Mr. RALSTON:

It speaks of hope and expectation.

Mr. BENNETT:

Perhaps after the hon. gentleman has read it he will understand it.

Mr. RALSTON:

I have read it.

Mr. BENNETT:

That must have been a long time ago.

One more thing, Mr. Speaker. It has been suggested that this government is not making any active preparation with which to meet the conference. This government will discharge its duty to the full in that regard. If the agenda which was read, and which was made public in July of 1930, was prepared by the British government, as I believe it was, at the time it was being prepared the right hon. gentleman was Prime Minister of this country.

That is clear. All that I know of the agenda with respect to the 1930 conference was what I said I found in the despatches in the office when we took over. The agenda for this conference will be prepared, as we believe it should be, after we have had what consultation it is possible to have by cable, and if those people who are desirous of attacking any effort which they think redounds to the credit of those making it will just bide their peace and await the event, they will discover that this government is ready and prepared to deal with every problem that will be met with by that conference in a manner worthy of this dominion and of the knowledge which is possessed by those who will represent it.

I do not propose to say more in this respect. I do not propose to traverse the ground as to what shall or shall not be discussed at that conference. As to its importance, on the one hand the right hon. gentleman minimizes it, and on the other hand he magnifies it. It is one of the difficulties of the party opposite that they can see no merit in any proposal that does not originate with themselves. This party sat in opposition for long years, in good repute and ill. During that time in the country in which I live it was almost an offence to call oneself a supporter of this party, but during all that time I kept one constant beacon light before me; I had the firm belief and faith that in such a conference lies the best assurance of the development of every part of the British Empire and of my own country as well. I deny the right of any man to say that you do not promote the growth and development of the commonwealth of British nations as you promote the growth and development of that part in which you live. It has been said by reputable statesmen in Great Britain that there must be supreme confidence in our ability to develop our country and start on a new pathway of progress. We believe that this empire consists of an aggregation of units; this commonwealth of nations consists not of one but of many, and the development, the prosperity and the wealth of each makes for the advantage of the whole. To that end we have at least devoted as -much time as we have been able to find under the conditions under which we labour here. Every day brings a new problem; almost every hour brings some difficulty with which we have to deal, and if the opposition decides to take two or three weeks to discuss problems for the purpose of preventing us from being able to go about the country's business, they must accept the responsibility. We should like to be engaged in considering these problems, and the opposition must accept full responsibility for what has transpired, as they said they would.

The Budget-Mr. Neill

But, sir, in conclusion I desire only to say that we met this country at a moment of the greatest difficulty in the world's history. We met it at a time when there was evidence of improvement, but that evidence has been dissipated. We are now confronted with an even greater difficulty, the second effort, as I describe it and as Sir Arthur Salter and others describe it. We are now confronted with the second effort towards world rehabilitation, towards prosperity and towards overcoming the depression. A second effort always is more difficult than a first; when you are beaten back it takes more courage to call up your reserves of strength, vigour and determination than it does in making the first effort. But this government, these gentlemen who sit here, have earnestly and honestly endeavoured to discharge the great responsibilities which rest upon them, with an eye single to the advancement of this country. We have suffered much, we have endured much; this country's people have endured much, our population has suffered much, and those who would endeavour to turn that suffering into narrow party capital are entirely forgetful of their obligations to Canada. However, I have not lost my faith in the people of this country.

Mr. SANDERSON:

The people have lost their faith in you.

Mr. BENNETT:

If the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) would stand in his place to make his statements, it would be much better.

1 am willing to balance the confidence which the people of this country have in the government against the confidence they have in the opposition. I believe that they fairly and clearly appreciate and realize the burden, the difficulties and the responsibilities under which we labour. I believe nothing more clearly expresses the thought which is in the mind of every hon. member who sits to the right of the Speaker than the words of the poet laureate:

Though much is taken, much abides; and though

We are not now that strength, which in old days

Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):

Mr. Speaker-

Question, question.

Mr. NEILL:

I hear the rabble rabbling, I hear the sounding brass and the tinkling cymbals.

I rise with not the least intention of answering in any sense the able speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) because I realize that I am entirely not in a class which enables me to do so, more especially without preparation. But even with my mediocre knowledge and ability it seemed to me that on one or two occasions there was some rather astute skating on very thin ice. The Prime Minister made the claim that Canada was seeking to obtain and hold a favourable balance of trade. When the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked him what would happen if every nation adopted that policy and how could every nation have a favourable balance of trade, the Prime Minister evaded the situation by brushing it aside and saying he was not concerned about the other fellows, he was concerned only with Canada. That was the position taken for many years by the United States; as long as they were the principal tariff country and other countries, especially Great Britain, were free trade, they could work that game of playing both ends against the middle, but that has ceased to be any longer possible. I think it was Sir Josiah Stamp who told us the other day that you cannot make tariffs to-day for a few months or even a year or two ahead, you must look ahead for a decade or even two decades.

Following out that principle, I humbly submit that if the nations of the world go on as they are doing and build up tariff walls without considering what will happen when all nations have similar walls, there will be trouble. The result will be that in time every nation will be driven to protection, every nation will have a tariff wall around itself and will be engaged in trying to grab or steal a little trade from its neighbour or some other nation. We will be driven more and more into what I would call exotic internal trade, that is, to give it its final extreme analysis, we will find Canada growing our oranges while tropical countries grow their own wheat. The net result of this stealing and grabbing will not increase the total trade of the world by one iota. The end of all these tariffs wars, if indeed they do not end in physical war as has so often been the result in the past, will be compulsory universal free trade. Every nation will then produce those articles which it is best fitted by climatic or other conditions to produce; it will be able to sell cheap and buy cheap and each individual will have greater purchasing power, each individual will buy not only more necessities but more luxuries

The Budget

Mr. Neill

of life and in that way we will overcome two of the greatest obstacles confronting us to-day, one the lack of markets and the other, overproduction. In that way we would increase markets instead of trying to steal them from each other. I submit that is more like the ultimate solution than building up a favourable trade balance and hoping and praying that the other fellows will not have brains enough to do the same thing.

I was very much impressed by the opening remarks of the Prime Minister when he told us with almost bated breath that we were in the midst of a world crisis, how solemn, how serious the condition was, what a strain it was upon the government, what long hours it entailed and what a serious condition confronted them. Yet, sir, that impression was rather dissipated later on when I found that, in spite of this world crisis, the Prime Minister of all Canada had time to condescend or shall I say, to descend to discuss at considerable length such a petty matter as a supposed organizer of the Liberal party, a matter which surely is one entirely concerning the Liberal party and no one else. I was listening, expecting to hear him reveal next the source from which I buy my milk or to whom I sell my potatoes. There was also an attempt made, somewhat unworthy, I think, to fasten upon the supposed organizer some propaganda that had been picked up somewhere and an effort made to connect it up with the Liberal party, which was exploded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who announced it had been published months ago and was the propaganda of a society which had no connection with the Liberal party or with Mr. Massey. If those are the matters that engage us in this serious crisis, perhaps it is not so serious, or else it is not being taken in the right spirit. That is all I have the time to discuss in connection with the remarks of the right hon. gentleman.

I was going ,to remark in rising that I was refused three minutes yesterday and I shall take forty minutes to-day. I should like to make just a few remarks-and very few will suffice-to answer the observations made last night by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Plunkett). The situation as regards the relief condition in British Columbia is very simple. A committee of the house was appointed to investigate it, there being seven Conservatives and four Liberals on that committee. The whole and obvious purpose of the investigation was, as I told the house, when speaking here on March 1, to whitewash

(Mr. Neill.]

the government. That was achieved in abundant measure, pressed down and running over. The whitewash was put on so thick that for a moment it almost concealed the truth and the facts. But whitewash is a powder and it needs to be mixed with some liquid. Instead of the liquid of truth, they used the slime of political exigency. Then when the air and sun of popular opinion got at it, the slime evaporated and the powder blew away and revealed the dark, damning facts as black as ever they were before.

Much comment was made regarding a gentleman called Major H. Brown, in Vancouver, who dared to be a Daniel, who dared to stand, not alone, as he has many friends, but aloof from his party friends and to say that the whole proceeding of the investigation was a farce, which, indeed, is the fact. I may say he is a very reputable citizen, .president of the board of trade and manager iof a big steamship company. This is my icomment on Major Brown:

Major Brown in saying his say, and in standing by his guns when challenged, acted the part of a good citizen. In speaking as he did, he was merely giving voice to the thoughts anil suspicions which have been turning over and over in the minds of scores of thousands of British Columbia people during the past weeks. Mr. Brown was making public opinion articulate, and in censuring him the members of the legislature merely passed a vote of censure on a very large number of their constituents.

I said that those sentiments are mine, and so they are, but I have merely adopted them from an editorial in the Vancouver Province from an extract which I have read word for word. That newspaper is taking a broad and timely stand in this matter. I am not going to say any more on the subject; I am satisfied to leave it to the people of British Columbia, each in his respective district, who, I am aware, know the facts and who, I am equally assured, will remember them.

The hon. member for Victoria dug up a couple of cases of fraud with an insinuation, or suggestion that this was quite common among the idle men. To cite the cases of two out of 30,000, 40,000, or perhaps

50,000 men is not a very conclusive argument; but why did he not tell the house of the waste of thousands and tens of thousands of dollars on the road foremen, and straw bosses, who by reason of their political affiliation were given big wages, men well fixed and comfortably off, some of them employing men at home on their farms and getting wages running from $8 to S10 a day, this meaning simply that so many more destitute men had to go without work on account of the large

The Budget-Mr. Neill

sums of which these politically appointed bosses received the benefit? Why did he not tell the house of the item to which I alluded on the orders of the day, where the British Columbia government-I almost blush to say this since I come from that province myself- announced an income tax on relief wages. Imagine a man receiving maybe three or four days' work a month being taxed on income upon those miserable dollars, collected before payment. Is this conceivable? It is hardly believable if it were not given the authority of a circular issued by the provincial deputy minister of public works. I think that statement ought to be embalmed in history as an example of supreme political stupidity, and the minister who gave instructions for that order to be issued should be embalmed also so that children could look at him in a museum and say: That is the man who performed such an act. That also will the people deal with when the time comes.

I wish to protest against the statement made by the hon. member in connection with the young people of our country and particularly of British Columbia. He was speaking about the university of that province, so I presume he was alluding to the students there. He said:

University students of to-day seem more capable and informed upon communism, atheism and companionate marriage than they are upon political economy or any national virtue. . . .

I consider that to be a gross slander, wholly unjustified, upon our young people. I challenge him to give a single instance of companionate marriage occurring among the male students and the co-eds in the University of British Columbia. My own daughter went to that university and when she came back she was not talking communism, atheism or companionate marriage, which is a euphemistic term for free love. I am satisfied there are thousands of our young people, clean living, clean thinking boys and girls, to whom that statement is equally applicable. I deplore, I deprecate the hon. member's using his privilege in the house to make such an observation as he has done. Even a carrioneating vulture keeps his own nest clean.

Let us pass from the parish politics of the hon. member for Victoria, to the bigger interests of Canada. Might I say in passing, I have no ill-will at all towards the hon. member-just pity! I am addressing myself now to the Canadian situation. We might well say: "Watchman, what of the night?" For surely we are passing through a time of political darkness in the history of this country. My deskmate, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), at the beginning of the session made the statement that Canada was looking to the government to give us a lead out of our distress. I agreed with him and he and I made a compact that we would not at the beginning of the session vote want of confidence in the government, to give them an opportunity to develop their policies. The session is nearly over and we might well ask ourselves now: What have we got? We started this parliament, it will be remembered, with the echo in our ears of the grandiose pledges on which the party opposite rode into power. We are all familiar with them, and I shall repeat only one:

Find work for all who are willing to work or perish in the attempt.

These are brave words. They have a fine sound, a magnetic ring, one well calculated to appeal to and capture the imagination of the hesitating and waiting nation and they did capture it, and the Prime Minister received his mandate. But alas and alack the conditions were not fulfilled, the goods were not delivered, but the honourable author of them did not perish in the attempt. Rather he has gone on to higher and higher peaks, seeking the goal of unrestricted authority and unlimited power. But, sir, there was perishing although he did not do it. The perishing, unfortunately, was done by the people. The middle class became poor, the poor became destitute, and the destitute became starving.

What have we had in the last two years? Two years of enormous budget deficits. Two years of enormous and almost unparallelled increase in taxation, and to-day in spite of the great increase in taxation we have every reason to believe that there will probably be a further deficit next year and a further increase in taxation.

Now I come to the question of unemployment. There are two phases to that question. There was the pledge to end unemployment, and the pledge to relieve the distress caused by unemployment. We are nearing the end of the session and we have not yet seen either in the speech from the throne or since any word or suggestion of legislation calculated to end unemployment as such. As regards the relieving of distress we have had a conference lasting one day or one day and a half, a conference which the members on this side frequently advocated last year and were howled down and ridiculed every time they made the suggestion, a conference which if it had been held a year ago would have been productive of greater good and more far-reaching effects than can now be the case.

The Budget-Mr. Neill

What else have we got? We have the resolution on the order paper to-day couched in the usual somewhat vague language of resolutions indicating that a measure will be brought in authorizing the government to enter into agreements respecting relief measures with the provinces, and it talks about providing for the relief of distress and the support and maintenance of those requiring assistance. We are entitled to draw from that the conclusion which the words imply, that the only relief granted will be in the form of what is called direct relief. We are strengthened in that belief by the fact that the representatives of the province of British Columbia and one of the other provinces, when they returned home after the conference recently held, announced publicly in the press that this government had decided that there was to be no more relief work but only direct relief. It may be said that that is only conjecture. Well, it is the best that we have to go upon, and reading the language of the resolution, coupled with the statements made by the provincial representatives, and they made their statements separately, it has all the earmarks of being correct. So apparently we are committed to the pittance of a dole, in spite of the decided statements made by the Prime Minister during the election campaign when he said: I will not tolerate the dole; as long as I am Prime Minister of Canada no such system will be inaugurated. But now we are going to get the dole, and the most debasing form of the dole. It has not even the benefits that attach to the dole in Great Britain, where at least some self-respect is left to the recipients, because when they work they contribute towards the fund. But here it is straight charity, and no work. It is lowering to a man's morale and worse than anything that we have yet encountered. If I may judge the future by the past, and I think that is a reasonable thing to do, this dole will be filtered out through the channels of the provincial governments and absolutely through the political party machines.

I .come to another subject. I am beginning to fear that the members of the cabinet are not living u.p to the confidence which the people reposed in them. It is said in scripture that when the leaders lack vision the people perish. I am not speaking of the rank and file. They are all right. The people of Canada do not appreciate how generally decent and honest and hard-working and willing to do the right thing the rank and filf? are. The people only see the government and

the government's policies, but the rank and file are generally decent and honest and all right. The men on the treasury benches may be all right. I hope they are, but they are keeping some pretty strange bedfellows these days. They are worshipping strange gods. We have different kinds of gods from what there were in the old days when people worshipped idols of wood and stone, but still we have strange idols to-day which are just as inimical to the welfare of the nation. When I look over there I think I see them worshipping certain strange gods, the gods of the bankers, the gods of the big railway and transportation business, the gods of the manufacturers' association, the gods of the millionaires, and above all and permeating it all, the god of power. The blood lust for power is like a fatal fever that burns itself up with the heat that it itself engenders, until finally the victim of the lust for power, just like the victim of some drug, finds himself in the position where he calls to high heaven: "Give me power, more power; never mind at what .price, or suffering or sacrifice. Let me ride the juggernaut car of power over the prostrate bodies of the Canadian people and trample under foot the liberties which the Canadian people now enjoy." When I look over there and see the worshipping of these strange gods, I notice that there are some gods missing. I do not find there the god of the workers, the god of the unemployed, the god of the hungry. I do not find there the God of our Christian faith, the great Founder of which in His gentle precepts taught us to aid the sick and the suffering and the oppressed, and when he taught those great principles, he was not afraid of being accused of paternalism or socialism, which is the cry always put up today when we seek to alleviate the lot of people less fortunate than ourselves. All down through the ages there has never been a greater socialist depicted than the Saviour of mankind Himself.

Some days ago the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) told us that he wanted to go back to what he called the good old times. I suppose he was alluding to thirty or forty years ago. Following that up, I suggest that these worshippers of strange gods had better go back, not forty or fifty years, but two thousand years, go back to the worshipping of idols of wood and stone. They at least were harmless; they could do no harm even if they did no good. When the British were fighting the Maoris, the native race in New Zealand, the Maoris spent a lot of time putting a taboo on a certain mountain in the

The Budget

Division

belief that the great spirits would prevent any white man trespassing there and would prevent the British soldiers pursuing them. Again, during the Ashanti expedition on the Gold Coast, the British soldiers as they marched to Kumasi, the capital, found the road on each side besprinkled with fetishes, little scraps of tinsel, little bits of coloured paper and cloth, scattered over the bushes in the belief that it would stop the oncoming of the white man. At least the exercise of these beliefs by these benighted people was harmless, but the gods worshipped by my hon. friends opposite are not harmless. They are selfish and greedy and class conscious. It it a worship that debases the good instincts of its devotees. It preys upon humanity; it preys upon those better traits that distinguish us from animals. Biblical history tells us that Aaron the high priest allowed the .children of Israel to set up a golden image and worship it. For that he was forbidden to lead them into the land of Canaan, the .promised land, but was compelled to die in the wilderness. If my hon. friends opposite do not change their gods and worship the gods of the common people of Canada I am afraid the same fate will befall them. I am not afraid of the future of Canada. We are a virile race. There is a saving remnant amounting to millions, who have not bowed the knee to Baal and have not worshipped before the golden calf. In the hands of those people lies the future salvation of Canada. We want another Moses, to lead us out of the wilderness of depression. We want another Elijah to teach us more faith in Providence, more faith in each other and more faith in our own ability and courage. We want another Nehemiah to lead' us back out of the Babylon of poverty. It is my earnest hope and prayer that this rebirth of Canada may come soon.

Mr. GOTT:

I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):

I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have toted against the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to defend the Prime Minister against disorder a little while ago; I must ask for the same right.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Unless the hon. member wishes the vote to go over until to-morrow it will be necessary to have unanimous consent to proceed after eleven o'clock.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Unanimous

consent.

Go ahead!

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Mr. Speaker, as I happen to be the honorary president of the organization, I feel it incumbent upon me to clear it of some of the aspersions that have been cast upon it by the Prime Minister. I am not certain whether or not Mr. Massey is a member of the society, but I do not imagine he is. However, the Prime Minister sought to make a great deal of political capital out of the fact that apparently. Mr. Massey had left in the city of Calgary a copy of the manifesto issued by this organization. As a matter of fact-

Massey's in de cold, cold ground.

Mr. BOULANGER:

I was paired with the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):

I

was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The hon. gentleman does not like it and I have no doubt the Prime Minister does not like it either. I will make my speech, and I will take my time to make it. I have already told the house that I intended to take only a few minutes. If hon. members opposite will do me the courtesy of maintaining order I will be brief. I say the Prime Minister has brought in the name of Mr. Massey-