Mr. BOURASSA:

Quite so. That is exactly what I said, and that is my main reason for voting against it. But at the same time the resolution does contain the suggestion of cooperation, and I think this is the proper time to ask ourselves this question: whether under the present regime-the 'capitalistic regime, so called, though I do not like that expression-it is possible to continue and enjoy individual liberty? And this further question: Can we, with the legal and administrative machinery, federal and provincial, that is now in our hands, cure the present evils and do something to guard against their recurrence? I claim not, sir.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bourassa

Let us take first the question of private ownership. It is all very well to set up a bogy, the bogy of communism, the hidden hand of Moscow. I have read a good deal about Russian affairs, as the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me has done, and I congratulate him upon most of has reading; but I do not know what is actually going on in Russia and to what extent their system is good or bad. I am not prepared to 'assert or deny that some good will or will not arise out of it. I still belong to the old catholic school and believe that there is no absolute evil on earth, that there is only one absolute good, and that is God Almighty. Outside of that, everything human is a composition of good and evil; and very often out of evil good has arisen and salvation has come to the world. Take, for instance, the French revolution. It was certainly detestable in its principles. It committed crimes and brought human misery just as much in proportion to population as has the Russian revolution. Nevertheless even the most Conservative countries in the world, today, have to trace back some of their most cherished institutions to the destructions wrought by the French revolution.

But I am not talking about Russia; I am talking about Canada. What is the situation with regard to economic affairs? Is it true that the struggle is between individual liberty, on the one hand, and socialism on the other? It may come to that, but I claim, sir, that under the present system, individual liberty and individual enterprise in trade and industry and all forms of social life are threatened and crushed by the present economic system as it now works. The hon. member for North Winnipeg, very rightly put the question to us yesterday. "What remains of initiative to the labourer?" Is it not true that under the present system man has become enslaved, in a different form, if you like, but just as effectively as he was under the iron heel of the Romans? Not only is the labourer losing the liberty of exercising individual intelligence in his work by reason of being tied down to a certain part of a machine and knowing nothing of the rest, but take the case of the farmers also. Reference has been made to them by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). Take my own province of Quebec, for example, perhaps the most conservative province of Canada, and where today there are hundreds, thousands of good farmers who are on the verge of expropriation, who are left with one hundred acres of land under their feet simply because the creditor is afraid of taking over the farm for his mortgage or because the municipality is

afraid of selling all the farms that are in arrears for taxes.

In the city of Montreal we have a very interesting class of labourers, past labourers, if you like. Advanced socialists and communists of the type which has been described this afternoon might call them capitalists. Some of those men worked steadily for thirty or forty years as tramway employees, railway employees, and in spite of their small wages saved a certain sum of money year by year- others were carpenters, plasterers and so forth. They put some little money aside, and when they came to the age of about fifty, purchased a building lot and erected upon it a three-flat building. They put into that building all their spare capital, So,000 let us say, and then borrowed from the insurance or lending companies, who were running after just such investments four or five years ago, let us say $10,000. Then with their own hands they put up that building, expecting that when they reached the age of sixty they would have a property worth about S20,000. They lived in one of the flats themselves, and from the other two derived revenue sufficient to keep them. Thousands of these buildings exist in Montreal. Thousands of these small capitalists have lived happily in that way for years and years. But their lodgments now are empty or are occupied by lodgers whom the owner keeps there simply in order to heat the lodging, and who pay no rent. The owners in the meantime are called upon to pay more taxation, and of course to pay interest on their mortgages, and are refused mortgage renewals by the lending companies. Consequently they have gone in a delegation to the municipal authorities and to the provincial government, asking for what? Asking to be put on the list as paupers, and some of them are actually receiving relief funds from the St. Vincent de Paul Society and other charitable institutions. Does not that justify what was said by one or two speakers yesterday, that under the present system of capitalism individual property is being expropriated?

Now is that the fault of the system? Not altogether. I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. MacNicol) that the war is largely responsible for it. I am glad at last to receive testimony from various quarters that I was right in the opposition which I carried on, nearly alone, during all the war, against the crime we were then committing against future generations in this country by bleeding our country to death, by piling up billions and billions of dollars of debt. We were not only participat-

1726 COMMONS

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bourassa

ing in a crime against civilization in our own day, but we were transmitting to generations to come the consequences and punishment of that crime. But let that pass. The war is undoubtedly responsible for a good deal of what we are suffering from today. But is it not true that the advantage that was taken of the war, not by all capitalists, but by the greedy exploiters of capitalism, has doubled and trebled, perhaps multiplied tenfold, our suffering?

What do we consider capitalism to mean? If by capitalism we mean an association of five or ten individuals who pool their money to carry on a legitimate enterprise, and who by reason of the risks of that enterprise reap any benefits therefrom, then within certain limits which the state ought to fix I admit that that sort of capitalism is useful and legitimate. But when you have eight or ten financial brigands who meet together, and instead of subscribing their own money, let us say to the extent of 81,000,000, to put on a 'legitimate enterprise, issue paper for $10,000,000 and get gullible subscribers to take that paper for good money, and load upon the consuming public the charge not only of paying a return upon the $1,000,000 that was legitimately required, but upon the $9,000,000 stolen from the public and pocketed by those brigands, do you call that private initiative? Do you think it is proper that under the laws of this country, whether federal or provincial, such things should go on?

I was talking recently to one of the most important business men of Montreal. I asked him " Could you point out any large enterprise in Canada that in one way or another is not built upon fraud? Fraudulent processes or watered stock?" He is a very coolheaded fellow, connected with one of the largest banks in Montreal. He thought a minute, and said, " There may be, but I know none." Now those institutions and corporations exist by the will or permission of the state. They function under our legal system, whether provincial or federal does not matter. I will give two or three examples. One very important for the province of Quebec is the lumber industry. Of course it is badly hit by the general conditions of the market, but it is ten times worse on account of the brigandage of a handful of the most unscrupulous financiers of Canada. They took eight or ten lumber concerns, honestly capitalized, honestly administered, doing an honest business, and drew them into their pool, covered the whole thing with a fake capital amounting to millions, and now they are in bankruptcy. Yes, in bankruptcy

to the public, but these financiers have pocketed the proceeds of their brigandage.

Another example is the operations of the Sun Life Assurance Company. There has been a sensational trial in Montreal, of a man, who, I think, wrote foolish articles, not that what he wrote was untrue, but he wrote in a very foolish tone. But the manner in which that trial was conducted is a striking picture of the spirit that prevails. He engaged good lawyers to defend his case; those lawyers were made to understand that if they took up his case they were done for as far as the favour of the Quebec government is concerned, the head of which is a director in the concern. They quitted the case. The case was shifted from one court to another until it reached a judge-I do not want to be disparaging, I think he is a very nice man, but nevertheless before he became a judge he had all his life long been a corporation lawyer, connected with the organization of some of the most shameless enterprises of this country. Before I knew anything about these accusations I knew a little about insurance affairs. I studied the report of the Sun Life Assurance Company three or four years ago at the time they came here with their bill, which was thrown out, thanks to the effective resistance of Hon. Mr. Robb and of Mr. G. D. Finlayson, the permanent head of the Department of Insurance, a very able and efficient and honest man. Nevertheless, on a report which on its face showed a diminution of $6,000,000 in their assets, they increased the dividends to their shareholders from fifty per cent to seventy-five per cent in one year, with the result that the shares, originally $100, were quoted at some $3,000 to $4,000.

I need not dwell upon those examples. I will finish with two connected with public services solely. I think it will not be said that the transportation of workers between their homes and their work, that the supply of electric light and gas for home and industrial use, ought to be left entirely to private enterprise with entire disregard for the public. Well, what has it come to in the city of Montreal, the metropolis of Canada? The tram service, the electricity service, the gas service, are in the hands of one single concern, or ratheir of a few men who control not only those public services, but indirectly that enormous lumber monopoly which is now in bankruptcy, the Sun Life Assurance Company and the Royal Bank, and of course the Montreal Trust Company -because each respectable bank must have a trust company to carry on with the money

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bourassa

of the depositors operations which the Bank Act forbids to the bank. You have there this greatest financial-industrial monopoly, controlling tihe city of Montreal. Do you want to see what it means? There are two parts of the island of Montreal that have not yet been absorbed, the town of Outremont, in which I live, and the town of Westmount. The people of Westmount are fairly enterprising; they considered they were being squeezed by the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, so they organized a plant of their own, with the result that the price of electricity went down at once fifty per cent. And we have this spectacle in the city of Montreal: on one side of Atwater Avenue the poorer individuals pay four cents while on the other side the rich people of West-mount pay two cents. Is this social justice or economic equilibrium? Do you think the people will stand it very long and be satisfied with this "upholding of the constitution?" No! I give this warning to true Conservatives-I use the term in the large sense, there are Conservatives on this side and Conservatives on that side, just os there are socialists on either side. I repeat, I am not afraid of the word "socialism." It always amuses me when I hear cries of horror on both sides of the house the moment socialism is mentioned. Forty years ago Sir William Vernon Harcourt, a Liberal, it is true, but surely not a revolutionist, was taunted with the accusation of socialism. He said, "What does it mean? Everyone is more or less socialist, after all." Think of the advance since then, not towards Marxian socialism, but towards the adaptation of some of the essential principles of socialism to modern life; far more advance in conservative England than in so-called progressive Canada. Corporations have far more power.over the public in Canada than in England. Conservative governments in England have taken much more effective means of curbing the powers of large corporations than we have in Canada, under either the Liberal or the Conservative regime. But attention is being drawn and focussed upon this situation. I give this Warning to true Conservatives: Do not raise the bogy of bolshevism all the time. Do you know what people, even good farmers, are beginning to say in the province of Quebec? "Well, after all, bolshevism is in Russia; it is far away, but we know what we are suffering from and we are not going to be satisfied with denunciations of bolshevism all the time. What we want is some alleviation of our own evil." That is what the people expect from us. Let hon. gentlemen remember the results of the anti-German propaganda during the war, when people were made to believe that the Germans were cutting off the ears and arms of all the children in the towns of Belgium, and that they were using human grease for their cartridges. There are still a few Chinese who do believe that sort of thing, and still a few Canadians who believe that the Germans were cutting off the ears and arms of children in Belgium; but all informed and intelligent people know better than that. Today you could not possibly make people believe all the lies that were accepted as gospel truth during the war.

I do not believe in attempting to remedy any situation or in trying to accomplish anything by lies or by giving what we call in French the tangente, by throwing sidelines on foreign situations in order to make the people forget their own situation. I claim that the principle of cooperation is bound to increase, is bound to take the place of the old practice of individual enterprise which has been crushed by corporate capitalism; and I believe that if we want to prevent the evils of bolshevism, if we want really to prevent Canadians of all classes and in all our provinces from developing instincts of revolution, we must do something else than we have done in the last five, ten or twenty years. We must combine the true and eternal principles of social conservation with true measures of social progress and reform, and I claim that this can be done only by means of cooperation, not necessarily the enactment of a cooperative constitution but the recognition that no class can save the country, no class can save the world. No system can save the world, but all classes, looking primarily to their own interests if you like-because we must take human nature as it is-and all parties, looking to their own traditions and prejudices and shibboleths, should at least broaden their minds and stiffen their wills to establish some sort of cooperation between parties, between classes, and in a country like ours between provinces and races, if we are to pull the country out of the present quagmire.

May I close these remarks with a quotation? I am not strong on quotations but I must say that I was struck by a sensible observation of an author who I suppose is an economist. I may say by way of parenthesis that I largely share the views of the Prime Minister when he says that economists very often have not many practical remedies to offer. They always remind me of a lesson in medicine given by Moliere in Le Malade Imaginaire: "pri-mo seignare, ensuita purgare

and you

1728 COMMONS

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Bourassa

swear not to cure or to kill your patient otherwise than according to the rules of the faculty."

This book I read with interest because it is unpretentious; because, as the author says, his object is not to teach extraordinary things but to try to bring the minds of most people to the consideration of ordinary truths. Now, mind you, he declares himself, and he proves it, quite antagonistic to communism or even socialism if you take holus bolus the doctrine of socialism as propounded by Mara and others and put into practice more or less in Russia. He is not foolish enough however to imagine that all that has been preached and practised by socialists is all wrong. Therefore he gives a warning at the end of his book which I commend to people of ordinary minds like myself, people who will find comfort in it because it is understandable. The book is The World Economic Crisis 1929-31, by Paul Einzig. The author speaks particularly of the struggle, perhaps much more menacing than some people imagine, between antagonistic schools and interests as represented on the one hand by Soviet Russia and on the other, broadly speaking, by western Europe and America. He says:

Should the Soviet Union pursue an aggressive arid destructive policy, the rest of the world may be compelled into a defensive alliance which would have to make use of the weapon of economic boycott.

This government tried it tentatively in a very limited way.

It is possible, however, that the Soviet authorities realize that there is no hope for stirring up a world revolution by means of ruining the industries of capitalist countries through cut-throat competition. In that case, they focus all their energies upon trying to accentuate their economic progress instead of trying to destroy that of other countries. Our task will then be to do our utmost to maintain and even increase our economic superiority over the new system.

To that end it is essential that we should establish cooperation in all its possible forms. We cannot afford any longer to suffer periodical setbacks caused by crises. . . . The rival economic interests which are reluctant to curtail their freedom of action for the sake of cooperation, should be made aware that their very existence is at stake. Nothing but the closest relations betwen them, coupled with the cooperation of political powers to maintain internal and_ international peace, can maintain the superiority ^ of our economic system which is the raison d'etre of our social and political system. In order to accelerate our progress and to prevent setbacks, individuals, groups, and classes will have to consent to sacrifices which will be, however, rewarded in the long run by the results obtained. If we combine judiciously the advantages of cooperation with those of individual initiative, there is no reason to fear that a system where individual initiative is eliminated can ever win the victory over us. (Mr. Bourassn.l

Therefore, in the name of all that is true and legitimate in private initiative and private property, which is now being expropriated in Canada as fast as in Russia; in the name of all that is best in our past traditions, Canadian, French or British, I seriously call upon the members of tire various parties and groups of this house to forget for a moment their party differences and to do all they can, not to counteract every new idea that is presented as being a form of bolshevism, but to listen attentively and sympathetically to every suggestion which is made, prepared to reject what we think is wrong and to accept what is right. Do not let us endeavour to crush the growing feelings and aspirations of a suffering people by telling them that what was good enough for our fathers is good enough for us. Do not let us tell them that this is a passing crisis and that things will adjust themselves. They will not, and we know it. It is all very well to preach optimism if by optimism you mean that we must foster the feelings of hope in a better future. But if by optimism you mean that we must go on deceiving the people as to the gravity of the crisis, that we must let the people believe that because of a little change in the tariff, because of little treaties made here and there, matters will adjust themselves-no. It is wrong to deceive the people. We have deceived them too long. I know that in my own little sphere of life hundreds of people are starving today. Why? Because they believed three years ago that if there was a change in government, while they would not be rich, they would be well off. And so they spent their little savings. Others thought that because of a little measure of relief adopted in Ottawa in conjunction with Quebec that all things would come out all right. There is not one specific measure which has been adopted either here, in Quebec, in Toronto or elsewhere which can cure the evil. The best intellects among the capitalists, among the traders, among the farmers and among the labourers must get to work and convince themselves that the main thing is not to turn over the country to the labourer, to the farmer or to the capitalist, but that the one standing law of humanity is that every individual in every class must make his bit of sacrifice in order to save the whole. If we make it better for the whole, then the individuals in all classes will benefit.

Mr. G. C. WILSON (Wentworth):

Mr. Speaker, it is several years since I have had the privilege of addressing the House of Commons. Coming here in 1911 I am now classed as the third oldest member on this side of the house, not in age but in service.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Wilson

1 served in the legislature from 1908 to 1911, and the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) will pardon me if I say that if he had worked as hard in Quebec as I did in Ontario from 1908 to 1911 for the introduction of publicly-owned hydro-electric power, they would not be paying such high prices today in Montreal for their power. As I say, I have not cluttered up Hansard with long speeches and I do not know just how long I will be able to continue today because, as many hon. members know, I am speaking against medical advice. Not long ago the Independent Labour party came into the town of Dundas to hold a meeting and the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) was introduced with the statement that he had said more in one session of this house than I had in twenty-one years. I do not deny that accusation. I happen to be one of those to whom a banquet was tendered because it was thought I was going to pass out before very long. My leader was kind enough to do the honours, and I think that fact coupled with the fact that I am a Presbyterian and believe in predestination and foreordination, made me not think very much of what the doctors told me. It is due to a kind Providence and the use of sweet cider that I am here today.

Having a Scotch grandmother and an Irish mother I had to learn the twenty-third psalm and the fifty-fourth paraphrase, but my father beat me out because he could recite the hundred and nineteenth psalm without a skip. I could never accomplish that and I suppose the reason was that I did not take enough pease brose for breakfast.

I should like to recall a story concerning Sir John A. Macdonald. He spoke in Hamilton in 1891 during his last campaign. I was at the back of the rink on Jackson street where he spoke when a member of the audience in a whisper just loud enough to carry over the heads of the people said, "Oh, go to hell." Quick as a flash Sir John said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I have been in public life a great many years, I have been invited here and I have been invited there, but this is the first time I ever had a direct invitation to Grit headquarters. I decline with thanks." Personally, I do not feel like accepting the invitation of any party whose ultimate goal is chaos and the disregard of law and order.

In enlarging upon the wonderful strides made by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) said that multitudes are joining the Cooperative Commonwealth

Federation and halls will not accommodate the crowds of those eager to enter.

The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said that he did not like to quote scripture and I am reminded of an occasion where a choir leader was asked to sing the national anthem and he got up and sang "Praise God from Whom All Blessings Flow" before starting with the national anthem. I would refer the hon. member for Southeast Grey to St. Matthew VII, 13-15, which reads:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

I, like Sir John A. Macdonald, must graciously but emphatically decline the invitation to join the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) may claim that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is not interpreting scripture as many of the most eminent theologians would do, but it must be remembered that today the churches are allowing their pulpits to be occupied by salad faced college professors and new era economists who, suffering from high blood pressure and brainstorms, exploit mew theories instead of preaching the simple gospel of the Nazarene, to which we will have to return if we are to get out of the deplorable position in which we are today. Can the house imagine the pulpit of Calvin being filled by a Woodsworth, the pulpit of Knox by a Bland or that of Luther by a Garland? We must learn to put first things first. I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Globe of December 2, 1932, entitled, "Thirteen Years After" and which reads:

Still the insistence that there must be a revolution bespeaks little for a gain in wisdom. When revolution is proclaimed as inevitable, even the "mental revolution" of Miss Agnes Macphail, as a beginning, whether there is bloodshed or not depends upon the kind and amount of energy devoted to propaganda, as history has shown.

And then again:

The Canadian Annual Review of 1919 records that, upon committal for trial of eight strike leaders, "a meeting with indignant speeches followed, addressed by Rev. Dr. Salem Bland and J. S. Woodsworth, who dealt at length with the evil work of those who were trying to 'crush the Russian experiment in democracy.' "

A little further on we read:

This all happened at a time when labour, so called, was depressed compared with previous months, and when the One Big Union was out

1730 COMMONS

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Wilson

to "subdue the mad dogs of capitalism and open the gates of freedom," when the theory was, as Rev. William Ivens was reported to have told a Winnipeg labour meeting, addressed by himself and Rev. Doctor Bland: "All you have to do is to walk into any industry, tel! the owner you are going to take it over, and it is done."

The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), as reported on. page 1694 of Hansard, has this to say:

Had either of the old parties offered solutions, or even attempted to offer solutions, or had the government extended some sympathy to those suffering so greatly, they would have held much of the ground which they so easily won in 1930, and the Liberal party would have gained ground more rapidly than it is now doing. The Liberals, of course, do offer sympathy, if nothing else.

I am very glad to say that the Canadian people cannot be reconciled to continued want and privation, suffering, disease and early death in a land of abundance. They cannot and will not be reconciled to it. If they could they would not be the red-blooded Canadians about whom the Minister of Railways and Canals talks so much. The attempt of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is to build a social order or society which will serve mankind, instead of allowing a social organization to continue which makes mankind serve the system.

One would think from a speech that sounds like "holier than thou," the hon. member for Southeast Grey was above all this sort of thing, but as we all know, she has joined the capitalistic class, and I wish to refer to an inoident which took place while she was on a speaking tour. This appears in one of the Fergus papers, but I do not wish to quote that part of it. I desire merely to refer to an inoident that took place. While certain people can criticize the capitalistic class and find fault with members on this side, I am aware of an incident which occurred when the hon. member addressed the Women's Institute at Rockton in my constituency. What was their surprise when two days afterwards they received a bill from the hon. member for Southeast Grey for $12 for her expenses. This is the patriotic lady who says that we should do this and do that. She has now joined the capitalistic class and become the "Oil Queen of the West." I do not intend to deal with the Fuego Oil Company. It has no connection with or reference to tempus fugit, which in Russian-pardon me, in Latin-moans "time flies." Perhaps it would be better for me to quote:

In time the ignorant may become learned, the foolish may be made wise, and the wildest, wanton maiden may be brought to a modest matron.

The hon. member for Southeast Grey has not brought, forward any solution of our

present problems, other than to say, as reported on page 1694 of Hansard:

The attempt of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is to build a social order or society which will serve mankind, instead of allowing a social organization to continue which makes mankind serve the system.

That is a mere platitude, not a plan. I would be daring indeed should I suggest to the lady member a plan that is claimed to be a formula for happiness, but I am not suggesting it impolitely, and I suppose if it appears in the Mail and Empire it must be all right. This paper has an article under the following heading:

Formula for Happiness

I will read a portion of it:

Ten happy couples, living within a short distance of each other in Cape Breton-some of them next-door neighbours-celebrated on Sunday their golden weddings. Judging by the names in the Sydney Post they were all Soots or of Scottish descent. The MacPhees have fifty grandchildren; the Maclsaacs, twelve children, twenty-two grandchildren and three great grandchildren; others somewhat smaller families. Inevitably they were asked the secret of long life and happiness.

Tell your Prime

Minister.

Mr. WILSON:

Here are some of the

answers:

"We have always had food and love and laughter," said Mrs. MacDonald, "and these are the only real necessities of life. When women today talk about necessities they mean automobiles and telephones, electric lights and permanent waves. I never had any of those things. When I was married women didn't want anything but homes and babies."

An hon. member has said: "Tell your Prime Minister." Well, I can include the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the party immediately opposite me and myself, so there might be a race. But I do not think there will be one, because I shall not be a starter, not even an added starter.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday made reference to my leader in these words:

Does anyone mean to say that the great fortunes in Canada have been built up by what could be termed "honest toil?" Has the I'rime Minister's own fortune been gained by honest toil?

Then, after quite a dispute in the house it will be remembered that when the Speaker was about to name the hon. member, the latter started to say:

I withdraw my imputation that the Prime Minister has made his money dishonestly.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Wilson

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

May I point out

that I did not say I withdrew "my" imputation. The hon. gentleman is misquoting Hansard.

Mr. WILSON:

I beg pardon. I should have said "any imputation."

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I did not mean to impute anything of the kind.

Mr. WILSON:

I do not mean to impute to the hon. member anything except what is found in Hansard. I apologize for the error.

Hon. members know the difference between an accident, a coincidence and a habit. An accident is when a man for the first time throws himself out of a third-story window. If he throws himself out a second time, that is a coincidence, and if he throws himself out a third time, that is a habit. I think in this case it has become a habit, and it does not do credit to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

The hon. member for Southeast Grey thinks she has a remedy, and if I may quote from the Globe, this is it:

There are the presses, many in need of a run, and no scarcity of paper and ink, with pressmen and printers eager for work. There should be nothing more necessary than to get up steam-

If she had anything to do with the matter, I think they would be run by oil.

-turn on the juice, or turn the wheels by foot power. Anyway, start the press. The output would "appall" even the workmen. By a little overtime there soon would be so much money that it might be carried awray by the armful.

It all seems so simple. Let the designers turn out handsome bills. Let them be crisp and crinkly so that there may be melody as they circulate. Money talks now. Make it sing-with Miss Macphail conducting.

That is from the Globe.

Mr. IRVINE:

The hon. member is not quoting the hon. member for Southeast Grey.

Mr. WILSON:

No.

Mr. IRVINE:

That is good enough for the Globe, but it would never do for the hon. member for Southeast Grey.

Mr. WILSON:

Hear, hear.

Mr. WILSON:

Mr. Speaker, I am very

glad to hear an hon. member say "Hear, hear."

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Maclnnis

Now they ask, and it is only a suggestion of a member on this side: How would you go about improving some of the conditions? In the first place I would certainly try to put agriculture on its feet.

Mr. SPENCER:

How?

Mr. WILSON:

By dealing internally with

the troubles we have, that is with the milk problem, the butter problem, the daily problem, the meat and meat products problem, right at home. I know you are going to say it is a provincial affair. Yes, but we can overcome all this; we have overcome a lot of things since the right hon. Prime Minister came into power, and furthermore, though constitutionally it may be wrong, constitutionally we have done many things that are not exactly according to the law. The carrying out of the empire pact will, I think, lead to great advances, if we carry them out in the spirit and not in the letter of the law as some have argued. We wasted seven weeks here discussing the treaties from the constitutional standpoint, and what the price of barbed wire is going to be, and the price of socks, cream separators, and so forth, wre made ourselves the laughing stock of the world, because other parts of the empire had passed the treaties. As far as I am concerned, I hope to remain a Canadian and a British subject.

To our British institutions and traditions hold we fast,

Follow close to old Trafalgar, nail the colours to the mast,

Clinch the ties that hind us to them, give the world no cause to think

That this Empire's chains might sever at our firm Canadian link.

Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):

Mr. Speaker, I have often wondered

why we come to parliament. But the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mae-Nicol) has enlightened me. He said the reason that we are here today is to encourage capitalists to invest their capital in factories and plants. I presume all would be well if the capitalists would only do that, but if they do not, evidently he has no other solution for our problem, and we must go on starving.

I was also glad to know of his acquaintance with our old friend, Karl Marx, and that he was able to distinguish at least three basic principles in the Marxian philosophy, namely, surplus value, the class struggle, and the materialist conception of history. But he merely named these; he did not go on to explain them, nor did he refute Marx, although he said that everyone knew that we

have not a class struggle. I would like to ask, how does he account for all the struggles and conflicts that have gone on between the various classes all down through history, not only during the capitalist regime, but through feudalism and chattel slavery? In all these the workers had to fight with their masters, and the wage slaves under capitalism have to carry on the same struggle. Every advance they have made has been made through blood and tears.

Does the hon. member deny the fact of surplus value? How does the employer get his profit? Let me explain what surplus value is. Before a worker, a propertyless man who has no other way of getting a living, can get into industry, that is before he can get a job, there is first the understanding that he shall produce for his employer in values more than his employer gives him in value in return for his labour. If lie is working eight hours a day, in say three hours he produces his own wages, then for the remaining five hours he is producing values for his employer. That, very briefly, is the surplus value theory of Karl Marx. No person employs a worker except under those conditions. There would be no reason for doing so. The reason employers will not employ workers today is that although they still produce a surplus, that surplus cannot be disposed of.

We are told that conditions today have arisen out of the world war, but we ask: What did the world war rise out of? Was it its own cause? As the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) said in regard to another subject, every intelligent person realizes today that the German kaiser did not cause the war. The cause of the war was the conflict between the various capitalist countries to find markets for this surplus value that they had filched from their wage slaves. Through the development of capitalism and industrialism in every country it had become impossible to find markets for this surplus value that was accruing to the employers internationally. And that is the very reason why today we cannot have international concord or international action on the questions confronting the world,

I was very much impressed with the speech made by the hon. member for Labelle and his impassioned appeal for cooperation between the various classes in the community and the various parties in the country. But it is absolutely impossible to have cooperation between the exploiters and the exploited. There is no cooperation between the wolf and the lamb unless the lamb is inside the wolf. Nor is there cooperation be-

1734 COMMONS

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Maclnnis

tween the workers in industry and the employer, because of the inherent exploitation that must exist. I am not blaming employers. My friends in the corner here usually blame the banks for the condition that this country is in, the fall in prices and so on. I blame neither the banks nor the employers; they are compelled by the necessities of the situation to eat or be eaten, to exploit or be exploited. The reason we find so many today placing the blame on the banks for the conditions under which we suffer is the lack of understanding of capitalism and how it functions. The banks are not in the banking business for the good of the country, they are in it for the good of the banks; and if the good of the banks and the good of the country are not in accord, then the good of the banks will prevail, until some stronger power than the farmers have at the present time takes a hand in the situation.

There is something very significant in the reception this resolution has received in the house on this occasion. If anything were needed to indicate the serious condition of the country it is found in the attentive hearing that has been given to the speeches on the resolutions. There has been quiet attention on this side and rather boisterous attention from the other side, but nevertheless attention-almost every man in his seat listening to what is said. We did not have that on other occasions when we brought such matters forward. It was driven home to me when the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) ended his speech with the words that the system as we have it now was finished. That statement met with laughter from the other side, but that laughter was only halfhearted; there was no enthusiasm behind it. It was not the spontaneous outburst you would have got in 1930 if such a statement had been made at that time. The statement, however, is true. It is not a laughing matter and that is why hon. gentlemen opposite did not laugh heartily. They all realize the truth and they express it in conversation outside no matter what they may say in the house.

Another realization is coming and that is that, the system being finished, there are only two alternatives. We shall have to reconstruct the whole system so as to make it work, or else we shall have to have socialism. The present system is based on competition and we must make the competitive principle work or adopt a cooperative system. And that is all that is meant when we use the word socialism.

The constitutional question was raised by the Prime Minister very early in the discussion. I was glad to hear from the hon. member for Wentworth that we had done unconstitutional things already and that it did not matter so long as the results were satisfactory. I quite agree with him there. It does not particularly matter whether what is done is in accordance with the strict letter of the law so long as the results are in the interests of the people of the country. Indeed, after listening to the leader of the opposition during the last two or three years I came to the conclusion that there was no constitution left to violate, and my reading of history leads me to believe that the constitutional question is trotted out only when the ruling class does not wish to do something which ought to be done. As a matter of fact, raising the constitutional question is about the best way of passing the buck that I know of. Let us go back to the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act of 1931. In that act we find, these words, which caused a good deal of discussion in the house:

and for the maintenance of peace, order and good government in the country.

By the insertion of that phrase the government took to itself the right to do anything it might see fit by order in council. It stated so very plainly, and the Minister of Justice, in replying to the criticisms that were made against that act, made this statement as reported in Hansard of 1931 at page 4439:

It is recognized that there is a national emergency. . . .

Another significant statement.

We recognize this emergency by the adoption of these words from the British North America Act, and they were placed in the bill as the foundation of our authority to pass such an enactment. They have nothing to do with the question of enforcement, they are merely a declaration to give us the jurisdiction which we know we have under the circumstances but of which we want to be sure.

The act did say something with regard to enforcement, because we find in it these words:

All orders and regulations of the governor in council shall have the force of law and shall be enforced in such manner and by such court officers and authorities as the governor in council may prescribe.

That, if you like, is going a long way towards unconstitutional action. So that with the passing of that act, and with the precedent set us by the Prime Minister himself, it seems to me that a good deal could be done which the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation would like to see carried out. The measure that was adopted in 1931 was adopted for the

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Maclnnis

reason that a national emergency existed, and the reason it did not go further was that the national emergency was not great enough. When the emergency does become great enough, other things that have to be done will be done and will be done constitutionally.

I do not think that as Britishers we should feel greatly disturbed over unconstitutional acts, because British history bristles with such acts. I suppose it was quite unconstitutional for the barons in the thirteenth century to bring a document to King John and tell him to sign on the dotted line. I remember quite well that in my history book I was taught at school that King John, with a smile on his face and rage in his heart, did sign on the dotted line. It was also I suppose quite unconstitutional during the Civil war in the reign of Charles I for the people to cut the king's head off. But who blushes today because that was done? These are some of the things we are proud of. Some hon. gentlemen here celebrate the glorious revolution of 1688. It is true the revolution was bloodless, but that was a mere accident. And they would celebrate it with just as much gusto if there had been considerable bloodshed. Yet they talk about unconstitutional acts.

What about the famous or infamous telegram sent by the Acting Prime Minister of Canada to a lawyer in Winnipeg during the general strike there? Let me read a telegram from Mr. Meighen to Mr. Andrews, of June 17, 1919.

Notwithstanding any doubt I have as to the technical legality of the arrest and the detention at Stony Mountain, I feel that rapid deportation is the best course now that the arrests are made, and later we can consider ratification.

If the cooperative commonwealth acts on the same principle we will do things today which we cam ratify later on, whether they are constitutional or not, and I do not see how the leader of the Senate could find fault; nor could the Conservatives in this house complain, because they made no complaint against the action indicated in this telegram when it was done. If therefore we find it necessary to arrest Mr. Meighen and others we can have the arrest ratified later. If we find that we have done anything illegal, we can ratify the arrest after we have held them in Stony Mountain or some other place for some time. These however are minor points.

The great question that we have to solve is why and how we got into this state, and how we are going to get out of our difficulties. It is quite useless for the Conservative party, as they did in 1930, to put on the shoulders of the Liberal party all the responsibility for

the condition of affairs that preceded this administration, and it is equally useless for the Liberal party to place the blame on the Conservatives for the conditions that prevail today. I have no doubt these conditions would be pretty much the same if the Liberal party were in power, and that is not casting any reflections on them. We might as well get to the basis of the conditions and, instead of one party blaming the other, we ought to endeavour to find a solution. And let me say that it would be just as useless for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to try to place the blame on these two parties unless we ourselves intended to alter fundamentally the basis of the present social order.

Mr. POULIOT:

Does the hon. member contend that if the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation were in power that conditions would be any different?

Mr. MacINNIS:

No, not if the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation endeavoured to administer capitalism. The difficulties which arise are not caused by parties. When times were good the Liberal party governed well enough and I presume that if times were good today the Conservative party would govern well enough and there would be very little objection, especially from those who like that kind of thing. It would not satisfy me but that is neither here nor there. It would seem that businessmen can rim their businesses only when conditions are favourable and the very fact that today they do not know what is wrong or what they should do to set things right is proof positive that they do not understand the fundamentals of their own system and how it operates. While things were prosperous the bigwigs of business thought that they were responsible for the prosperity. They were like the fly upon the wheel; as long as the wheel was turning the fly thought it was responsible for its revolving, but when the wheel stopped, the fly had no idea why it had stopped. Business has slowed down and these people do not know what is wrong or how to right the condition. The fault does not lie either with the lack of business ability upon the part of businessmen or with the lack of administrative ability upon the part of governments. It is because of qualities which are inherent in the capitalistic system.

Speaking upon the question of unemployment during the session of 1931, I stated that the root cause of the condition which prevailed in the country at that time was the private ownership of the means of production-capitalism. It was the private ownership of the means of production which is

1736 COMMONS

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Maclnnis

vested in a few hands and which operates only when the owners can make a profit. I challenge anyone to prove that that is not the case. We have a superabundance of commodities on one side and we have misery, want and starvation on the other. Why can we not take the abundance on this side and give it to those who are suffering in want and hunger? It is because between the abundance and the misery stands the ownership of the means of life. Until we have changed that social relationship there is nothing we can do that will be of any particular benefit or help in getting us out of our present situation.

There are those who say, like the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), that if we could only change men's hearts we could do it. Others say that it can be done by merely changing the monetary system but I have yet to see a monetary reform, I do not care from whence it comes, which will incline any employer of labour to give to his employee more of the actual value of his labour than he is now getting. By the very necessity of the case, the employer of labour is compelled to increase the spread between what the labourer gets in wages and what he takes in profits. Until we can solve this problem there is no use in putting forward monetary reforms or other palliatives.

Then we come to the matter of surpluses. At the present time it is impossible to dispose of the surplus which has been produced by labour. Despite this fact every employer of labour, not necessarily because he is greedy, not necessarily because he is anti-social but because of the inherent nature of capitalism, is compelled to lower still further the wages of his employees. He is compelled to do this in order that he may compete upon more favourable terms with other employers producing the same kind of commodity. Every time an employer of a particular class of labour, for example, shoe workers, reduces the wages of his employees, although he may be able to mleet world competition, he is reducing the purchasing power in his own particular community. He is reducing the purchasing power at home in order to increase his ability to sell in markets abroad. Under the present system it is impossible to get away from this condition, and we cannot meet the situation by offering some sort of monetary reform.

Capitalism was able to continue just as long as this surplus production could be disposed of, either by being invested in new capital or through being wasted in war. However, whether it was invested in new capital or wasted in war, there was always left behind

a load of debt upon which interest must be paid. The problem facing the governments of the industrial countries of the world is how to meet the ever-increasing debt burden and the ever-increasing expenses of unemployment out of an ever-decreasing revenue because of the slowing down of the production of wealth.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. MaeINNIS: Mr. Speaker, the hon.

member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Mac-Nicol) and the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson) endeavoured to make up for their lack of knowledge of the policies of the socialist and labour movement in this country by trying to frighten the people of Canada with tales of Moscow, the Third Internationale, patriotism and so forth. The hon. member for Westworth said that if there were any one in Canada who was not satisfied with conditions as they existed he had better go to Russia. I know of many Conservatives who are not satisfied with conditions as they are in Canada; neither am I, but I have no intention of going to Russia because to do so would not rectify matters in this country. Canada is my native country, by accident of birth, I admit, but I am going to stay here and do my share in making conditions better.

To try to connect us up with the Communist party is certainly most foolish, because anyone who knows anything about the tactics of that party and who has read any of its literature, knows we come in for more condemnation at the hands of that party than does either the Conservative or the Liberal party. Let me read a short item in connection with the election in my constituency in 1930. I had there as opponents a Conservative and a Communist. It was rather strange that in every constituency where the Labour party ran a candidate in the dominion election of 1930 and in no other, the Communist party had also a candidate. This, I think, will bear out what I say. After referring to me in language that was anything but complimentary, the Communist party say:

This is what the Labour party here offers to the workers of South Vancouver and Canada. The Communist party is in this campaign to expose the Labour party for what it is-a worse enemy of the workers than the avowed capitalist parties.

A rather peculiar feature of that campaign was that while I had two opponents who were

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Maclnnis

supposed to be diametrically opposed to each other, neither of them said anything against the other in the election, but each of them turned his guns on me. In order to show where the sympathies of the Communist party went, let me read a little further:

Unfortunately, the Communist party in Vancouver South has a family name-Bennett

that may mislead some of the voters on polling day, but he earnestly hopes that no Conservative will vote for him in the belief that it is a vote for the leader of the Tory party.

This was because if they voted for Bennett in Vancouver thinking it was the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), those would be votes taken from the Conservative candidate in that election and consequently votes in my favour. The Communist party naturally were not in favour of that. I should like Conservative members to explain this if they can.

To deal further with the reference of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest to the philosophy of Karl Marx, I do not know whether this is the first time it has been quoted in the House of Commons, but I do not think it will do members any harm to get a better conception of that philosophy, of the genius of the individual concerned, whose monumental works, the analysis of capitalism, capitalist economists have for the last seventy years been trying to discredit and have been unable to do so. Let me read from his work, Capital, at page 533:

We have seen how this absolute contradiction between the technical necessities of modern industry, and the social character inherent in its capitalistic form dispels all fixity and security in the situation of the labourer; how it constantly threatens by taking away the instruments of labour, to snatch from his hands the means of subsistence, and by suppressing his detail function to make him superfluous. We have seen, too, how this antagonism vents its rage in the creation of that monstrosity, an industrial reserve army kept in misery in order to be always at the disposal of capital; in the incessant human sacrifices from among the working class, in the reckless squandering of labour power, and in the devastation caused by a social anarchy which turns every economical progress into a social calamity.

Is that not absolutely true of the present situation? I can prove this by quotations from various other sources, but let me give one. On December 27 last the Vancouver Province had an editorial on the project which France has in hand at the present time of irrigating 1,000,000 acres of the Sahara desert. After referring to that immense project, that is expected to be at least partly finished by the end of three years, it goes on to say:

But to a disillusioned world the news brings no gleam of hope, no anticipation of happiness. It is true there are millions of people who 53719-110

could use the cotton that will grow on the new Sahara acres, if they could get it. But there are great quantities of cotton grown in the world now-in Egypt, in the United States, in India-and the market for it is dull and the pi ice low. If the million acres of Sahara land come under cultivation by 1936 and begin to produce, then a million acres of marginal land in some of the countries that produce cotton now will have to go out of cultivation or be turned to some other crop.

Maybe they will start growing wheat.

Unless, of course, the market can be widened. We have come to the point in cotton, and not a few other things, where the irrigation of one desert means the creation of another.

If those who do not understand Marx or have never read him will take a little time to read what he has written and then compare it with conditions as they find them today, they will very soon be convinced of the wonderful insight of the man. Let me read a little further from the famous thirty-second chapter of volume one:

That which is now to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for himself, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. Thus expropriation is accomplished by the immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of capital. One capitalist kills many.

That is what the hon member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), was telling us this afternoon in such beautiful language. I quote further:

Hand in hand with this centralization or this expropriation of the many capitalists by the few, develops, on an eevr-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economizing of all means of production of combined, socialized labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and thus, the international character of the capitalistic regime.

I hope the hon. member for Toronto Northwest will continue his studies of Marx, and we may expect to hear more from him in the future. In face of the situation that is confronting us, in face of the fact that we have an abundance that we do not know what to do with, all that the present ruling classes are able to offer us is more economy. All that they can offer to a people now almost suffocated with the abundance of their own production is more economy. Let us see what this economy means. First of all it is practised by the cutting of wages. Lowered wages mean less purchasing power. Less purchasing power means a lowered consumption of goods. A lowered consumption of goods means the slowing down of industry. The slowing down of industry means more unemployment. More unemployment means

1738 COMMONS

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Maclnnis

more governmental expense, and that means more taxation and more difficulty in balancing budgets. Then we arrive at the stage where in order to meet the situation we have to economize still further and go around the whole vicious circle again. That is the solution, and the only solution, that the present ruling classes have to offer. We maintain that all the factors that were present in 1928 and 1929 at the height of the boom are still here. We have our natural resources; we have the same mechanical means of production; we have the human skill and technical training and all the human labour necessary to operate our machines; and yet because the employing class cannot make a profit out of the operation of their equipment, factories and machines are idle, and thousands starve.

It is said that Canada will not stand for socialism. Well, sir, I say that there is one thing that will prevent socialism coming in Canada, and that is that those now responsible for affairs in this country make capitalism function in the interests of the people. That is their business, and if they cannot do it, no one else can.

I was interested in noting that even as great a conservative as President Hoover has come to the realization that governments must take more interest and a more constructive part in the organization of production. In his last message to congress in December, 1932, in closing President Hoover made this statement:

With the free development of science and the consequent multitude of inventions some of which are absolutely revolutionary in our national life, the government must not only stimulate the social life, the government must stimulate the social and economic responsibility of individuals and private institutions but it must also give leadership to cooperative action amongst the people which will soften the effect of these revolutions and thus secure social transformations in an orderly manner-

That is what we are after-social transformations in an orderly manner.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion we have finished the upbuilding of our industrial civilization; it is now more than sufficiently equipped to supply the needs of the population for many years to come. Such being the case, the government of this country, in common with nearly all the governments of the world, is facing a very serious situation. It is faced with a collapsing social structure. It is not responsible for that impending collapse. I take it that it built as well as it knew. Most of us thought that we were living in the best of all good worlds, a world in which it was possible for everyone to get richer than everyone else,

provided we were willing to work hard and take advantage of the need of our fellows.

The system is slowing down and failing to provide for our needs in even the inadequate way in which it once did. The slowing down is the direct result of its own development. Change now is inevitable. The only choice is to faciliate change or oppose it. Ours is the opportunity of helping to bring in the new social order which will make the bounty of nature as organized by the intelligence of man available to everyone. But changes do not wait for our pleasure, and we oppose them at our peril.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):

The resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) surely merits reasonable consideration and is a subject of fair debate. So far as I can see there is no need for any rash imputations from either side, nor is it necessary to bring in personalities. The resolution clearly sets forth the line of thought which divides the government from those in this comer, and indeed divides the official opposition from those in this comer. I have been surprised that so little interest has been manifested in a question which will shortly be, and is now in fact, an issue not only in Canada but throughout the world, and one which will undoubtedly be the issue at the next election in Canada, whether we wish it or not. I am surprised that the government has not taken a deeper interest in the issue. Only two government members have spoken, one of whom told us that he has been silent in the house for twenty-one years, and now he comes out in defence of the capitalist system. I hope he will not take it unkindly when I suggest to him that if he has been successful for twenty-one years with his tactics of silence, it was a great pity to break it, because I do not think he will be nearly as successful making speeches as he was by saying nothing.

I am surprised that some of the members of the official opposition have not had anything to say on this question. The hon. member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has declared from the floor of many platforms in the western provinces that there is nothing in the program of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation which has not been in the Liberal program from time immemorial, and that he supports our platform in every detail with the exception of its land policy. I am surprised thait he has had nothing to say in this debate. I had hoped that he would tell us just how far he was willing to go on this resolution, which marks the only real difference of opinion in this house.

Cooperative Commomoealth-Mr. Irvine

We had an election in Calgary very recently. It was for a provincial seat covering practically the territory of two federal ridings. In that contest, which was held under the proportional representation system, we had the Conservatives and the Liberals joined together under a new name. Neither party dared to run a candidate under the banneT of either Liberal or Conservative. They both joined together as against the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate. What was the result of that election? A little over two years ago the Liberals and the Conservatives combined had a surplus over the Labour candidate of 24,988 votes. The territory was not precisely the same; in fact, the area left out in this most recent election included a large agricultural district in which we would have expected to get ninety per cent of the votes. But we may take the vote in the recent Calgary by-election as representing the relative strength of the two forces-the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and the capitalist forces. At that election we reduced the majority of 24,988 to something like 1,800. That would seem to indicate that the people in the country are more interested in this question than some hon. members of this house.

This resolution goes to the very heart of the present economic system. It implies, if it does not definitely state, that the capitalistic system, or the economic system under which we are now living, has distinct characteristics. One of these is the private ownership of public utilities and public lands, or what should be public lands, and power which should be public power, and sources of wealth of that sort. It next implies that the method of capitalism is competition, and that competition has led to anarchy within the nation and bloody wars outside. It implies also that the object of capitalistic production is profit. This resolution implies- and I want hon. gentlemen to listen, because some of them have suggested that no proposals have been made-first, public instead of private ownership; cooperation instead of competition; production for use instead of production for profit. It stands for a planned control of our national economy instead of the present anarchy. It stands for the priority of human needs over property rights. It stands for international peace, to come as a natural consequence of cooperation, instead of international strife inevitable in a condition of competition such as we have at the present time.

These, Mr. Speaker, are our proposals. And I take it that there is room for debate on them. We are perfectly willing to be shown that these proposals are impractical, if the hon.

53719-110J

gentlemen who are so interested will undertake to show it. These are our proposals, and we turn to the government and to the opposition and say: What are yours? Have they ever been articulated? The government's attempted remedies are already on the scrap-heap. The first was increased tariffs. Have the tariff increases done anything to improve business? Have they wiped out unemployment or done anything to meet the immediate needs of the hour?