would allow me to make it two questions, seeing that the matter is urgent and the order paper route would be too slow.
Has the minister's attention been drawn to an item appearing on the front page of the Vancouver Sun of January 19, and dated [DOT]Olympia, Washington, stating:
Two fish trap bills designed to restore fish traps to Washington water .	.	. are being
drafted by the Senate Fisheries Committee and will be filed within a few days.
The second question is:	In view of that
fact, is he prepared to take the responsibility
of maintaining our traps, only 4 in number, as against their 219, knowing that the results will be that our catch in those waters will drop from eighty per cent, as it is at present, to thirty per cent, as it used to be when the American traps were operating.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: My attention was not drawn to the
item as published in the Vancouver paper or to the subject matter that has been referred to. The further question of the advisability of reciprocating or of maintaining the policy of issuing fish trap licences is being considered at the present time.



RADIO BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I gave a short notice to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) of some questions I desired to ask of him.
In an Ottawa dispatch to the Gazette, of Montreal, published on January 14th instant, the Minister of Transport, in referring to the McCullagh broadcasting incident, is reported as making a statement that-
One case in point, which became an issue, was a similar request by Sir Edward Beatty. He wished to buy time on a chain and was refused.
I desire to ask three questions of the Minister of Transport. First, did the minister make the statement so reported? Second, has the minister since then informed himself of the relevant facts? Third, is the statement, so reported, true or false?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) :: I regret that I omitted inadvertently in my statement of last Friday to deal with this situation. I had intended to deal with it as well as with one or two other references that have been made in the house. I did refer however to the one-minute interview which I gave to the reporter for the Globe and Mail, and the unfavourable circumstances surrounding it. As I remember it, the reporter asked if this was the first occasion on which the rule had been applied. I said that it was by no means the first occasion. He then asked me to name one occasion on which it had been applied. My mind flashed back to a discussion in the board of governors which had been reported to me of the propriety or otherwise of Sir Edward Beatty having purchased a wire network to deliver a speech giving one side only of a very controversial
Radio Broadcasting

question. It was my recollection at that time that the discussion had taken place prior to the application and that the application had been refused. I have since taken the trouble, however, to ascertain the facts. I find that it was the discussion of an event which had taken place. The broadcast had been given, and no further application had been made.
Therefore, to answer the questions categorically :
First, did the minister make the statement so reported ?
The answer is yes, substantially. I will not argue about the variations in wording.
Second, has the minister since then informed himself of the relevant facts?
The answer is, yes.
Third, is the statement, so reported, true or false?
The statement I made was incorrect, and I wish to state while I am on my feet that I tender a public apology to Sir Edward Beatty for having brought his name into that interview.



EMPLOYMENT OF WAR VETERANS AS CANVASSERS FOR RADIO LICENCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. E. LENNARD (Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) the following question: Will the ex-service men to be appointed by him as radio licence vendors this year receive these jobs upon the recommendation of the officials of the local units of the veterans' organizations, where such organizations exist throughout Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I believe I answered the same question last Friday. In fuller explanation I may say that I was approached by the leaders of certain organizations of ex-service men asking that ex-service men be employed as vendors of radio licences. After some discussion I entered into an arrangement, which seemed to be entirely agreeable to the ex-service men, to the effect that ex-service men would be used for this work as far as they may be available. I pointed out, however, and the ex-service men's committee agreed with me, that the Minister of Transport being responsible for the collection of licences, must take responsibility also for the selection, from those available, of the particular ex-service men who will do the work. That is the situation as I stated it last Friday.


Frank Exton Lennard: On whose recommendation would they be appointed?
[Mr Howe.l



ADDRESS OF MANAGING DIRECTOR OF LONDON LIFE OVER NATIONAL NETWORK

Clarence Decatur Howe: On Friday last the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) asked, on the orders of the day, a question which was sent to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and to which I have received an answer. The question asked by the hon. member was:
Last evening at 7.15 over station CFRB, on a trans-Canada network of twenty-nine stations, Mr. Edward Reid, managing director of the London Life Insurance Company, broadcast an address which was advertised as:
A message to the general public, which will be of particular interest to the owners of the 700,000 policies issued by this company.
Would the minister be good enough to explain to this house why, if Mr. George Mc-Cullagh, publisher of the Globe and Mail, was banned from the use of a network to broadcast a message to the general public and the readers of the Globe and Mail, Mr. Reid was granted the use of a network to broadcast a message to the general public and his policyholders?
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation gives me this reply:
On December 3rd application was made on behalf of the London Life Insurance Company to buy time to enable the vice-president of the company to speak briefly to their policyholders dealing with the principles upon which life insurance was operated. The application for the CBC national network was refused. In view, however, of arrangements made independently by the agents of the London Life Insurance Company with privately-owned stations antedating the extension of CBC network regulations to all networks, it was decided to give permission for this fifteen-minute program of institutional advertising to be accepted by a network of privately-owned stations concerned.



REPORTED PURCHASE OF SITE FOR NEW STUDIO IN OUTREMONT

Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) concerning a matter involving the expenditure of some $800,000 of public money. A dispatch in the Montreal Gazette to-day reads in part as follows:
CBC may purchase site in Outremont.
Proprietors asked to approve sale of land for studio. .	.	. New radio building projectto cost $800,000.	.	.	.if the plan materializes, the building will be erected .	.	. immediately adjoining the
Mount Royal cemetery.
No statement could be obtained last night from CBC officials as to whether or not the corporation had definitely decided to acquire the Outremont site if proprietors approved.
The minister may not be in a position to make a statement to-day, but I do feel

The Address-Mr. Rogers
that the house should be given information in this matter perhaps to-morrow. Would the minister make a statement concerning the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No formal application that
would permit the construction of this building has been received by the government.



BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.J.S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre): In The Nation of New York, in the issue of January 14, there is a news item which I should like to read and upon it to base two or three questions. The item reads:
Some weeks ago Mr. M. S. Reynolds, a resident of Vancouver, wrote a letter to Neville Chamberlain criticizing British foreign policy. Shortly afterward-on November 23- Mr. Reynolds was visited by two plainclothes members of the Royal Canadian Northwest Mounted Police. Producing a copy of the letter he had sent to Chamberlain and of another he had sent to Lord Lloyd, they warned him not to write such letters again.
I should like to ask these questions: (1) Is this incident, as reported, a fact? (2) If so, were the officers acting under instructions? (3) Is such action a part of government policy?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the first time I have heard of the article to which the hon. member has referred and therefore I am unable to answer his question in the way in which he would like to have it answered. I shall be glad to have it stand as a notice and I will reply to it later.


Robert Emmett Finn: In view of the fact that $100,000 has been allocated and has been available for the reestablishment of lobster fishermen along the coast of Nova Scotia from Cole Harbour to the southeastern side of Digby county, which is part of Yarmouth county-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The question to which the hon. member is leading up is one that should be placed upon the order paper and not asked on the orders of the day.


Robert Emmett Finn: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it did not seem to apply to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, January 20, 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.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Before I proceed with what I had intended to say I hope I may be permitted to extend congratulations to the two hon. members who have just been appointed to the king's privy council in Canada. May I also express, what I am sure is in the minds of hon. members, regret that for reasons of ill-health the former Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) has found it necessary to retire. Certainly, in the period of the present government, he has won the respect and warm affection of his colleagues, and I am sure that this feeling is shared by all members of the House of Commons.
In continuing the debate I should like to add my own congratulations to those already extended to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address, upon the exceptionally able manner in which they performed their duties a week ago. The tributes paid to their speeches in turn by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Manion) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) have been repeated by other hon. members who have spoken from all sides of this house. There has also been complete unanimity and concord in the congratulations extended to the hon. leader of the opposition on his return to parliament. As we listened to him the other day I observed that he usually followed his most telling thrusts with a genial smile, and I can assure him now that when he is discussing questions of unemployment -and no doubt I shall be the target of his attacks quite frequently in the future-I shall try to remember the smile as well as the thrusts. As a matter of fact I was not entirely surprised that my hon. friend himself had to smile at some of his observations on trade and employment. I am quite sure that he did not intend them to be taken too seriously.	.
But the leader of the opposition has already scored one diplomatic victory which may have contributed something to his good humour on that occasion. He has succeeded, as his predecessor did not, in bringing back into the Conservative fold the sheep that was lost, and for better or worse has joined the
21S
The Address-Mr. Rogers
[Stage Direction]
fortunes of his own party and the Reconstruction party. We have yet to learn what the terms of reconciliation have been; we do , not know whether the Reconstruction part}' is to be conserved or the Conservative party reconstructed. There may be no significance at all in the fact that in the physical sense at least the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has moved from the extreme left to the extreme right. But I was under the impression, as I think most hon. members were, that the Reconstruction party had principles and policies as well as a leader, and that there was also some reason to believe that these principles and policies were not entirely congenial to all the members of the Conservative party. But upon these questions no doubt we shall be enlightened when the hon. member for Kootenay East has spoken in the present debate.
For the remainder of my time I intend to confine myself entirely to the subject of unemployment, and in doing so I shall follow the speech from the throne and the comments thereon which were made by the leader of the opposition in the course of his speech of last Monday.
In the first place I want to point out that the reference made by the leader of the opposition to unemployment had little or no relationship to the amendment which he moved at the close of his speech. The amendment states in general terms that this government has failed to take appropriate measures to relieve conditions of unemployment and economic insecurity. The leader of the opposition did not refer to these measures, nor did he attack them at any time in substance. As a matter of fact, as pointed out later by the Prime Minister, he ignored entirely the paragraphs of the speech from the throne which referred specifically to the several measures taken by this government to deal with questions of unemployment and relief. Not only that, but he failed in the course of his three hours' speech to suggest any other measures which would be more appropriate to relieve the existing situation, and this despite the fact that the Conservative party held a national convention >n this country six months ago and that my hon. friend has been leader of the Conservative party during the succeeding period.
I have examined closely the speeches made by the leader of the opposition in recent months. I did so because I hoped to find in them some alternative and more appropriate measures which he himself would apply to relieve the existing situation with respect to unemployment. I hope he will correct

me if I am wrong when I say that as far as I have been able to examine his speeches concerning unemployment he has made only three specific proposals which have any actual connection with that problem. His first proposal was that the dominion government should take over the entire burden of unemployment relief. I hope my hon. friend will make it clear to the house and the country, either now or later, whether when he made that statement he had in mind the assumption by the dominion government of the existing relief burden in Canada, including the very large number of unemployables and indigents who have found their way upon relief rolls in the various provinces.
Robert James Manion: I am sorry to interrupt,
but if I may do so, the fact is I did not take that attitude. If the hon. gentleman, who says he has read all my speeches very carefully, had read that one very carefully, he would not find that I made exactly the statement he has quoted at all. He would find that I shid something to the effect of "in greater part." The Canadian Press in all its reports across this country said that. I admit that in many of the newspaper comments on my speech it was said that I made the statement that the dominion government should take it over completely. But if my hon. friend will look up the Canadian Press report or the report in the Toronto Globe and Mail he will find they confirm my statement that I did not say that, because I checked these reports myself and they are correct.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then I understand from
the leader of the opposition that he does not intend that the dominion government should take over the relief burden completely?


Robert James Manion: I am not going to make
a statement of policy just now. I am discussing the subject which the hon. gentleman is discussing; I am not going to give in reply to a question the policy of the Conservative party.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Well, my hon. friend suggested that I was misquoting him. I quote from the Montreal Gazette, which at least would have no motive in misquoting my hon. friend-


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


Norman McLeod Rogers: This is from a speech delivered by the leader of the opposition at Barry's Bay on August 10:
The dominion government, must assume the burden of relief costs, enabling a reduction in

The Address-Mr. Rogers
existing heavy municipal taxation which is retarding business recovery. Hon. R. J. Manion. federal Conservative leader, said in an address here to-day.


Robert James Manion: If I might interrupt, is that a Canadian Press report or the report of a representative of the Montreal Gazette?


Norman McLeod Rogers: That is a Canadian Press
report.


Robert James Manion: I have many of the Canadian Press reports upstairs; I particularly checked them, and they do not say that I said that the Canadian government should take over the whole burden of unemployment relief.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I have simply quoted the
dispatch as I have it here.


Robert James Manion: Is that the heading or the
body of the dispatch?


Norman McLeod Rogers: It is the lead of the dispatch.


Robert James Manion: Never mind the lead;
quote what I said.


Norman McLeod Rogers: This indicates what the
correspondent understood was in the mind of the leader of the opposition on that occasion. I see no reason to continue this digression. I shall be glad to pass over the dispatch to my hon. friend.
Another proposal was made by the leader of the opposition in the course of the Brandon by-election, to the effect that he believed that those who were on relief could be very usefully employed in constructing dustless highways in Canada. I have no complaint at all with respect to the suggestion of my hon. friend that it would be useful to construct dustless highways, but I am sure no hon. member believes that a project of that kind represents what might be termed appropriate and effective measures for curing unemployment in this country.


Robert James Manion: Again I am sorry to interrupt, but we want the matter clear as we go along. I gave that as an illustration. I pointed out in that speech and in others that we had spent about $500,000,000, in fact more, on relief, without getting anything in return. I considered that instead of getting nothing in return that money should be used for public works of various kinds, and I gave dustless highways as an example.


Norman McLeod Rogers: On that point I have not the Canadian Press but I have a report of tthe Brandon Sun, which has not been notorious for its support of the present government. That report says:
The aim of the national Conservative party is to use money now spent on direct relief for
such public works as dustless roads. Hon. R. J. Manion, the party leader, said to 1,700 people who gathered to hear him in the armouries Wednesday night. "It can be done and will be done by the party I'm leading when I get into power," said Doctor Manion.


Robert James Manion: "Such public works." I
have no objection to that report. That is correct.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Then the third suggestion made by my hon. friend was that there should be established in this country, and there would be if he came into power, a ministry of youth. I am not going to comment on that at any length. But I would simply put this to him. that you do not solve a problem simply by appointing a minister to deal with it.


Robert James Manion: You ought to know.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I know something about it, and I am going to speak of that a little later on. You might as well say you can bring about prosperity in this country by appointing a minister of prosperity. You do not deal with the youth problem by appointing a minister of youth. May I say further that I have a keen interest in the youth problem, as anyone would who occupied the position I have occupied for the last three years. But if it is a matter of youth training it must, to be done effectively, be done in cooperation with the various provincial governments which control education, which have effective control over factories and which at the present time control the employment services of this country. Or if it is intended rather to establish special works projects for youth I would remind my hon. friend that the federal government has a number of departments already organized for that purpose and if. for example, it appeared to be expedient to establish special projects for youth such as forest conservation, obviously it is desirable that such a project should be set up under the department that now has a forestry service rather than by an entirely new department which would duplicate services already in existence.
I am not going to labour that point now. No doubt we will have occasion to deal with it later, but so far as I have been able to discover those are the only three specific proposals made by the leader of the opposition in connection with this great problem of unemployment.
Now may I refer briefly to the paragraph in the speech from the throne which sets out precisely and modestly what actually has been done by this government in the way of
The Address-Mr. Rogers

introducing new measures to deal with various phases of that general problem. This is the paragraph:
The dominion government have taken active measures to stimulate private employment through the home improvement plan, the National Housing Act, and the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act. Under those measures certain local taxes have be assumed, and loans made to individuals, organizations and municipalities. The sales tax has been eliminated on important building materials. Special aid has been given to the mining industry by subventions, tax exemptions and improved transportation facilities. At the same time, direct employment has been increased through a substantial expansion of federal public works, and through assistance given to the provinces in the construction of highways, for land settlement, for special projects for farm employment and for forest conservation.
The leader of the opposition and others of his group who have taken part in this debate from time to time have accused this government of inaction. They may say it has been wrong action, but in the light of that paragraph and in the light of the results obtained under those policies they cannot accuse the government of inaction with respect to this problem. And the policies indicated here are entirely apart from contributions made by the dominion government to the various provinces, to assist those provinces in the distribution of direct relief to those in need.
After we came into office one of the first actions taken was to increase the grants in aid, which prevailed under the late administration, by seventy-five per cent in order to relieve the burden upon the municipalities, an object which my hon. friend now says is one which thoroughly deserves the support of this parliament. But the various policies indicated here are a reflection of the conviction of this government that if you are going to deal with unemployment through the provision of work it is wise first of all to try to expand private employment rather than public employment. In the first opportunity I had to speak in this house I stated my own firm conviction that regardless of what might have to be done in the way of expanding public employment it was the first duty of government in a democratic state to take measures to expand private employment. And we have done just that. I took that view because in other countries I had seen that, apart from the regrettable loss of morale that comes from idleness, there is another form of lack of morale which comes from the increasing dependence of large bodies of our people upon employment afforded by governments. So we took the position, in the open, that we would meet our obligations as we saw them

with respect to providing subsistence for those in need; that we would do what we felt reasonably could be done in the way of expanding public works if private employment would not do its part, but that above all we would take the measures that lay at our hands to stimulate employment in private industry, and we have done just that.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What have you done to stimulate private industry?


Norman McLeod Rogers: If my hon. friend will permit me to make my own speech I hope to convince him very shortly in regard to what has been done in that respect.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Tell us.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Yes, I propose to do that. When we came into office it was found that the natural outlets for our products in foreign countries had been lost, in some directions, and restricted, in some directions, by the policies of the late administration. We adopted policies of trade expansion which already have had their reflection in two reciprocal trade agreements with the United States, .and through those trade agreements we have had markets for our products which we did not have before.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And destroyed private
industry in this country.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Under those agreements we have also brought about, as pointed out the other day by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), an increase in the employment afforded in this country; and it could not be otherwise. Even the leader of the opposition, during the course of his speech, pointed out that on the basis of unquestionable surveys made by competent authorities there was a correlation between a decline in international trade and a decline in employment, between an expansion in international trade and an expansion in employment; and no one can say that this government has shown inaction in seeking to find new markets for the products of this country. Does it lie in the mouths of hon. members opposite to accuse us of inaction in that respect when the reciprocity negotiations of 1935 were left in mid air because hon. gentlemen opposite were not prepared to go the last mile in order to get that trade agreement for this country?
But that is not all, Mr. Speaker. In the nature of things trade in this post-war world has been difficult to expand, but this government has never adopted a policy of defeatism with respect to possibilities in that direction. We realized that there were other industries in this country that also might be stimulated by government assistance, and we have given

The Address-Mr. Rogers
assistance to the mining industry, through tax remissions and the improvement of transportation facilities. We have given assistance to the building industry, as a result of which already over 850,000,000 has been expended under the National Housing Act and the home improvement plan. Will my hon. friends suggest that that has not been a useful means of stimulating employment in private industry? Not only that, but this employment in the building trades has been of distinct advantage in that it has been distributed right across Canada. For instance, it has afforded employment where it was most needed, in the great industrial provinces where the percentage of unemployment is at the highest. And with respect to the home improvement plan, there are moneys still available and loans are still being made, while the National Housing Act, as expanded last year, is providing new means of affording a still greater degree of private employment in the building industry.
Now as to public employment. Under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act-I place this under public employment but in one sense it might have been placed under private employment because it is not concerned with projects which come under the control of the federal administration-which has been in existence only a few months, useful self-liquidating projects are now being constructed in many provinces. For example, one of these projects is being proceeded with in Vancouver, representing an outlay of $750,000. Another one in Vancouver will cost $390,000. There is one in Nanaimo to cost $200,000; one in Edmonton, $150,000; one in Lethbridge, $100,000. Five projects are being carried on in Calgary. In Saskatchewan the amounts run up to $628,000, while in New Brunswick they total $402,000. Can anyone suggest that the works represented by these measures have not had the result of offering more employment than would otherwise have been given?
So far as public employment is concerned I would point out that through dominion-provincial works and federal works of conservation and development we have succeeded year by year in diverting a very considerable amount of money into expenditures which are not only increasing immediate employment, but developing the assets of this country, particularly in our national parks and tourist industry, in a manner that ultimately will lead to a large expansion of employment.
The other day my hon. friend spoke of his difficulty in obtaining statistics on unemployment. I am not going to deal with this question at any great length, but I think it will be useful perhaps to clear up any confusion which may exist in his mind because
of the fact that the statistics with respect to unemployment and unemployed on relief come from different sources. First of all, as to the figure he obtained from the bureau of statistics with regard to the unemployment that exists in this country, I would simply remind him that it is only an estimate. If he had glanced over the return that came tc him he would have found the following description of this estimate:
These figures, prepared in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, are, of course, only estimates. They are based upon-(1) the records of the trade union; (2) of the employment services of Canada; (3) the bureau's index of employment in firms; and (4) the population trend.
May I point out this further fact to all members of the house? Those figures were given out even before the onset of the present depression. I doubt if there is any other country where there is as large a proportion of seasonal employment as there is in Canada. Seasonal unemployment, which does not of necessity mean dependence upon the state, is included in the figures given by the bureau of statistics. I do not think it is necessary to say more in confirmation of that statement than to say that in January, 1930, before the onset of the depression, figures similar to those given the other day by the hon. gentleman showed an estimate of 297,000 wage earners unemployed. May I remind the house that at that time no one had suggested that a situation had arisen which called for the distribution of direct relief by this country. We may take it for granted then that this estimate of unemployed includes a very considerable number of those who could be described as seasonal unemployed.
Now, as to registration. I agree with my hon. friend that it would be extremely useful if we could have before us at all times an accurate registration of the unemployed. This country is not the only one in which this problem has arisen. I know of no country with which we are in active contact which has that kind of accurate representation of the unemployed from month to month. I suppose Great Britain comes closest to it. They have it because they have a system of unemployment insurance and labour exchanges which permits accurate returns from month to month with respect to insurable groups. But the British figures are confined to insurable groups in so far as they are actual registrations rather than estimates.
It may be recalled by some hon. members that about a year ago a demand arose in the United States for a registration of the unemployed, and congress voted an appropria-
The Address-Mr. Rogers

tion of $5,000,000 for that purpose. The president called in a very prominent industrialist -if I remember correctly it was the president of the American Rolling Mills-and asked him if he would head a commission to undertake what might be termed an accurate census of the unemployed. They set up an effective organization through the post office and cards were sent out to every person^ for whom an address could be obtained. When the returns came in, the head of the commission said that, they were entirely unsatisfactory in so far as representing the actual situation was concerned. Indeed I have a statement here to the effect that the voluntary registrations were liable to an error of some thirty per cent; that is, thirty per cent of the unemployed did not bother to register, and naturally this factor of error would affect appreciably the result obtained.
The question of the registration of the unemployed as distinct from those on relief was considered by the national employment commission as one of its first tasks. They recommended that instead of setting out in this extremely uncertain way to register the unemployed, it would be preferable that we should obtain our statistics from those who are actually on relief. These people would be registered by compulsion, if you will. The registration which has been in existence for the past two years is the registration recommended by the national employment commission as being the most practical and, all things considered, as the most useful to the government. I would say to my hon. friend that that registration is a registration of those on relief. I shall be glad to give my hon. friend a copy of the form sent out from Ottawa for distribution to relief recipients in all municipalities in all provinces.


Robert James Manion: Is there not one province to which they are not sent?


Norman McLeod Rogers: All provinces.


Robert James Manion: I thought New Brunswick was missed.


Norman McLeod Rogers: I am glad my hon. friend mentioned that. This is a registration of those receiving material aid. For the last year-I may have to correct that and say the last two years, but I will make sure later- the province of New Brunswick has not distributed relief, and for that reason we do not get returns from them of material aid. All the other provinces do send in the returns. As these figures come in to the registration branch, which was transferred to the Department of Labour after the national employment commission was dissolved, they are

carefully collected and the information is assembled by sorting machines. This composes the report from time to time of registration statistics of those on relief. This information has been found extremely useful, and not only in connection with the government's publication of these figures and the separation of agricultural aid from urban aid; it has proven to be of considerable value to the municipalities and the provinces. The registration forms go through these other agencies which distribute direct relief.
I should like to place on Hansard, as I did last year, the results of the latest registration by regions in this country. As hon. members are all aware, this country practically divides itself into four regions, the maritime provinces, the central provinces, the prairie provinces and British Columbia. In setting forth these registrations figures last year I thought it would useful if I indicated the trend in each region. I may say briefly that in the two years from November, 1936, to November, 1938, the three zones other than the prairie provinces showed reductions in total numbers of persons on aid. The maritimes recorded a reduction of 43-7 per cent; central Canada of 43-3 per cent; British Columbia of 14-3 per cent, while the prairie provinces showed an increase of 12'5 per cent. In urban aid alone all zones showed a decrease: 44-1 per cent in the maritimes; 37-7 per cent in central Canada; 2-3 per cent in the prairie provinces and 14-2 per cent in British Columbia. In agricultural aid decreases were shown in other than the prairie provinces, where an increase of 22'5 per cent was recorded. Agricultural aid is not a large factor in the three other zones, however. In the two years to November, 1938. the dominion total of persons on both urban and agricultural aid reduced by 22-7 per cent; in the same period the dominion total on urban aid reduced by 29-2 per cent and on agricultural aid, by 6-1 per cent.
I want to take the house entirely into the confidence of the government with respect to these figures. They are given, I need hardly say, exactly as they come to us from the registration branch month by month; and during the past year, particularly in recent months, the figures have not been as encouraging as they were earlier in the year.
From November, 1937, to November, 1938, the prairie provinces showed 20-2 per cent reduction in totals of all classes on aid, while increases wore shown in the other zones as follows: Maritime provinces, 8-3 per cent; central Canada, 8-4 per cent; and British Columbia, 9-8 per cent. Comparing the changes in numbers on urban aid only as

The Address-Mr. Rogers
between the same dates, the maritime provinces showed an increase of 8-0 per cent; Ontario and Quebec, of 6-9 per cent; and British Columbia of 9-4 per cent; in this comparison the prairie provinces showed a reduction of 5-7 per cent. Agricultural aid showed a decrease in the prairie provinces from November, 1937, to 1938 of 26'4 per cent, but each of the other three zones showed increases in numbers on agricultural aid-though agricultural aid is not a considerable factor apart from the prairie provinces.
Net changes in the dominion totals in the year to November, 1937, were: a decrease of 7-7 per cent in the total of all persons on aid; an increase of 3-5 per cent in the totals on urban aid; and a decrease of 23'6 per cent in the total on agricultural aid.
To sum up: from November, 1936, to November, 1938, the grand total of all persons on material aid decreased by 22-7 per cent, and, comparing the same months in
1937	and 1938, there was a decrease of 7-7 per cent from 1937. Numbers on urban aid decreased by 29-2 per cent in the two years to November, 1938, although from 1937 to
1938	there was an increase of 3-5 per cent. Numbers on agricultural aid were 6-1 per cent more in November, 1938, than in November, 1936, but were 23-6 per cent less in November, 1938, than in November 1937.
If the house will permit me I should like to place this material on Hansard just as it is given, for the information of members, also tables which I think might be useful:	'
.	From the National Registration
Percentage Changes m Total Numbers on Material Aid from November, 1937, to November 1938, and from November, 1936, to November, 1938	'
Urban Aid and Agricultural Aid are Shown Separately
Mari times	
Central Canada	
Prairie Provinces.. .. British Columbia..	..
Dominion	
Percentage change November. 1937 to 1938
Urban Agricultural
aid	aid	Total+ 8-0	+22-3	+ 8-3+ 6-9	+64-1	+ 8-4- 5-7	-26-4	-20'2+ 9-4	+ 13-0	+ 9-8-f 3-5	-23-6	- 7-7
Percentage change November, 1936 to 1938
Urban Agricultural
aid	*'igt iUUltUlcti aid	Total-44-1	- 5-1	-43-7-37-7	-82-4	-43-3- 2-3	+22-5	+ 12-5-14-2	-15-6	-14-3-29-2	- 6-1	-22-7
Dominion Totals on Material Aid
on Urban Aid	
on Agricultural Aid	
Total	
*November
532.000
277.000
809,000
November
363.073
513,475
876,548
November
750,906
295,461
1,046,367
'Figures for November, 1938, are subject to revision.
So much for the past; so much for the
present,


Robert James Manion: Before the minister gets
away from unemployment registration, might I ask him to make this clear, that there is not to-day outside of those on aid any registration of the unemployed, either transients or any other group of the unemployed. That is my understanding.


Norman McLeod Rogers: My hon. friend is entirely
correct. The registration is confined to those who are in receipt of material aid, and who register for material aid. In fact, it is their registration that enables the figures to be got.


Robert James Manion: That was exactly the position I took the other day. The minister and
his leader criticized us very severely because we had no registration of the unemployed, and I pointed out that there was still no registration of them.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Oh, but there is.


Robert James Manion: Of those on aid only.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Of those on aid. But my
hon. friend did not say that.


Robert James Manion: Oh, pardon me; I made
that very clear.


Norman McLeod Rogers: So far as the future policy is concerned I should like to indicate briefly now the principles which will govern this government in its agreements with the provinces during the next fiscal year, and I hope
The Address-Mr. Rogers

the house will grant me its indulgence if in order to avoid any error or misunderstanding I follow my notes rather closely.
1.	Grants in aid. The dominion government is prepared to pay dollar for dollar with provincial governments for material aid (direct relief) up to a maximum federal contribution of forty per cent in each province. Under the maximum this would mean in general terms a forty-forty-twenty division of the costs of material aid among the three authorities, the dominion, the province, and the municipality. Under the proposed agreements the dominion government will provide for a sharing of the cost of aid given to transients on a fifty-fifty basis with the province.
2.	Civic improvements. The dominion government is prepared to offer its cooperation to provicial governments which wish to enable certain of their municipalities to enlarge their normal programs of civic improvements as an alternative to direct relief. To this end the dominion government under its agreements with the provinces will contribute fifty per cent of the direct labour costs of such projects as have been submitted by municipalities and approved by the provin-ical and dominion governments, it being understood that the provincial government in the case of such approved projects will also contribute fifty per cent of the direct labour costs and the municipality will bear the cost of materials and supervision. In approving applications from municipalities for assistance to civic improvements, due consideration will be given to (a) the extent of unemployment in the municipality, and (b) the value of the proposed improvement to the community and the relative cost of materials in relation to the total cost of the project. The employment on approved programs of civic improvements will be supervised, at least in the larger municipalities, by a committee which shall represent each of the three contributing governments. This will ensure that the expenditures on civic improvements will have their maximum effect in reducing relief rolls, and will reduce at the same time the expenditures of the several governments in the municipality for material aid to the unemployed. This form of assistance to civic improvements will not be available to municipal projects which are accepted for another form of federal aid under the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act.
3.	Single unemployed persons and transients.
(a) Youth training. Proposals will be
submitted to parliament to increase the usefulness and efficiency of this project by ensuring its continuity over the next three years. On the basis of the existing federal

appropriation, an annual sum of S3,000,000 is now available through joint contributions for the dominion-provincial youth training program.
(b) Other projects. As announced in the speech from the throne, the assistance given to forest conservation will be extended to other work of national importance in order to provide an opportunity for useful work and national service to single unemployed men. It is intended to develop both federal and dominion-provincial projects in order to extend the employment and training available to single unemployed men under the forest conservation and farm employment plans now in operation in British Columbia and the prairie provinces.
4.	Public works. It is proposed to continue, and in some cases to extend, the various projects of conservation and development which have been placed before parliament in special supplementary estimates at previous sessions. These projects include-and I think it is only fair to emphasize the range of them- aid given to trans-Canada and tourist highways, mining roads, national parks, historic sites, airports, water conservation, rehabilitation of drought areas, elimination of level crossings, and harbour developments. Particulars of these projects will appear in the supplementary estimates.
I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that my time has almost expired, but I felt it of particular importance not only to this house but to those outside that there should be as early as possible this statement of the principles that will guide the dominion government in its agreements with the provinces during the coming fiscal year. May I say that these are policies laid down in pursuance of the experience gained by us in dealing with this problem during the past three years. There is in these policies, I believe, not only the means through which the municipalities which have suffered under a very considerable weight of taxation in recent years will be relieved of a measure of that burden, as we relieved them before, a few months after we came into office; we believe that these, with other measures taken to stimulate the building industry, will lead to a still further increase in building construction in this country during the forthcoming year.
So far as civic improvements are concerned, because of the condition of the municipalities in recent years,- there is no doubt whatever that there is now a very considerable body of deferred works which could usefully be done for the advantage of our people. I am not going to specify particularly any kind of a definition which will confine these civic

The Address-Mr. Rogers
improvements under these plans; but broadly speaking I would hope that under this plan it would be possible for us in this country greatly to increase our facilities for parks and playgrounds and swimming pools, and those things which will not only contribute as an aid to unemployment but assist also in the greater health and happiness of our people, particularly in slum areas.


Mr. HEAPS:: May I ask the minister if housing would come under that category?


Norman McLeod Rogers: I do not believe that
housing would come under that category. But the dominion government has, under other legislation, dealt in a very comprehensive way with housing. Under this legislation, however, very useful work could be done in clearing away condemned buildings as a means of opening the way for housing plans under part II of the National Housing Act.
Apart entirely from what has been indicated here, I should like once more to stress the importance of this government or any government receiving the broadest kind of cooperation from employers generally throughout this country in doing what they reasonably can do, even at some risk, to increase their working staffs during this coming year. I have 'been told sometimes of employers who have done this and who have received a large measure of satisfaction from knowing that in this way they were making their own contribution to the problem. Because-let us make no mistake about it-if private employment is not able to take up the slack; if private industry acting with governments, and having a knowledge that governments are doing their part, does not itself do its part toward that objective, there will be thrown ultimately upon democratic government such a pressure of opinion in favour of public employment that government itself will be asked to undertake burdens which it is not equipped to bear. I think we should remember that.
Attention is given from time to time to figures other than those that I have quoted. The other day my hon. friend quoted from the Canadian Welfare. Council bulletin that some $900,000,000 has been spent since 1930 for relief in this country. I am not sure what purpose my hon. friend had in quoting that figure. I am not suggesting for a moment that he used it as an indictment of this government; because as a matter of fact if it was an indictment at all, five-eighths of the indictment belongs to the late administration of my hon. friend and only three-eighths of it to us. But that figure, I should 71492-15
like to point out, does not represent, to my mind at least, money wasted; it represents rather what this country with other countries has had to do in critical times to conserve it3 population and sustain them in a period of unemployment. One might as well figure the costs of education, of public health, of veterans' pensions and of other services and say, what is there to show for it? There is this to show for it. Apart entirely from the fact that a part of that $900,000,000, possibly forty per cent, includes money spent on useful works under both administrations-I am not confining this to our administration- surely we can say that this expenditure is one which was called for by the circumstances, and any government having a sense of its responsibility is bound to deal with it to the best of its ability.
Other figures were quoted by my hon. friend from the bulletin of the Canadian Welfare Council. He quoted figures, which up to now I have not been able to confirm, with respect to the numbers of youth unemployed in this country. I wish I had time to go into that question-I shall have another opportunity later-because there is something there which needs to be cleared up; and some of our papers in this country would, I think, be wise if before they published those figures they would allow those in authority an opportunity to make comments upon them.
There is no reason why we in this country should adopt a policy of discouragement or defeatism with regard to this or any other problem. The figures which I gave a moment ago, and which will be placed upon Hansard, represent I believe more progress relatively with respect to unemployment than has been made either in Great Britain or in the United States in the same period. As a matter of fact my hon. friend, if he had read down a little further on the bulletin of the Canadian Welfare Council, would have found this statement, that in the United States at this time there are 21,000,000 on relief. The population of the United States is about ten times that of Canada. If we had an equivalent number on relief here, we would have more than double the number which we actually have at the present time. My hon. friend would also have found this statement, that in the last year some 400,000 more unemployed have gone on the unemployed lists in Great Britain than in the previous year. I take no satisfaction in the fact that this situation exists in other countries, but I deplore the kind of attitude in this country

The Address-Mr. Rogers

which is willing to turn its back on the sunlight and think of this question only in terms of discouragement.
I should like to assure this house that this government from the beginning, although at times its progress may have seemed slow and at times perhaps it may have been open to the charge that we were taking too much care before we proceeded in a given direction, at all events has proceeded resolutely upon lines which we felt would lead us utimately towards a sound solution. There is no defeatism here; there is no discouragement; and although there are times, I confess, when one encounters reverses, let us remember that this battle of unemployment is not fought on one front alone; it is fought on a long battle-front, and sometimes we may have to retreat on one sector, sometimes we may have to consolidate our position along the whole line; there is not always an advance. But I believe that, given the kind of cooperation, the kind of enterprise and initiative that exists in this country, at least potentially, it is not beyond the powers of government, and citizenship, to make steady progress towards the solution of this problem of unemployment.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Permit me first to tender congratulations to the two hon. members who have been chosen as members of the privy council. I think I can safely say that I can count them both among my friends in this house, and I am sure they will fill their respective positions to the satisfaction of the party to which they belong.
The announcement in this message to parliament that Their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth have graciously decided to visit Canada this spring has been received with rejoicing in British Columbia. The people of the Fraser valley, Mr. Speaker, will give their majesties a right royal welcome.
It is not my intention to deal at length or in detail with the several matters that appear in this message to parliament. I shall try to confine my remarks to what we in this country have come to realize is our greatest problem, that of unemployment and relief, a matter upon which we have had-I was going to say-during the last forty minutes a very informative address by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers): I will qualify that, and say that at least part of it was informative; the other was a criticism of my leader and a request for cooperation not only from manufacturers but, I believe, from members of this house in connection with this great problem.

Speaking of cooperation, those of us who sat in this house from 1930 to 1935 realize what cooperation the government of the day received from the followers of the present government when they were seated in opposition. Every measure brought down which tended to improve conditions in this country was held up and criticized for days. At no time during that five years did we receive any cooperation whatever from the members of the then opposition; they played party politics all the time.
I quite agree that the program announced this afternoon by the minister, indicating the several projects that are proposed, will be of some benefit, and will, or at least should, relieve to a certain extent the conditions that now prevail. But by no means will that program solve the great problem that faces us. The minister has repeated the paragraphs in the speech from the throne which inform us about what the government has done in the past and for which great credit is claimed. And he has also told us what they propose to do this session. I do not think he quite completed that program, and it would be only fair to the house and to the country that I should fill in this government's record in the handling of the problem from the year 1935.
What have my hon. friends opposite done to correct the condition? We are told to-day of the only proposal which they have to remedy the situation. Let me first remind the government that the Liberal party was returned with a clear mandate in 1935 to deal with the unemployment problem. In this regard I cannot do better than quote from an editorial appearing in this morning's issue of the Ottawa Citizen. It puts the matter better perhaps than I can state it:
The Liberals came into office in 1935 under circumstances as favourable as any party could desire. They had escaped the responsibility for conditions of depression in the five years from 1930. The blame had been fastened heavily upon Mr. Bennett. During the years without the responsibility of office, the Liberals had enjoyed ample opportunity to profit by the mistakes made in government policy. They persuaded the electorate that, with a clear majority in parliament, Liberal policy would correct the conditions of unemployment, transient youth and general insecurity. They were given an absolute mandate.
The people took them at their word and returned them to power with a majority larger than that given to any party in the history of this country.
The minister has told us about housing, about youth training, about assistance to agriculture, and something about forestry. May

The Address-Mr. Barber
I take the house back to 1936. If hon. members will read the speech from the throne presented at that session they will find in it a paragraph informing the house that the camps for unemployed single men were being transferred from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Labour and that at a very early date they would be closed. Of course the camps were never transferred from one department to the other, but they were finally closed. The equipment was carefully sorted, graded and packed, and finally camps and equipment were disposed of. The minister, speaking of these camps at the time, said:
They cannot be supported on grounds either of social utility or of government economy . . . to continue them would encourage an attitude of hopelessness on the part of those for whom they were designed.
Well, within three years the camps were reestablished in British Columbia.


Norman McLeod Rogers: But on a different basis,
if I may say so.


Harry James Barber: They are just about the
same, no matter what basis they are on. There are some twenty-two in British Columbia to-day, and before leaving for the east I was informed that there were 1,900 men in the camps and about 2,000 on the waiting list. The minister says that they are on a different basis, but if you look at the speech from the throne you will find that provision is being made not only for the maintenance of these camps but also for their extension to other work. I wonder if the minister has decided, on the grounds of social utility and government economy, to return to that system.
Talking about camps, perhaps I had better tell a little about one of them. I have here an editorial that appeared on January 11, 1939, in a weekly publication, one of the best weekly papers in Canada, published in my district. This is what the editor has to say:
The story of the forestry camp at Cultus Lake since early in November, the closing chapter of which is, we hope, about to be written, is another illustration of the futility of the country's method of dealing with the problem, and- single transient unemployed particularly; of the wastage of public funds, and what is infinitely worse, the wastage of human fibre.
Arrests for misbehaviour in the camp, in the city, and elsewhere have placed some 16 of the men in jail where they are kept at the expense of innocent ratepayers of organized communities. Others have been dismissed and turned into the highways to roam where they may. Brawls 71492-155
have taken place, women insulted, and generally a state of apprehension created as rumour followed rumour of planned outlawry.

The camp here is not an isolated case. And this is the character of the fruitage after nine years of effort and an expenditure of $900,000.000. If this is democracy, what is worse? might well be asked.
This canker of unemployment, aided by a clashing of jurisdictions, and the apathy of many, is sending out its tentacles in unsuspected directions. There is no question about it but that it is threatening the vitals of democracy and Canadian well-being. Yet the country fails to come to grips with the issue.
That gives you a fair idea of what the camps are. They have all the bad features which the minister complained of in the previous camps. Following the closing of the camps the minister had the bright idea of putting a large number of these men to work. He said he had made arrangements with the railways, through the minister in charge of that department, to take on some ten thousand men on what is known as deferred maintenance work. We find that less than eight thousand men stuck out the season, and the cost to the country was something over $2,300,000. We have not heard any more of that particular kind of project for the employment of those who are out of work to-day. Then we come to the appointment of the commission. We were advised of this in the speech from the throne in 1936. Provision was to be made- . . . for the establishment of a representative national commission, which will cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed, and the supervision of unemployment relief.
From that one would naturally take it that the commission would be clothed with administrative powers. I think that was generally understood by parliament, that they would have power to travel throughout the country, arrange matters on the spot with municipalities and cities, and supervise the paying out- of relief. But we found that the powers of this commission were simply of an advisory nature. The chairman was an outstanding Canadian who undertook the work without pay or expense, solely in the interests of Canada, and I think all who have followed the commission's work and studied its report will admit that he was the brains of the commission. One member was a labour man; the rest were fairly representative of the Liberal workers in this country. They were brought down to Ottawa, furnished with offices and paid the handsome living allowance of $30 a day along with their travelling expenses. One thing that the government did themselves, and did not leave to the commission, was to keep these particular people off relief.
The Address-Mr. Barber

For two years this commission collected information and finally filed a report with statistics and recommendations. Did the government act on those recommendations? I think we can credit them with having acted on some of the minor ones, but on the major recommendation no action was taken and we hear no more of the report of this commission. After all these efforts, coupled with those of which the minister has told us to-day, in addition to the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, this government has not even come to grips with this great problem of unemployment and relief. What have we today? The minister has told us that we have still a large number of unemployed. Among these there has grown up a class of shiftless, rudderless men, some at present concentrated in camps, others roaming the country and others walking the streets of our cities. That group has increased materially since 1935. There has grown up another class, hundreds and thousands of noble men and women who have struggled to keep off relief, a large army of Canadians who, depending on one or two days' work a week, support themselves and their families. Many have lost their homes; their little savings have disappeared. That class has greatly multiplied since 1935. Then we have the .other class, those on relief. The minister told us, and we are also told in the speech from the throne, that there are fewer drawing relief. I am not inclined to give the government full credit for this; Mother Nature played a large part. Last year we had crops where there had been none for some years before; in many other districts crops were better than in recent years, and this went a long way towards relieving the situation. But let me point out in connection with relief that many of our people have become dole-minded; do not want to work; take the attitude that the country owes them a living. In 1935 that class scarcely existed. So that in spite of the statistics the minister gave, this problem seems to me to be much more serious than it was in 1935.
I warn this government that the people of this country have been looking to Ottawa every session since this government took office, remembering the promises and the slogans of hon. gentlemen opposite. There is no doubt they recall that speech of high resolve that the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made on the night of the last election. Someone said it was a bleak October night. It may have been bleak for a number of Conservatives. My leader has already quoted, but I think it will do no harm for me to quote again-in fact I think hon. gentlemen

opposite would like to hear this-the words which the present Prime Minister uttered that night:
In the new era which dawns to-day the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land. They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years,-


An hon. MEMBER:: And since then they have got inside.


Harry James Barber: -and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls, as well as the minds and bodies, of an ever increasing number of men, women and children in our land. We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty; starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance; discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
Almost four years have passed since that speech was delivered. We are reaching the end of this parliament; it is now the eleventh hour. Still we have with us poverty and adversity, want and misery; the announced enemies of Liberalism are still abroad in the land.
I do not want to appear to be altogether destructive in by remarks. It is my privilege to criticise, but I also consider it my duty as a member of this house to support and cooperate as far as possible in measures which I consider would tend to relieve the serious condition in which many of our people find themselves. In the works which the minister has announced to-day I am sure members of this party will cooperate, for the reason that such works will tend at least to relieve the situation. We are told in the speech from the throne as well as by the minister to-day that the government intends to provide a program of public undertakings. We have not the details yet, and the extent to which it will help depends on the nature and extent of that program. I doubt whether it is wise to spend millions on large public buildings. These huge structures may be very nice to have, but it always appears to me that the expenditure involved is not warranted by the employment given. And there are very few of them that are revenue producing; in many instances they are simply a luxury we cannot afford.
There are works of a revenue producing kind, and in this category I would include

The Address-Mr. Barber
the construction and improvement of highways. We need highways and better highways in many sections; we might well divert some of the millions now going to relief to useful work of this kind. I have in mind some in British Columbia that might be taken over as federal undertakings instead of on the fifty-fifty basis, which would relieve the provinces and the hard pressed municipalities. I understand that the trans-Canada highway is already a federal undertaking. It should be pushed to completion. I would suggest that the portion paralleling the Fraser canyon should be improved and that safeguards should be placed at those points at which a number of fatal accidents have occurred during the last year. Then there is what is known as the Monkman pass. I think the Liberal party are pledged to an outlet for the Peace river district, and I would suggest to the government that this outlet be constructed. A number of noble citizens have been working on that construction themselves, and have been seeking the assistance of various public bodies and governments. I believe this should be given consideration. Then we have what is known as the Hope-Princeton highway, on which a good deal of construction work was carried on at both ends through federal assistance some years ago. Of the ninety miles I should say one-third remains uncompleted. If the government would undertake to complete that it would not only provide considerable employment to people in that section but also open up the southeastern section of British Columbia and bring the rich Okanagan and Kootenay districts within a few hours of the coast cities. Indirectly it would be a revenue producer, not only from the standpoint of the better facilities it would give those living in that district but also in connection with the tourist trade. Then north of the Fraser we have the proposed Agassiz-Haig section, the completion of which would connect with the Hope-Princeton highway and the trans-Canada highway, thus offering a direct route along the north bank of the Fraser to Vancouver. I mention these in particular because I think everyone will realize that in British Columbia road construction is very expensive, and means a tremendous burden on a province with such a small population. I also urge the government to take over these projects as federal undertakings, because 1 believe great revenue would be derived from the tourist traffic through the construction of highways in that province.
There is just one other matter I should like to mention. I drew it to the attention of the
Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) last year, and he promised to look into it. That is a highway from the port of Huntingdon, from the international boundary line to the trans-Canada highway. It would involve only one mile of construction. Last year we had a measure before parliament providing quite a large amount to be expended in order to encourage the tourist industry. Huntingdon is the fifth largest port in Canada. As soon as the United States tourists leave the boundary line they come to what is known as a rough gravel road, over which they must travel for some miles before they reach the paved trans-Canada highway. The construction of a road a little over one mile in length would give direct connection with the trans-Canada highway, and I can assure the government that any money spent on that small section would bring great returns from visitors coming from the United States. All these works would provide useful employment, and indirectly would produce revenue and bring new money to this country.
We hear a great deal to-day about world trade which, according to the Prime Minister, would solve our unemployment problem. We are told that wider markets would do the job. Last year the speech from the throne boasted of increased trade, but we find no mention of that in the speech this year. As has been stated already in this house, the fact is that our export trade has diminished by some $200,000,000, with a decrease of $90,000,000 in our imports. It is true that during the last few years we have built up an enormous export trade in raw materials. We are taking our resources out of the ground, shipping them out of the country and boasting of our export trade. We are exporting our raw materials and buying back commodities fabricated from those materials. Will that solve our problem? No. This vast export trade is not doing anything compared with what could be done for the relief of unemployment in Canada if we were fabricating that raw material here and giving employment to Canadians. To-day the minister pleaded for the cooperation of industry. I wonder if he will give industry in this country a chance. The policies of this government up to the present time have made conditions in Canada so uncertain that industry is not in a position to expand and employ more labour. Yes; I am favourable to trade, if that trade means the selling of the products of the farm and of our primary and secondary producers at prices that will bring them a fair return for their labour; I am in favour of trade that will increase the employment of Canadians.
The Address-Mr. Barber

I have mentioned two proposals that have been put forward by the government, a program of public works and efforts to increase trade. There is just one other matter to which I should like to refer. It is the opinion of many Canadians, and, I think, of some members of this house, that if Canada is to survive some changes must be made in our capitalistic system, that there must be something in the way of reform. With this I think many agree. Unemployment insurance is mentioned as a remedy. That is very good, but we shall not get any immediate relief from that. Reforms of various kinds have been discussed in this house; some very able followers of the government have urged that certain changes be made. Monetary reform has been put forward as a remedy for our ills. The Prime Minister himself told the electors that he was going to wage a war against the money power. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), while occupying a seat on this side of the house, had a very bright idea which I am sure we all recall. He reminded us that we had $170,000,000 in gold and that we could manage on a coverage of 25 per cent. Then we would have sufficient money to pay off our debt, at least in part, and provide for great public works. This would be done, he said, if the Liberal party were given a chance. Well, the Liberal party is in power; the hon. gentleman has a seat on the treasury benches, but we have heard nothing more about this scheme to give us money with which to clean up our debts and carry on a public works program. If our problems can be solved, if happy days can be brought back by the adoption of 6ome sort of economic monetary reform, let us have it. The government has at hand all the necessary instruments to work out any such reform. It has trained technical men in the treasury department and there is our national institution, the Bank of Canada. Apparently nothing is to be done about monetary reform; there has been no mention of it or of any other reform on the part of the government this session.
We have now reached the fourth session of this parliament. Almost four years have passed since the present government took office, but wc find that poverty and adversity, want and misery, which Liberalism sought to banish, are still with us. After four years of Liberal rule the great problem of unemployment has not been dealt with, much less solved. The Prime Minister admits that he cannot do anything about it. He says that a conflict of jurisdiction stands in the way. Constitutional impediments and a conflict of jurisdiction are the reasons given for not solving the

problem. If that is what blocked the solving of this problem, why have almost four years passed without an attempt being made to get together a representative national conference? Why was there a delay of two years in the appointment of a royal commission on dominion-provincial relations? Almost another two years have passed since that commission was appointed, and we are now advised that its report will be filed some time this session and will be passed on to a national conference. This means that no action can be taken this session and probably not before an election.
The truth is that in connection with this and other problems the Prime Minister and his government have refused to assume responsibility. Matters that should have been dealt with have been passed on to other bodies. Royal commissions have been very popular with this government. Someone has said, I believe quite truly, that royal commissions are appointed to find out something that we know already. I think that is particularly the case with the commission we have been talking about to-day.
We have heard a great deal about the responsibility of parliament. I was surprised when the Prime Minister told us the other evening that this and other problems rest with parliament, that parliament is responsible for what is done with public funds raised by federal taxation. It is true that parliament votes the estimates presented by the government, but let me ask this question: When did members of parliament have the power to increase a vote? When did a private member have the right to bring in a measure providing for the expenditure of public funds? Parliament has no such power and parliament as a parliament has nothing to do with the shaping of policies to deal with any particular problem. Under our parliamentary system action must come from the government, the Prime Minister and his cabinet. Responsibility rests with the Prime Minister and his cabinet, and the Prime Minister assumed that responsibility when he took over the reins of government in 1935.
Ever since this government came into power it has shirked responsibility and followed a policy of drift, extravagance and high taxation that has done much to cripple industry. It has followed a policy that has created in this country an atmosphere of uncertainty. If our problems are to be solved, if democracy is to survive in this country, there must be a reversal of this policy, from one of drift to one of action, from one of shirking of responsibility to one of assuming responsibility. If

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Canada is to remain a united Canada instead of nine Balkan states, then we must have a strong central government. We must have a government that will give leadership to the Canadian people. Then and not until then shall we be on the road to solving our problems.
In conclusion, let me refer to the amendment to the amendment. One of my colleagues has already referred to it, but I think it would be well for me to touch briefly upon
it. It reads:
We are of the opinion that these conditions can be remedied only by the effective control of financial institutions and monopolistic enterprises which are exploiting the Canadian people.
This has been looked upon as a trick amendment. Any one who does not vote for it is likely to be branded throughout the country as being favourable to control by financial institutions and monopolies. Like the other members of my party, I am bitterly opposed to monopolies and to control by financial institutions. But what remedy do our friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation offer? According to the policy they have been advocating, I take it that their remedy would be to scrap the present system and set up a socialistic state. I fear the remedy would be much worse than the disease. As I am utterly opposed to socialism or any pink shade of communism, I must vote against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, despite the speech of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), I regret that in taking part in this debate my first word must be one of criticism. I regret that there is in the speech from the throne so little from which the hard pressed people of this country can draw new hope and new inspiration. The minister suggests that we should be optimistic. It is easy to be optimistic in this House of Commons. It is easy to be optimistic when you know where your next meal is coming from. It is easy to be optimistic when you know that you can go home at the end of the day to a good meal and a cheerful fireside. The people whom I have met in large numbers during the recess do not have those comforts, and consequently they cannot be as optimistic as my hon. friend the Minister of Labour. At this time people are particularly in need of something to bolster up their courage and determination.
The reason is this: During the past few years until midsummer, 1937, we were slowly getting out of the depression. Many of those who were unemployed in 1933 and 1934 had work in 1937, but they now find themselves slipping again into the depths of another
depression. Consequently they are becoming hopeless and desperate. As I said before, they are not in the fortunate position in which the Minister of Labour, the members of this house and the members of the privileged classes in this country find themselves. They have a right to expect something more from the government than they can find in the speech from the throne. If ever there were a time when a strong frontal attack on economic conditions was necessary, it is now.
It must now be abundantly clear, and I believe it is becoming more clear to the Minister of Labour, that private enterprise can no longer assure sustenance for the masses of the people, let alone a decent standard of living and economic security. This government has sufficient proof of that fact, and the time is overdue when it should begin in a planned way to help the people to extract from the abundant resources of the country a decent living for the present and economic security for the future.
It is not my intention to touch on all the points mentioned in the speech from the throne. The royal visit has been mentioned by nearly all those who have spoken in this debate. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more than that I associate myself with much of what has been said already in regard to the visit of the king and queen. However, I am convinced that if this government had shown as much energy, enthusiasm and thoroughness in improving the economic 'conditions of the Canadian people, who must remain in this land for fifty-two weeks in every year, as they have shown in preparing for the three week visit of the king and queen, there would not be as much misery, distress and want as one sees now on every hand.
The speech from the throne stresses the need of increased armaments and the determination of the government to meet that need. As the subject of defence will be discussed on another occasion, it is not my intention to say very much on that point at the moment. It does, however, seem strange that this government, which claims to be so much concerned over the defence of our country, should still continue to supply aggressor nations with war materials to carry on their aggression. Not only that, but as I pointed out in the house last year, while the government of Canada supplies the aggressor nations, Germany, Italy and Japan, with all the materials they are willing to buy from us, it maintains an embargo on materials for the loyalist government in Spain, thus helping Italy and Germany in their acts of aggression. While helping to arm the aggressor, and
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

a potential invader, if we are in any danger of invasion, we refuse to sell to the legally constituted government of a friendly country the means by which she might be able to defend herself. As one travels through this dominion and realizes the sentiment of the people on this question, one wonders what influence behind this government compels it to follow such a stupid and undemocratic policy.
There have been expressions of congratulations and thankfulness on the signing of the Munich pact of last September. All peace-loving people were undoubtedly relieved that a clash was averted at that time; but we in Canada should hang our heads in shame when we contemplate our share in the disaster of Munich, for Munich was a disaster. War, of course, might have been a greater disaster. But no sooner was the pact signed than Europe began to realize what its real implications were and are. Daily the dictators are becoming more rapacious, and bolder in their demands. Yet Munich was not an accident, nor did it come upon the world suddenly. It was the logical and inevitable sequence in a chain of events-Manchuria in 1932, Abyssinia in 1935, Spain in 1936, China in 1937. Even Prime Minister Chamberlain realized that Munich did not mean peace; for in the very speech in which he extolled the pact to the House of Commons he asked for more and greater armaments, and since that fateful occasion every country in the world has intensified .its armament building program. Consequently it is sheer humbug to represent Munich as in any way making for peace.
In my opinion, however, the most amazing comment on the Munich pact came from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who was attending the sessions of the League of Nations at the time of the crisis. He is reported as having said on his return to Canada that Chamberlain by his action had saved civilization. Now it is conceded on all sides that Munich was a victory for the European dictators, a victory for the rule of force over the rule of law; and if the Minister of Justice implied that any process in that direction is a process that is going to save our civilization, it is certainly amazing to me. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not now in his seat. I can remember him referring in this house to dictators as gangsters and madmen; evidently then, the civilization that was saved at Munich was a gangster civilization.
As I have said, the Minister of Justice was attending the sessions of the league at Geneva during the crisis. The league, the only hopeful and good thing that came out of the last war, was organized to deal with just such 
situations as had led to Munich. But while the league's delegates at Geneva sat impotently twiddling their thumbs, four men sat around the table at Munich, two of them at least with their guns on the table, deciding the fate of a country, without a representative of that country being present or having an opportunity to be heard. That is gangster rule with a vengeance. That was the precedent set at Munich for the settlement of international affairs. And that is what the Minister of Justice called saving civilization!
I am glad to be supported in this opinion by at least one Liberal who has the courage to face realities and speak her mind. In a statement on the world situation issued to the press on Sunday, October 2, 1938, Senator Cairine Wilson, president of the League of Nations Society in Canada and vice-president of the International Federation of League of Nations Societies, had this to say-I shall not take time to read the whole of it but cite only one or two passages:
We are rejoicing as a people to-day that there is peace, but there are some brutal truths which should be remembered, and which I hope will lead to a thoroughgoing examination by Canadians of the peace problem and thence to a more determined and comprehensive drive than ever for a world peace system based on law. Because of the expansion of Germanic power already effected or now to be expected, an even greater responsibility than before rests on the people of this continent.
The first brutal truth is that while great advances have been made towards the goal of a world peace system, and that while the world last week may well have been on the verge of embracing such a system, our leaders continue to subscribe to a concept of anarchy which actually permitted the world war of 1914, and which might well have permitted its repetition in the last few hours. The dread of a general conflagration is still with us. and will remain until an alternative to anarchy is effectively established.
The second truth is that under the threat of naked force in the hands of an unscrupulous dictatorship heretofore recognizing no obligation whatsoever to the world community, we have been obliged to make a surrender which is almost complete, abandoning in the process a nation which stands among the staunchest defenders of liberty and democracy; we did not even give Czechoslovakia an opportunity to plead its case in any of the tribunals' or assemblies created by the world for the pu rpose.
A fourth truth is that the new barbarism represented by Germany , may now be free to extend to the Black sea and to other continents.
Mr. Speaker, I unreservedly support the statements made by Senator Wilson, and I am convinced that no amount of arming to-day can save Canada or the world from the horrors of a war, which was only postponed last September, unless we make collective security effective in the international sphere

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
as we have already done in our community and national life. National defence must of necessity have some relation to foreign policy, and until we know what the foreign policy of this government is, we should not be asked to vote for its defensive measures.
I come now to unemployment. In dealing with unemployment this government has failed, and failed miserably. They have done that despite anything that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) may say. What is more, the government will continue to fail as long as it continues to show no more understanding of the causes of unemployment than the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicated when he spoke in this debate. I was amazed to hear him make the following statement the other evening on the causes of unemployment. I quote from page 59 of Hansard:
May I come now to the matter of unemployment. As I said a moment ago, the problem of unemployment is not a new one in this country. It became a serious problem nearly nine years ago. It was worse during the period when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office than at any time. It has continued to be a most difficult, perplexing and baffling problem -and why? For the reason that it is a -world problem. . .	. It is a problem with which
every country in the world has been confronted in recent years,-and why? Because of the policies that are being made to prevail in certain parts of the world, those policies of economic nationalism which, instead of bringing nations closer together and permitting more and more in the way of trade, are putting countries, as I said a moment ago, into isolated compartments where their dealings with each other are narrowed down to small margins, and where, as a result of the shrinkage of trade throughout the world, there has been a consequent and inevitable shrinkage of employment as well.
To give that as a cause of unemployment is sheer nonsense. No one who has made even an elementary study of the capitalist system could agree for a moment with that explanation. It is nonsense because, as the Prime Minister himself said only a few moments earlier in his speech, unemployment had become a serious problem nine or ten years ago, when industrial, commercial and trade activities were at the highest peak in history. Let me read from the speech from the throne of 1930. The present Prime Minister in that year also was Prime Minister. In the speech from the throne as reported in Hansard, volume 1, page 2, I find this statement:
It affords me much pleasure to greet you at the commencement of another session of parliament. and to be able to congratulate you upon the continued prosperity of the country. The year 1929 was the most productive year in the history of Canada. In industries, other than agriculture, employment reached the highest point on record:	new construction was the
largest known. Mining production was of unequalled value. Manufacturing production surpassed all previous records. There was vast increase in the development of hydro-electric power. The products of our fields and our herds reached higher standards of excellence and quality than at any previous time. The dominion is already recovering from the seasonal slackness evident at the end of the year, and it is not to be forgotten that the bulk of the 1929 wheat crop still remains in Canadian hands for final disposition.
Evidently the economics of 1930 do not fit in with the economics of 1939. We do not rejoice to-day when the bulk of one year's crop is waiting to be disposed of in another year. The seasonal slackness has continued into 1939 and is getting worse again. The dominion did not recover from what the Prime Minister was pleased to call seasonal slackness. Unemployment struck this country, although the Prime Minister did not say so, when he was in office, but it was severe a long time before that in Great Britain and on the continent of Europe. Indeed, unemployment had been chronic in Europe for many years previously. Economic nationalism, the term which the Prime Minister is so fond of using, had made but little progress prior to that time. But let me say that economic nationalism is not a cause of unemployment. Unemployment is a cause of economic nationalism. In 1919 the Liberal party held a national convention, and one of the planks of the platform adopted at that convention, and of course forgotten immediately afterwards, was a plank pledging unemployment insurance. That fact alone is sufficient proof that unemployment is not a new problem, is not one that has come upon us suddenly in 1930 to 1939. It is true that it has become worse during that time, but as the Minister of Labour said to-day, hundreds of people were unemployed in this dominion long before that. But as long as they were able to carry themselves from one job to another, no matter how hard the times might be, unemployment was not considered a problem; in fact it was considered a good thing, because employers could thereby get their labour power cheaper than they could if everyone were employed.
The cause of unemployment is not that there is no work to be done nor that there are no willing hands to do it. The cause of unemployment is that work cannot be done profitably, that is profitably to those who own the means of production in this and every other country. When we put our economy on a basis of use instead of profit there will be plenty of work to do, and should this work give out, unemployment will not be the curse it is to-day, it will change to

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

leisure. To listen to the Prime Minister one would think that we were living in a static world, that the world began with Gladstone and that it will continue just as it was then, time without end. Such, however, is not the case. To-day we are living as for many years we have been, in a world economy which is dynamic in the extreme. For untold centuries man got his living without tools or with very simple tools. But about 1776 a Scotsman in Glasgow found that steam could be used to drive machinery. Later other motive powers were discovered. A new age had dawned. The old order of hand production disappeared. The simple tool became a complicated machine. Wealth undreamed of before the advent of the machine became available. This great production and accumulation of wealth, however, has not turned out to be an unmixed blessing. With the increase of wealth came an increased centralization of wealth. I have not time to enlarge on this subject, but if there are any in this house who are interested in the centralization of wealth in Canada and its effect on the social and economic life of the country I would suggest that they go to the library of parliament and get a copy of the report of the price spreads and mass buying commission. If anyone should find the price spreads and mass buying report too hard to concentrate on, he or she can find the same result, put briefly but more poetically, in the broadcast made by the Prime Minister on October 14, 1935. I referred to this paragraph of that broadcast in a speech last year, and it has been quoted in this house several times during this session. But not only am I going to quote it, I am going to analyze it. I am going to point out just what it means. The Prime Minister, speaking on that occasion, said:
We take up at once as our supreme task the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole that "health and peace, and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.
Let us see just what this means. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), when he spoke on the address, made reference to the fact that Conservative and Liberal governments have been the governments of this country ever since confederation. The hon. gentleman may take whatever comfort he can out of that fact; but when I point out what

the Prime Minister's statement means, it will not afford him much comfort. The Prime Minister said:
We take up at once as our supreme task the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty.
What does this mean? It means that in this country we have plenty and it means that we have poverty. Who has the poverty and who has the plenty? The people who have the poverty are in every instance the people who produce the plenty, and the people who have the plenty are the people who own it.
He said: "We take up as our supreme task the endeavour to end starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance." Again, I say that this indicates that in Canada we have abundance and that side by side with that we have starvation and unnecessary suffering. Who are suffering, and who are starving? Every time, those who produced the abundance. And who have the abundance? Those who own it.
Then he goes on: "to end discontent and distress in a country more blessed by providence than any other on the face of the globe." May I ask, if providence has blessed Canada more than any other country on the face of the globe, who has cursed it so that we have poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in the midst of abundance, and discontent and distress? Possibly the leader of the opposition, who drew attention to the fact that the Liberal party and the Conservative party have governed Canada for the seventy years since confederation, can get some comfort out of what I have read. But if they are not responsible, if they cannot accept or do not accept responsibility for the state the country finds itself in to-day, they must say that governments have nothing to do with and have no part in either making or destroying the welfare of the people. They cannot have it both ways.
Let me now touch on unemployment. The figures for fully employable persons on relief in the first ten months of 1938 show a reduction of almost twenty-five per cent from the same period of 1937. I know that the government takes credit for this reduction. However, we find that when the figures are analyzed there is not much credit due the government. They constitute a damning indictment of the whole policy or lack of policy on the subject. Taken in conjunction with the figures of dividends and interest payments, they are also a perfect illustration of the class character of our society. While the figures of employables

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
on relief were coming down, the figures of unemployment among wage-earners were going up. January, February and March, 1938, showed an improvement over the same months of 1937, but after that every month got worse. These are the figures:
Increase in unemployment
Month	among wageearners Per cent
April	 7-3
May	 22-0
June	 31-6
July	 46-9
August	 47-7
September	 53-7
October	 56-1
These figures are based on a report of
the bureau of statistics.
I wish now to discuss for a moment a serious situation in my own city, Vancouver. In a report from the chairman of the social service committee of the city council and the director of the social service department of Vancouver, made to the city council on January 9 of this year, I find that the situation there is worse than it has been at any time since 1932 The total number on relief, that is, the total number of cases on December 31, 1932, was 11,412. This was the peak of relief in Vancouver. In the following years, there was a gradual decrease until, on December 31, 1937, the total was down to 6,011. On December 31, 1938, however, the number of cases, not counting dependents, was 9,972. The total number of persons on relief has increased from 15.553 in December, 1937, to 20,130 in December, 1938.
This shows a desperate situation. It is an irrefutable demonstration of the failure of the policies of this government in regard to unemployment relief. The situation is becoming desperate for Vancouver. So far they have been able to supply bare subsistence, food and shelter, but clothing is now becoming a matter of the greatest urgency. At present about $10,500 is spent monthly on clothing, but the director of social services has pointed out that the bulk of it goes for children's shoes, necessities for indigents, and a little for special cases of need among relief recipients. There is nothing for the great mass of the unemployed. He said it would cost between $50,000 and $60,000 a month to provide the unemployed with clothing, and the city is not able to furnish as much as that.
This is an urgent situation which the city of Vancouver cannot meet. As one aider-man said when the matter was discussed, "We are killing these people morally as well as physically": and I say we are sowing the seed that will some day spring up in a 7X492-16J
violent demonstration of discontent. This is not a situation that prevails only in Vancouver; it is general in the cities throughout Canada. I received this morning from a labour councillor on the town council of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, the following telegram:
Conditions among Nova Scotia workers deplorable. Rapidly becoming unbearable. Streets filled with hungry unemployed. Actual starvation among part-time workers. Miners working one or two shifts weekly. All business suffering accordingly. No prospect of improvement.
The new leader of the opposition has had something to say about third parties. It would appear he does not like third parties. He is rather contemptuous of them; they irritate him. I suppose that is natural in one holding his position; yet I doubt whether the irritation on this occasion is a bad thing for either the leader of the opposition or the Conservative party. Having no policy, no program, it gives them something to talk about. The hon. gentleman's misconceptions in regard to political parties are simplv amazing. To hear him talk one would think that the way to form a political party is for a few people to get together and say they will form a new party. Let him ask the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) if that is the way political parties are formed. Political parties always represent economic interests. Political parties are merely the expression of economic interests. In this country we took the names of the major parties from Great Britain at a time when the words "Conservative" and "Liberal" meant something. The Conservative party came into being as representing the economic interests of the aristocracy and landed gentry of Great Britain.


Mr. MacNICOL:: And the working man.


Angus MacInnis: They tried for a time to make the working men believe that, but they did not succeed.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am a working man.


Angus MacInnis: The Liberal party came into being as representing the interests of the rising capitalist and trading classes of that time. The people who to-day form the second party in Great Britain did not even have the franchise when these things occurred. The leader of the opposition, speaking somewhere in eastern Canada, I think in Saint John, said that he thought the two-party system was good enough for Canada, and he would like the two-party system on the same basis as in
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

Great Britain. Well, he is likely to have it that way, but his party is not likely to be one of the two.


John Ritchie MacNicol: His party will be the government party.


Angus MacInnis: Which one goes out does not make any difference; when the interests they both represent are in jeopardy they will come together in an instant. The reason the Reconstruction party did not succeed was that there were already two Conservative parties in Canada and there was no room for a third. In the four western provinces the standing of the Conservative party and the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is as follows:
Provincial	Conserv-	Cooperative Commonwealthlegislatures	atives	FederationBritish Columbia.	.. 8	7Alberta	.. 2	Saskatchewan. ..	iiManitoba	.. 16	726	25
In the dominion parliament there are for the four western provinces eight Conservatives and seven Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members. But there is this difference, that recent elections indicate the Conservatives are going and we are coming.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Conservatives going into power.


Angus MacInnis: Oh, the hon. member can console himself with that for a while; it will not do any harm. It is like the optimism of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in contemplating the unemployment situation.
In the two or three minutes remaining at my disposal let me say that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), in referring to the proposed amendment and. sub-amendment, said on Thursday last that he was supporting the amendment whole-heartedly, and then, as the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) did to-day, he referred to the sub-amendment as being cleverly and adroitly designed to put the Conservatives "on the spot" as it were. I assure my hon. friends that it was not designed for any such purpose-I helped to draft it myself. It was designed to put content into the negative amendment moved by the leader of the opposition for his party. We can all agree that the Liberal party since it came into office has not done anything worth while. They have practically been, as someone said, on a sit-down strike ever since. I am surprised that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)

has not taken action against them. I could read sufficient proof from official documents, from statements of leading men in this house, that financial interests and industrial monopolists control the very life-blood of the Canadian people. And I am satisfied that no government can even pretend to do anything for the people of Canada until that government is prepared to take effective control over those things that exercise such power over the lives of the people. In every country in the world where economic improvement has been made, it has been made to the extent that governments have taken that kind of control. The hon. member for Greenwood in the summer of 1936 visited the Scandinavian countries. He spoke here in glowing terms of the graceful curves of the streamlined pigs in Denmark, produced under a social democratic government. He spoke of the wonderful things done in Sweden, yet in Sweden there is also a socialist government. The hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Fraser Valley and all hon. members who are going to vote against the sub-amendment because it would mean socialism in this country are doing exactly what has been done all through the years whenever anything new was suggested. What social service have you to-day which was not branded as socialism when first suggested? Old age pensions, mothers' pensions, workmen's compensation; all these things were branded as socialism. Let me tell my hon. friends that they are going to make no progress when they go to the country if they indicate beforehand to the people that they are not going to take effective steps to control the interests that are throttling our economic life.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, this being the fourth and probably the last session of the eighteenth parliament, as usual I should like to take part in this debate on the speech from the throne, or, in other words, in this verbal marathon. The speech from the throne has been dealt with, at least in part, by every hon. member who has spoken so far. I am not going to make any attempt to-night to discuss the details of that speech. Sufficient it is to say that it gives every indication that the Liberal party

The Address-Mr. Poole
has abandoned its ancient faith and relegated monetary reform to the land of hoary fallacies. I do not think any government that has been elected since confederation has had a better opportunity than this one to do something during its term of office. That it has dismally failed is evident to the people of Canada, and is shown by conditions that prevail throughout this country to-day.
For a moment let us review some of the events that have occurred during the depression years. In 1930 the Liberal government was removed from office. Conditions prevailing at that time were conducive to change, and in that year there was elected a Conservative administration. The major plank in the platform of the Conservative party of that day was the abolition of unemployment. During the course of the five years during which the Conservatives held power, the Liberal party, being out of office, had a. wonderful opportunity to see what effect Conservative policies had upon the economy of this dominion. However, those five years have passed into history. In 1935 the Liberals were re-elected on the cry of "King or chaos," and the promise to issue credit in terms of public need. Since then another four years have passed, and the people who placed their faith in the Liberal party once again await an opportunity to remove from office those breakers of pledges, those who have broken their promises to the Canadian people. The abolition of unemployment was also mooted by the Liberal party then aspiring to office, but the conditions that existed four years ago still exist, and they are just as acute now as they were then.
Why is this? The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), speaking just before the dinner recess, referred to the two old-line parties. Permit me to say that there is no difference between a Liberal and a Conservative, except perhaps in some slight details. Once the Liberals were known as free traders, but to-day, under a Liberal administration, we have the highest tariff wall in our history. If in the old days there was any difference between the parties, that difference might have been found in the height of the tariff wall, that and no more. Both parties endeavour to maintain the status quo. Both are traditional parties. Both are unwilling to face facts and tackle the gigantic problems that confront a government in this country. Under the old-line party philosophy the economy of Canada is based upon foreign markets. Surely it must be evident to any child in the kindergarten that international trade, as it was carried on in the days that
have gone, no longer exists. We can no longer depend upon foreign trade to give us internal prosperity. It is true that we are passing through a period of rapid change. No longer are there unlimited markets to exploit; no longer is there the opportunity that once existed for the expansion of capital. The democratic nations of the world are fighting over the last great, important market, which is Great Britain. This has resulted in a great deal of criticism of the British government by the agricultural people of that country because of the low prices received for home products there, on account of competition from overseas.
Under the Conservative regime we saw the completion of the Ottawa trade agreements. We are conversant with the negotiations that were carried on between Canada and the other nations of the world, and we also know that in spite of those efforts conditions became increasingly worse. This government has now signed an agreement with the United States of America. I predict here and now that the common man of this country will obtain no benefit from that agreement.
Why do we arrive at the conclusion that international trade has broken down, that it is unscientific to base our internal economy upon it? Let us look at Europe for a moment. We find Germany expanding its economic influence throughout Europe, and as the troops march in, so do the salesmen. We turn to Italy and find that last year they had more land under cultivation for the purpose of growing wheat than at any time in their history. We turn to Japan; as the army advances into China, so they will industrialize that nation. They have already intimated that in future the China trade will belong exclusively to the Japanese.
We as a nation are dependent upon foreign markets; this government still holds out the hope, in almost every speech that comes from the opposite side of the house, that if we can only expand our trade conditions will become normal. I was surprised to hear the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) making excuses the other day for the failure of his government to improve conditions. In 1935 we had a wave of optimism. The other day in this house a responsible minister of the crown took us back to the days of 1914. He told us that conditions which prevail now prevailed then. I feel convinced that the Minister of Agriculture knows differently. He knows that there has been considerable technological progress since 1914. He knows that the markets of the world have contracted. He knows that the world is to-day more

The Address-Mr. Poole
heavily industrialized than it was then. Still they tell us, or at least, imply, that because we regained some strength 'and recovered somewhat from that economic epileptic fit, we shall also recover from this one.
I want to place on Hansard a timely article which appeared in the Western Producer in 1937. What was said then is more true to-day as the evidence comes more before us. I quote:
There are still those, and many of them, who believe that the good old days will again return. The good old days that is, of flourishing trade, with its favourable balances and accompanying large-scale foreign lending. How any such delusion can be nursed by intelligent observers, in view of the facts as they exist to-day. is difficult to understand.
What are the facts? One has only to read the papers. Take for the present purpose, agricultural products, which are much more difficult to develop and increase than manufactured articles. Over the past decade the increase in production of foodstuffs in hitherto importing countries is there for all to see. Only the other day it was announced that Italy, to meet a wheat shortage, had undertaken the greatest sowing in her history. She did that rather than buy the Canadian or any other surplus. That is merely a spectacular and recent instance. The same thing is going on in every country in Europe. There is a steady and persistent effort in each nation, and in the case of all products, agricultural and industrial, to reach as nearly as conditions permit and as soon as possible a state of economic self-sufficiency.
Canada along with other democratic countries is slowly but surely going to be drawn into that orbit of economic nationalism. Many people in this dominion are losing respect for parliament, the reason being that in spite of criticism of dictator nations they see that at least those countries can show more common sense results than we can. To-day in Germany there are only 280,000 or thereabouts unemployed, whereas in 1932 there were 6,500,000. They are producing more to-day than at any time in the history of that nation. There is an acute shortage of labour in most trades. They are making inroads into markets that at one time were almost exclusively British.
I have a high regard for a government that keeps its promises to its people. Democracy is a wonderful ideal, but it is unfortunate that it has never been tried in Canada. Our people have the right to vote, but they have never yet had the right to get the thing they voted for. In 1935 the people of this country voted for monetary reform. They sent the Liberal party here to issue credit in terms of public need. The public were not in any position to go into the technical details of how these things were to be brought about; that does not matter, but they did instruct parliament

to bring about that condition. It seems that once a party gets into power it does not matter any more if it fails in its promises. After failing to solve these problems over a period of four years, this government is now endeavouring to divert the attention of the people from the thing they really want to something else.
A new cry has arisen, the cry of national unity. It is on this question that I want to say a few words. National unity! It is a great thought; it is a great ambition, but you cannot build national unity with lip-service. The farmers of the west have been accused of desiring secession. Who can blame them in view of the volume of evidence we have that the west is not getting a square deal? What privileges has western Canada in the eastern market? Where does the east buy its coal? Where does the east buy its oil and gasoline? In the constituency I represent there are many unemployed miners and there are many others who would be better unemployed because they are employed only one day per week. This state of affairs has continued over a period of four years. We ship into Ontario and Quebec coal from Pennsylvania and from Great Britain; in other years coal has been shipped in from Germany and Russia, but when it comes to western coal there is no market.
The same applies to oil. We have in western Canada possibly one of the best oil fields on this continent; yet we have a proration below thirty per cent. What inducement is there for western Canada to continue under the power of this government? Oil is shipped in from Peru and from the United States, but western oil can stay in the ground and the oil workers can continue to swell the relief ranks. It is from the east that you hear this cry of national unity. Let us have national unity by all means, but let it be composed of economic cooperation and common sense. Let us realize first of all that charity begins at home. If we have anything to buy, let us buy it from our own people and employ our own workmen. This question of national ynity has been discussed many times in the house, and I have heard many after dinner speeches and read many reports in the press on the same subject; but I wonder if the people of Canada know just how much it costs the people of the west to be a member of this confederation.
Let us for a moment consider freight rates. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that it is an impossibility for the people of western Canada to industrialize that part of the country? Do you know that there has been a discrimination against the west through the

The Address-Mr. Poole
tariff structure, over a long period of years? Do you know that a commission was set up in 1922 to investigate these questions? But sincp that time nothing has been done about the matter. The people of the west are a positive people. They like positive action. We are tired of listening to maudlin sentimentality about national unity in the face of the facts as they present themselves to us in our daily lives out there. Everything we buy we buy from eastern Canada, while eastern Canada purchases nothing from us- nothing. Even in the recent trade agreement with the United States we have been deprived of the preference we had for our Canadian wheat in the British market. It seems as if the west were used simply as a pawn in the game of trade negotiations. On the subject of trade agreements I should like to make this point, that I do not see what hope there is of any government making a satisfactory trade agreement unless the people who are to be affected by it are represented in tJhe negotiations. There should be a board set up representing each and every province, and before the negotiations are completed the views of this board should be sought so that the people of the west would know whether, when the agreement was completed, it would be in the interest of Canada as a whole, and not simply in the interest of eastern Canada.
Let me go back for a moment to the question of wheat and the future of the west. Premier Bracken, speaking quite recently, was quite pessimistic with regard to the future of the west, and no one can blame him. At the present time we have a minimum price of eighty cents a bushel for our wheat, but we also have the greatest world's carry-over of wheat since 1932, and with even a normal crop next year the price of wheat in the markets of the world will fall. There are those who say: Well, the United States government is purchasing wheat and taking it off the market. But so long as we are living under a system of cannibalistic competition which we describe as the law of supply and demand, the very fact that this large carryover of wheat is in existence makes it, no matter who holds it, a drug upon the markets of the world, and the question I should like to ask this government or any member of it is this: What is our policy in view of the conditions which I have briefly outlined? The Liberal party has already discarded the major plank in its platform, monetary reform, and the evidence of contracting markets is before us for all the world to see; yet we continue to operate under a system that makes the country depend upon external markets for its
internal prosperity. I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the members to your right are conspicuous by their silence just now. It is no use going to the country and asking the people to return you to power because you believe in national unity. However well that story might go in some parts of Canada, it will never go in the west because we are tired of talk; we are looking for action.
One other thing I would urge, Mr. Speaker, is that there should be a change in parliamentary practice. I do not think a government should be subject to defeat simply because a majority of its own supporters have voted against a measure which the government has introduced into the house. Such a practice makes members vote against their principles. It makes the party supreme over the nation. It means that men will vote to support their party while at the same time voting against their conscience. That has been evidenced in every session here. If that practice were changed, and the government were not to be considered defeated because of the defeat of some measure which it had introduced, the government's supporters could vote according to their conscience, and then we should have some really honest legislation.
We are on the verge of war; it is almost upon us. It is astounding to me that maybe in a few short weeks those in this country who have received the least attention, those who have been considered as units and dealt with as units rather than human beings, will for the first time in possibly nine years wear a suit or uniform. I venture to say, when that day comes, the question of where the money is to come from will never be raised in this house, because a national crisis will be upon us, and there will be no dispute; every member will join in raising the money. For the last nine years we have had an enemy within, that greatest of all enemies, that great demoralizer of the human family-poverty. But poverty was not looked upon as a major crisis that money must be found for. No; men could rot in the bread lines of this country; men could walk the streets; the very temper of a man's soul could be destroyed. While we all expressed sympathy for him, it was too bad but we simply had no money for him.
Democracy has passed away in many nations. In Canada democracy has not yet come. We have had a dictatorship masquerading under the name of democracy. We have elected parliaments which did not have the power to do anything when they got into power. They were made up of men who were ambitious for themselves; others of them did not seem to

The Address-Mr. Poole
care, and those who did must have left this house at the end of every session despairing that anything of a really concrete nature would ever be done. In this country we are not twenty years from an open dictatorship. Nothing will kill the chances of a democracy faster than hypocrisy. The government must be honest with the people. Either it must give them monetary reform, or it should tell them, "We have no intention of putting , in monetary reform." Let the people know exactly where they stand, and let them judge.
In the last nine years we have been destroying rapidly the greatest asset this nation has, the joy of life in the hearts of men and women. There are men twenty-nine years of age who left school in, say 1928, who have never yet had a job. To-day we are training men in training centres who will never have an opportunity to embark upon a career. We have provided no places where they can be absorbed. I have asked this government many times in the last two or three years what percentage of its supporters in the house have paid a visit to these camps, soup-kitchens and relief offices. I venture to say that ninety-five per cent of the government's supporters never saw the inside of any of these places and have never bothered to find out the conditions under which people are living. If one must be a legislator, to do the best by the people it is necessary to be conversant with the conditions under which the people are living. To live here until the end of the session, to wait until parliament is prorogued, or dissolved, and then just wait until the next session rolls around, is not being a legislator. At my home in the west an average of ten farmers a day come to me with their problems, problems of debt, and I have no option but to tell them that nothing can be done about the matter. Their debt condition is such that they will never in this world pay what they owe. Those who once were the proud owners of land are in a worse position than the tenant farmers of feudal times in England; they have the responsibilities but not the fruits of ownership. They are responsible for the debts which have been shackled upon them, while we just sit here and wait. A chap said to me the other day, "What is the Liberal party doing down there?" I said, "As far as I can see, they are just waiting for Santa Claus-for something to happen."
Is there any indication in the speech from the throne at this fourth session of the eighteenth parliament that the government is going to do anything? Is there any real 
release from the anguish which the youth of this country have suffered in the last nine years? Or, as has happened before, is it expected that the Canadian people, assuming they do not support the Liberal party, will turn back to the Conservative party? What a hopeless mess is this thing we describe as a democracy! Unless we discard our traditional way of trade as a way of life; unless we face the facts of superabundance; unless we practise the altruistic principle of economic security, commensurate with our intellectual, physical, spiritual and material resources; unless we coordinate our energies and loyalties for the common good of Canada, democratic and economic freedom will pass into that isolation and solitude aptly described as oblivion.
When I came into this chamber to-night it was most difficult to get a quorum. At other times I have listened to speakers here when the house was almost empty. I have heard men laugh when I described the poverty of the people-the laughter of members of this parliament who were sent here with a sacred mandate to legislate the people out of poverty. Did they succeed? If not, why? Now, in the dying days of the eighteenth parliament, we are going to divert attention by raising a new standard, the standard of national unity. Well, when government supporters come to the western country, at least to the part where I live, that will not be good enough. The people who elected them gave them a job to do when they first came to Ottawa, namely to issue credit in terms of public need. For four years the group to which I belong has endeavoured honestly to place before parliament a monetary system which would lift us beyond the realm of poverty. The only criticism which came from the opposition was, "it is inflation." They never gave us any evidence of it; they discarded all ideas of a discount rate, just prices, and the like. Yet we find that under a dictatorship in Germany they are operating with money, labour money issued on the ability of the people to labour.
The effects of this iniquitous and cruel monetary system are that it is driving the people of this country to distraction. I know that so far as the farmer is concerned he has abandoned hope. Men who purchased land when the price was high and bought implements at exorbitant prices are to-day being squeezed dry by mortgage and implement companies which demand not only their pound of flesh, but blood also; they must have interest, and compound interest. To these exploiters this government has been genuflecting for years. You cannot have on the one

The Address-Mr. Maybank
hand unlimited exploitation and on the other prosperity for all; the two do not work together.
I do not accuse members of the Liberal party of being less desirous than I am of doing something for this country, but one thing we must do is to find the source of campaign funds for the old-line parties. We must find out where these thousands of dollars come from. There is a suspicion that they come from big industry, and big industry has never been known to give anything unless it got twice as much in return. Parliament must be free, unfettered and courageous, depending upon no outside interests. When a member steps into this chamber, it is to legislate in the interests of the people, not of groups and individuals.
So there are two things which I have brought to the attention of the house to-night. One is that we should change our practice in this house of defeating a government whenever a government measure is defeated. I think we should replace that practice with a method whereby a government might lose on a measure introduced in the house and still retain office. This would give an opportunity for members on the government benches to oppose according to their conscience. The other is this: We must find some method of financing elections in Canada without depending upon big business interests. These are two things that must be done in order to remove some of the debris that stands in the way of progress.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.


Eric Joseph Poole: With the permission of the house I should like to finish the sentence.


Walter Edward Foster: By unanimous consent of the house.


Eric Joseph Poole: In all kindness to the government I would say that we must concentrate our attention and energies on the internal problems of the country, because that is where the solution lies; for if we continually depend upon export markets as the measure of internal prosperity, this will lead us only into chaos and as a nation eventually into oblivion.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have just listened to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Poole) speaking as though he thought that from time to time, and I inferred from the way he spoke that he believed it occurred quite often, there was a violation of the dictates of conscience on the part of those of us who support the government. I do not know for how many I
speak, but I think I speak for most when I say that I have not at any time been conscious of outraging my conscience when I have desired to support the government, and I have never supported the government unless I have desired to. Since coming to this house I have always felt that I could criticize this government-and in one or two respects I propose to do so to-night-with complete freedom. I may assure the hon. gentleman that whenever I believe the policies of this government are sufficiently far off the track to fail to enlist my support, I shall be voting against them, just as he will. He may be voting against them because it is the usual thing for him to do, and it may be that we sometimes support the government when we are not wholly in accord with them because the particular matter involved may not be sufficiently important to justify us in disagreeing. But the hon. gentleman need not worry about the virtues of those who support the government. By and large he will find that those members on this side of the house, or on the other, supporting the government, are just about as virtuous as are members within the social credit party. It is an entire mistake for anyone to get the idea that in his party there is a monopoly of virtue.
I had wished that my first words this evening should be words of congratulation to the two ministers of whose appointment we were advised this afternoon. I desire to convey my very hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and to the hon. member who has until a short time ago been my neighbour over here, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) . I am glad that we knew these gentlemen before they were elevated because naturally it is a little easier to get to know a fellow when he is a back-bencher like yourself than it is to get to know a man when you meet him for the first time in the exalted position of a minister of the crown. We feel with reference to these two gentlemen that for at least six or eight months we can meet them on almost the same terms as heretofore.
This section of the house has been referred to as the "rump"-these thirty-eight or thirty-nine or forty seats on the immediate left of the speaker. It was my roommate, the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader), who so denominated this Liberal section of the house. I may be wrong, but if it was not he, it was some other good farmer or butcher who knew that the best part of the meat is to be found on or near the ramp. That is why he gave that name to this particular section. The Prime Minister (Mr. The Address-Mr. Maybank

Mackenzie King) is not in his place at the moment, but I wish to suggest to him through the pages of Hansard that he made a mistake in naming the hon. member for Edmonton West minister without portfolio; that hon. gentleman should have been designated Minister of the Rump. At any rate, although we lose him from this section of the house we are certainly all gratified at his elevation. I need not say that we are also pleased that the hon. member for Essex West has been similarly elevated.
I want in particular to speak to-night on the subject of employment and unemployment, but before doing so I wish to make a suggestion with relation to the royal visit. I must confess, at the outset, the suggestion is not entirely my own, and later I shall tell exactly where it came from. Ever since the accession of Victoria the Good, the British Empire has been blessed, I believe, with a royal family that has been preeminent among all the good monarchs of the world, and I think the virtues of the Victorian succession have been particularly well exemplified at all times by our present king and queen. It seems to me that the outstanding quality of this reigning house and of our present king and queen has been a thoughtfulness, a regard, and an affection for the common folk of the empire, and therefore I wish to make this suggestion-in fact I urge it most strongly -that at some time during this Canadian visit we try to give to their majesties that kind of pleasure which would go direct to their hearts. I suggest that we try to arrange that they visit some of the humbler homes in the country. For example, suppose we could arrange in Winnipeg-and that would be a very appropriate place-a visit to the home of someone among the humbler people of the community, the home of some man in the medium income brackets, a man receiving, say $100 a month, a man in whose home there are children, and whose wife does her own housekeeping. How excellent it would be if their majesties could visit a home of that sort and could have tea, or lunch, there. It does seem to me that it would give them an opportunity to become acquainted with the real Canadian people. They would in that way get to know more about the Canadian people than they could ever learn by all the garden parties, state receptions, soirees and that sort of thing that might be arranged.
Now I said that the idea did not originate with me. As a matter of fact a member of the press gallery came to me and made the suggestion, told me it was the idea of his own paper. And that paper, the Winnipeg Free
[Mr. Maybank.)
Press, carries a story to-day advocating such a visit. I know that if this government would indicate consonance with the plan, the Manitoba committee would arrange the details as far as the city of Winnipeg is concerned, and I believe that committees in other provinces would act in a similar fashion. We have noticed in the papers from time to time accounts of such visits in the old country by royalty, and we know that nothing has endeared them to the hearts of the people more than their activities in that regard. It seems to me that visits of that kind would be entirely in keeping with the desire of their majesties.
I desire mainly to speak now upon the subject of employment. At once I wish to turn my attention towards a point that was raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) in his speech and another point which arises from what he has written in his book. The leader of the opposition lamented in this house that his party had been attacked here and had been thrown out of power by reason of the fact that they did not cure unemployment. But the hon. gentleman is in error in such a statement. It was not because they did not cure unemployment that they were attacked, but because they had promised to cure unemployment, and not merely failed to do so, but aggravated the condition. If they had not promised themselves into office, they might not have been thrown out so hard. I would also draw his attention to another error which is properly chargeable to him, in this case an error of omission. It does not refer to what he said in this house but to what he wrote in his autobiography. He was giving certain reasons for the defeat of the Conservative party; prominent among them was the action he charged against the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). But he failed to indicate one of the chief and very cogent reasons, one peculiarly related to himself. He was Minister of Railways during those five years, and during those years the Canadian National Railways were systematically sabotaged. The people of this country feared amalgamation. He undertook to amalgamate the telegraph lines and the express business, and it was naturally felt that this was a forerunner of complete amalgamation.


Robert James Manion: I just wish to contradict that statement, without going into details at this moment.


Ralph Maybank: I might draw to the hon. gentleman's attention that I do not think he had any right to rise and contradict me in

The Address-Mr. Maybank
that fashion. If anything is said which is clearly an error of fact in some definite way, he may perhaps have the right to rise and contradict it. But to rise and make little short speeches of that sort, surely he has no right to do. I have a right to draw an inference from his conduct. I draw the inference from his conduct as Minister of Railways that the systematic- sabotaging of the railway that went on during those years was largely attributable to him.


Robert James Manion: That statement is absolutely untrue. There was no sabotaging of the Canadian National Railways at any time.


Ralph Maybank: It was sabotaged from the day the late government came into office until the day it went out.


Robert James Manion: That is not true.


Ralph Maybank: It is absolutely true. I do not say that the hon. gentleman went out and took up the rails and carried them home. I do not say that he himself told the railway people not to go out and look for business. But from the moment he took over that portfolio the manner of carrying on the business of the railroad was changed. We know that the men who were working for the railway during those five years were trembling every day that he went to his office as Minister of Railways. Certainly what I said in regard to telegraph and express business is true, and in the light of that it is a reasonable inference to draw that this was the first step towards complete amalgamation. If he was not responsible for it I should like to know who was; he was Minister of Railways and stayed with the government which was doing it. A few days ago he attempted to indicate to us that we ought to know what went on in the council at that time, meaning to hint that he did not agree with that policy. We have no record of that sort. I say that when he undertakes to revise his book he had better say that one of the chief reasons for the defeat of the Conservative party was his handling of the railway during that five years.


Robert James Manion: That is a misrepresentation.


Ralph Maybank: I object for two reasons: the first, a point of order, and the second, that the hon. gentleman is unparliamentary in his language. I know there is not much more chance of stopping him jumping up like that than there is of preventing the soda from coming out of the bottle too quickly when you shake the bottle, so I suppose I can do nothing more than register my objection. I again respectfully suggest to the hon. gentleman that if and when he revises his book he should
insert the statement that one of the chief causes of the defeat of the Conservative party was his own handling of the railway question while Minister of Railways, because unquestionably that did contribute very greatly to their defeat.
I am not going to imitate the hon. gentleman in failing to take notice of anything which may be unpleasant. I do not for a moment suggest that conditions in the country are all as they ought to be. Frankly, I think my own party has been in some measure to blame. I think it is to blame as far as it has imitated Conservative methods in the handling of this employment and unemployment question. I am going to say what I think at any time, without either fear or hope of favour.
But it is idle for the hon. gentleman to suggest that conditions have not improved since the time he left office. Instead of peonage in labour camps we have at least managed to put some 20,000 of the younger men happily out on farms. We have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 35,000 who have been helped by the youth training policies. The general trade policies of this government have resulted in increased employment, whereas the economic nationalism of the hon. gentleman's party led directly to unemployment. Millions of dollars have been supplied to municipalities for work which they can undertake. The construction industry has undoubtedly been stimulated by the housing act, to the amount of about $28,500,000. When the former government was guiding the country's affairs we had nothing of that sort. True, an act was passed, but no machinery was set up for it to work. The home improvement plan was a simple and effective way of aiding the construction industry, and some $25,000,000 has been spent under that to aid employment. The former administration, it would appear, was more in favour of passing nugatory and invalid labour legislation which never did march and probably never was intended to.
Again, I do not think the late government was criticized so much for not having accurate records. Rather the criticism was that it had almost no records at all. Consequently it followed a hit-or-miss policy with respect to unemployment and employment; it was a hit-and-miss policy in the beginning, a hit-and-miss policy in the middle of its term and a hit-and-miss policy until the very end. But we did find that there were in the neighbourhood of a million on relief in the September following our return to power, and it was more than that when we started. By September of last year that figure had been reduced to a little more than half a million.
The Address-Mr. Maybank

Urban unemployment, at the time the count was first made, was about 700,000, while two years later it was reduced to 444,000.
Many other comparisons could be made, all to the disadvantage of the administration of which the hon. gentleman was a member. I am not at all satisfied with present conditions, but I think the hon. gentleman does himself less than justice by merely gibing and jeering, and suggesting that there has been no improvement since we started to drag ourselves out of the hole into which they got us.
I am going to state seven propositions by means of which I think the government could improve the situation at the present time. In the first place I think the federal government should assume a bigger share of the relief needs of this country. This afternoon I heard the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) indicate that a greater share would be assumed, and he fixed that share at forty per cent, which would leave forty per cent to the provincial government and twenty per cent to the municipality. I might as well say at once that I do not think that is adequate. I think it might have been adequate if it had been done in 1930, but now, in 1939, it comes after the municipalities have become pretty well bankrupt. And I do not think it is fair to place a burden of twenty per cent of the cost, plus administration costs, upon the municipalities which can raise money only by direct taxation, almost entirely upon real estate. As a matter of fact, in the past many municipaliites have had to pay from thirty to fifty per cent of the total relief costs. I still think the central government, which has an unlimited field of taxation, should assume a larger share. I should point out, however, that I realize that when this government assumes forty per cent of the cost it will be an improvement.
In the second place I should like to suggest that this government institute and do everything that can be done to make effective a policy of no relief without work. I believe that can be done to a very considerable extent. We should give work, not a dole. If that cannot be accomplished one hundred per cent, let us get as near to it as we can. Certain plans that have been put into operation in Manitoba point the way. Men have been working for their relief out there, and they have been allowed to work one-eighth more than the extent required for their relief. Just in passing I might say that the men on relief came out and did that work willingly. I am not suggesting that it should be done in exactly that way, because that is payment in kind instead of in money, and I am not in favour of that at all. I think a man who

works should be paid in money and not in hand-outs of food. I believe we could have people work to the extent of their relief plus 25 per cent, and the same could be extended to the men who are not on relief but may be near to it. At the present time we spend a million dollars for relief and get nothing for it. We could spend a million and a quarter and get value for that amount of money.
Another point I should like to make is that if work is to be done in order to relieve unemployment, it should be done where that condition exists, not in some remote place. W'hen you undertake public works, presumably in order to relieve unemployment, and carry them out where there is no unemployment situation, it savours too much of pork-barrel spending. In saying this, I do not mean to criticize the building of mining roads, for example; on the contrary, I believe they are excellent projects which will create much future employment, and which indeed have justified themselves already in that regard. Nor do I mean that I am at all critical of tourist roads, if they are properly designed and located. That leads me to say this, that we as a federal government should get ahead with the cross-country road. That should be carried on as a national undertaking. Some person may object that there is some difficulty about the route; that Ontario has not made up its mind. There is one way to cure that, I suggest; that is, to make the announcement that the road will be built. Before morning the route will be indicated.
Then I think much more should be done in the way of youth training. I do not intend to speak at length upon that subject, but will reserve what I have to say until some time later, when the minister is [DOT] dealing directly with that matter. I should like to say, however, that after examining the various camps and training projects in which I found the youth of Manitoba, I believe a great deal can be done in the way of employing youth, at any rate sufficiently to keep up their morale in these times.
Finally I should like to say that I believe every effort should be put forth at this time in connection with the rehabilitation or reclamation of those who have been idle for a long time. I believe we should devote time, thought, energy and money to the reclamation of men who have been idle for many years. Idleness undoubtedly has ruined many, and many more are on the verge of being ruined, but it is not too late to save them. If the ordinary dictates of humanity would not impel us to do that, then the idea of saving money

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
ought to turn us to the task. I say that for this reason. Every individual, who through idleness has become a particle of what has been termed the "hard core of unemployment," if he is not dislodged from that formation becomes a constant threat to the balancing of budgets, either civic, provincial or federal. It will cost some money to effect an improvement in morale to-day. It will cost more money to effect that reclamation tomorrow and still more money the next day. Before long it will be too late. Then the individual will become a charge on the community or the province or the federal government for the rest of his life. So, if we would not institute some special plan with respect to people of this type solely because of the good that might be done, we ought to do it because we would save money by doing so now. The poet has spoken of man's inhumanity to man, but I would put it in this way : If "man's humanity to man" will not compel us to do this sort of thing, then let the dollar be the urge. We shall be well repaid for every person whose morale can be restored in this manner.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) and the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) upon the splendid way in which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They both did themselves great credit. I should like also to congratulate the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) upon their promotion to the privy council.
I was very much interested just now in listening to what the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) had to say. He said he was not at all satisfied. I would remind him that there are probably thousands of Liberals throughout the country who feel as he does. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that he was master of the ship of state, that he could not leave the helm, that he must stay there all the time to guide the ship through the stormy waters. The stormy waters have all but sunk the ship, but the trouble is that since 1935 it has not left the dock. The ship has been laid up at the dock and we have been paying wharfage fees. Wharfage fees for three years cost a lot of money. This is our money; this is the public's money. I do not think the Prime Minister had the courage to embark, but there is a pilot available who will launch the ship of state on these stormy waters. He is ready and he is willing. He is courageous.
His record shows his courage, and he has ability as a soldier, statesman and parliamentarian. He is full of kindness and understanding and is just the man for the ship. We are all proud to sit behind the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion). He showed his courage in 1914, and he again showed his courage in 1938 by offering his services to his country which had been so devastated during the last four years by the government in power. Canada is very fortunate in having a man of his calibre and ability.
The announcement that Their Majesties, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, had decided to visit Canada was greeted by all in my riding with a deep sense of gratitude and satisfaction of what they consider a recognition of the loyalty and affection which they hold for their majesties. Our only regret is that their majesties' visit will be all too short. I know they will receive a rousing and royal welcome from all, even from those who through no fault of their own are struggling against privation and, in some instances, starvation and destitution because of lack of work. How much better it would have been if their majesties had been able to look into the faces of happy throngs of people filled with that contentment which comes from a good day's work well done and well rewarded. This might have been possible if we had had the leadership and the virile and vigorous action which we were promised at the last election. There are no more loyal citizens of the Dominion of Canada than the people to be found in the riding of St. Paul's. Despite the inertia and ineptitude of this government their majesties will receive a royal and hearty welcome in my riding.
Three and one-half years ago we listened to a speech by the newly elected Prime Minister in which he said:
. . . unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It is an endorsation of the Liberal proposal to deal with this question by means of a representative national commission, and by policies which will serve to revive industries and trade.
A representative national commission was set up by the Prime Minister. Through it we found out precisely what we knew before. We all knew that there was a maladjustment of labour in Canada. It did not find out what that was or what the interdependency of labour in this country was. It collected figures and dealt with decimals and percentages. At the present time those rows of figures are in the waste-paper basket. Its reports have been pigeonholed and its findings are now covered with cobwebs; gone into inertia like the present government. The adding machines, the calculating machines,

The Address-Mr, Ross (St. Paul's)
the desks, the furniture and the permanent personnel are scattered and gone with the wind. That commission did not put men in jobs. Unemployment remains. The commission has now been disbanded. The government are not dealing with unemployment as they promised to do, through a commission. They are not dealing with Canada's most urgent problem. As a result of the work of the commission we can now find out every month or so how many people are on relief, but we cannot find out how many workmen are unemployed. The newly elected Prime Minister in his dedication speech said:
In the new era which dawns to-day the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before.
The people now regret that new era. Where is the economic liberty and security? The people still must depend upon the government for subsistence or continue to tremble at the insecurity of their jobs. The Prime Minister said further:
Poverty and adversity, want and misery, are the enemies which Liberals, will seek to banish from the land. They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls as well as the minds and bodies of an ever-increasing number of men,	women	and	children in our land.	Wetake	up at	once as	our supreme task, the
endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance.
After three and a half years, poverty, want, adversity and misery still lie in wait at the gate of the home of every Canadian workman. We still have poverty in the midst of plenty. We still find starvation and unnecessary suffering.	Where	are	the	opportunities for	workwhich were	to	be	provided? There	have
never been as many unemployed since 1935 walking the streets looking for jobs. The Prime Minister said:
We take up at once as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty.
They took up the shovel and they are still working hard leaning on it. I was not surprised at the rosy picture painted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). He had to do it. It was good government propaganda, but the public know better. However, he gave himself plenty of praise and gave the government of which he is a member a big hand. They do nothing, but they can give a good talk.
The direct relief figures for Toronto show that in the month of December, 1938, there were 66,519 individuals on relief, an increase of 4,642 over 1937. The 1937 relief costs for that city amounted to $7,194,954. In 1938

these costs had increased by $329,559 to $7,524,513. The cost to the city increased from $2,400,000 in 1937 to $2,575,000 in 1938, an increase of $165,000. These figures include administration. This amounts to 2-63 mills on the assessment. What a terrible burden to be saddled on the taxpayers of Toronto! But worse still. What a horrible situation we have when we think of 66,500 of our people receiving hardly enough for a bare existence 1 These people receive, on an average, $10 a month to take care of their entire living consisting of fuel, rent, light and so on. Just think of it! In December there were 66,500 of our people in Toronto receiving relief. These people do not want relief; they want work. Less than five per cent of them are unemployable. There are more people legitimately on relief to-day in Toronto than there were in 1935. I wonder if hon. members have ever tried to exist on $10 a month. Mr. Speaker, these people, who can work and will work, are entitled to the receipt of a larger monthly sum than $10.
What has the government done to take care of this situation? There have been a few relief works started where men have to go day after day on the chance of getting a few days' work, and applicants for these jobs, I might say, are pretty carefully scanned for their political colour. It is true that there is an opportunity through government loans and housing, but with high taxes and the high assessments which are necessary in Toronto there is no incentive to erect new buildings because there is no return for the investor. The down-town district of that city is becoming a section of isolated buildings surrounded by parking lots, as a result of tearing down buildings because the owners cannot afford to pay the taxes on them. What a terrible situation, this destruction of property! General unemployment in industry in Toronto is to a great extent responsible for the high taxes. Low wages, part-time wages and unemployment are responsible for the arrears of taxes. The corporation of the city of Toronto owns some eight miles of streets with their houses on both sides, the buildings having been taken over for non-payment of taxes. There is little revenue in Toronto from this type of property; in fact, property is a liability.
The speech from the throne says:
My ministers recognize that the plight of those who are still unemployed cannot await necessary constitutional amendments, nor the summoning of any conference.
And the government proposes to expand its long range program of public undertakings. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, by this time the government has become thoroughly hardened to this chronic state of industrial 'unemployment.

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
In Toronto over 66,000 of our people are on relief, and I venture to say that another 60,000 are working only part time-66,000 represents ten per cent of our population, and with another 60,000, on part time, that accounts for twenty per cent of our population in Toronto. How ridiculous, then, it is to talk about a long range program-a long range program, mark you-after three and a half years of poverty, and with adversity, want and misery still before the gate of every Canadian home! This do-nothing government, with its long range program, is trying to shoot at the problem from a distance. Why not come close to the horrible spectre and grapple with it?
Let me quote from a letter just received from the principal of the Jesse Ivetchum school in Toronto, which has turned out some of our finest Canadian citizens in the past one hundred years. He says:
Recent graduates have been quite up to usual standards, but have been forced to step out into conditions which this country has never before inflicted on its youth.
He says he has never seen conditions worse in this country within his memory. He goes on:	'
Few opportunities afford a living wage, and idleness is enforced particularly upon those of lower educational equipment. In the years of idleness the mental, moral and physical standards of that youth drop to such an extent that the nation's chief asset often becomes a liability.
He continues:
I am writing you now because in the last month four boys from fair homes near here have been arrested for petty theft, victims of circumstances for which we citizens are responsible.
I am inclined to agree with him that a great many of our citizens are responsible because they elected this do-nothing government. He goes on to say:
This situation is not merely local but is general to the whole city and to the whole of Canada. The citizen of all ranks is quite aware of it and wants immediate remedy not only for the sake of our valuable youth, but to protect society and to avoid the terrible future cost of indifference.
And yet we are told of a proposed long range program of public undertakings! He says further:
We have no right to discriminate against youth as in our present thoughtlessly begotten relief system. We now cut youth off relief, mothers' allowance and pension at sixteen years, and do not again afford relief till marriage. We spend millions on relief for all except youth, in a most questionable and many think a demoralizing method. We discriminate against youth at the worst possible time in life.
The youth leaving school with high ideals for the future, finding himself in an indifferent
society, becomes hostile to that society. We to whom this country afforded such rare opportunity in our youth cannot blame him for the loss of morals.
He continues:
The federal government has, we believe, devoted $1,000,000 in the form of so-called vocational classes of education. In cooperation with the province of Ontario there is a class in a Toronto garage where some thirty boys are paid seven dollars per week to take a course in welding, and in Galt there is a class of less than thirty taking a machine shop course.
As a result of ten years' experience with this problem, no matter how smug we may be, this is a contemptible showing.
Something must be done, Mr. Speaker, to occupy these boys and girls who are coming out of school, and done, not in two or three years, or in two or three months, but done now.
I am sure there are dozens of other principals of schools such as the Jesse Ketchum school in Toronto who could tell a similar story. A long range program may be all right for some purposes, but something must be done now. A long range program! How typical of this do-nothing government throughout its three and a half years of inaction!
Let me quote from the Toronto Globe and Mail of January 20 of this year:
Mr. Neeland, deputy provincial secretary, in commenting on the jump in crime stated that, "the number of prisoa sentences in Ontario would reach a new high-higher than the previous record of 21,421 in 1930."
Chief Constable Draper, head of the prisoners' rehabilitation society, could not be reached for comment. But in his 1937 police report, in commenting on the increase of crime among the younger-aged groups, he said: "Improper understanding of the value of discipline, and failure on the part of responsible adults to administer it in an effective manner and at the proper time, breed a lack of regard for authority and obedience in child life which ultimately leads to crime and incorrigibility."
It was just running through my head whether the parental negligence of the Prime Minister had anything to do with the unhappy state of the Liberal family from coast to coast. I agree with Chief Constable Draper that the reason he cites is one of the reasons, but how can you expect parents who day after day have been trudging the streets in an effort to obtain work, with all the worries they havq on their shoulders, to begin to pay the proper attention to their children? Again, Mr. Speaker, how can you expect children, who have been brought up in the surroundings of bitterness caused by the failure of the parent to obtain work and the loss of self-respect through having to accept relief, to have a right outlook on life?

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
And remember, this is the plight of over fourteen thousand families in Toronto. There is an emergency, Mr. Speaker, and something has to be done. Talking is no good. Action is required.
The principal of the Jesse Ketchum school makes this suggestion:
But there is one field in which our youth could be developed, which is inexpensive, has no waste, has no conflict with labour and which is the most effective way of meeting the greatest dangers of our present apathy. It can be applied immediately right across this country, already provided with facilities inviting our use. The field of discipline, physical, mental and moral health training for good citizenship stands preeminent.
We could easily open our armouries by day, and use instructors supplied by the Militia department. corps of commissaires, and others, to give these lads at least a six weeks' course of well disciplined physical training to send them out well set up, healthier, alert in mind, body and spirit, to be much more readily welcomed in any line of industry that may open, and in society itself.
These lads could be paid one dollar per day to feed themselves, with an extra twenty-five cents for bedding if the youth cannot live at home. A unit of a thousand such could be assembled in Toronto armouries in twenty-four hours. Slight additional cost would provide a very small staff and perhaps a pair of boots and socks where needed.
He goes on at further length, and then says:
It is better and more economical to give our youth a break than to break our youth. A stitch in time saves nine.
If constitutional difficulties stand in the way of action, it is the duty of this government to find some way of getting around those constitutional difficulties. What is the Department of National Defence for? It is for the defence of Canada. It is for the defence of Canada from without, yes. Has it not a duty to defend Canada by whatever methods it sees fit, not only from without but from within? Has it not a duty to defend Canada against the enemies that are springing up, on account of the physical and moral destruction of our youth which is taking place? The Department of Labour may not have the constitutional power. The Department of National Defence has. Let the Department of Labour use the Department of National Defence in the cause of the defence of the morale of our Canadian youth. Do it right away: it is urgent.
How disillusioned the voter of 1935 must be when he recollects the nicely printed election cards and flaming bill-boards, "Elect us and you will get action"; "Get off the relief roll, get on the pay roll"; "King Or chaos." The Prime Minister gave that promise

to the electors. Four hundred thousand workless in Canada know how it has been kept. The fact is that after three and a half years, unemployment, our greatest problem, on which rest so many of the other problems of this country-railway deficit, over-government, tremendous taxation, and over-expenditure on relief works of no pressing need-has not been dealt with, much less solved. It is far worse.
The theory that increased world trade would bring unemployment solution to Canada may have had more merit before the day of economic nationalism, but it has broken down and can no more be depended upon. Canada can depend for her well-being upon what she can expect to export to other lands; first, only in so far as she can trust the economic stability and integrity of those lands and those peoples who need and must have our products; second, by producing by Canadian labour those products which we can in Canada consume. How far have we gone towards producing those products? Is there any evidence that the Prime Minister recognizes these facts? No. The Prime Minister is chasing the mythical butterfly of foreign trade in these days of economic nationalism. He is trying to show the world what a good fellow he is, at the expense of the industrial worker of this country. The industrial worker is told that for the sake of foreign trade he must starve in competition with foreign slave labour, foreign bargain-counters of surplus goods, foreign depression bankrupt sales, foreign standards of living.
Is it not the duty of the Prime Minister to take some steps to see that this condition does not exist? Our workmen can produce products in competition with any foreign country on a fair and even basis. What encouragement has been given along these lines? The mechanic or the artisan wishes to work at his trade with future prospects and security. The young people coming of workable age wish to learn a trade that has future security. They do not want relief or work on relief projects. We shall never get this country better by spending money on palliatives, makeshifts, unnecessary public works. This will only increase the burden. Canadians want useful work in industry. The government gives aid and assistance towards many classes of trade and production, such as the tourist trade, agriculture, mining development by geological surveys, and certain primary industries by railways and roads, but the secondary industries in which such a large proportion of our workers are either unemployed or on part time, have been underpaid

__________ The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
of necessity by competition, and get no encouragement. In fact, the aid given to these other departments of industry is obtained very often at the expense of and from the secondary industries. There is no mention in the speech from the throne with respect to the encouragement of our great secondary industries, and yet in 1935 these were the figures for the five major groups of our industrial life provided by the census returns. There are five groups, namely, animal products, vegetable products, iron products, textiles, and wood and paper products. The total gross value of the production was $2,-
050,000,000, and the number of people employed at that time was 480,000. Industries employing that many people surely deserve some consideration, but they are entirely neglected except when they are the target of criticism and abuse or are looked upon as a source of revenue.
We have the statistics with respect to the products of Canada. There is a prospective market in Canada for certain products now imported from other countries. Has the government considered these statistics with a view to increasing work for the industrial workers by taking advantage of the prospective market which we have? No. The industrial worker has been neglected for three and a half years.
Mr. Speaker, what a fair land Canada is! An industrial future is definitely forecast for us by the abundance and variety of our natural resources and the creative genius of our people. There is only one way for us to prosper and profit to the full from our resources. We cannot avoid becoming an industrial nation. This is essential not only to our national economy but to our place in the world. It is not possible for a great people just to be a market for the products of others while selling only raw materials to others. No nation grows great by what it sells; it grows great by what its people produce and use. Merely selling off our natural wealth will get us nowhere. It is economically wasteful and it retards the development of a national spirit. There is no growth in the mere selling of raw materials. Industry has socialising effects in creating a diversified market and a self-sustaining people. The best basis of prosperity is production. Mere trade, however big, is not enough. The best indication of prosperity is the full dinner pail. The barometer is how much money each man makes and how much he works, not the volume of trade. Spent money will never lift us. We can be raised only by producing more of the things of life. It is
not the selling or the trading that is good for us but the making and using by the people.
The natural resources of Canada belong to the people of Canada. They are administered by the various governments of Canada, and it is the duty of the government to see to it that they are so administered that as many people of Canada as possible get the benefit; otherwise we are selling our heritage for a mess of potage. The people have the right of opportunity, under fair competition, to make supplies and machinery and supply labour which enter into the development of those resources. We should not think of allowing the importation of cheap, foreign Chinese or Japanese labour to develop these resources. Why, then, allow the importation of any more than is necessary of these supplies and machinery, which are made under unfair competition? Last year we imported six and a half million dollars of mining machinery from the United States. If Canadians had made it, or at least a great deal of it, there would have been just that much less unemployment. Last year we imported nineteen million dollars worth of agricultural machinery. If Canadians had made it, there would have been just that much less unemployment. These are only two examples. There are many others. What has this government done to explore this field? It has been chasing after the butterfly of foreign trade. Surely the mining development taking place in Canada and the future prospects for a demand for mining machinery provide an opportunity for lessening unemployment. This government has given no such encouragement with respect to this.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word with regard to the method of making the so-called tri-party treaties. These tri-party treaties are terribly misnamed because they are twenty-five party treaties. I do not see any mention of the twenty-five party treaties in the speech from the throne. Why should the government fool the people into believing that these twenty-five party agreements are tri-party agreements? They are not only treaties between Canada, the United States and Great Britain; these treaties include concessions to Germany, concessions to Japan, concessions to Italy and many other countries, concessions equivalent to those to the United States, for absolutely no return by way of concessions to Canada. In some instances we have an arrangement for an equal dollar for dollar trade balance, but we have not a working hour for working hour balance.

The Address-Mr. Ross (St. Paul's)
Our workmen are in competition with lower standards of living, regimentation and slave labour.
However, a word or two about the making of these treaties. During the past eighteen months those who have been the guardians of the industrial worker have been sweating blood, afraid, in some instances to speak for fear of retaliation. During the negotiations for the treaties, requests by various industries for hearing were denied-a dictatorial attitude. I cannot help but view with alarm the far-reaching consequences to Canada as a result of this treaty. I ask the people of this country to keep an open mind.
I ask them not to become prejudiced by the efforts to create a patriotic issue. It may have been necessary for Canada to forego some of the preferences to the British market that we were requested to forego by the government of Great Britain, in order that a closer relationship with Great Britain and the United States might be obtained. We were so advised by the Prime Minister; but before the people of Canada can come to an intelligent conclusion as to the course pursued by the government in making these treaties, they should be fully advised as to what we were requested to concede, and, further, what we were compelled to concede. All the relevant correspondence in the matter with respect to this treaty should be published. Our sacrifice of preferences is tremendous-quite sufficient for an exchange of considerable further concessions to Canada. The main issue is, will the consummation of this treaty give one more man a job in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, I submit that the- government did not have to give the widespread increases in the concessions to the United States for the paltry advantages which we have obtained. Now. how was the treaty negotiated by Great Britain? Through the board of trade on the advice of the British import duties advisory committee composed of outstanding experts, who received advice and information and representation from various trade organizations. Then some thirty experts proceeded to Washington. In the United States information with respect to various products and industries affected was published; industries and farm organizations were notified that there would be public hearings of their cases. In Canada the treaty was negotiated by three civil service executives. I do not wish to belittle the ability or the knowledge of those directly connected with the making of the treaty; I have the greatest regard for their ability; but I do suggest that carefully selected executives of Canadian industry should have

been asked to assist the government in reaching a fair and equitable course towards any trade relationship that Canada's economic position requires. A few executives of the government could not possibly have sufficient knowledge or a full enough understanding to be entrusted with the consummation of a treaty with such far-reaching implications, and I know they are the best brains in Canada. The best scientific brains possible should have been enlisted in a matter of such import and having such far-reaching effects on our Canadian people.
It may be the custom to negotiate such treaties secretly, but surely not so secretly that those industries which are to be affected should not have knowledge. This would certainly prevent inertia in those industries not to be affected by the proposed treaties. It would have allayed fear and encouraged any expansion that might be contemplated. It would not cause unemployment as has been the case in the unaffected industries.
Whom do we blame? I submit that the development of industry for the production of goods consumed or used by Canadians has been set back years by the ineptitude and inertia of this government.
And now, one word about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). First of all, I submit that by the laws of Canada and through the Bank of Canada and various departments of government we have the machinery for a very effective control of financial interests and monopolistic enterprises. If monopolistic enterprises and financial interests .are exploiting the Canadian people, it is not because the administrations of the various governments of the country are powerless or unable to control them or because these administrations are unwilling. And second, I think I have amply demonstiated a field which, if it had been thoroughly explored during the last three and a half years, would have amply proved that unemployment, at least in the urban centres, can be eliminated. Therefore, I intend to vote against the amendment.
When we consider that there are 400,000 workers idle in Canada, and 400,000 more people on part time, I do not think there is any gratifying reduction in the total number of unemployed. It is terrible to think that this situation exists and still has not been dealt with, and now we are told, after three and a half years, that the ministers recognize that the plight of those who are still unemployed cannot wait, and propose therefore to expand the government's long range program

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
of public undertakings. Why such a hurry now after three and a half years of do nothing government? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that what we want is action.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been so busy appointing commissions to man the ship of state that for the past three and a half years the ship of state has never been able to get away from the dock but is just where it stood in 1935, and the people of Canada, you and I, have been paying wharfage dues all these years. We must get a new skipper with courage. There are honest passengers waiting to get on, fine decent passengers willing to help. There should be no poor in Canada who are willing to work. Let us make the prophecy come true-the twentieth century belongs to Canada, not to the Liberal government.
Mr. JOSEPH A. BLANCHETTE (Compton) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I desire first of all to congratulate the two hon. members who proposed and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Both performed most creditably the honourable task which had been entrusted to them. Allow me to offer my very special and warm congratulations to the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) for the high repute in which he is held and which reflects on his constituency, his mother tongue and his Canadian origin. He is a perfect gentleman, active and industrious, and always seeking to promote the interests of his constituents. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) could not have made a better choice, and we are most grateful to him for it.
Mr. Speaker, I shall have the opportunity in the course of the session to make some observations in my native tongue. On the present occasion I wish to continue my speech in English.
(Text) Mr. Speaker, at the very outset of my remarks I wish to add my sincere appreciation to that already expressed by speakers in this debate on both sides of the house with reference to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The speeches of both these hon. members have been highly praised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Manion) and by the press, and rightly so, because the consensus of opinion is that they were of an exceptionally high order as regards both style and rendition. All this goes to show that great credit is reflected not only on the mover and seconder but also on the ridings which these gentlemen represent in this house.
The eastern townships are also especially gratified at the announcement that Their
Majesties the King and Queen are to pay a visit to our section during their sojourn in Canada. I know their majesties will find the hearts of our Anglo-Saxon and Norman stock responsive and imbued with loyalty, fidelity and appreciative homage to our devoted rulers.
This debate, as do all similar debates, has brought forth comments both favourable and unfavourable upon the actions of the government. We may have found in some instances excess of zeal either in praise of the achievements or in condemnation of the lack of achievements of the government, but there is one point at least upon which I believe all hon. members will agree; that is, that exceptionally difficult times are being experienced not only in Canada but throughout the entire civilized world. Were unemployment and social and economic unrest prevalent in Canada only, in spite of my sitting on this side of the house I too might be prone tc criticise the government and our Prime Minister. But when with a calm and open mind I survey conditions in other sections of the world, and the economic and social disturbances with which they are affected, in addition to those which we find here in Canada, all the miseries and privations and hardships that exist under dictatorships and that do not prevail in democratic countries, I feel that Canada is not such a bad country to live in and the government is not altogether derelict in its duties.
The government, after all, is a human institution. It is composed of men of some competence in their respective fields, but just as no individual is able to please everyone, is it possible for this government to do so? I speak of the cabinet as a whole; criticise them as we may, we must admit that we have as Prime Minister of Canada a statesman whose qualifications of foresight and statesmanship and whose knowledge of external affairs as well as of economics and social science are recognized not only in this country but throughout the British empire and elsewhere. In our private affairs we would not hesitate for a moment to confide our legal business to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), our agricultural concerns to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), our financial affairs to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), our labour relations to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), and our structural undertakings to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). All the ministers are doing their utmost to attain the ends which we are all seeking, the relief of unemployment and the betterment of economic and social
The Address-Mr. Blanchette

conditions throughout Canada. This government may not have accomplished all that the opposition feel it should have done, but I believe the record of this administration compares favourably with that of the previous one.
Perhaps hon. members are a little more exacting when in opposition than when sitting on this side of the house. Certainly I find that the accomplishments of hon. gentlemen opposite in six sessions cannot compare favourably with what has been done by this government in the last three sessions. My memory takes me back to 1930, when unemployment was to be done away with within ninety days, when a way was to be " blasted " for our products into the markets of the world, and we were told that all the ills of civilization could be banished from this young country if the government would only do its duty. Time marches on: 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935. What improvement in 1935 over 1930? That was a question not for hon. members of this house, but for the electorate to decide. And their verdict was given at the polls with no uncertain voice.
What are some of the achievements of the present government? In 1936 the deficit was
3160,000,000; in 1938 it was reduced to $13,-
575,000.	The 1936 budget reduced the tariff on 192 items. In 1937 there were further reductions covering 354 more items, including a wide variety of household articles, wearing apparel and implements of production. In 1938 building supplies and materials were exempted from sales tax to encourage the construction of homes. Yet, despite the most sweeping tariff reductions in Canadian history, customs receipts increased from $74,000,000 in 1935-36 to $93,000,000 in 1937-38. More than $600,000,000 of the public debt has been refunded during the past two and a half years, resulting in a saving in interest charges in excess of S10,200,000. The annual interest bill for the last fiscal year was the lowest for any year since the war, despite the fact that in the past seven or eight years more than one billion dollars had been added to the public debt. The average interest rate on the Canadian public debt between 1931 and 1938 was diminished by 29 per cent.
This party, firmly believing that trade is the basis of industrial and commercial development, and that this country with its vast resources needs trade, upon its accession to power immediately declared its willingness to cooperate with other nations in examining current trade difficulties with a view to their removal. As a result, Canada's total trade in 1937 almost attained the two billion mark. In 1937 Canada's trade was greater by 50 per

cent than in 1935. For the years 1935-36 and 1937-38 the increase of trade with the United States was $231,000,000.
In agriculture the policy of the government has been to lower the cost of production and enhance the selling price of the product. Likewise mining and fishing have been helped to a marked degree. The value of our animal products in 1937-38 represents an increase of more than $35,000,000 over 1935-36. The production of our fishing industry in 1932 was valued at $26,000,000 with an export value of $18,500,000, whereas in 1937 its value was over $40,000,000 with exports increased by some eight or nine millions.
Total mine products for 1935-36 were valued at $284,000,000 and for the fiscal year 1937-38 at $391,000,000, an increase of $107,000,000, or 37 per cent. For the fiscal year 1935-36 exports of products of the forest totalled $182,000,000, and for the year 1937-38 they were $253,000,000, an increase of $71,000,000, or 39 per cent. Total production of all industries for the year 1935 amounted to $2,559,523,000 and for the year 1937 to $3,044,189,500, an increase of $484,666,500. The estimated national income for 1935 was $4,094,000,000; for 1937 it was $4,870,000,000, an increase of $776,000.000. In each instance the increase amounts to 18-9 per cent.
In October, 1937, the employment index reached the highest point in the history of Canada, higher even than in the boom year of 1929. The housing act, the youth training projects and grants towards public works aided in the relief of the unemployed. The sums poured into the channels of unemployment relief since this government came into office afford proof that it is seized with the gravity of the situation. Referring to the joint grants which Quebec has received in order to relieve unemployment these may be summed up as follows, from January, 1936, to October, 1938: Total relief grants in monthly allocations aggregated $17,210,625; direct relief, $24,976; public works, $4,073,831; agricultural aids. $162,871; youth training, $86,227; other provincial assistance, $108,485, or a total of almost $22,000,000. In addition, from August, 1936, to September, 1938, there was contributed towards the cost of old age and blind pensions almost $15,000,000. In November, 1936, the Quebec provincial government submitted to the federal government eighty-seven relief projects, all of which were approved. In September, 1937, the same government presented a list of thirty projects in connection with relief, all of which were again approved. In other words, the provincial government submitted to this govern-

The Address-Mr. Blanchette
ment its relief projects, and if these projects did not meet with the desired success or failed in their purpose, why should this government be held totally responsible? The administration and spending of these funds, together with the choice of the labourers, to a certain extent, and the location and nature of the project, were in the hands of the provincial government.
I do not wish to convey the impression, Mr. Speaker, that I feel the government has done all that its critics say it should have done, but I believe it has done its duty in view of world conditions prevailing. By no means do we consider our work finished, because this session is but beginning. During the past three years few of us, if any, have not found the ministers and the heads of the various departments hard at work in order to relieve the conditions that exist throughout the country, and I believe that to term this parliament the do-nothing parliament is as much a misnomer as it would be to call the previous parliament the do-all parliament.
In a cursory way I should like to touch upon three subjects mentioned in the speech from the throne. I refer to agriculture, unemployment and youth training. One of the most vital industries in this country, agriculture, has not been on a paying basis for a number of years, though conditions have been ameliorated to a certain extent in some quarters. Agriculture must be made more profitable if we wish our farming classes to be encouraged to continue in their vocation. This class has suffered more than any other, through the depression of its dollar purchase value. Our farmers ask, not for a minimum wage, but rather for a living wage in return for their investment and their labour; and I believe that no grant this government could make would be better or more fruitful in its results than that meted out to the farming population which forms the sinew and backbone of the nation. And if a particular agricultural crop or product should require temporary assistance, everything possible should ' be done to come to its rescue.
According to the 1931 census, 46 per cent of our entire population is rural. In the province of Quebec, roughly speaking, there are 136,000 farms of an average value of 86,452 per farm, with an average area of 127 acres. At the last census 36 per cent of the province of Quebec was rural. Those figures also tell us that the gross revenue for the average Quebec farm is $1,359, and that the cost of feed, fertilizer, spraying chemicals seed and hired labour averages about $200. If we add to this the disbursements for insurance, interest on investment, depreciation and
fuel, we must add at least another $212, giving a very conservative expense account of $412, leaving a net return of $947 to provide for an average family of eight persons. This modest amount must suffice for medical care, educational development, social diversion, clothing, life insurance and the purchase of food not raised on the farm, providing an annual amount of approximately $118 per capita of our farm population, or not quite $10 per month.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it will be admitted forthwith that to cite the problem, by breaking down its factors, is to ask in no uncertain terms for a solution of this paucity in the revenue of the farmers in return for their toil. The farmer has helped greatly in the development of this country. He has maintained, step by step, each stage of progress which we have attained. He helped greatly to win the war. He has produced some of our greatest men. His achievements are an open book, and we may safely deduce his future by his past. It is seldom that we read of uprisings in his midst. The chief asset of Canada, as it is of any other country for that matter, is the farming class which offers a bulwark or a precious stability to its institutions.
The farmer is not asking for a minimum wage, but he has a right to a living wage. He should receive a reasonable return for his investment-his labour. If that return or remuneration is not sufficient to give him a living wage, if that return or remuneration is suicidal, then I believe that ways and means should be devised for his rescue for the time being, until such time as the price of his major crop or major product has been resuscitated. I feel that I have in a cursory way presented the case of the Quebec farmer and I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will do his utmost, when bringing down his estimates, to come to the assistance of the farmer who is in need of this assistance.
Of similar major importance is the question of unemployment. In this respect Canada is not unique; it resembles many other countries. None the less the gravity of this question demands the serious consideration and cooperation of all concerned. Much to my regret, the $30,000,000 made available by the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, untouched as yet in some sections of the country, does not speak very eloquently of the cooperation of which we hear so often from some quarters, but which we do not always see translated into tangible actuality. Public works, tourist and mining roads, municipal developments, housing and the develop-
The Address-Mr. Blanchette

ment of air ports-all of these are conducive to the relief of the unemployment situation, and in my opinion should be favoured and enhanced as much as possible. Neither has close cooperation been given in some quarters to the national housing act. Cooperation should have been whole-hearted, because this act, with the Municipal Improvements Assistance Act, could create employment to the extent of $150,000,000 with no increase in the debt or taxation of the municipalities or provinces and with very little expense to the federal government.
As a tangent to unemployment, and really as part of the problem although generally treated under a separate heading, I should like to say a few words about youth training. This training was begun in 1937 on a cooperative scale. It was continued in 1938, and I was pleased to hear in the speech from the throne that the policy is to be continued, I trust on a larger scale than in the past. The keystone of the next generation is inherently in the youth of to-day, many of whom have been forced to abandon trades, schooling or professions for lack of funds and who have become, through no fault of their own, wandering ships on our economic sea with no port to which to go. All this in spite of the vigour, vitality, earnestness and ambition of our Canadian youth.
One of the definite factors which must be taken into account in connection with this youth problem is the trend away from the farm to the city. This factor cannot be brushed aside lightly. Between 1921 and 1931 there was a decline of over 26 per cent in the number of farm operators under twenty-five years of age, and this decline is continuing. The depression has made employers, who in the past had catered to the teaching of trade, reluctant to assume the continuance of that practice. In support of this contention I would state that of 7,700 firms approached by the national employment commission, only 24 per cent had any youth training plan.
I believe it is a recognized fact that since 1929 industry and commerce in their various branches have lost many of their skilled and qualified workers. In my opinion both industry and commerce should endeavour to take as many of our youth as possible. Incidentally the various governmental departments might set an example by replacing incumbents of superannuation age with unemployed youth, thereby putting no hardship on the former and preventing the discouragement of the latter. One of the occupations in this country which is not overcrowded is aviation. What

a field this industry offers in its many branches to the serious minded youth of to-day! I believe the government could help materially in fostering the development of aviation. With that aim in view it should establish training schools in provinces which heretofore have not been favoured with such. To my mind this would be of great assistance to our youth as well as reduce unemployment.
I know that all these suggestions for the relief of agriculture and unemployment and to provide youth training necessarily mean the spending of money. I realize that at times governments are criticized for increases in spending. If the moneys voted are necessary; if they are employed for a useful end and are honestly spent, I must say that I do not sympathize with such criticism in times of depression. When sickness attacks the human body, we do not cavil at the expense necessary to save it and to bring it back to health. To a great extent the economic body should be treated similarly. All that can be done to save it should be done, no matter how expensive the treatment, providing the expenditures are to relieve the ailments which are gnawing at our economic structure and at times threatening its very life. The existence of a nation, or by corollary the existence of any major or component part of it, cannot be measured in dollars and cents. To do so may seem to be good accountancy, but at times it. may become a travesty on social justice, a shirking of our responsible duty and the opening of the door to greater want, privation and suffering.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: ever, the new tariff resulting from the recent commercial agreement will make it possible to effect further substantial reductions.
In spite of the government's undeniable efforts it has been impossible so far to find an acceptable solution to the unemployment problem. The present economic situation is to blame. The collapse of the labour market is not peculiar to Canada; it exists with few exceptions in all the countries of the world. The most effective remedy for this deplorable situation is to be found in more friendly and extensive commercial relations between nations. So long as nations look upon each other as enemies, so long as they refuse to entertain towards each other sentiments of friendliness, of justice and of charity, we shall have to despair of being able to find a definite solution for this important problem.
The financial and economic situation of a country can improve only in peace. Competition in armaments is only the prelude to infernal horror. Shall peaceful relations, goodwill and sound reason prove stronger than occult forces, merchants of death and abominable war profiteers? There is something dearer to the heart of every true Canadian than power. It is liberty; it is his country's autonomy. Since the enactment of the statute of Westminster, Canada is in no way subordinate, internally or externally, to any other country of the British Commonwealth of Nations. She is a sovereign country, freely associated with the other British nations. Her status is equal to that of these other countries. Should one or more of these nations be at war, Canada is not	necessarily at	war. Otherwise, the
statute of Westminster would be nothing but a shameful mockery.
Canada being, according to the statute of Westminster, a self -governing country as regards England, any declaration contrary to this treaty must be considered, in the event of war, as outmoded and false. I need not repeat that I am irrevocably opposed to any increase in defence appropriations so long as they	may serve to	involve Canada in aforeign war. I go further. In the name of the	country's most	cherished interests, nodecision should be taken as to Canada's participation in an extraterritorial war without an appeal to the people. For, is not the expression of the popular will the very foundation of our constitution and of our government? Neither an increase in military appropriations nor Canada's participation in foreign wars had been submitted to the people during the	last general	election. Consequently,
should a conflict occur in central Europe,

in America or elsewhere, I assert that the Canadian people alone would have the right to make a decision in such a serious matter. And public opinion, made wise by experience would certainly condemn any attempt to participate in a foreign war. The people of Canada know what the last war has cost and is still costing them. The Canadian taxpayer being called upon daily to make enormous sacrifices to pay the price of our last participation in a war, it is his privilege more than anyone else's to say what our foreign policy should be. At a time when so many able men take the attitude of indomitable champions of democracy, shall we refuse to the voters of the country the right to decide themselves whether the country is to survive or to perish? As a matter of fact, the supreme folly of another adventure in a foreign war would spell the permanent ruin of Canada.
Before closing my remarks I desire to draw the attention of parliament to the immigration question. I have no hesitation in saying that we do not want any immigrants no matter whence they come. In the name of democratic traditions and principles, some people considered they were acting patriotically in addressing to the members of this house pamphlets in favour of a certain class of immigrants. In my humble opinion, they have attained a result contrary to their aims. Should we sacrifice the vested rights of our own nationals to the inevitable competition of newly arrived foreigners in all lines of activity? The social, financial and economic situation of the country prohibits any attempt at immigration and enjoins to our rulers prudence, wisdom and a clear vision of the needs of the moment. I therefore consider it a national duty for Canada to close its doors to all immigration so long as the economic situation has not improved more substantially within her own borders.
Mr. Speaker, I have just one more word to say. The right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has recently been censured by some hon. members of this house. In the interests of order, truth, faith and morals, he refused to be swayed by the insinuations, the representations and the threats of those who oppose the padlock law. All praise to him! The sound element in our population has no use for mischief makers and spreaders of false doctrines. Those who only seek to exploit materialism and envy by disregarding morals and Christianity can have no place in a civilized country. That is why I have a deep admiration for the firm, courageous and patriotic stand taken by the right hon. the Minister of Justice.

Criminal Code-Sweepstakes
In conclusion, I take pleasure in congratulating two new ministers of the crown: the hon. the Postmaster-General (Mr. McLarty) and the hon. the minister without portfolio (Mr. MacKinnon). Both have my best wishes for a long and fruitful career. As regards the hon. the Postmaster-General, I would urge him to give favourable consideration to the claims of our rural mail carriers. On several occasions during the three last sessions of this parliament, I have pleaded for a fair and reasonable remuneration for that class of civil servants. At the moment when a new minister is taking up his duties, I ask him to treat his majesty's mail carriers with the fairness they are expecting from his department.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: At the outset I desire to express my congratulations to the two hon. members of this house who to-day have been promoted to the honourable position of members of the privy council. I know the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) very well, and from what I have seen and learned of the other hon. member (Mr. McLarty) I know that both of them will fill their positions with distinction to themselves and no doubt will extend to the opposition members that fairness which will cause us to appreciate the fact that they have been promoted.
I should like also to join with other hon. members in expressing congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address. They acquitted themselves well, but let me say to the hon. member for Brandon that he should not tak" any great credit from the assumption that the verdict of that constituency is the voice of the west; for if he will review the results in the rural polls, he will see that there the Conservative candidate, young Beaubier, made very considerable gains-a proof, I think, that the rural people of the west do not endorse the agricultural policy of this government.
I wish also to join hon. members in expressing my appreciation of the fact that we shall have this summer a visit from their majesties. I should like to enlarge upon the thought expressed by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Fleming) when he referred to the fact in our province of Saskatchewan-and although he mentioned particularly his constituency I speak now of the province as a whole-we have possibly the most cosmopolitan population of any province in the dominion. Many nations are represented there and all are true Canadians and loyal citizens. Many of them are citizens not by birth but by choice, and I venture to say that the spontaneous expression 71492-17
of loyalty and devotion to their majesties will be no less in that province than in any other province of the dominion.
You, Mr. Speaker, having been on former occasions in a similar position, will appreciate the difficulty in which I now find myself. I did not expect to continue this debate to-night, but as you know, whips generally have to arrange things and sometimes find it necessary to change the program. I am in the difficult position of endeavouring to start a speech at a few minutes before adjournment. You have been very generous in your favours to hon. members, and as I propose to speak on only two or three problems that affect the west in particular, I do not desire to have my speech broken into very much. I am going to ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to permit me to move the adjournment of the debate and to call it eleven o'clock at this time.
On motion of Mr. Perley the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Crerar the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Tuesday, January 24, 1939