Mr. RHODES:

Will the hon. gentleman permit one question for the purpose of information? Was there any objection on the part of the province at the time to that land being opened up by the dominion government?

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

Mr. GARDINER:

The province had no jurisdiction over it and so far as I know the province was not consulted. As a matter of fact I do not suppose the provincial government of that day had any information as to the nature of that country. I believe this land was opened for settlement in 1908 or early in 1909, consequently the provincial government would not have much information.

The next suggestion I wish to make unfortunately would not apply to the entire drought area, but in 1922 or 1923 the Department of the Interior surveyed the section of the country in which I live in order to determine whether or not it could be irrigated. I know that when I mention irrigation the minds of some hon. members of this house who know something about the subject will revert immediately to the problems we have had in connection with the irrigation districts of southern Alberta. However, this is not simply an irrigation proposal. In 1922 and 1923, as I have already stated, the Department of the Interior surveyed this territory to determine the possibilities of irrigation from the Red Deer river, and they found that it was quite feasible. They found that if they could impound enough water in the Red Deer river from the spring floods and the melting of the snow in the mountains in June and July, they could run the .main ditch so as to take in all the territory I represent and right up almost to Saskatoon.

There has been a proposal made in the last two years, and this proposal I submitted to the government last year, that this Pierce stock watering scheme, as it is termed, be undertaken by the federal government. The proposal is simply this: to dam up the waters of the Red Deer river, to impound all the surplus water that comes down that river and goes eventually out to Hudson bay, and to make use of it for the settlers within that area. As I have already stated, it is not proposed to make simply an irrigation scheme of it. What the settlers in that part of the country suggest is that the dam be built and the main ditch dug, and that in so far as any other development is concerned it be left to the municipalities, with engineering advice to guide them. The idea of the proposal is simply this: We have many lakes

which in the last few years have gone dry. When these lakes and the large sloughs were full of water, we had generally speaking a reasonable amount of moisture and splendid atmospheric conditions. The people of that area believe that with the development of this Pierce stock watering scheme, and the bringing of the water into the low places,

some of the humidity will be restored that has been lost on account of the lakes having dried up. I do not know what the cost is likely to be, but I submit that if the cost is reasonable it is a project which the government might well consider, because it would serve two important purposes. First it would assist in restoring the humidity in that part of the country, and second, it would provide ample water for the watering of stock, which can be raised fairly well in that part of the country, but into which people are now afraid to go very deeply because of the shortage of water. The scheme I believe is well worth considering. I am satisfied that it would be of great advantage, and taken in conjunction with some of the other suggestions I have made I am sure that in time it would help us to overcome the worst effects which the drought situation has created in that part of the country.

I do not propose to say any more in this regard, other than to remind the government that the people in these dried out areas are looking very anxiously for the government's program, and if the government is in a position to announce that program at an early day such an announcement will have a very beneficial effect on the minds of the people living in those areas. We realize the immensity of the job that lies before us. We do not expect to overcome the situation in a year or two years; it will take time, but, may I repeat, in my judgment it is worth while in the interests of Canada as a whole that the best brains available should tackle this big problem and let the people know the results as soon as possible.

I wish to devote a few minutes of my remaining time to a discussion of the question that is now before the house, namely the amendment moved by the hon. member for Maeleod (Mr. Coot;) It is not necessary for me to read the amendment. Suffice it to say that the amendment calls the attention of the house to the fact that we have in Canada immense potentialities for the production of the food, clothing and shelter which the people of this country require. It also invites the attention of the house to the fact that there is an apparent shortage of purchasing power, which means that the people cannot buy the goods that are available or the goods that can be produced. There may be some difference of opinion as to whether there is a deficiency of the purchasing power necessary to purchase all the goods that are available, or whether it is that the purchasing power which is available is not properly distributed and that

The Budget-Mr. Gardiner

through this maldistribution many people are not in a position to satisfy their requirements. But we do know that there is a maldistribution of purchasing power, and we do know that there are people who have too much purchasing power, or at least more than they can use. We know also that there are many people who have no purchasing power at all, and in consequence many families to-day, as has been so often stated in this house, have to deoend either upon the dole or upon charity.

The question of purchasing power is a very important one, and I regret to say that with one slight exception, the surtax which the finance minister proposes to place on unearned incomes over 814,000, the budget does not even begin to deal with the most important question that is facing the Canadian people to-day. I appreciate what the minister has done in respect to the surtax on unearned incomes, but it is so small in comparison with what is required that I am amazed that governments refrain from doing that which they have the power to do, the things which are necessary in the interests of the people.

I realize of course, Mr. Speaker, that the present situation is a product of the capitalist system, and is bound to continue just so long as we permit profit to be exacted. There can be no question about that. Just so long as we permit profit to be exacted, just so long will this condition continue, and no legislation that does not touch the real problem, namely profit, can ever do more than touch the fringe of the problem we have to meet. Profit has been described as monetary or financial gain for which no goods or services are given in return; that is to say, those who make a profit get something for nothing. By virtue of the fact that they get something for nothing they are in a position to .pile up wealth, and through that accumulation of wealth they have a control of purchasing power equal to their accumulation of wealth. That being so, the house must recognize the fact that all these measures so called for the benefit of the people, while they may be of some value, will soon have their value dissipated because under the profit system people eventually will make a profit out of them.

The question then arises, are we going to continue the profit system? Just so long as profit is permitted, and people who make profits get something for nothing, as I have already said they do, the concentration of wealth will continue. In addition the concentration of purchasing power will continue, so much so that people will say, whether it is

correct or not, that there is a definite shortage of purchasing power, and that therefore the necessary purchasing power should be made up from some other source than the present available sources. I am satisfied that the worst factor at the present time is the concentration of wealth with its consequent concentration of purchasing power. I think it was two years ago that I suggested to the Minister of Finance that during the depression he might take all incomes over $25,000 and use them for the state. This was not done. I think this was a logical suggestion, having in mind the purchasing power which is concentrated in the hands of the few. I put figures on record last year which showed conclusively that three and a half per cent of the people of this country own sixty-seven per cent of the wealth. If that is so, it naturally follows that three and a half per cent of the people possess sixty-seven per cent of the purchasing power.

The situation to-day is different from what it was ten years ago. At that time there were still opportunities for safe and profitable investment, not only in Canada but in other countries. Because of the development of industrial plant and equipment in all the countries of the world, with the exception of Russia and parts of Asia, the opportunity for the investment of surplus purchasing power is no longer available. This surplus purchasing power is in the hands of people who already have more than they can spend on their own personal needs. The goods which this surplus purchasing power might buy remains on the shelf and there is unemployment. Until this purchasing power is forced into circulation, through legislation, some form of taxation or by other means, these goods will remain on the shelves and many of the people of Canada will be without profitable work. In the face of conditions such as these I cannot get wildly enthusiastic over the budget.

Hon. members opposite have referred to this budget as a poor man's budget. I do not think they ever made a truer statement in their lives. It is a poor man's budget because it will keep the poor man poor. Under these circumstances I feel it my duty to support the subamendment moved by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Macleod. I believe that this subamendment deals with the crux of the situation, the distribution of the purchasing power of this country to permit the people to buy what they require. I do not believe it is advisable to distribute this purchasing power to the people without their giving some service in return, provided they

The Budget-Miss Macphail

are physically able to do so. With all the machinery of government and with all the power that parliament enjoys, I think we could devise ways and means whereby this purchasing power could be distributed to the people in return for their labour.

Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):

Mr. Speaker, I desire to assure hon.

members that I am not going to make a speech. I should be finished' in five or ten minutes.

Hear, hear.

Miss MACPHAIL:

I do not think hon.

members should be so enthusiastic over that statement.

I did not want to interrupt the hon. member for North Huron. (Mr. Spotton) while he was speaking but I do feel that I should make a statement in connection with the delegation appointed by the mass meeting of farmers of Ontario and Quebec who came to Ottawa two years ago to interview the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for North Huron. I remember seeing him at this meeting and I know he was interested1 in its success. I understood him to say that he believed1 that the farmers who attended this mass meeting did not expect either the Prime 'Minister or any other minister to come to address them. I know that the hon. member believes that his understanding of the case is the right one, but he is mistaken.

This matter has been discussed before but I should like to give the facts again so that they will appear in the same Hansard as the remarks of the hon. member. Many meetings were held throughout Ontario and1 I believe I addressed at least twenty. I might mention that the audiences were quite large. At all times I adopted a nonpartisan attitude as I was interested only in the monetary question. I wanted the British pound sterling to be worth at least parity in Canadian, fundte, or even more than par. It must be remembered that we are competing with Australia, the Argentine and Denmark and the British pound is now and was then worth more in the currencies of those countries than it is here. I do not think anyone listening to me could have told what were my politics. I tried to be absolutely fair to the government and in many instances the people who presided over the meetings I addressed were members of the Conservative party. Four thousand farmers came to Ottawa at their own expense and in some cases this expense was considerable. I do not believe anyone would expect 4,000

people to come to Ottawa to discuss matters of exchange without being able to see any member of the government. The arrangements with the Prime Minister were made by Mr. R. J. Scott, who comes from North Huron. I know Mr. Scott quite well and I suggested to him that as the Prime Minister was very busy any delegation which might go to invite him to the large assembly should' be exactly on time. I had nothing further to do with the matter nor did I have any further conversation with Mr. Scott. It was not until afterward's that I learned that the delegation had been one hour late for their appointment. This should not have happened.

They went up to ask the Prime Minister to come to the large assembly. He did not come. The astonishing thing is that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was with the Prime Minister when he was interviewed by this small group and he did not come down to the large assembly either. This group asked the Prime Minister to address them or to send someone in his stead. Up to this point this large audience of 4,000 had been remarkably friendly to the Prime Minister but they were anything but friendly when their representatives came back and told them that ho member of the government would be down to address them. I have talked over this matter with the Prime Minister who tells me-I accept his explanation-that he did not understand that he or any other member of the government was expected to go to address this large assembly. Apparently he and Mr. Scott had misunderstood each other and the Prime Minister did not know otherwise until the small group interviewed him. I accept this explanation but I say to the hon. member for North Huron and to the government that they must accept full responsibility for not addressing the assembled farmers. These 4,000 people had come to Ottawa from two different provinces to see the government in connection with a matter which vitally concerned their industry. I was surprised that anyone should make such a political blunder. I felt that day and I still feel that the government has caused a loss to the farmers of millions of dollars through keeping the value of the British pound so low in Canadian funds. Had the Prime Minister interviewed this gathering he would have found an audience anxious to put before him a matter which was vital to them, and in all probability this might have had some effect upon the Prime Minister's subsequent action in con-

The Budget-Miss Macphail

nection with exchange. I felt I must say this in order that the hon. member for North Huron and I would understand each other.

I think we should have an immediate election. I see no reason why the house should adjourn for five weeks. We have carried on now for some time during the Prime Minister's illness, which the whole house regrets; the whole house wishes him restored to his usual buoyant health, and we will welcome him back. But since the house has carried on for a considerable time now without him, I see no reason why we should not continue to do so until the end of the session. We owe this to the people, because after all we are all representatives of the people, from the Prime Minister down or from the private member up, whichever way you like to look at it. We have been elected by the people to attend to their business and there is no doubt that the people of Canada want an election. That being so, I cannot see any reason why an election should be delayed until the autumn, because by that time we shall be well into the harvest, and an election then is difficult in country districts, certainly for the west. June is the time for an election, because it is the month in all the year when the farmers are freest. The general opinion is that June is the best month. July, which the last government found a favourable month, is certainly a hot one -I mean the weather

and there are all sorts of difficulties, in connection with teachers, and vacationists generally; they are inconvenienced. No one is less certain of what the Liberal party intend to do if they are elected than I am; in fact, my greatest concern is what that party will do if they are elected. If they become the government it will be a serious thing for Canada, should they not know their own minds any better then, than apparently they do now.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

She knows we are going to be returned, though.

Miss MACPHAIL:

It almost looks that

way, and for that reason I think the Liberals ought to make up their minds on policy now. At any rate, I submit that we ought to have an election as soon as possible, and for that reason I will support the Liberal amendment- not for any meat there is in the amendment, I assure you.

The hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Picket) said some interesting things in his speech last night. I read it over carefully to-day and I wish to make one or two comments on what the hon. gentleman said. He is worried about the young people. I quote:

(Miss Macphail.]

If you tell them to gee they will haw, and if you tell them to go east they will go west.... I do not know how we are going to discipline them; to my mind' that is certainly a serious question.... To my mind our most important problem is our young people, girls as well as boys; one is as bad as the other. Where are they going?

I was wondering whether youth has any real reason- to revere and trust age at this particular time. This generation has seen youth tricked and betrayed in the world war and in the peace which has followed it. The young people went to the war and the old people stayed comfortably at home and died in bed, though not soon enough, unfortunately. And then the young people have had to go through a period of five or six years, the blackest years we have known. No one has suffered more than youth. We want them to be diligent at school and to study, but when they get through what have we to offer them? We know that some of the older people are directors in twenty-five or thirty companies, drawing a remuneration for every directorship. There are people in high places in Ontario who are certainly very old, while the young people can find no place at all. I must say I cannot see why at this moment youth should be very enthusiastic about following the vision of age. I have respect for age, but I have respect for youth also, and I do think that the outlook of youth is more likely to be one that wTill help us in the present and in the future than the outlook of age. I do think too that young people are losing faith as they never did before, because they see all around them an abundance of everything and want at the same time. They realize that we have enough but that we have not learned how to distribute it. The best way any of us can keep youth is by precept and example, and this age has been a peculiarly hypocritical one. One likes to hunt for words that sound mild enough to be spoken, but it is difficult always to find the right ones. At any rate, no one can deny that our whole educational system, our religious system, our business, politics, finance and commerce have all been to a degree hypocritical. We know that we have worshipped one set of ideals while our practice has been quite another thing.

The young people are not fooled. They know that if teachers in universities to-day discuss the things they really do believe they may not be teachers much longer. This is not true universally but it is all too true in high places, whether in journalism, politics or commerce, and sometimes even in religion. The youth know that these people are not always doing the things they profess when they are talking to them about high ideals; they

The Budget-Miss Macphail

know that when they are talking high ideals they are doing so with their tongue in their cheek. This is one of the things that one does not have to prove. There are of course individual exceptions. There are exceptions in all the fields I have mentioned, and that makes one happy.

Youth was never finer or more courageous than to-day; it is adventurous. The young people are ready to do and suffer for a better day. But there have been illusions about reaching the top. In the last twenty years we have heard a good deal about ambition and striving for great wealth and getting to the top. I never know where it is, however -the top of this profession, the top of this, that and the other-but probably one thing that has disillusioned youth is some of the stuffed shirts at the top. Perhaps looking at the top in all our Canadian life has not been very edifying to youth, and the young people are wondering whether it is worth the effort to get to the top. I hear many of them say that. What they want to do is to live harmonious, happy lives wherever they are among their fellow men, whether at the top or halfway down, or wherever they may be.

I was thinking too, if youth can undergo the stuffing which we call education and the advice and domineering which we call discipline, and still retain its personality and spirit, that speaks well for it, and we have nothing to fear from the future because after all youth can serve only if it moulds institutions, ideals and customs to its uses and needs. Youth never serves by following age. Age always thought youth was, well heading off in some very dangerous direction, but always youth is leading out and on. So I felt, since there might not be anyone else to say it, I would say what I feel is in the hearts of a great many young people throughout Canada.

I am not going to discuss the budget at all. I thought Gerry McGeer, Mayor of Vancouver, really struck the secret of budget making the other night when he as one of the mayors addressed some of the members in the railway committee room. He said: "If you cannot make a budget balance, take out of it the items that cause it not to balance and put them into extraordinary account." That is the secret of budget making these days.

I have only one thing to say on the whole subject of finance and that is that it is very clear to me-in fact it is so clear I cannot interest myself in many other aspects of our national problem, because after all it is one great problem-that we must from now on begin to finance consumption and not only production of goods. We have so far thought all we needed to do was to finance the production of goods, and consumption of goods would take care of itself. I do not think that is true and we are all beginning to realize it is not. We are now just about ready to contemplate the short-circuiting of money from the source of supply to consumptive channels without passing through production. I believe in that general statement lies the progress which we will make in the future. It seems at the moment too odd to be seriously contemplated and classical economists still are pooh-poohing it and saying we must not think of anything that is quite so simple. Yet I suppose that if, when Watt first discovered that steam would lift the lid of a tea-kettle, he had told anybody he thought that power would some day revolutionize industry, people would have looked upon him as a madman. It is no more unusual than that to believe there is a 'bad gap in our financial system. If it is true that dividends, salaries and wages paid out in any industry are never sufficient to buy back at the ticketed price all the goods produced by that industry, there certainly is a gap and it will have to be bridged by methods which we have not used before. I believe the solution of the agricultural and unemployment problems lies in this new theory of money. I expect to see it growing in favour as time goes on until finally it will be accepted as orthodox and will then become quite the thing.

Mr. DESLAURIERS (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Tetreault). Had I voted, I would have voted against the sub-amendment.

Mr. DORION (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Ver-ville). Had I voted, I would have voted against the sub-amendment.

Mr. FERLAND (Translation):

I was paired with the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment,

Mr. FAFARD (Translation):

I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin).

fMiss Macphail.]

Anderson (Toronto-High Park) Anderson (Halton) Arsenault Arthurs Baker Barber Baribeau Beaubier Belec

Bell (Hamilton West)

Bell (St. John-Albert)

Bourgeois

Bowen

Boyes

Bury

Cahan

Carmichael

Chaplin

Charters

The Budget-Division

Church Myers

Cowan Peck

Davies Perley (Qu'Appelle)

Dickie Perley, Sir George

Duguav Pettit

Duranleau Plunkett

Edwards Porteous

Embury Price

Esling Quinn

Fraser (Cariboo) Robinson

Gagnon Ross

Gardiner Rowe

Geary Ryerson

Gobeil Sauve

Gordon Shaver

Guthrie Short

Hackett Simpson

Hanson (Simcoe North)

(York-Sunbury) Simpson

Harris (Algoma West)

Hay Smith

Irvine (Victoria-Carleton)

J ohnstone Smith (Cumberland)

Kennedy (Winnipeg Smoke

South Centre) Speakman

Lafleche Spence

Larue Spencer

Laurin Spotton

Lawson Sproule

Loucks Stanley

Lucas Stewart (Leeds)

Macdonald (Kings) Stewart (Lethbridge)

Macdougall Stinson

MacNicol Stirling

McDade Stitt (Nelson)

McGibbon Sullivan

McGillis Sutherland

McGregor Tummon

McLure Turnbull

Malonev Weese

Manion Weir (Melfort)

Matthews Wrhite (London)

Morand White (Mount Royal)

Mullins Willis

Murphy Wright-104.

PAIRS

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief

whips.)

Messrs:

Barrette Rheaume

Bell (St. Antoine) Raymond

Bennett King

Beynon Euler

Burns Butcher

Cantley Cardin

Casselman Howard

Cotnam Hurtubise

Dorion Verville

Dupre Ferland

Fortin Fafard

Ggnong Michaud

Garland (Carleton) Goulet

Gott Rutherford

Jones McLean

MacDonald Urquhart

(Cape Breton)

MacMillan Mackenzie

(Saskatoon) (Vancouver)

Moore (Chateauguay- Dubuc

Huntingdon)

Pickel Rhodes Seim Stevens Stitt (Selkirk) Tetreault Thompson (Simcoe East) Thompson (Lanark) Wilson '

Boucher

Ralston

Sanderson

Malcolm

Weir (Macdonald)

Deslauriers

Jean

Luchkovich

Vallance.

Mr. SENN:

I was paired with the hon member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. CASSELMAN:

I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):

I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):

I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. PICKEL:

I was paired with the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Boucher). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. COTNAM:

I was paired with the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. CANTLEY:

I was paired with the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):

I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):

I was paired with the hon. member .for Russell (Mr. Goulet). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.