Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think so, yes. GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH

Mr. J. E. MATTHEWS (Brandon) moved:

That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General, to offer the bumble thanks of this House to His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament, namely,-

To His Excellency the Right Honourable Baron Tweedsmuir of Elsfield, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Governor General and Commander in Chief of the Dominion of Canada.

May it Please Your Excellency:

We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.

He said: In making this motion I desire at the same time to express my sincere accord with the remarks made on Friday last by hon. members of this house touching upon the memory of those members who passed away during the recess. I desire to express my personal appreciation of the fine tributes that were paid to the sterling qualities of my predecessor, the late member for the constituency of Brandon. I can add little, if anything, to

those tributes that have already been paid, and I would merely say that Mr. Beaubier was a worthy citizen, a man who gave good service to his country, one for whom I had a very sincere regard and whose friendship I was privileged to share. He has left behind a large circle of friends of every class and every creed.

Before going further I should like to extend my congratulations to the hon. the new leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his elevation to the leadership of a great and historic party. We all realize his heavy responsibilities, for upon his shoulders has fallen the mantle of outstandingly able men. In the discharge of his onerous duties we wish him a large measure of success, although possibly there may be some in this house who would desire that that success have its limitations! The hon. gentleman paid my constituency the honour of a visit, early in November last I think it was. I did not have the privilege of meeting him at that time, because other duties were crowding upon me; but I can say this, and I think he will corroborate what I say, that he received a warm and cordial welcome there and formed many very fine friendships.

The speech from the throne made fitting reference to the prospective visit to Canada in May next of the King and Queen of the British Empire, the King and Queen of Canada. No words of mine can adequately express the admiration and respect of the Canadian people for our beloved sovereign and their loyalty to the crown. Our minds go back to his majesty's famous broadcast on New Year's Day, 1937, which concluded with these sincere and memorable words:

My wife and I dedicate ourselves for all time to your service, and we pray that God may give us guidance and strength to follow the path that lies before us.

These are noble sentiments, and they were expressed by a sovereign who, we all feel sure, will ever play a kingly part. Somehow, whenever I think of Her Gracious Majesty, the product of a Scottish clan, those words of Tennyson's come back to me, words which I believe are as applicable to Queen Elizabeth as they were ever applicable to her illustrious predecessor, Victoria the Good:

Her court was pure, her life serene,

God gave her peace, her land reposed,

A thousand claims to reverence closed In her, as mother, wife and Queen.

I should like to express my gratitude to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for having asked me to move this address. I regard it as a distinct honour, not to myself but to the constituency which I have been chosen to represent. I think all hon. members will agree with me that not

The Address-Mr. Matthews

for a considerable time has there been a by-election held in Canada in which interest was more intense and more widespread. The voice of Brandon constituency was interpreted, whether correctly or incorrectly, as the voice of western Canada. It was taken as a representative western constituency-one hundred miles from east to west, fifty miles from north to south, and the home of a type of people whom any member may feel honoured to represent. As far as voting strength is concerned, it is fifty-seven per cent rural and forty-three per cent urban, so that that voice may be taken as being fairly representative.

I do not think any of my western colleagues will disagree with me when I say that the constituency which I have the honour to represent has long been regarded as the crowning constituency of the west in agricultural progress. Its summer and winter fairs have won outstanding favour all over Canada. In this respect a sense of modesty almost impels me to refrain from making mention of the Royal Winter Fair at Toronto. Manitoba exhibitors sent to the Royal a few weeks ago 169 head of live stock for exhibition. Some of these animals were shown in groups, thus reducing the number of single entries to 146. Of those 146 single entries Manitoba exhibitors carried off 134 cash prizes and 12 awards. Now here is where the modesty enters in. Of those 134 cash prizes that came to Manitoba almost fifty per cent were won by farmers in my own constituency.

I make these observations, Mr. Speaker, not from an3r narrow or parochial viewpoint but as an indication of the interest that is felt by the farmers of Manitoba and the west in the new trade agreements that will presently come before this parliament, and particularly as they relate to the live stock industry. Under these trade agreements the whole tariff structure between Canada and the United States has been revised, in some cases very drastically, and in such a way that I believe every home in Canada will be benefited. Canada has made tariff adjustments on 1,489 products of the United States, and has also removed the three per cent excise tax. This means that every consumer in Canada, whether residing in the east or the west, should be able to buy his supplies more cheaply, and hence in larger quantities. On the other side the United States has lowered her tariff walls very materially as applied to 400 Canadian products. These reductions apply in marked degree to the products of the farm and of the sea. Lower tariffs on what we buy, a readier market for what we sell: the Canadian producer, it seems to me, is benefited both in his going out and his coming in.

Experienced cattle dealers have told me that they have found a distinctly healthier tone in the cattle market ever since this agreement was announced. These men are convinced, after years of experience, that the tariff reductions and the increased quota admissible to the United States, now 225,000 head, will mean a very decided impetus to our live stock development. An alert business man with an analytical complex remarked to me a few days before I left for Ottawa that, having studied this agreement, he had come to the conclusion that it was the smartest-that is the word he used-piece of business legislation enacted in Canada since confederation.

There is another side, a very significant side, to the finer relationships established by this agreement. We have been living for months past under the shadow of an impending world tragedy. We knew not when the fatal hour might strike, but of one thing we felt assured, that we are still far removed from that ideal day portrayed by Robert Burns, when-

. . . man to man the warld o'er Shall brothers be for a' that.

Under that dread shadow it is safe to say that we all became more aware of the fact that democracy was seriously threatened. We also became more aware of our own responsibility. It is a matter for profound thankfulness that after such dread suspense wiser and steadier counsels prevailed. Otherwise, instead of the king and queen coming here, as we hope they may, in time of peace, we might even now have been wading through the horrors of a world war that would have shaken civilization to its centre and possibly led to its utter annihilation.

I refer to this because the completion of trade agreements between three great democracies of the world undoubtedly constitutes a tremendous advance towards the preservation of world peace. The thought I have in mind was well expressed not long ago by the New York Tunes. I quote:

The mutual tariff concessions which have been agreed upon ought to have a beneficial effect on both American and British trade. But the real significance of the agreement goes far beyond this probable result. The treaty marks a closer union between the two most powerful democracies, achieved at a particularly decisive moment in the world's history. It increases the hope of more effective cooperation among all the democracies in defence of peace and order.

The same thought has been expressed in Toronto Saturday Night:

It is a definite move in a general drawing together of the great democracies for common

The Address-M. Matthews

action towards the upholding of the way of life to which those nations are dedicated. It is symbolic of an entirely new relationship between the two greatest English speaking countries.

The more we study those agreements, Mr. Speaker, the more obvious it becomes that we are very fortunate indeed in having liberal-minded statesmen, using that word in its broadest sense, of the type and temperament of the present leaders of those two great nations who, together with Mr. Cordell Hull, brought the negotiations to a successful conclusion.

Any remarks along this line might be considered incomplete if they did not contain some reference to the visit to Canada last summer of President Roosevelt. It was a significant illustration of the friendly relations which exist between two of the youngest, but at the same time two of the greatest, exponents of present day democracy. Both countries are wielding, in their own way, a strong, steadying influence in a world that is now torn by hatred and strife.

Speaking of agreements and their probable bearing on the trade of the countries involved, one naturally turns to a review of the achievements of the past, and the review is interesting. Our total imports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1938, amounted to over 8799,000,000, an increase over the previous year of more than 8117,000,000. This was the largest total since 1931. Turning to our exports, we find an increase of about 810,500,000 over 1937, and a total of $1,084,000,000, which was the highest total since 1930, and more than twice as large as the figure for 1933. Or if we consider the increase of trade on a percentage basis, from the standpoint of declared values, using 100 as the key, we have this result:

1932 70-7

1933 62-2

1934 78-4

1935 89-1

1936 100

1937 125

1938 126-1

If we consider our exports from the standpoint of physical volume, the results will be found to be approximately the same. I submit that in the face of world conditions andthe adverse trend in the United States, this

result is a wonderful endorsation of the efforts which have been made to develop world trade.

Just here let me say that we are all greatly interested in the negotiations with the West Indies, referred to in the speech from the

throne, and we agree with the hope there expressed that a new agreement will be arrived at which will be mutually beneficial to the West Indies and to Canada.

It is cheering to note that in the speech from the throne cognizance is being taken of the wheat situation in Canada. I have the honour to represent a constituency that has been long known as one of the leading wheat producing centres of the west; in fact Brandon is known in many parts of Canada as the wheat city. Our farmers were considerably disappointed last season when the price of wheat was set at 80 cents per bushel, but when the market price started to fall, eventually going below 60 cents, -they began to realize that in reality -they were receiving a bonus of twenty or more cents per bushel, and the feeling of disappointment gave way to a feeling of appreciation, in that they felt that the other parts of Canada, through their representatives in parliament and the government, were playing fair in this emergency. However, even the price of 80 cents per bushel was of little avail to those upon whose lands the' rain did not fall, who through no fault of their own had little or no wheat to sell, or to those who had a little wheat of inferior grade which had to be sold at starvation prices. The fact of the matter is that with production costs as they are to-day, and with the cost of the articles the farmer is compelled to buy twenty-five per cent greater than it was before the war, the farmer cannot raise wheat,-even if he gets the best grade, which seldom happens-pay transportation charges and other costs, and sell that wheat at 80 cents per bushel, or considerably less for the lower grades, and break even or nearly even. It is well known that for many years the grain of the western provinces has been the biggest single factor in our export trade. It is also well known- that year after year western purchases of eastern goods have coincided almost exactly with the revenue derived from the western wheat crop. I believe the Dominion Bureau of Statistics is authority for the information that in 1929, a good crop year, western Canada bought from the east goods to the value of 380 million dollars, but that in 1933, with a poor crop and low prices, those purchases were reduced to 80 millions. That is quite a drop.

In view of the difficulties experienced in the growing and marketing of wheat, therefore, I heartily agree with the Toronto Financial Post, which said:

One-quarter of our total Canadian population are entirely dependent upon the growing of wheat-another quarter are vitally concerned. Our elevator system, our railways, most of our leading companies, our huge milling and farm machinery industries have been developed on the basis of western wheat growing. Without wheat or a satisfactory substitute, one-half of Canada faces bankruptcy; a main prop is gone from our vital export trade.

The Address-Mr. Matthews

Then the Financial Post goes on to say:

A permanent policy must be developed, with all factors taken into consideration.

With that declaration I believe the western wheat growers will heartily agree. Briefly, then, for the reasons I have mentioned, together with a good many others, I believe deep interest will be aroused in this announcement contained in the speech from the throne:

Measures to assist further in the marketing of farm products will be introduced during the present session.

It is most gratifying to find in the speech from the throne a note of deep concern regarding unemployment and relief. I have the most sincere sympathy for people who are caught in the net of either of these national difficulties. To be sure, we will always have with us a considerable number of people too young and too old to be employed. We will also have with us those partly or totally disabled, through mental or physical disability, who are thus prevented from obtaining employment; and in Canada particularly we will always have seasonal unemployment. People belonging to these three groups form a large proportion of the number listed as unemployed or on relief. One task of government, and a great task of the Canadian people, is to see that unemployment, as it applies to capable men, is reduced to a minimum.

Then we come to the question of relief. The fact that over 31,000 people have been taken off relief lists at their own request-that is at the request of the adults, because this number includes children-and placed upon the land, is a hopeful sign, together with the further fact that 19,000 young men are employed in Canada right now under the farm employment plan. This does not include 2,000 placed in forestry and allied work in British Columbia-also a hopeful sign. At the same time, according to figures recently released, the grand total of all classes of persons benefiting by aid showed a substantial decrease from the year 1937.

I have always taken a deep interest in the youth of our land. When it has been possible I have never failed to lend to them a helping hand-and I do not say that in any spirit of boastfulness. This is one reason why the youth training program now being carried on appeals to me very strongly. It is giving to many of our young men and women, in a simple and inexpensive way, an opportunity the better to fit themselves for the responsibilities of life. I am delighted to find that out of over 5,000 who completed the course in 1938, forty-five per cent were placed in gainful occupations prior to November 30. That is a good record.

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of visiting two of those schools, one in the city of Brandon and a smaller one in the town of Oak Lake. May I say I was profoundly impressed with the type of training being imparted. It was of a practical kind; it was not training those young people for life in the clouds, but rather was fitting them the better to discharge the everyday responsibilities of their lives, and training them in the principles of good citizenship. No one can tell me that in the future there will not be many happier homes and a greater measure of contentment because of the good training imparted in those various schools.

If there were time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss some other subjects mentioned in the speech from the throne, and particularly the work done by the Department of Agriculture in connection with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act. This work of conserving the spring flow of water for uses of stock during the year is a tremendous boon to thousands of farmers in the west, and an expansion of the area to which it applies would be a further help to many others.

Permit me to say in conclusion that although some of my remarks have applied more directly to western Canada, they are not made in any sectional spirit. I am interested in Canada as a whole. I believe, with Roger Babson, that Canada has the brightest future of any nation in the world. I was born in eastern Canada: I have always lived in Canada. I know Canada fairly well from coast to coast. I know something, too, of the aspirations of its people, and I am aware, as we must all be aware, that Kipling did not have Canada in mind when he said:

East is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet.

So far as Canada is concerned, east and west have already met. Central Canada, eastern Canada, and western Canada are knit together by ties of kinship and bound together by bonds of nationhood. Surely by this time we have all come to realize that that which is detrimental or beneficial to one part of Canada is, as a matter of necessity, either directly or indirectly, detrimental or beneficial to the other.

For my own part I am confident, as I saw suggested a few days ago, that eastern and western Canada working together can unite on policies which will bring back stability to the prairies and increased progress to eastern industries. Regardless of what the pessimist may say, I will still maintain that if east and west in a spirit of mutual helpfulness will agree to merge their difficulties and share

The Address-Mr. Chevrier

their triumphs, Canada will continue in the future, as in the past, a united and progressive nation, the brightest star in the British crown.

Mr. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Stormont) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with an old parliamentary custom, one of the two speeches made in moving and seconding the address, is delivered in French.

This year the honour of making the French speech has fallen to your humble servant. I am indeed most grateful to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for having chosen me. His choice was undoubtedly intended to honour the county of Stormont, which is rapidly gaining more and more importance in our national economy. The county of Stormont contains a large population of workers and farmers to whom this quotation from Longfellow's "Evangeline" may be fittingly applied:

Men whose lives glided on like rivers that water the woodlands

Darkened by shadows of Earth, but reflecting an image of Heaven.

There are to be found also in the county of Stormont great potential hydroelectric resources which the United States are endeavouring to develop jointly with Canada, and which, when developed, will make that area one of the richest and most prosperous in the Dominion. In choosing me, the Prime Minister also wished to pay homage to the French-speaking population of Ontario, who, in the days of Laurier, and even before them, embraced the Liberal faith, and have since remained faithful under the guidance of Mackenzie King. In the name of the Frenchspeaking people of Ontario, and in the name of my own constituents, may I express my deep gratitude to the Prime Minister.

At the outset, in greeting you, Mr. Speaker, let me say how pleased we all are to see you again in the chair, ready to resume your sessional duties. We know that you will preside over this house with the same tact, courtesy and patience you have shown in the past.

I also wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the former leader of the Conservative party, Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, who, unfortunately is not in his seat at present. It was with deep regret that we heard last summer that he was to leave Canada to reside in England. May I be permitted to say that his departure will be a serious loss to his own party and to Canada as a whole. All members will join with me in wishing him health, long life, and a long \nd fruitful career abroad.

Since last session the Conservative party has chosen a new leader, who is well known in this house, I wish to congratulate Hon. Doctor Manion upon the high honour bestowed upon him. His qualities as a leader and as a fearless debater and experienced parliamentarian will be invaluable assets to his party. I wish him long life as the Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

The dominant note of the speech from the throne is undoubtedly the reference to the visit of Their Majesties, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, next May. No news has ever been received with greater enthusiasm in Canada than the announcement of their coming to this country. All Canadian citizens, without distinction of race or creed, rejoice at the prospect of this visit. I am sure that, from near and far, they will hasten to pay homage to their majesties and give expression to sentiments of loyalty and devotion to these two illustrious personages, representing the supreme authority. Our people will be eager to manifest their allegiance and fidelity to the British sovereigns, who, under the statute of Westminster, are also King and Queen of Canada.

(Text) During the course of the summer this country was singularly honoured when it received as its guest no less a person than the President of the United States. Jointly with the Prime Minister of Canada he officiated at the opening of an international bridge near Brockville. His visit will long be remembered by those who were present and his statements marked the beginning of a new era in our relationship with the United States. At Kingston, where an honorary degree was conferred on the president by Queen's university, he declared that if Canada were ever attacked by a foreign nation, the United States could not and would not stand idly by. I need not labour the importance of this declaration so far as we are concerned.

At Ivy Lea the president discussed with his vast audience the project of deepening the St. Lawrence waterway, which often has received the attention of this house. He invited consideration of the draft treaty laid on the table of the house during the last session. In view of the serious unemployment situation which prevails in the country at the present time, this problem should receive the most careful consideration. The president's visit was a momentous one and helped greatly to strengthen the ties which already unite us to our neighbours to the south.

(Translation) Leaving this pleasant part of the speech, may I now turn to a situation laden with grave consequences for us all. Towards the end of September last we passed through

The Address-Mr. Chevrier

tragic days, hours full of anguish. We were on the verge of war. Never since the fateful year of 1914 had we faced a crisis so full of momentous events, where the slightest blunder on the part of certain statesmen might have started a European conflict in which our whole civilization would have perished.

The Czechoslovakian crisis was provoked by the coming into play of the interlocking alliances and ideological passions of two important groups, one led by Hitler and the other by Mussolini. These two leaders of men are characterized not only by the dictatorial organization they have given Germany and Italy, as Paul Van Zeeland tells us, in effect, but by the personal magnetism with which they succeeded in galvanizing their peoples and expanding their forces, thus increasing the power of the two countries to a formidable degree. What brings them still closer together is the fact that, in order to attain their purpose, they both took advantage of the struggle against communism, destroyer of internal order and a menace to the peace of the world.

The Sudeten Germans, encouraged by Berlin, demanded autonomy and a radical change in the foreign policy of Prague. Hitler, encouraged by the successful Anschluss, sought to extend the influence of the Reich towards the east. The problem was all the more serious as France was bound to Czechoslovakia by a guarantee of assistance, the validity of which she publicly affirmed on several occasions. Military preparations and unfortunate border incidents made the situation worse. London attempted diplomatic manoeuvres but conferences and negotiations proved unsuccessful. Hitler wanted war at all costs, and massed his troops on the Czechoslovakian border. It was then that Chamberlain, a man who had never travelled by air, made his historic flight which resulted in the Munich agreement. This pact has been the butt of bitter and violent criticism. Now that the storm has abated, however, and calm is restored, who can in all sincerity affirm that Chamberlain did not act wisely? Could France effectively defend Czechoslovakia had Germany attacked? Had England completed her rearmament program, and was she ready for war? Would Russia have intervened in the conflict in the face of a domestic crisis? And, inwardly, was Rusia not rejoicing at the prospect of a war which would have weakened the four European powers and left her a free hand towards the west? These questions must be answered in the affirmative if Chamberlain is to be condemned.

And what of the attitude of our Prime Minister, who at the time of the crisis was also severely criticized by extremists clamouring for a promise of intervention? He remained calm and wise, as usual. Strengthened in the attitude he took at the time of the Chanak incident, he stated that the Canadian parliament alone could decide whether Canada should participate in a war which might affect other parts of the British empire. After the Munich conference, the Prime Minister approved of Chamberlain's peace gesture, and all right-thinking citizens endorsed the government's policy.

(Text) At this juncture I should like to turn to another subject mentioned in the speech from the throne and which to my mind is equally as important as the one I have just discussed. I refer to the tripartite agreement which was signed at Washington in November of last year. Ever since this government has been in office it has sought by all the means at its disposal to break down the barriers of economic nationalism by opening up channels of trade. No sooner had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) been returned to office in 1935 than he succeeded in negotiating a treaty with Washington which expired in January of this year. The treaty which was signed recently is more important and will have far wider effects than the previous one. It may be considered from two points of view.

In the first instance, a challenge had been thrown out to democracies in recent months that they were impotent, unwieldy and slow and that their hope of preserving liberty and freedom was on the wane. The treaty was a complete answer to totalitarianism. It showed the world that the democracies were no longer paralyzed, but were very much alive. In the matter of trade at least it showed that they had left the dictatorships lagging far behind. This treaty, coming as it did after the dark days of September which brought us closer to world conflagration than anything that has taken place since 1914, had the desirable effect of uniting in a common bond of friendship the great democracies of the world.

In the next place, the treaty may be regarded as conferring great benefits upon Canada's primary industries. The fishermen in the maritimes and the potato growers in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have easier access to the markets of the United States through larger quotas. The lumber operators were able to get unanticipated benefits in connection with British Columbia fir, red cedar shingles and hemlock. The farmer of the prairie provinces was not forgotten. The dairymen of eastern Canada have obtained important concessions on milk, cream and cheese.

The manufacturers of textile goods fear that they are being injuriously affected. The raison d'etre of their fears will be confirmed or dis-

The Address-Mr. Chevrier

pelled with the operation of the treaty. It must be remembered, however, that they may now import their raw material upon easier terms and that certain of their textile products may be exported to and sold on the American market. If the dumping of American products can be averted by the relevant sections of the Customs Act I do not believe that the manufacturers will fare too badly. In any event, in the consideration of this treaty there is one thing that should be kept in mind. When great achievements are obtained, very often great sacrifices must be made. Sacrifices had to be made by Great Britain, the United States, and Canada in the interests of peace on behalf of the cause of democracy, and I believe that those sacrifices should be and will be generously accepted.

(Translation.) The speech from the throne mentions another momentous question-the problem of youth training. There are great numbers of young men and women at present unemployed, and a great many others who, upon graduation from our colleges and universities, know not where to turn. It must be remembered, however, that the youth of to-day will be the nation of tomorrow. We must rely on youth if the ship of state is to be kept on an even keel. Therefore, we must find means of training youth for the part it is to play.

The government voted a large amount for youth training, and I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) on the manner in which the money has been expended. In cooperation with the provincial governments, youth training programs have been set up which are classified as follows:

(a) training projects of an occupational nature;

(b) learnership courses in industry;

(c) work projects to combine training with conservation and development of natural resources;

(d) physical training programs to maintain health and morale.

Those provinces which have adopted this plan have derived great advantages from it. It is only a beginning, however, and much remains to be accomplished. It would seem that a greater measure of publicity should be given to those programs for the rehabilitation of youth, since a great many communities appear to be unaware of what has been done.

The Canadian Corps Association has recently set up a program of youth training which seems to be commendable in many respects, and certainly deserves to be given careful consideration.

(Mr. Chevrier.]

Mr. Speaker, we are passing through a difficult and dangerous period of our history. Hate and distrust are everywhere. Nations are arming to the teeth in anticipation of war. Subversive ideas are being spread everywhere, class consciousness is being fostered, and our whole social order is threatened. We must fight those agitators preaching hate and disorder. In order to fight them effectively, it is not sufficient to affirm the superiority of democracies over dictatorships. We must show by our actions that such superiority actually exists, and that in our midst there is always room for social justice and peace.

We must come to the help of those who suffer: the worker who lives in constant fear of unemployment; the farmer who does not obtain a fair price for his products; the unemployed who are willing to work. We must make plain to those who are embittered against society that the cause of their ills is not our social order, but the abuses resulting from the doctrine of individualism; that socialism would only aggravate their predicament; that the aim should be, not to destroy our present order, but to reform it without delay, since otherwise it is futile to attempt effectively to defend society against the assault of revolutionary forces.

(Text) In order to preserve democracy and promote its welfare, the state must guard against two dangers; first, the danger of leaving too much to private initiative; second, the danger of leaving too little to the effort of its citizens. It must avoid the two extremes of individualism and paternalism. Whenever the general interest of any particular class suffers or is threatened with evils which can in no other way be met, the public authority must step in to meet them. This indicates that there are some situations where it is the duty of the state to intervene, and others where it must refrain from intervention. Democracy, therefore, in the true sense is that in which all classes will find representation-the poor as well as the rich, the feeble as well as the strong, the farmer and the wage earner as well as the high salaried director. In such a state more justice and charity would be meted out, and equilibrium among the various classes of society would be restored.

(Translation) The present government, by various legislative measures, has contributed to bring about the proper balance among the various classes of society. The speech from the throne mentions other proposals which, I hope, will be carried to a successful conclusion. I have much pleasure, therefore, Mr Speaker, in seconding the motion of my

The Address-Mr. Manion

hon. and distinguished' friend, the member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) for the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

HON. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like first

to offer my very hearty congratulations to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and to the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. On a good many occasions in this house I have listened to new members, to young members and some not so young, performing this duty, and I say at once that the two hon. members who moved and seconded the address to-day did so as creditably as any other two whom I have ever heard. The air of the constituencies of Brandon and Stormont must be conducive to good speaking, because I well remember that during the campaign to which my hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) referred, in which I myself made a couple of speeches-but not very effectively, apparently-the young candidate who ran against him, George Beaubier, surprised me with his splendid gift of eloquence. And in regard to the constituency of Stormont. the predecessor of the present member of that constituency, Frank Shaver, was also a splendid speaker upon any subject in connection with which he took part in debate. So that the house was favoured to-day, Mr. Speaker, in these two addresses by members from constituencies where, if we are to judge from their performance here, the air is conducive to a high quality of public speaking.

May I add one word in regard to the hon. member for Stormont? It always surprises, I think, those of us of English extraction to note the ease with which Canadians of French extraction shift from one language to the other. I have perhaps never heard anybody shift quite so often or quite so easily as my hon. friend (Mr. Chevrier) did to-day. At the same time it does make some of us English-speaking people a little ashamed that only from French Quebec do we get this gift of the two languages, which is such an asset to any member of this house, but which unfortunately does not exist to any very considerable extent outside the province of Quebec.

Unfortunately, I find myself not altogether in agreement with everything the two hon. gentlemen have said, but they would hardly expect me to agree with them entirely. The hon. member for Brandon was not happy in his reference to the voice of western Canada. He argued that his success in Brandon was an indication that the voice of western Canada had spoken emphatically in support of this

government. As I recall, however, the vote did not quite show such a result. On looking up the vote I find that the present member for Brandon received 6,583 votes and his opponents 9,177. If that distribution of votes represents the voice of western Canada, then I am rather afraid that it is not very encouraging to the government. Indeed, the hon. member received just over 41 per cent of the votes. If therefore the voice of Brandon was the voice of the people of Manitoba, then the voice of Waterloo South was the voice of the people of Ontario, because I find that the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth), the able and active gentleman who represents that constituency, with ten or twelve years of very valuable experience behind him in the provincial house at Toronto, swamped his two opponents, both the Liberal and the representative of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation-swamped them to such an extent that they both lost their deposits. That makes me rather strongly of the opinion that, if we must judge by byelections, the government has no reason to regard the results as very encouraging. The Liberal received in the constituency of Waterloo South just 24 per cent of the vote. The Conservative received over 50 per cent and the representative of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation got the remainder. The Liberal received altogether just under 25 per cent in Waterloo South. I repeat, therefore, that the hon. member for Brandon was not quite fortunate in that reference. However, I will let it go at that.

My hon. friends opposite made a gallant attempt to win the Brandon by-election and they succeeded through a minority vote. They sent to the constituency three ministers, ten members of parliament and three members of legislature. They did pretty well. They missed one of the ministers, however. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Howe), the Minister of Transport, was to have appeared there the day I was there but through an accident he did not arrive. The other day he said that it was a good thing that he did not because every by-election that he had taken part in had been lost to the Liberal party. That is his joke, not mine. On the other side, we had in support of our candidate, the Hon. J. L. Bowman and myself among privy councillors, two members of legislature and one member of parliament. We were altogether outnumbered and, from what I have heard, the odds were against us so far as cash was concerned. That is the information that has been given me.

May I say one other word about the hon. member for Brandon. The hon. gentleman spoke of the importance of wheat growing

The Address-Mr. Manion

to the people of Canada, and with that remark I am wholly in agreement. No one coming as I do from the head of the lakes, for many years the spout of the funnel through which passes the wheat of western Canada, can fail to grasp the importance to this dominion of the wheat-growing industry of the west.

Perhaps I shall be forgiven if I express now, in this my first set speech since my return to the house, something in the way of appreciation of the honour that has been conferred upon me in being chosen as leader of one of the two great parties that have governed this country for the last seventy years or more. In spite of all the criticism that has been heaped upon these two parties, I believe that they have done fairly well in the government of Canada throughout these years. I would express my appreciation of the honour that has come to me in being made the representative of the constituency of London. Many able and outstanding men have represented that constituency, and it is a matter for pride that I should now be its representative. I highly appreciate the honour of representing that fine old city.

I have already expressed publicly, and I should like to do so again in a word, my appreciation of the courtesy shown by the Liberal party in refraining from opposing me in the by-election. After all, it is only in keeping with the traditions of our parliamentary life. If you will go back over the years you will find that the same course was followed by the Conservatives in 1919 when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) ran in Prince Edward Island. The same courtesy was extended by the Liberal party to my friend Arthur Meighen when he ran in Grenville-Dundas in 1922. May I therefore express again my deep appreciation of the courtesies shown me by the Liberals on the occasion of the by-election.

I realize sincerely the duties and responsibilities that devolve upon me as leader of one of the parties in Canada; yet, having been chosen by a great convention, I feel that no more can be expected of me than that I should do my best. For that convention did display a feeling of unanimity and progress, and there was on its part a realization of the changing times in the progressive attitude which it took on a great many questions. After all, we are living in a time when men of all religious and political beliefs must see that in a changing era all the world must continue to change. I may fittingly conclude these observations by thanking both the public and the press of the country for the kindly way in which they

have received my first efforts since my election . in July to the leadership of the National Conservative party.

And now I should like to deal with the speech from the throne. I have read it carefully two or three times, and whatever else we can say about it, we must admit at once, I think, that it is preeminent at least in regard to quantity. I have the word of one very industrious member behind me, who has measured the space in Hansard taken up by the speech from the throne in the past twenty-three years, that no speech from the throne has occupied quite so much space as the one with which we are now favoured. Whatever criticisms I may have to make of this document, therefore, the right hon. gentleman can rest assured that, in that one respect at any rate, it is preeminent.

May I deal briefly with the different paragraphs of the speech. With the first, announcing that Their Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth have graciously decided to visit Canada, and that that announcement has been received with rejoicing throughout the dominion, I think that not only all hon. members in this house but the people in all parts of Canada will fully agree. Their majesties, as one of the previous speakers properly observed, are as much the king and queen of Canada as they are the king and queen of Britain or of any other part of the empire. When we look at the romantic picture of the young man and the young woman who have assumed the very onerous duties of their office, when we realize that at the coronation not so very long ago they dedicated themselves to the service of the empire, and that they have since honoured that pledge as well as did his majesty's father King George V and his mother, Queen Mary, we cannot help feeling the greatest admiration and the sincerest affection for their majesties. I believe, sir, that is the feeling of everyone in this country. I do not believe there are any sections or groups that are not entirely loyal to the king and the empire, although there may be some differences of opinion here and there as to how that loyalty should be shown.

Another attribute of the present king and queen, and this applies equally to King George V and Queen Mary-I have mentioned it on other occasions, in Canadian Club addresses and so on-is that they have given throughout their lives such a splendid example of fine home life. After all, the home is the cornerstone of the nation; and for that as well as for many other things I think we owe a debt of gratitude both to the former and to the present king and queen. I can add

The Address-Mr. Manion

my words to those the Prime Minister has put into the mouth of his excellency, that our king and queen will certainly receive from every part of Canada and from all groups in this country a most hearty welcome when they visit this great dominion.

In regard to our friendship for the United States, which is referred to in the next paragraph, I believe it is true that next to the empire all of us in Canada feel an exceedingly deep friendship for the great republic to the south. I heartily endorse that part of the speech in which reference is made to the friendship of Canadians for the people of the United States.

Then there is reference to the rejoicing at the peace brought about by the work of Prime Minister Chamberlain and Premier Daladier in September last. Certainly all sane people in the empire appreciate the magnificent work that was done by these men in keeping the peace of the world. It seems to me that only a madman would want war in a world such as we have to-day, with the possibilities of destruction that exist.

Coming to the next item, the question of defence, the government says that Canada's defences must be materially strengthened. With that statement I certainly will not quarrel. I say most sincerely that I believe, and all thinking Canadians must believe and realize, that under conditions as they exist at present, when there are men who seem bent on destrojdng democracy and on controlling the world, Canada cannot alone be without defences. Especially when you think of the dictators and of the threats they have made and are making almost daily, when you have in mind our huge area, rich resources and sparse population, you realize that Canada would be a very choice morsel for any of the dictators. Some time ago I made it my business to make a comparison of certain geographical areas, and I found, as I had expected, that the area of Germany, Italy and Japan, the three chief dictator nations of to-day, taken together, is just a little greater than that of the province of Ontario; yet in those three dictatorships they have just under two hundred million people, while in Ontario we have less than four million. I do not think any further words of mine could make clearer the significance of that comparison. And nothing I could say would demonstrate more fully the need of a proper defence system. Many authorities on air fighting, of whom I do not claim to be one, have expressed the opinion on several occasions recently that Canada and the United States, this whole continent of America, north and south, are in danger

from the air. While I profess no expert knowledge of the matter, personally I think those experts are probably right. For these reasons I wholly endorse the idea that we should have in this country a proper defence system.

I am now going to suggest something which in these remarks will be perhaps the first monkey wrench that I throw into the machinery, and it is this. If some of the right hon. gentleman's lieutenants from the province of Quebec had not been so assiduous in years gone by in preaching to the people of that province the doctrine that this party was the militaristic party because we believed in a certain amount of defence, about half of what we have to-day-if they had not been so assiduous in that regard they would not to-day find it so difficult to remove the prejudice which they built up in regard to defence.

The next paragraph with which I shall deal is that relating to the defence purchasing board. I am more or less in accord with the idea of a defence purchasing board, but before commending it completely I should like to know its personnel; I should like to know for example that it is not going to be a political purchasing board, that it will not be a case of picking one man and ignoring all others in regard to competition, picking a man and financing him while he runs around the world getting ideas about defence and then giving him the contract without permitting anyone else to tender. I should like to know that, before I unqualifiedly endorse the idea. But as a Canadian citizen who for a long time has been familiar with public opinion I am convinced that the making of large profits from the manufacture of munitions or armaments is repugnant to the ideals of the Canadian people, whether such profits be made directly through a percentage of the amount of the contract, or by selling stock, or in any other way. The making of huge profits on munitions is looked upon by many of our people as taking blood money, as profiteering in patriotism. Some time ago I expressed this view, and I am going to read from a statement which I made in Toronto to a non-political group, the Canadian Commercial Travellers' Association, on December 16 last, just a month ago to-day. In fact I had made the same statement with almost no modifications about two months earlier before the Kiwanis Club in London, during the byelection in that city. I read it because it is exactly as I gave it to the Canadian press, and it expresses my opinion perhaps better and more concisely than I could state it in these remarks. I am quoted as follows;

"All arms and munitions needed for the direct defence of Canada should either be

The Address-Mr. Manion

manufactured by the government itself or under the complete control of the government, with profits eliminated", Hon. Dr. R. J. Manion, leader of the National Conservative party, said last night at the annual banquet of the Commercial Travellers' Association of Canada.

"In addition there should be complete control of profits in the manufacture of arms and munitions of all kinds for the United Kingdom", said Doctor Manion.

"These proposals are fair", he said, "because they leave plenty of opportunity for private enterprise; they give a real opportunity for service to Canada; they assure cooperation and a fair deal to the empire and thereby assure Canadian producers of their share of the immense British contracts for munitions and armaments which are required."

Doctor Manion said he offered government control and elimination of profits as an alternative to complete nationalization of armament manufacture, because "I don't like to see the governments getting too much into business and because of the large capital expenditures complete government manufacture might involve."

That statement expresses my opinion to-day. It is open to modification in detail, but again I say I do not wish to quarrel with the proposal of a defence purchasing board. I do want to know the set-up and the ideas back of it and the principles on which it will work.

The next paragraph of the speech from the throne refers to the trade agreement with the United States. Even in the speech from the throne there is a certain amount of propaganda on behalf of that trade agreement, propaganda which was put out on a very large scale as soon as the agreement was signed. It was signed on November 17, and on the following day and for many days thereafter the press was printing the forty-six pages, I think, of comment handed out by the government, all of it commendatory. A little later I shall deal with that in a very general way, but I want to say that in my opinion there is too much propaganda being put out by the government in regard to such things as the trade agreement and other matters. It is being put out over the radio on various occasions; in fact I made it my business to try to get a list of all the ministers who have been speaking on the radio across Canada for the last six or eight months. I have here a list of some ten or twelve ministers who have been speaking on the air, supposedly explaining the workings of the various departments of the government and, of course,-perhaps justifiably, since they are on the air-throwing in the odd word which would show their great work in looking after their various departments.

I suggest here, sir, that in future, whether it be the present government or the one which will succeed it next year, when we want

propaganda of that sort put out, the men who write the statements should read them, because I venture to assert that not one of the ministers wrote the statements which they so carefully read over the radio. I speak with some authority and knowledge, because I did that myself on one occasion. At any rate I have the idea that it might be well if the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister or the secretary, or whoever writes the statement, should read that address, in order to avoid the impression-which is probably false-that some of the ministers might try to put over a little political propaganda. I mention this partly as a result of what I was going to call the action of the government, but according to the statement made by the Prime Minister I willingly refrain from blaming it on the government. However, I do want to refer very briefly to the incident which occurred as between the radio corporation and George McCullagh.

It strikes me, sir, that this censorship, because that is what it amounts to, is not appropriate while all the time we-all of us are talking so much about our democracy. We all talk a great deal about the value of free speech, a free press, free religion, free assembly, and so on; I have done it many times myself. But with all due respect to the officials of the radio corporation, and with all due respect to the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, I submit that in this country it is not sufficient that any one man should have the power to say who shall or shall not speak over the radio. We all know that in Italy, Germany and Russia no one may have the freedom of speech we have here, but I resent the idea that any prominent man who is a law abiding citizen, who does not advocate anything in the way of revolution, who does not offend any great body of people, whether in connection with religion or in any other way, should be forbidden to speak over the air, when other men have been given that privilege.

Take the example of Mr. George Drew, who was recently elected leader of the Conservative party in the province of Ontario. According to a statement which I read in one of the Toronto papers just yesterday or the day before, George Drew said he was permitted to do what George McCullagh was not allowed to do. Mr. Drew stated that it was put up to him that he should have the backing or endorsation-I have forgotten the exact word- of some organization, such as the Conservative party, for example; but he said he refused to ask for any endorsation and spoke as a private citizen. I do not mind saying that I do not

The Address-Mr. Manion

agree with very many of George McCullagh's views, but I do not think he should be placed in any different position from George Drew in that regard. In addition, in the correspondence between Mr. McCullagh and Mr. Gladstone Murray, which I glanced over this morning and which I have before me, Mr. McCullagh states that even a communist gets the opportunity to speak over the air which is denied George McCullagh. Well, I have some objection to communists speaking over the air. I have no objection to socialists, but my objection to communists being allowed to speak over the radio is that the fundamental principle and the whole doctrine of communism is revolution. They believe in world revolution; they believe in upsetting governments not by evolution, not by the ballot but by the bullet. Yet Tim Buck or some other communist may have the privilege of speaking over the radio-and this was not denied by Mr. Gladstone Murray-in order to air his views, while George McCullagh, a business man, may not do so.

I repeat, sir, that I believe any law-abiding business man who is willing to pay for the time he takes on the radio should have the right to speak over the air, so long as there are not so many of them that they take up the time that should be used for the legitimate purpose of entertainment. I believe it is the right of George McCullagh to express his views over the air; at least as yet I have not been convinced to the contrary, and I do not believe that any individual, Mr. Gladstone Murray in this case, should have power to say who may or who may not speak over the radio. If this system is to be carried on there should be something in the way of a commission or a committee, some body of men-it should not be limited to the judgment of any one man, I care not who he is-to decide who shall or shall not speak over the air. After all, sir, I should be glad to listen to some of these big business men, as I was glad to listen to George McCullagh yesterday, though he was not very complimentary to the Prime Minister, to myself or to anyone in this house. As I say, I should be glad to listen to the views of these men, because I think for the past twenty years, at least during my experience in public life, it has been too much of a habit on the part of too many big business men to condemn out of hand, as sort of halfwitted men, those of us who dared go into public life, and I should like to know some of their reasons for so doing. When they get on the air. as George McCullagh did yesterday, we may hit back if we choose to do so. When they are deprived of that opportunity while others who have messages perhaps not so

appropriate or not so sincere are permitted to broadcast them, then I do not believe the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carrying out its full duty. After all, if the radio is to be controlled in this maimer we might well ask ourselves if it is the press that is going to be controlled next.

To show the foolishness of it all let us consider the position of George McCullagh. In a sense he owns the Toronto Globe and Mail. He is backed by one of the richest men in Canada, if not the richest; I refer to Bill Wright, who largely owns the Wright-Hargreaves mine. If McCullagh wants to do so he can not only publish his ideas in his own newspaper; he can broadcast them in every paper across Canada. He chose a very expensive method yesterday of circumventing the order of the radio corporation, and if he so desired he could do that on a very much more extensive scale. It seems to me that the whole ruling shows a lack of judgment which is not good for this country; that is my opinion for the present, at any rate, until I know more about the matter than I know at present.

We have to listen to all kinds of people on the air. Last night, in order to make myself forget the difficulties of my present position, I listened for a while to Jack Benny and Charlie McCarthy. After all, probably I profited more by listening to George McCullagh in the early afternoon than I did by listening to Charlie McCarthy in the evening, although I did not laugh so much at George. There are others who have been on the air for some years, and whom we could very well dispense with, much better than we could dispense with George MeCul-lagh. For example, there is one commentator in the United States-I do not like to name him, because I am not sure enough of his name, though I think I know it-who was born in England but who came to the United States and became naturalized. Now, his chiel pride is in abusing the British empire, abusing England, and telling about the tyrannies from which he escaped when he came to the United States. When I listen to a fellow of that sort talking over the air, across our country, as he has been, and giving opinions, it annoys me very much indeed. And when I listen, as I did during the international crisis of last September, over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network, under the same management, to broadcasts made by commentators from Germany who were giving nothing but the German aspect of the whole affair, it also makes my blood boil. Again

The Address-Mr. Manion

I say we are much safer in the hands of a man like George McCullagh than in the hands of men such as the two groups I mentioned a moment ago. And so I suggest that if there is to be any censorship such as this, the right hon. gentleman should forthwith have something in the way of a censorship broader than that which can be afforded by one man, no matter who or how able that one man may be.

I furthermore suggest, in view of other things which are being said about the radio corporation, that we should have set up this year a committee of the House of Commons to deal not only with the question of censorship but with other matters as well which affect the broadcasting corporation.

I now come to the question of unemployment. I shall deal with it more fully later; at this time I shall confine my observations to one paragraph in the speech from the throne dealing with that subject. The statement is made that under the British North America Act the responsibility for unemployment and the solution of its problems is necessarily divided. The legal responsibility is perhaps divided, but, sir, to a large extent the solution of the problem is the duty of this government and parliament. It was pointed out even by the Purvis commission appointed by the right hon. gentleman opposite-and I shall speak of it in greater detail later-that the financial responsibility for unemployment is a direct responsibility, and that that financial responsibility is federal, not provincial. The relief question, of course, is another question. But they have pointed out what I have now stated. So that when the suggestion is made that the responsibility is perhaps divided, I may agree so far as the question of legality is concerned, but I do not agree in toto so far as the responsibility for the cure of the condition is concerned.

I shall next deal with the paragraph referring to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, which is as follows:

The report of the commission on dominion-provincial relations will be presented to parliament in the course of the present session. In accordance with the purpose for which the commission was instituted, its report will provide the basis for, and the material essential to the deliberations of a national conference, at which, among the important subjects to be dealt with, will be the problem of unemployment and social services generally.

This government has been in power nearly four years. We find that at the expiration of that period the government says, "We are going to call another national conference to

[Mt. Manion.]

tell the government and the members of the house what we must do about unemployment." This is the same government, led by the same right hon. gentleman, who was going to cure unemployment, and attacked us because we had not cured it.

No, no.

Mr. EULER:

It was the other government.

Mr. MANION:

I do not know what hon. gentlemen are cheering about. If they are applauding me, I appreciate it; but I did not catch what they said.

I repeat that this is the very government- all its members, and the right hon. gentleman particularly-which attacked us, over and over again in the house for our inability to cure unemployment. And now, after four years of power, it is going to call a national conference to tell it what to do about the problem! Well, I think almost any conference could tell it to do something much better than that which it has done. I make that statement frankly. It is a reflection upon itself to put it into the mouth of His Excellency the Governor General that it will have to call a conference.

Hon. gentlemen opposite reiterate their faith in unemployment insurance. Somewhere in the bible it is stated that faith without good works is dead. The right hon. gentleman opposite and his group for a long time have been reiterating faith in unemployment insurance, but this is still a faith without good works.

Another paragraph in the speech from the throne is in these words:

It is also proposed to undertake, with provincial cooperation, to provide assistance to municipalities which, as an alternative to the provision of direct relief, desire to expand their normal programs of civic improvements.

May I point out to the right hon. gentleman that to-day very few municipalities in Canada can afford to do any such thing? Certainly all municipalities are taxed to death, because of relief costs. Certainly all municipalities are unable to cooperate financially with the dominion government or any other government in connection with a program of public works such as is proposed in the speech from the throne. I repeat what the Purvis commission said, namely, that the responsibility for the cure of unemployment is not municipal or provincial; it is federal.

I now come to another statement in the speech from the throne, and because I question it I shall read it. I know that if I am right in my conclusion the right hon. gentleman is mistaken, in good faith. If I am

The Address-Mr. Manion

right, however, then he exaggerates by just about one hundred per cent. Here is the paragraph in question:

Notwithstanding the embarrassments and handicaps encountered in coping with the problem of unemployment, it is gratifying to be able to record that, during the past year, there has been a material reduction in the number of those receiving agricultural aid, and a reduction also in the total number of those receiving public assistance due to unemployment and agricultural distress.

And then comes the part to which I draw particular attention and which I question:

At the beginning of the present winter the number of those receiving such public assistance was almost forty per cent less than two years ago.

I do not know where the right hon. gentleman got his information but I could not get any such information as that. I have endeavoured honestly to get it, but the information given me is entirely at variance with this paragraph. I find in the report released by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) on January 14-only two days ago-that the total number on relief at the present time amounts to 809,000. So far as I have been able to ascertain-and there is some difficulty in getting actual facts-in November of 1936 there were 1,046,000 on relief. A comparison of the two figures indicates a decrease of only 22-68 per cent, not 40 per cent, as the right hon. gentleman has suggested.

I have no objection to the right hon. gentleman setting me right at the present time, if he knows how to do it, because I do not wish to misrepresent his position. But I know of no figures differing from those I have given. If the right hon. gentleman would prefer to substantiate his figures when he is on his feet, it will be all right with me. I must point out however that I am giving the figures I received, as I got them, and according to those figures the number on relief in Nov-ember, 1938, as compared with the number in the same month of 1936, has been reduced by only 22-68 per cent. The right hon. gentleman may have been thinking of another month; that is possible. I do not know whether he did take a different month, and it is a fact that different months vary. I know only this, that I have given the facts as I received them. I believe November is the beginning of winter in Canada. Perhaps there was some such difference in some of the summer months, but in my comparison I am sticking to the beginning of winter, to his own words, "at the beginning of the present winter," and I repeat that winter in Canada begins about November.

That is one statement in the speech from the throne to which I take exception, because it is not in accordance with the facts.

Then, in the same paragraph we find this:

Over the same period the number of persons actually in employment has largely increased.

That of course is a period of two years. I admit the fact, but I also point out that according to the best authority I can get the number of unemployed also has increased.

The next paragraph begins in this way:

Continuous improvement in the position of the fishing industry as a whole has been reflected-[DOT]

And so on. That statement is very much disputed. There has been a great deal of dispute about the fishing industry. My opinion is that those engaged in the fishing industry would not agree that their conditions are much better, if indeed they are any better. It is reported by fishing people, particularly from around Nova Scotia, that a large portion of the population in that section of the country is in very bad shape, even in so far as earning a living is concerned.

There is one paragraph I miss from the speech from the throne of this year which did appear in the speech of last year, the one in which the right hon. gentleman boasted a little bit about conditions-and I do not use the term offensively. This paragraph appeared in the speech from the throne delivered on January 27, 1938:

It is gratifying to note that, during the past year, there has been a further substantial advance in Canada's economic recovery. Revenues have reached new levels. Trade with other countries has materially expanded. There has been a general increase in employment and a marked decrease in the numbers receiving unemployment aid.

He did not mention that this year. He did not mention improved conditions; he could not truthfully do so, because conditions generally ha j gone back. My authority for this is not the Minister of Labour but my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), who issued a statement around the turn of the year, as did a number of other ministers. He was quite right in doing that, but I should like to give a few quotations from his statement. He said that business had shown a slight falling off, that manufacturing had been slightly lower and that construction contracts were down 17 per cent. I might interject here that construction contracts never did go up very far. They have gone down despite the fact that they were well down anyway. He stated that the gross earnings of the railways were down $10,000,000 in the first ten months, and that retail sales were lower.

[DOT]js

The Address-Mr. Manion

That does not quite agree with what the speech from the throne has to say. Naturally I have abbreviated the statements made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. However, there was one thing that I missed in his statement. According to a statement put out last night, the pulp and paper business, part of the backbone of the industrial life of our country, is down twenty-eight per cent this year as compared with last year.

It is rather strange that the hon. gentleman did not mention the drop in total trade. According to my figures, which I believe are correct, the total trade of Canada, that is our imports and exports, was down $336,000,000 in 1938 as compared with 1937-quite a drop.

Only one industry in Canada seems to have improved, at least from the standpoint of production, and that is agriculture. I am not discussing prices now; I am referring only to production. Perhaps the mining industry may be up also, but I did not get the figures. Practically every line of agricultural production is up. It is a strange coincidence that this is the only industry with which this government has had nothing to do. In other words, providence has helped agriculture. The'acts of this government have had an effect upon every other industry in Canada. Agriculture alone depends upon providence, and I think that industry ought to thank providence that it was not interfered with by the present government. I point this out because last year and every year since the right hon. gentleman and his government came into power he and his government have taken credit for the improved conditions.

Sure.

Mr. MANION:

One of my hon. friends

says "sure". All right, let him say "sure" when I finish this sentence. If they take credit for the improved conditions up to last year, then they must take the discredit for the adverse conditions of last year. I do not hear the hon. gentleman saying "sure" now.

When the hon. member for Brandon spoke this afternoon he made some comparisons between 1933, when we were in power, and the present time. The right hon. gentleman can do the same, but it is a most unfair comparison to make. We were in power for two years after 1933; we were in power until 1935. The great depression, perhaps the greatest that the world has ever known, certainly the greatest in a hundred years, started a year before this government went out of power in 1930 and continued until about the middle of 1933. It

was not a Canadian depression, it was a world depression. According to the best statistics of the League of Nations, thirty million people were unemployed in the industrial countries of the world. There was a decrease in world trade of two-thirds; in 1933 world trade was only one-third of what it had been during the peak in 1929. I was in the house until 1935, and I well remember the right hon. gentleman and his supporters getting up over and over again to blame us for the depression. They did not give us much credit. Unfortunately for us we were in power only for three years or less after there had been an improvement, and then the right hon. gentleman and his government came into power in 1935. Conditions continued to improve for another year or year and a half, and then they turned back in 1937.

I point out that if the government of the present day is to take credit when conditions are good, it must take some discredit when conditions are bad. Since 1937 conditions have not been good in this country. But I intend to adopt a different attitude. I do not say that this government is totally to blame for the change in conditions in Canada. These conditions are world wide, as was the depression of 1929, which continued for two years and a half or three years during our regime from 1930 to 1933.

Apparently my hon. friends opposite feel a little guilty about taking the credit for the pick-up in business, because they are putting out excuses. I notice that four different statements have been issued. One was by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), an old and true friend of mine whom I am delighted to see back in his place and looking as well as he does; I hope his health continues to improve until it is once more one hundred per cent. But I want to say that even he put out a statement making excuses. The Minister of Trade and Commerce put out one, as did the Minister of Labour. These excuses for conditions were made I suppose because of guilty consciences for having taken credit for the pick-up in business.

This government is very strong on excuses. This government is very strong on propaganda. I mentioned before the fact that ten or a dozen of its ministers-there may be many more but all I could hunt up was that number -have made statements which were broadcast across the continent over the radio stating what good fellows they were. Floods of ballyhoo have issued forth about all lands of matters. The people have been practically drowned in it. For example, take this trade

The Address-Mr. Manion

treaty or trade agreement that has been entered into-I suppose the two words are more or less interchangeable. There was, as I say, such a flood of ballyhoo and propaganda about this agreement with the United States that the press release took, as I said a few moments ago, about forty-six pages of small print. Those who might have opposed the treaty were shocked into silence. Almost no one has attempted to state even a few truths about it. However, I have not been frightened off and I am going to say a few words. I think it is worth while for the house and the country to know something about it.

I shall endeavour at this time to show some of the weaknesses in this treaty. The government have attempted to show what they claim are its advantages, but no one in or out of the house is capable of judging at once the full effects of the treaty. Only time can tell. This probably gives my right hon. friend a little advantage, especially after the ballyhoo that has been issued, because he has the power to call an election before that necessary time has elapsed. But I am going to show a few of the weaknesses. I am not going to attempt a complete discussion of the matter; I shall make only a few general observations.

I want to state frankly that I believe in trade agreements. I believe that it is one of the methods by which we can build up world trade. Trade agreements are necessary under the conditions of to-day. The world is made up of interdependent countries. It is of advantage, not only to us but to the world generally, to build up trade, provided always that any trade agreement which is made is fair to both sides. I do not think we should try to take advantage of the other party to the agreement, but I believe we should get as fair a deal as he does. I do not question the statement that certain groups in this country are benefited by certain provisions of the agreement. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that we must consider this country, not as nine provinces, not as nine different nations, not as different sections or different groups, but as one nation. We must take the treaty as a whole and endeavour to see if it is just and fair to us. Let us see what the advantages are from the treaty as a whole, and not consider it simply from the standpoint of its effect upon, for example, the cattle raising industry of the west, which effect may be more than counterbalanced by the treaty's effect on some industry in the east, or on perhaps some other industry in the west.

There have been perhaps more or less sub rosa, many complaints against this treaty,

but the industries of the country may have been too frightened to express their opinions about it. Some of them appear to think it would be more or less unpatriotic to express an opinion against the treaty. I shall deal with the patriotic side of it in a few moments.

To take a specific example, there came under my notice a protest which was being sent to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) irom the boot and shoe industry, pointing out the great damage that was going to be done to it, and setting forth that imports of boots and shoes from the United States in 1938 were more than double the amounts imported from the United States during the previous year.

Mr. EULER:

Less than two per cent of the consumption.

Mr. MANION:

All right, perhaps, but

we must not overlook the fact that every pair of boots and shoes that is imported from the United States takes work out of the hands of some of our Canadian workmen and food out of the mouths of some of our Canadian people. It was some of the people who manufacture boots and shoes in that part of the country from which the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) comes who made this protest to the Minister of Finance.

No.

Mr. MANION:

I saw the protest. I suggest this, that if our people were being charged more for Canadian boots and shoes, or if our boots and shoes were not the equal of the United States product, there might be some reason for encouraging imports; but my submission, and my personal observation, from what I have been able to observe on various trips to tke United Slates, is that our Canadian boots and shoes are just as cheap and just as good as those made in the United States, so I cannot see any great advantage in damaging our own boot and shoe industry. I said that last year we imported from the United States twice as many boots and shoes as in the previous year, and my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce interjected that the imports were less than two per cent of the consumption. I do not know what the percentage is, and so I cannot quarrel with his statement. But I repeat that, without this new trade treaty, our imports of boots and shoes from the United States last year were twice what they were in the previous year, and under the new treaty our imports will probably be much greater than in the past.

The Address-Mr. Manion

Another Canadian industry that is going to be injured by this treaty is the textile industry, and injured not only by the United States but perhaps much more seriously by Japan, where women are paid five or six dollars a month and men twenty-five dollars a month for the ordinary type of labour. Our wages in Canada are many times that amount. But Japan gets the benefit of this treaty, as well as the United States, because the former is one of the favoured nations, and without doubt Japan's exports of textiles will seriously injure the textile industry of this country.

On the other hand take a natural product like potatoes. I have seen many articles in the press, and in particular one press release, with respect to the great gain it is going to be to Canada to have under this treaty an increased quota of Canadian potatoes going into the United States. I speak subject to correction, but well informed people in New Brunswick have told me that one county alone in that province could supply the whole quota of potatoes permitted to enter the United States from Canada. If the statement is not correct, people from New Brunswick can correct it. I am giving the house just what has been stated to me, that the quota allowed under the treaty is so small that the increase will make no great difference.

Time alone can tell what will be the results of this treaty, and we must just judge it as a whole. But there are a few outstanding facts about the treaty which I wish to mention.

Unless the increase in trade is sufficient to make it up, there will be a loss in revenue. Take, for instance, the three per cent excise tax, which is being removed from the articles included in the agreement, and which without doubt will have to be removed from a number of other articles. That tax brought in last year a revenue of just under $19,000,000. The Minister of Finance is probably beginning to worry where his revenues are going to come from. I think the removal of the three per cent excise tax will hurt Canada materially in the way of decreased revenues.

Another outstanding feature of the treaty of which everybody is aware but which should be emphasized, is the removal of the six cent preference on Canadian wheat which was obtained for Canada in 1932 at the empire conference in this city by the government of which I had the honour of being a member. To me the removal of that six cent preference is a serious matter. The history of preferences granted by Great Britain to Canada goes away back to the Liberal party under Fielding in 1897, and from 1897 right down

to 1932 efforts were made by both Liberal and Conservative governments to obtain from the British something in the way of reciprocal preferences. The six cent preference on wheat, obtained in 1932 was an important one, but it has been wiped out by the treaty, and its removal will hit us in many ways. Perhaps the west are not objecting to this so much, may be on account of the fixed price on wheat; and after all it cannot affect the west very much this year. But there is this consideration, that eveiy bushel of United States wheat that goes into the British market, the biggest wheat market in the world, and a great market for many other products, replaces just that much Canadian wheat. It means just that much more competition against Canadian wheat. It means just that much more Canadian wheat that we cannot sell because the United States raises the same type of wheat that we do.

But that is not the only disadvantage we suffer from the wiping out of this six cent preference on wheat. There is the question of how business going through our own Canadian ports will be affected. This very day I received a letter from the port of Saint John advising me that business through that port has fallen off markedly since this treaty went into effect, and undoubtedly all the ports of Canada-Montreal, Quebec, Saint John, Halifax, Vancouver-will be affected. Under the six cent preference on wheat, the grain had to go through Canadian ports. I well remember, coming as I do from the head of the lakes and knowing something of the wheat business, that before the war about two-thirds of our Canadian wheat instead of passing through Montreal or Saint John or Halifax went through Buffalo and New York. I tried to get the figures, but it is not easy to get them. I did not get the figures for before the war, but I got them from 1921 on. I find that in 1922-I take the worst year-only 29 per cent of Canadian wheat went through Canadian ports and 70 per cent through United States ports, whereas last year, 1938, eighty-two per cent of our Canadian wheat went through Canadian ports and only 15i per cent through United States ports. That is a marked change. I am not going to give the figures for all the years, but I say that undoubtedly the removal of this six cent preference on Canadian wheat is going to hurt Canadian ports. Does anybody suggest that it is not going to do so? I cannot imagine that any such suggestion could be made.

Why, Mr. Speaker, the very day after the treaty was signed, word came from New York that the United States was going to get

The Address-Mr. Manion

back their port business because of this removal of the six cent preference on wheat! Dow, Jones and Company, one of the best known financial news agencies in the United States, an agency with which everybody is familiar, was quoted in the Ottawa Journal of November 17 last in these words as forecasting what would happen as a result of the removal of the six cent preference.

The agency said the result of the preference, in effect since the empire trade agreements of 1932, had been to divert most of the Canadian grain traffic from United States ports to Montreal, Saint John and Halifax.

The agency said the move "is considered likely to restore to United States Atlantic ports a large share of the export grain traffic."

And it is doing it. And, Mr. Speaker, from Washington also on that same day there came out statements boasting of the improvement that would take place in the business of United States ports because of the loss of this six cent preference on Canadian wheat. Then we lose the sheltered market of the British wheat buyer, by long odds the greatest wheat buyer in the world.

There are some other commodities on which we also sustain a loss. Take the preference on fruit. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) has felt a little worried from time to time regarding the ultimate effect on the Annapolis valley so far as apples are concerned. We have lost about half the preference on apples. We are also suffering in regard to pears, honey and frozen salmon. In other words, whatever else we can say about the treaty, the fact is that it is the death-knell of the preferential system under which we have been trading with Great Britain.

I have before me a United States business publication Business Week, and in the issue of November 26 the following statement appears :

The British pact is more important diplomatically, but the biggest trade concessions are made in the Canadian pact. The two new pacts, while they do not wipe out the system of empire preferences which was set up in Ottawa in 1932, mark the first important move to break down that system.

That comment appearing in this United States business journal published in New York gives the United States view of the treaty, and I repeat that in breaking down the system we are breaking down a connection with the greatest market in the world. And for what are we giving up that system? We are giving it up for the most uncertain and erratic market in the world, that of the United States. There has been no other market for the sale of our goods in which Canada has

had less assurance. All one has to do is review the history of our dealings with that country to the south.

In 1922 the United States adopted the Fordney-McCumber tariff, which was a tremendous slash at our exports to that market. In the year before that tariff was passed, that is to say, 1921, they were exporting to us nearly two dollars' worth of goods for every dollar's worth that we sold to them, and in spite of that discrepancy they passed the Fordney-McCumber tariff the following year. In 1921 we imported from them goods to the value of $856,000,000 and we exported to them $542,000,000 worth, giving us an adverse balance of $314,000,000. They increased their tariff against us at a time when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, the same hon. gentlemen who constitute the government to-day. Again, take the Hawley-Smoot tariff. It is true that tariff was erected largely against the world as a whole; nevertheless, as the trade figures will show, it hit us very hard. I do not intend to give all the figures. The comparison was practically the same, showing an unfavourable balance so far as we were concerned, because our adverse balance was $364,000,000; that is to say, they were buying from us $364,000,000 less than we were buying from them at that time. And yet they raised the Hawley-Smoot tariff against us.

Did it make them prosperous?

Mr. MANION:

That is not the question. My hon. friend will not divert me from my argument. Certainly it did not make us very prosperous. Can anyone suggest that a country of 125,000,000 or 130,000,000 people, who apparently resent the importation of Canadian goods, even to the amount of half as much as they export to us, to the extent of putting up trade barriers like the Hawley-Smoot and Fordney-McCumber tariffs, is a market upon which we can depend? Take the twelve months of 1938 as compared with the twelve months of 1937, and what do you find? In these past twelve months, just before the putting into effect of this agreement which has been signed by the right hon. gentleman and the United States representative, the figures show that we had a drop of $133,000,000 in exports to the United States. They dropped from $481,000,000 in the twelve months ending in November, 1937, to $348,000,000 in the twelve months ending in November, 1938. and that despite the 1935 agreement about which the right hon. gentleman has spoken so much. Before the 1935 agreement we had a balance of $1,000,000 in our favour in our

The Address-Mr. Manion

Mr. EULER:

That is not a fair comparison.

Mr. MANION:

Why not? What is wrong with it? I do not see anything unfair about it. I can see no reason why one Canadian should buy eleven times as much as an American buys from Canada. But that is precisely what happens when my hon. friends opposite deal with the United States.

One rabbit, one horse.

Mr. MANION:

We get the rabbit and they get the horse. We buy eleven times more per capita from the United States people than they buy from us. I cannot see anything unfair in the comparison. I submit that it is perfectly fair.

Take the three per cent excise tax. As I have said, last year it brought in $18,000,000 or $19,000,000. Those who have read the treaty carefully will remember that this three per cent excise tax was taken off only the items in the schedule. That is correct ; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) nods. As a result it created a most ridiculous situation. For example, a friend of mine who looked into the matter points out that the tax was taken off mushrooms and cut flowers but was left on

all sorts of necessities of life. According to the press it was also pointed out emphatically to the Minister of Finance, by letter and telegram, that this would be most unfair to Canadian manufacturers, owing to the fact that because the removal of the three per cent tax applied only to items in the schedule, Canadian manufacturers were still faced with the tax on their raw materials, whereas finished products entering into competition with their goods in other countries enjoyed the removal of the tax. It was a most unfair position for the manufacturers to be placed in and they protested most strenuously to the Minister of Finance. Let me read a statement from one of the morning papers. The following appeared on November 23, a few days after the treaty was concluded:

Communications have been pouring into the finance department from manufacturers protesting the tax on raw materials when the finished product is relieved of taxation.

A perfectly just protest, I think, and the Minister of Finance no doubt agreed, because he issued this statement:

The government has had under consideration the situation that will arise with the Temoval of the 3 per cent special excise tax from the articles enumerated in section 1 of the new trade agreement with the United States. The government will make certain when the necessary legislation is introduced that it will be of such a character as to eliminate any unfairness that might otherwise be expected to result from the exemption from the tax of the particular articles enumerated in the agreement.

All right. Since the treaty is signed and has been in effect since the first of the month I agree that the Minister of Finance is quite right in making that correction. I do not quarrel with that at all; but I say that by making that correction this government is handing to the United States another concession of great import, and incidentally handing another concession to all the twenty-five or thirty other most favoured nations with which we deal. But did this government when dealing with the British and United States governments tell them that in addition to the concessions mentioned in the agreement they were going to add the concessions to these other countries? They did not tell the people of Canada until some days later, when the matter was drawn to their attention. Did they know they had to make these concessions? I do not think so.