Mr. SPENCE:

The cost of government

should be cut down. The salaries paid to the members of this house do not represent all of the waste. Where economy is needed is in the money spent in the different ridings in playing the patronage game. A post office costing $50,000 is built for a town of seven or eight hundred people. This was done since this government came into power.

I think the dumping duties are absolutely wrong. The government has allowed the United States to dictate the number of commodities upon which dumping duties are to be levied as well as the amount of the duty. Four-fifths of a cent or one-half a cent a pound is not a dumping duty. Even the dumping duties that we imposed in our time did not stop stuff from coming in from the other side. There are some people in this country who will pay any price for a commodity if they want it. The dumping duties should be substantial. Another thing, no importer should know the time the dumping duty is to apply.

I have a recommendation to make which I hope the government will consider. I think this would simplify matters around the customs house. I always like to try to make things easier for the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). Instead of having dumping duties on oranges for eight months in a year, have a duty applied for the year round. I suggest a duty of twenty-five cents a box on oranges, grapefruit, pineapples, lemons and other commodities of that kind. This would simplify matters around the customs house. Everybody would have an opportunity to compete with the other man. When it is known that the dumping duty is to be applied at a certain date, an importer with a large amount of money available can buy a greater number of oranges than another importer who has only limited funds upon which to operate. A man may have only $10,000 to $50,000, but most of his operating money will be on his books. You require a considerable amount of money to run a business. The man who can buy only one car of a commodity cannot compete with the man who can buy ten or fifteen cars before the dumping duty goes on. Such a man is able to offer cutthroat competition for the next three or four weeks. That is something for the government to consider.

The seasonal duty on oranges is around seventy-five cents a box, which is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. The duty on grapefruit is one-half cent a pound. Take a ten-car order, which is a fairly small one. The man who can buy before the duty goes on is able to save $345 a car. On a ten-car order that means $3,450. Such a man can sell below another man who is able to order only one car, and still make a big profit. These matters should be arranged so that one individual can compete fairly with another. We should not be playing into the hands of the monopolists and big interests.

It seems to me that we have allowed too many reductions on goods we buy from the United States. I do not think our negotiators had the necessary training. The United States had their specialists from the business and industrial world. They gave us reductions on those commodities which they will never buy, whereas we gave reductions on those commodities that we buy from them all the time. We have been going on reducing everything five per cent, or similar amounts.

I think you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that too much raw material is leaving Canada which should be processed at home, thus giving employment to probably thousands of our own people and giving the railroads plenty of business in moving the stuff backwards and forwards at a higher freight rate than that which the railways get for hauling our raw materials to the seaboard, and which is the lowest freight rate in the world. That is common sense, whether you are a free trader or not. The more people you give employment to in this country, the better.

One hon. member suggested during the debate the other day that the government should develop great mines, on the advice of engineers and geologists. I would not approve taking the advice of engineers, much less that of geologists. I have been fooled that way before. But if three or four men of good common sense have a good proposition in a mine and have a hundred thousand dollars or so of their own to put into it, it would not do any harm for the government to stick in another hundred thousand and take the profits, instead of allowing the whole enterprise to become a monopoly and make more millionaires like our good friend Wright who bought out the Globe. But I repeat, I would not take the advice of engineers or geologists.

I received a document to-day from the civil service commission, and it seems to me ridiculous. I gather from it that they want 115 men technically trained for different kinds of positions in chemistry, entomology, economic*,

The Address-Mr. Spence

and so forth. We have had enough economics in this house to do me all my life. I never heard a discussion on economics that I could agree with anyway. I have studied economy in another way altogether, and I never knew anything about economics. Let me cite a few of these positions that are to be filled by the civil service commission. Men are wanted for work along such lines, as botanical surveys, fruit diseases, dairy research, soil research, flycatchers, field husbandry, parasites.

I am one who has imported a great deal of stuff in my lifetime from Holland. I am not doing it very much now because, like everything else, somebody has stolen the business and you cannot get it back. The people of Holland are just as particular that their stuff leaves Holland in good shape as we are to receive it in good shape, and there is very little danger of any plant diseases coming from there. But the entomological branch examines every package that comes out of the box. I have no objection to that because it would be wrong to let any foreign insect that might do a lot of harm get into this country. But I certainly do not see why we need all these men at this particular time. Is business growing? Is our population growing? Is everything so good that we want to spend money? Or is this the pork-barrel? Or are these 115 people to help win the next election? Extravagance of that kind is the worst in the world and should be curtailed.

What I have said about cutting down the membership of the house and of the provincial assemblies I think should be done. Of course, I shall be told that the British North America Act will not allow it; that we can do nothing with the act there. But, Mr. Speaker, rules were made for people who do not understand very much, and we should change them all if they prevent us from doing what should be done.

Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):

Mr. Speaker, I have been interested and intrigued by the uniformity and unanimity with which members have risen to congratulate their fellows who have deserved well of this house. It reminds me of a ceremonial Swedish banquet where, from the youngest member to the oldest, they pass in front of the dowager hostess and thank her for the meal they have enjoyed

"Tack fur mat. Tack, tack, tack fur mat. Tusend tack fur mat. Tack fur mat."

The hon. lady member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) feeling that it was becoming a little monotonous, sought to lump her congratulations together and delivered them in one great panegyric. I myself feel that at this

late stage of the debate some change should be effected and so, Mr. Speaker, I desire to say it with flowers. For that reason I propose to hand to the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews) and the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier) pansies for thoughts, and rosemary for remembrance- thoughtful remembrance of their leader to new party members.

To the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) some violets-violets for faithfulness-and a sprig of ivy in order that he may be zealous in his desire to please in his new office.

But there is also the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon), and to him more violets, for faithfulness, but also-a lily, pure and white, and, since he will never be able to keep it in a portfolio, the kindly wish that he may keep it pure and' help it to last as long as possible.

To the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr.. Manion) roses, roses, plenty of roses, with a little sprig of fennel, so that he may have the loving flattery of his own party; and if the roses turn out to be blue ones, possibly that is just the colour the hon. member wants.

To the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) a sprig of rue, the herb o' grace, rue for repentance, circled round with many twigs of hazel representing the reconciliation and forgiveness of his friends.

And now, Mr. Speaker, that I have given away all my flowers, I want to record, socialist though I consider myself to be, the real sense of satisfaction which I experience from the fact that Their Majesties the King and Queen of Canada are going to see our country and to deepen by their act the symbolical significance of their place in the scheme of things. To me, sir, the evolution of a free society does not under any circumstances necessarily imply or compel the elimination of that continuing act that we call government. In this evolution government has become among democratic peoples a function of the people, entrusted by the people to representatives of the people, to act for the people. In the struggles of the peoples for freedom in the British democracies, the hereditary rulers have for all time forsworn their right personally to govern, and they have accepted a new and higher symbolical position and significance in their historical succession. As a result, to-day the soul of the people of Canada finds its living symbol in the peculiar person and functions of its king, the King of Canada, he in turn being honoured in his domestic duties by the presence and help of his gracious wife, the Queen of Canada. To-day in every part of

The Address-Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo)

the empire this same symbolism is accepted and welcomed in the hearts of the people.

I give this explanation because of the many people in our land searching for a correct interpretation of the social movement in Canada, people who find their hearts and minds struggling adequately to rebut the arguments of republicans and the arguments also of the dogmatic socialists, many of whom are vocative members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.

Removed as a British king is from ambitious selection by heredity; removed as he is from partisanship of every kind by the very nature of his new position and responsibilities; removed as he is from danger of failure in continuity by the very considerations which establish his functions, no citizen of Canada or of the empire need fear that majesty to-day usurps any rights or claims any privileges not entirely proper to the sublimest interests of the people or its most democratic expression, whether those expressions be of capitalism or socialism or any other ism or economy. Consequently, human nature being what it is, my conviction remains that we honour only ourselves when we elevate to his proper place our king, with his queen, as the living symbol of the soul of the people of Canada and when we respect and honour him as such.

There may be some excuse for the dogmatic socialists viewpoint, and there may be even some excuse for the Vancouver Cooperative Commonwealth Federation lady alderman who classified their majesties' intended progress through Canada as "a royal circus"; but if I still correctly estimate the hearts and minds of many Cooperative Commonwealth Federationists in British Columbia, their loyalty to the kingly conception is not the less sincere because it has kept pace with the changing social conditions of our times.

Yet, while rejoicing, my heart is sore, contemplating the condition of many if not most of the people in this amazingly rich and fertile country to which our king and queen are coming. The disposition of many hon. members to take solace and excuse in the biblical statement, "Ye have the poor always with you," is pusillanimous, and it loses its value still more when we recognize that the word in the original Greek text does not mean so much poverty of pocket as it does poverty of mind and opportunity. I well remember as a youngster, away back in my native city of Liverpool, visiting the slum districts under the guidance and expert direction of a very keen student of humanity. I saw and learned there pictures of poverty before which even

the tragic pictures of Canadian life to-day lose their luridness by comparison. In 1907, by way of rounding out my experiences in human understanding, I investigated and learned of the festering sores which suppurated Whitechapel and other districts in the east end of London. In 1937, on visiting England again, I made a point of revisiting these ok places in London, Liverpool and other parts o: the country; and though there is still a great deal to be desired in the condition of these people, my heart was rejoiced to see how here and there and everywhere, slowly but surely the submerged tenth of which that great humanitarian, General Booth, wrote, was being carefully lifted out of the waters of affliction and their feet planted on the highway which leads to opportunity and social security. And so, drawing attention to the fact that my service covers over fifty years of what I myself believe to be a keenly observant mind directed by natural inclination to the study of my fellowman, I am prepared frankly to admit that Canada has no terrors of poverty to compare in its bestial actualities with the conditions of life in the eighties in the older countries of Europe.

Some hon. MEMBERS; Hear, hear.

Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):

But because I have by this admission led my optimistic friends complacently on, I must rudely shatter their smugness by declaring that the tragedy of suffering to-day in Canada is as vicious to the sufferers here as it was to the sufferers in those older countries-vicious because of its utter needlessness, vicious because of its comparison with what might easily be accomplished, and vicious because its difficulties are so easily understood to-day and so easily remedied.

To-day, because of these facts, it becomes a crime against any community if the government causes such misery. Therefore I declare that if in Canada our people have not adequate food, clothing and shelter, we are committing a crime against our people in this land flowing with the milk and honey of abundance, and sooner or later we must get busy and stamp out that crime. Surely it will be agreed that, if we export wheat, no Canadian citizen should fail to have his bread; if we export milk, no Canadian child should go short of that essential food; if we export cattle, no Canadian worker should sigh hopelessly for his beef; and if we export bacon, no child of Canada should imitate that gutter urchin of the nineties in the Mile End road who went to the comer grocery store and said something like this, "Sye, mister, coupla' ounces of bacon

502 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo)

cut wiv a hammy knife, and muvver says tell old red-head not to be stingy." You have all heard that before, but it draws a vivid picture.

Of course I am still new to politics; 1936 marked my first appearance in this or any other elective house, and I came green and raw to the problems of government. I have been disillusioned more times than I care to think of. I have often compared the strange political efforts of the combined membership of this house with the actions of a paunchy individual whom I knew away back in the South African Transkei many years ago. In the heat of summer he liked to wear his trousers back side to front because, he said, it gave him such a feeling of comfort and coolness. With us, we wear the garment of retrogression to escape the heat and distress of these terrible days in Canada. Hon. members, two hundred and forty-five men and women of more than ordinary intellectual capacity, able in themselves individually and collectively to run most of the professions and industries of our nation, meet here in solemn conclave to settle our affairs, but meet here after having secretly sworn, each to himself or herself, never under any circumstances to allow anything to be done in the house in a way that ordinary commercial business is done; never to use any of the principles which have so eminently succeeded in business or professional life; never to permit any interference with business ; never to permit the honesty and integrity of business and professional life to mould and fashion the policies of party government.

Of course I have overdrawn the picture; of course I have not hesitated to be caustic in my condemnation; but before I have finished my remarks, discerning members will understand exactly what I mean. It is because of this confliction of vibration that high-minded leaders utter pre-election cries and bring to the public platforms appeals which ring true in the hearts and minds of the people. But it is because of this also that the voice of opposition becomes merely the voice of opposition and turns this august forum too often into a cockpit of tykes and terriers. Because of this, earnest, thinking members again and again drag their solutions of the country's difficulties to be here reasoned about and criticized. But it is because of this also that there is no burial place so deep as the records of this house, no gravestones so heavy as the pages of Hansard. Because of this, men wonder that wrongs are not righted the moment they are declared wrongs. Because of this, we in this

house stand fearfully at the doors of common sense and progress, afraid to raise the latch or raise a foot to cross the thresholds. I have heard men in this house, not once or twice, but many times declare that they would not stand for these things for a single moment in their own business. Why then, in God's name, do we as members of this house stand for these things?

In a picture now in Ottawa Ronald Colman enacts the part of a member addressing the House of Commons at Westminster, and in an impassioned speech declares as follows: "The only party to which we should now in these times belong and owe allegiance is all humanity. Let us get together to right these wrongs and mayhap in the doing of it we shall also save our souls." The essential differences between parties render the tasks necessarily tiresome, carping and formal. I have waited for the present government to break through its orthodoxies. I regret to say I have waited practically all the time in vain. I can hope for no better from any of the other parties. Let us forget the political advantages for which we are eternally exhibiting ourselves and let us together drive want and despair from our land; for it can be done and it must be done.

I have said I hope for little from any of the parties as such, and I repeat that until the members of the house are prepared to think in terms of our people's need rather than in terms of party, we shall continue to face a rapidly approaching disaster from which we may never recover. Having said this, I do not know whether hon. members will react with amusement or with toleration or perhaps with righteous indignation when I tell them that in that beautiful part of Vancouver island, the Nanaimo riding, our citizens have double representation. There is the sitting member who devotes all his time to the duties and cares of his office, and there is the supreme director of political patronage, the defeated Liberal candidate who approves or disapproves the efforts of the sitting member as he thinks fit, but who cleverly ensures that his own picture shall be well placed in the local papers and that he, and often he alone, shall get the credit for every advantage secured. So well has this excellent division of service and of credit been maintained that I cannot recall a single occasion when the member failed to make an effort to do his duty or the dispenser of patronage failed to secure the credit for the work done.

I have accepted these conditions amicably for nearly three years and have laughed consistently at the hollowness of the situations

The Address-Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo)

it brought about. But I find myself turned definitely to anger when I contemplate its effect on the whole body politic. I have no personal ill-will against this young man. I understand that he has done good work in other directions. I have no personal ill-will against anybody, or, if I have, I try earnestly, with the intenseness of my nature, to avoid it. But that young man will have enough to do to contest his nomination for election in face of the two opposing Liberal candidates whom he will meet. His patronage activities, however, I want to declare in this house, are absolutely contemptible. I have profound personal respect for the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I have wholeheartedly extended my respect to his ministers. I confess to a sense of joyous relief that the Bren gun probe so recently held left the character of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) unquestioned. But I do know that official letters leave Ottawa enjoining government officials on the Pacific coast to have their submissions for new service in my constituency referred to this back-door member of the riding. I do know that last session, when this young backdoor member was in Ottawa, I was called into the private room of a minister of this government-of course, when the minister was absent-to be warned by that young man that I would be a fool if I ran against him for reelection, because he was nursing the constituency for himself and wanted the seat, while I would do nothing more than ruin his chances and fail to seize my own.

Even these things were as "water on a duck's back"; but when I have information that my efforts as member for the constituency have been cancelled or delayed until it suited this man to act, I feel that the country should know; for if these things are being done in the green tree, in heaven's name what will be done in the dry? The latest stupidity, to use a mild expression is this: Early last year, 1938, I conveyed bo the former Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) the desire of the citizens of Duncan for two street pillar-boxes to facilitate mail posting. Approved departmentally early in May, 1938, this simple business facility was deliberately hung up by this back-door member until this month, January, 1939, eight months afterwards. The local paper, the Cowichan Leader, Duncan, B.C., under date of Thursday, January 19, 1939, writes as follows:

Two Mail Boxes to be Placed on Hospital Hill and Townsite.

Residents of Duncan's Hospital Hill and Townsite will no longer have to go to the post office to mail letters. Duncan junior chamber of commerce has won its fight to have mail

boxes placed beside the school store at the corner of Cairnsmore street and the Island highway, and beside Smith's community store at the corner of Coronation avenue and Bundock street.

With the cooperation of Mr. H. A. Collings, Duncan postmaster, Mr. Claude Green, the junior chamber's committee of one, has been trying for nearly a year to obtain official consent to the erection of the boxes.

Action finally was secured through a letter to Mr. Alan Chambers, Liberal candidate at the last dominion election. Mr. Chambers wrote this week that authority had been given.

I should like the government to look into that matter. This does not disturb me personally. It will not affect my decision to run again or not to run again. As a matter of fact, I have not yet told myself what I shall do. And I am not seeking credit for my services; they have been sought for and accepted willingly as an honourable duty. But I do earnestly warn the government that these things produce unrest and disquiet throughout the country. The country knows of them, and that disquiet is continually increasing. I declare that political knavery in the outfield is not the best way to train the cricketer to use his bat when he goes to the wicket. I hope hon. members will recognize these stupidities as some more of those things done in politics which would not be tolerated in a well conducted business. Of course it is likely that denial will follow denial. But all that I have said is absolutely true as far as my researches have been able to penetrate the zone of silence which surrounds these matters. While I have had to reflect upon the actions of an individual, I have done so quite unwillingly, my scruples overcome by the gravity of the destroying influence of political patronage in practically every aspect.

Nor unfortunately do I gain much from the contemplation of the activities of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The earnest representation given by the high-minded members of that party in this house does not remove the political trickery which too often activates the controlling members of the party throughout the dominion. Here the members of that party are still largely a protest group, and in consequence of my taunt that no constructive plan was placed before the house by them they have submitted many desired features of an entirely new economy, without, however, showing the constitutional path by which these desired features might be secured for the people. And that, I submit, is essential. In the country the provincial executives are becoming increasingly Marxian socialists with all that this implies of secret talks against the institution of monarchy, of apotheosizing

504 COMMONS

The Address-Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo)

Marx even beyond the halo which surrounds the Master of all time, of necessary sympathy with the Russian experiment, the human teredos of communism and the revolutionary formulae of Marx and Engels. I have already indicated that the Marxists had seized the British Columbia provincial party executive and were sedulously proselytizing the emotional and protesting adherents of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation there. Do not forget that last word in the title, " federation." In 1932, when the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) carried his credentials to Calgary, to what was to become the birthplace of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, he carried credentials not only from the socialist party of Canada but also from the Vancouver branch of the League for Social Reconstruction, of which I was then a militant member and later became the secretary. The federation was to be farmer-labour-socialist, organizations united in social economic effort. British Columbia never did obtain the united political support of its labour organizations, while the League for Social Reconstruction, or rather its political offshoot, was ousted from its federating possibilities to become either a tool or to be pushed off the shuffleboard.

In Alberta the United Farmers of Alberta, whose untiring worker, Norman Priestley, was the first national secretary of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, have now renounced political aims, withdrawing officially and, therefore, in large measure by membership, from the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation ranks. Thus slowly passes almost unnoticed in its retrograding the Marxist-controlled Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, in its inception and in the enthusiastic hopes of its first devoted workers the finest and most promising economic movement which has demanded attention in Canadian life.

The Social Credit party have not been mentioned by me, but I should not omit them. It will be recognized that I have not hesitated during my work in this house to criticize them as well as to declare the value to the country of their formula. I have little other than sincere respect for the members of this party. I have condemned the weakness in the particular formula by which they hope to bring their hearts' desire to the people. But they are united; they are moving along one track to one goal, and I am impressed to say that because of that we shall see them here in larger numbers in future sessions of this house, battering at the orthodoxies which have our time-worn system in their grasp.

There is one final word and wish arising out of all that I have said. That is that we may get together as a house, intelligent and eager to discover a way by which, no matter what system we live under, we can assure for our people in Canada social security and health and peace and sweet content.

Mr. NORMAN J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) : It is not my desire to add to the repetition of congratulatory references which have been made in this house during the continuance of this debate. May I, however, be permitted to join in all those that have been expressed by hon. members who have preceded me. I do desire to add my word to the expressions of appreciation from all parts of the house on the return to public life of the hon. member for London (Mr. Manion) and his succession to the leadership of the National Conservative party. It is most gratifying to note that he has spoken all across Canada and is recognized as a man of integrity and a good Canadian. Perhaps I should also extend a special word of welcome to my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo South (Mr. Homuth) who has already so nobly acquitted himself in this house. In the brief reference he made to his victory in the recent by-election, I know it was his modesty which prevented him from referring to the fact that his majority was such that both of his opponents in the campaign lost their deposits. It is quite obvious that the citizens of central Ontario expressed themselves in a most definite way, and more especially when we remember the heavy battery of strong ministers who went there to assist the Liberal candidate. I attended one of the meetings and sat in the back seat, and I found it interesting to hear what was said.

May I be permitted to add a word of appreciation on behalf of the citizens of the Niagara peninsula, and more particularly Lincoln county, of the arrangements being made for their majesties to visit that historic peninsula, with all its wealth of orchards and vineyards. The royal party will inspect the great Welland ship canal, and spend a short time in the historic old town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, which was the seat of responsible government in Upper Canada many years before confederation. Then they will visit the sacred shrine at Queenston heights, where the name of Laura Secord is perpetuated in memory by the citizens of Canada. They will view at close hand the great power houses of the hydro-electric system of Ontario and travel along the picturesque boulevard which skirts the Niagara gorge, ending their scenic drive at Niagara falls, to rest for a few hours

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

within sight of the mighty cataract, before crossing into the United States. The citizens of the Niagara peninsula, many of whom are direct descendants of United Empire Loyalist stock will welcome the opportunity of expressing their loyalty and devotion to their majesties on their visit to Canada.

In the present debate all hon. members are given ample opportunity to express their views on the subject matter contained in the speech from the throne. When the speech from the throne is presented it is considered to contain a reflection of the policies the government is advocating to meet the problems which confront the Canadian people. It is only fair that we should compare the speech from the throne with the pledges made to the electors before the election in October, 1935, and before this government took office.

After three years I had expected to find at least some explanation of the unfulfilled promises made to the citizens of Canada at that time. Naturally it is with no surprise that we hear increasing murmurings from every part of the dominion. Evasion and inaction are terms which are being applied to the lack of policy which has been so evident during the last three years. A great fear hangs over Canada. For some time past the world has been in a state of military eruption. The crust of civilization appears to be wearing thinner and thinner. With strange suddenness that crust has been broken in spots, only to emit violence and the destructive flames of war. To a certain extent those eruptions have been more or less of a minor nature compared with what may take place at any moment.

We cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that the streets of distant cities and towns are flowing again with human blood. To listen to the speeches delivered by the Prime Minister of England and Chancellor Hitler within the last few days makes one wonder just how quickly the eruption might come again. Fear has again seized a once trusting people. Economists declare war is the result of the natural demand for new markets, aggravated by the irresistible need for raw materials. Whatever frenzy has seized a few-and a few only-of the once so-called civilized nations of the world, it is generally conceded that a more vicious form of selfishness and greed is dominating the hearts and minds of a few of the nations who were professing culture and progress, but who have cast aside all semblance of decency in their lust for power and possession. Surely it is high time, in the name of right and justice, we openly joined our limited resources with those of greater influence.

In the speech from the throne we have the proposal to spend over sixty millions on national defence. With that policy I am in hearty accord. Only a few madmen have made necessary this most drastic action. Is it not, however, all too significant that hand in hand with the proposal to spend vast millions on defence we have laid before us the report of what is called the Davis commission, appointed to inquire into the first large armament expenditure that has been made. On the streets the general comment is that evasion was evident in the report. Some call it a whitewash; some interpret it as the direct result of political influence. One has only to keep his ears open and say nothing, and he will conclude that whatever else the Bren gun can do, it is certainly going to have a double-barrelled recoil on the minds of the people of Canada.

May I extend a word of congratulation to the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) upon the able way in which he presented his views to the house, following a study of the commission's report. We heard the rumblings of the past two years concerning the way in which defence moneys had been spent on the Pacific coast. How that echo has gained volume, with the last few millions of dollars spent for Bren guns! Thousands of dollars have been spent on a commission and now parliament is to decide whether or not we have dug a dead factory from an industrial grave. Now we have a scurrying for cover behind the promise that this will not happen again, because "we are now to set up a defence purchasing board." Mention the Bren gun inquiry on the street, in the train, in a hotel corridor or, perchance, in any place where men would congregate, and if a person were to take a straw vote on what he heard or the opinions expressed, I can only say that the old saying would still hold good, namely that you cannot fool all the people all the time. Is it to be wondered that we have fear at home and abroad? In the midst of it all we stop and realize that unemployment is again on the increase.

Oh, yes, I forgot we are to have some assistance given to the struggling taxpayers at this eleventh hour. Some help is to be given to the taxpayer who has been doing his best to relieve the burdens of some of his brother-men. But in thousands of instances it is too late. The red arrow indicating a tax sale, the red arrow indicating a foreclosure, was aimed two or three years ago at the home owner who had dreaded it for years. The earnings of half a lifetime or perhaps a whole lifetime are gone. Why was

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

not some help along this line given nearly four years ago? Someone who was most unkind has whispered, "Do you not know there is liable to be an election this year?" That information may be authentic, but 1 do not know.

I understand the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) has originated some scheme of financing our defence costs over a ten year period. This may help the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) out of some of his difficulties. Apparently we are not to get the full effect of the blow until a year or two from now. I noticed the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) has again introduced legislation to change our flag. I suggest that he defer any action this year in order that we may have an opportunity to realize what the union jack means to Canada and what it has meant down through the centuries. Perhaps if we pass safely through a few more crises, we can adopt a suitable ensign for ceremonial purposes. If 200,000 of the unemployed are again called to arms-and God forbid that they should be-I do not imagine they will mind standing shoulder to shoulder with British tommies under the union jack. The history of Canada is such that every right-thinking Canadian cannot help but realize that, after all, we are a part of the British empire.

Many people in this country are tired of camouflage. They have had enough evasion. They are wondering how long it will be before we come out and tell the world where we stand. We are being asked to vote $60,000,000 or $70,000,000 for defence. So far as I am concerned, if it were necessary I would say, make it $160,000,000 or $170,000,000. But I do urge this government to make haste in taking armaments out of the political pot. Let us not have half -measures; let us be honest with these young men who are unemployed. How we shall need their services if we are forced to spend perhaps $100,000,000 or more on defence!

I plead with this government to see that in the spending of the next $10,000,000 or $12,000,000 there is no need to smear Canadian defence records with another investigation. Perhaps some hon. members will rise in their place, and say that there was no need of an investigation. But the report is being read; it is now in the hands of the public. I suggest to all members of the government and to all others who do not think in terms of Canada and the empire that they tune in on what is on the air. This is one broadcast that cannot be controlled by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of the present government.

In this connection may I say that I am one who favours the reasonable regulation of broadcasting period. Wave-lengths must be controlled and distributed. The broadcasting of obscene programs must be made an indictable offence. There are many other matters that must and can be controlled as they are being controlled by other countries in the handling of radio broadcasting. Let us consider the system that has been built up in Canada, as it has been made evident in the last few weeks. This system has been financed largely by taking $2.50 from the pockets of each individual radio owner in this country. This is just another broadcast that will deal a death-blow to the government when the next election comes round. I say to the people of Canada that it will not be long now. If I am in this parliament when that time comes, I shall move to have this unfair tax taken from the statute books. All this has been described to me in a rather amusing way, which is perhaps worth repeating, as the broadcast from LPSO. When I asked for an interpretation of that station name, I was told it was the "Liberal party signing off," to return to the air, we hope, at some later date.

I desire to say just a word about unemployment. We have had this time-worn reference to unemployment in previous speeches from the throne. How we have played checkers with this problem during the last three years! Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on a commission-of course it must be by a commission-to have the underprivileged set up in new categories and classifications. I opposed the setting up of this commission, but I am quite frank to admit that I am less critical to-day. That commission did make a number of good recommendations with which I am mostly in agreement. But, I ask, how many of them have been acted upon in -the speech from the throne delivered in 1939? I expect that Mr. Purvis will have now concluded that such a report as followed the Bren gun inquiry would have served the same end as the one which he so ably submitted to this parliament.

The hon. -ministers of the government know or should know, and every hon. member of this house knows or should know, that unemployment is a burning problem in 1939 just as it was in 1936. This government said this before last election. Has it not been held up to our eyes in every speech from the throne since 1935? When no tangible solution has

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

been found I am surprised that such an extended reference to unemployment should be made in the speech from the throne this year.

Everyone knows that the farmer is harder pressed year by year. Everyone knows that the fruit and vegetable growers are sore beset by importations of fresh fruit and vegetables. Just read their protests made at their recent conventions, and I shall have more to say on that later on. I have had some resolutions sent to me already, and there are more to follow, which will be useful when we are discussing the trade agreements in this house.

Everyone knows that secondary industry is being driven to desperation to keep factories running even on part-time. Every hon. member of this house knows that. I have talked with many heads of industries in recent months, and they are making every effort to maintain the esprit de corps of their employees. Surely the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) does not imply that industry as a whole is not cooperating. I tried to follow his words, and I gathered that impression, but I hope I was wrong.

The greatest difficulty found by secondary industry to-day, when a slight increase of business, which they are striving after day by day, comes to them, is that immediately they call back some of their former employees, or perhaps call in new men to obtain temporary assistance to handle the new business they may have secured, they find that a great many of these men have been on relief and have lost the art of doing the job they used to do. Industrial leaders will tell you that, any day you wish to converse with them on the subject. That has been my experience with secondary industries, and I come from an industrial area, with a diversification of industries.

If the hon. Minister of Labour finds that industry is in some instances exploiting its workmen, surely he has the machinery to take care of that situation. But at once I hear the cry that provincial rights must not be encroached upon. I am getting a little weary of hearing that, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Commons; and how in the last three years this has grown and multiplied! There must be a reason for this. True, we experienced some of these difficulties in former years, but did we find the difficulties insurmountable? Whereas a former administration instituted old age pensions, we find the federal government now paying 75 per cent and the provincial government, 25 per cent. We had cooperation then, and by cooperation now we

extend that act, as suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green), to take in citizens who have reached sixty-five years of age. Would it not have been reasonable to expect in the speech from the throne that in the light of economic conditions to-day the government might have desired an expression on this point from parliament? We all know that men and women over sixty-five years of age are now completely out of the running when it comes to getting a job.

My conviction is that if the federal government would lead in the field of constructive social legislation, there would be no- more difficulty with the provinces than was experienced in extending the old age pensions scheme. It does appear to me that there must be something radically wrong in the approach that has been made by the federal government to the provincial governments, or we would not find the provinces resenting to the extent they do the attitude of the central government. The man on the street keeps asking why the happy family of 1935 can no longer agree. One premier came out openly for -one hundred per cent cooperation, and yet he to-day is the bitterest in his denunciation of -the policies that have been followed by the central government. There is an old saying, that water will find its own level. I suggest that there have been too many holes somewhere; that the water has formed into pools, and how stagnant some of those pools have become! Workers, farmers, and men of capital-everyone would willingly cooperate to solve the -crossword puzzle we have before us to-day, if only they were given a lead.

I shall not criticize the Minister of Labour for the effort he has made to train a small percentage of our youth, a small percentage of that immense number of young men and young women who are turned loose in Canada every year. There has been special training, youth training, as it is called, to supplement technical education. I was interested in a remark made by the Hon. Eric Cross the other day, that he wanted the federal government to list these men who are wandering the highways and byways. I shall not take trine to read his statement because hon. members have probably seen it, but I should like briefly to give a personal experience.

A young man came to my home just a few days before I left to attend this session. His clothing was in a terrible state, and he was almost barefoot, although it was a cold night. His plight enlisted my sympathy so I invited him in to have a talk, and this, briefly was his story. He was born and had

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

lived in the city of Guelph. His mother was dead; his father was on relief. He attended the technical school, and among the subjects he qualified in was welding. Leaving school with his diploma he got seven months work in one of the industries there. Then the industry told him that they had lost a great deal of business through competition, and they laid him off. He then went to Sarnia to seek a job, having been told that there was welding to be done there, but he could get no work to do, so he begged his meals and hitch-hiked back to Toronto, where one industry, which was almost shut down, told him they hoped to get some business and suggested that he come back in three weeks when they might have some welding work for him to do. Boats were being repaired at Port Dalhousie, involving considerable welding, so he thumbed his way to Port Dalhousie, and that is how he happened to come to my home, cold and hungry.

Parallel with that I received a letter just a few days ago from a young man whose family I am well acquainted with, and who is attending the central technical school in Toronto. He is specializing in welding there and expects to graduate this summer. He wrote asking me if I knew of any place to which he could direct his attention in order to get a job after he graduated. Am I to tell him the story of the young man from Guelph who tramped and hitch-hiked all over this country trying to get a job at welding? The whole difficulty is that secondary industry is throttled and cannot possibly provide jobs for these young men with special training. You do not have to leave Ottawa to find that out. I suppose quite a number of members of the house saw the article in the morning edition of the Journal of last Friday, from which I quote:

Homeless wanderers coming from the easternmost reaches of the dominion and the prairie provinces sleep with down-and-outers from Montreal and Toronto.

"We've never had a winter like it," declared the desk sergeant. Many of the men had been attracted to northern Ontario by reports of mining activity there, but found no work.

Heaviest night the police doss-house has had this winter was when twenty-nine received the privileges of the lock-up. On Sunday night last, coldest of the winter to date, nineteen were admitted.

Unemployment needs the earnest consideration of this house and this government.

May I say just a word about housing, which dovetails very closely into the unemployment situation. I would refer to the

words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). to be found at page 3898 of Hansard of 1938:

I know of no better means of expanding employment in Canada to-day than by stimulating building activity. The construction industry is the most important of our capital or durable goods industries. . . .

I believe that the minister knows the situation, and is fully conscious that to a large extent the unemployment problem can be solved if we can re-employ the tens of thousands who follow the construction industry. Not only is it true that labour of one kind and another constitutes approximately fifty per cent of the cost of construction, but when we follow through we find that in the production of materials which go to make up construction, labour comprises perhaps another thirty per cent. The minister outlined the situation very clearly, referring to

*-the magnitude of the dollar value of the products of the construction industry in normal times;

He went on to express in his own good language what that meant to the country, and remarked later on:

The increase of residential contracts . . .

was very largely attributable to the stimulus provided by the Dominion Housing Act and the home improvement plan.

With that I partly agree. The minister will recall that I asked him some questions in this house last year as to what extent he believed that the lending institutions would cooperate. I drew attention to the fact that in connection with the building of workingmen's homes, the need for which is so evident at this time, and was at that time, men could not and do not consider it practicable to erect small homes on uptown streets where the assessment commissioner takes his pound of flesh. In urban centres workingmen prefer, and rightly so, to build near the outskirts of their city or town, and they often choose acre or halfacre plots along highways or improved roads, perhaps just at the very border of the city or town limits. The urgent need is to construct workingmen's homes on lots such as those to which I refer; this is apparent to those interested in the building industry. At the present moment I have in mind about ten homes which could be erected this spring if someone could influence the lending institutions to give reasonable loans in such cases. I hear an hon. member say, " hear, hear." I should like to take a straw vote of the men in this house who know something about this problem. Last year the minister informed us that he had every assurance that the

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

lending institutions would cooperate in every way. I know the minister was sincere, but if he would like me to do so I would give him the address of a man whom I consider one of the most dependable contractors in the Niagara peninsula, who has applied four times for loans on workingmen's houses on splendidly located lots of the type I have described, and who cannot obtain even consideration. I have the complete information in this case, and will supply it if the Minister of Finance still thinks the lending institutions are giving one hundred per cent cooperation.

I agree with the statement made by the minister that the legislation which was introduced has helped. I think I can prove to him that the high taxation on uptown lots in urban centres has prevented the erection of new homes and retarded house construction in this country. I leave it to hon. members whether in some of the small but thriving villages one can obtain to-day a decent loan to build a workingman's home worth around $3,000. It just cannot be done, and I know something about this because I have followed this work for some considerable time. When these same workmen conceive the idea of going out a short distance and buying a plot of ground such as I have described, and there is no possible chance to help them, what happens? They go into the urban centres and rent two or three rooms. With their limited incomes that is all they can possibly afford to live in. The children play on the street. The country is spending millions to stamp out tuberculosis, and the automobile accident goes on taking its toll, in spite of all the safety propaganda that we can enunciate in our schools or through other agencies.

I turn to a consideration of the urgent need in the larger cities across Canada. Surely the Minister of Labour must realize that it is in the larger places such as Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, that the unemployed are found in the largest numbers. We all know that they drift to these centres. This has resulted in the development of what are termed slum areas.

Unemployment became general all over the world at about the same time. The United States did not have this problem before we did. Have we done one thing more than just study the problem? Did England wait to deal with it? Did the United States move in regard to slum clearance? Go to many of the larger centres in the United States and what do you find? The federal authorities have taken action. Nearly a year ago I wrote the Department of Labour here at Ottawa, thinking I was right in so doing, to draw their

attention to what I found was in operation ir some centres in the United States. I received a reply that the matter was still being studied or words to that effect. Can anyone dispute that unemployment would be relieved if we had some leadership at Ottawa? In the United States thousands of poor unfortunate individuals are being, and have been, housed for the last year or two, in clean, comfortable quarters at low cost; and I repeat that along with that provision they are stamping out tuberculosis and the death toll from automobile accidents at which we shudder so often when we pick up the morning paper. Proper playground areas are provided. I have not been able to discover in the speech from the throne anything which even suggests action of this kind. Yet we know that to-day in large centres like Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver and Hamilton-I know of a situation in Hamilton that could be cleaned up- nothing is advanced to meet their needs. But I see in the paper where $300,000 has been spent on an armoury in Hull.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that he has spoken for forty minutes.

Mr. LOCKHART:

May I have just a

minute or two to finish?

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

With the unanimous consent of the house.

Go on.

Mr. LOCKHART:

I say that $300,000 has been expended on the armoury in Hull, which someone has described as a glorified club room. I was not there, but I have been talking to men who were present at the opening on Saturday last. Well, I suppose there will be no relief in Hull now, but I suggest that it would have been a great deal better to build one thousand working men's homes in Canada at $3,000 each than to put all the eggs in one basket. It creates an overhead when you erect buildings of that kind.

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

What

about the armouries in Calgary?

Mr. LOCKHART:

There are some armoury buildings on the way, I understand.

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

What

about the old British flag-waving?

Mr. LOCKHART:

That is all right; some of my hon. friends may be waving it yet.

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

We shall be glad to wave it.

The Address-Mr. Lockhart

Mr. LOCKHART:

The hon. member for

Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald) would be wise if he did wave the flag because he comes from a very patriotic city.

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

I say we shall be glad to wave it.

Mr. LOCKHART:

I suggest to the Minister of Finance that he think this matter over seriously when he confers with the other ministers in the preparation of the estimates, because the erection of these buildings does create an overhead which the people will have to pay for in perpetuity. We shall have more to say about these matters when we get the list of public works which is still in the background. Cannot the Minister of Finance persuade the Minister of Labour to stop studying the question and get together with him with a view to finding some means of building, or of assisting in building, five or ten thousand workingmen's homes across Canada in connection with which there would be no overhead and which would produce far more peace and prosperity than buildings such as I have been discussing, and which, we know, are being considered in many places.

I had wanted to make one or two special references but I shall bring my remarks to a close. I wish, however, to refer briefly to what the Hon. Mr. Cross has said. He expects that by the end of the month unemployment will increase from approximately 250,000 to

283,000. This is a clear indication that something definite must be done. I wish to read from an article along this line which has appeared since we have had the proposed legislation to assist the municipalities. One editor, writing about it, says:

That will help a great deal in securing a lower tax rate for this city. A reduction of at least two mills is already planned; it is possible that it can be made better than that. The only fly in the ointment is that while the city's share of the total may be less, the total itself may be much greater because of the increased unemployment demands.

I will have more to say later with regard to the question of a balanced budget and touching some of the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler).

We have now entered upon the fourth session of this parliament under this administration, and if I interpret aright the minds of the Canadian people, we shall before long hear the gong sounded and the curtain rung down on one of the greatest four-act dramas depicting inertia and incompetence which we have seen in this country since confederation.

Mr. J. L. DOUGLAS (Queens):

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks, which will be brief, I wish to congratulate the mover, the newly elected member for Brandon (Mr. Matthews), and the seconder, the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Chevrier), upon their addresses in reply to the speech from the throne. It was a matter of personal pride to me to listen to my good friend the mover, who is a native of my own province, whom I have known for many years, and who has many warm friends in the city of Charlottetown and throughout Prince Edward Island. Last summer I had the pleasure of spending part of a day with the hon. member for Stormont when he visited our province, and I wish to congratulate him also. We are always glad to have members and others from other parts of Canada visit us, and we have always much pleasure in showing them our beautiful island.

I wish also to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), who has been chosen leader of the National Conservative party. I had the pleasure of meeting and listening to him when he made an afterdinner speech at a banquet in Ottawa in 1934 at a produce dealers' convention which I attended. With his experience as a doctor, a soldier and a parliamentarian, I am hoping that he will be able to make a further contribution to Canada.

May I also congratulate the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. McLarty) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. MacKinnon) upon their appointments as members of the cabinet. I am sure they will do their part in the interests of our Canadian people.

It is a p'easure to see my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), back in this house, much improved in health. All our people were pleased when they heard that he had selected the north shore of the province of Prince Edward Island to seek rest and health, where one can enjoy the sea breeze from the salt water, and also where one can lie in the hot sand and enjoy the glow of the sun to one's heart's content; and I well believe the minister will agree with me that he owes much to those few weeks which he spent on the island and which helped materially in his rapid recovery. I wish to say, to any other hon. members who are tired and weary, and who wish a quiet peaceful vacation, that there is no other place in this wide dominion to equal Prince Edward Island. I have travelled across Canada twice, and lived three years at the Pacific coast where there are many of our own island people, all of whom some day hope to return

The Address-Mr. Douglas (Queens)

to the land of their birth. This reminds me of a story we are told about a certain man who visited heaven where he was shown round the different mansions-as the good book says, there are many. Pointing to a group of men and women who seemed anxious and discontented, and who were separated from the others by great doors, the guard said, "Those are from Prince Edward Island, and if we don't keep them shut up they will go back home."

Just a word about the new trade treaty. The potato growers of Prince Edward Island will, I believe, fully appreciate the great benefit to be derived from the Canada-United States trade agreement, which came into effect this year. The trade treaties of 1935 and 1938 taken together mean a reduction in duty of 224 cents a bushel on 1,500,000 bushels of seed potatoes, and 1,000,000 bushels of table stock potatoes, and a reduction of 61 cents a bushel on all turnips shipped from Canada to the United States. On the potatoes this amounts to a saving in duty of $562,500. On turnips the duty annually saved depends on the quantity shipped, but a modest estimate would be about 2,500,000 bushels. The saving on this quantity would be $156,250, or a total on potatoes and turnips of $718,750. From these figures Prince Edward Island stands to profit to the extent of 80 per cent of the seed shipped and 50 per cent of the table stock and the turnips, or about $475,000. This benefit is realised through a better market outlet for our potatoes and turnips. As hon. members know, Prince Edward Island is about 85 per cent agricultural, and since our potatoes and turnips are a cash crop they make funds available in the months of October and November when the farmers have bills to pay.

We should appreciate it if the West Indies trade treaty, which I believe is to be considered again this year, could be arranged so as to provide for potatoes an outlet to Cuba such as we enjoyed in the years before 1930. That market was a great boon to the maritime provinces. I well remember that Prince Edward Island in 1926 exported over 2,000,000 bushels of potatoes to that market alone. Hon. members will realise what this would mean to the railways, shipping companies and longshoremen, to say nothing of the benefit to the farmers.

I would mention also the benefit derived from the reduction in the duty on fish, cattle, lumber and fox pelts, the latter of which are raised in large quantities in our province. I attended a fox pelt show last month, and at the banquet the chairman asked me to thank

the Minister of Finance for his action in sending Mr. Forbes to England to help this industry. What we need is trade and more trade. I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in what he has said on many occasions, that we are willing to trade with any country which is willing to trade with us on a fair basis.

In December last a heavy storm swept the north shore of Prince Edward Island, doing much damage to wharves and breakwaters, and also carrying away or destroying a large quantity of the fishermen's property. I believe that the government has agreed to reimburse the fishermen for this loss, which action they will appreciate, as they did the assistance given through the fishermen's loan board last year. This government has dealt generously with our province in the way of public works and relief projects. An up-to-date airport was undertaken last fall, thanks to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), in cooperation with the provincial government and the city, and I am in hopes that it will be completed this year. Our new national park and Wood island ferry, when completed, will be an added attraction to the tourist trade. In the 1938 season 21,615 cars were ferried to and from the mainland, compared with 18,935 in 1937, or an increase of 2,680. This shows that the tourist trade is improving from year to year.

Our province, together with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, has given many of our best men to other parts of Canada, especially to the great west, and not the least among these is our friend the hon. member for Brandon. I was pleased the other day to hear the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) remind the house that Canada does not begin at Montreal, and while I may not agree with him on all matters I was glad to hear that, because I believe that no educational tour in Canada is complete without a visit to the maritime provinces.

Our people are looking forward to the visit of Their Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth this summer. Nowhere in Canada will their majesties receive a -more loyal welcome than in Prince Edward Island and especially in the city of Charlottetown, the cradle of confederation.

Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):

I noticed the other day that one of the most highly respected members of this house made mention of the fact that he was tired of the continuous praise being given to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. While I have some degree

The Address-Mr. Glen

of sympathy with that remark, yet I must take the opportunity of saying a few words of commendation of both the mover and the seconder. I was one of those who assisted in bringing about the return to this house of a Liberal from Brandon. During the course of that campaign I had many opportunities of knowing the kind of man the hon. member for Brandon is, and I know that he fulfilled well a difficult task. I know that the constituency of Brandon expects much of him, and I am sure they will not be disappointed by the manner in which he moved the address. As for the seconder of the address, I confess that my feeling towards him is one of envy. When I heard the faultless English of part of his speech, and was told afterwards by those competent to judge that his French was equally faultless, I could not help regretting that out of a somewhat busy life I had not taken time to acquire at least a working knowledge of French. I must add that the ideas so beautifully expressed in both languages by the hon. member agree with my own, and I predict for him a larger field of activity in the public life of Canada at no distant date.

The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), in the course of his three hour speech, jumped into the fray like the debonair Irishman that he is. He saw an opportunity to join in a free-for-all fight, and he advanced his foot, twisted his shillelah and was proposing to crack any crown that appeared on the opposing side. Unfortunately for him he invited a duel with a brawny highlandman in the person of the leader of the government. It was daring in the extreme, for this opponent is a man in the very zenith of his powers, a veteran of many wars, yet unscarred, formidable in peace and much more so in war; so that the result of that contest was no surprise, more especially when we remember that his opponent came back to this house at the opening of this session with his following intact, and in fact larger than after the big battle of 1935 fought on Protectionist Mountain. There were sad hearts that night on parliament hill when the leader of the Tories was routed, all his armaments exposed and found wanting, having to retire to his tent with his head bowed and bloody, while his opponent received one of the most spontaneous demonstrations of loyalty and affection from his supporters.

What was the theme which the leader of the opposition set before his followers and which they have religiously followed ever since? Even to-night the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lockhart) followed the same theme, which was that there is disunity in the Liberal

party. I can understand the glee .of political opponents who see dissension in the ranks of their opponents, to foster which dissension is only political strategy. Dissension may weaken-but I cannot understand why anyone should assume, so far as this house is concerned, that there is any dissension in the Liberal ranks here. Surely the country and the House of Commons know of a certainty that there is no disaffection here any more than there always will be in the Liberal party. It contains, as it always has, men who are somewhat rebellious in nature, men who are hasty and impatient. But I think everyone will agree that the Liberal party is broad enough and wide enough to carry all the rebels. Despite these differences, I think I can say with a great deal of confidence that the supporters of the government are convinced that only in Liberalism, in the broad sense of that word, can that measure of peace and prosperity be obtained which we all so ardently desire.

I recall that in the Brandon by-election, the first election held in Manitoba since 1935, the then Liberal candidate, the present Liberal member, and I with him, on many platforms from which I spoke on his behalf, dealt extensively and exclusively with the record of this government. We rested our arguments upon its achievements. We did not deal with the Canada-United States agreement or the Canada-United Kingdom agreement, which were then about to be completed, although we might well have done so, in the certain knowledge that any agreement with other countries which would take away some or any of the barriers of trade would be bound to have beneficial effects, so far as the economic life of Manitoba is concerned.

The leader of the opposition was in Brandon, and, if I may say so without offence, his speech there was very helpful to us. He did not attack the government on its trade policy. I do not think he would have dared to do so, if he expected to win the seat. What the result was, the country knows. I will say, with due appreciation of all that took place in the contest, that the voice of Manitoba was heard in the constituency of Brandon, and that Manitoba has full and entire confidence in the government now in office. They confidently rely upon it to follow the policies it has pursued since 1935.

That election was won without the aid of that $50,000 which the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) would spend to win the seat. I should like to think that the hon. member's remark was made in the heat of an election, when statements are made in moments of excitement, and regretted as soon

The Address-Mr. Glen

as made. But I have been told that during the campaign the statement w.as repeated, and for that reason I am bound to think the hon. member must.have believed what he said.

Mr. COLD WELL:

I did.

Mr. GLEN:

All his remark did was to

evoke the keenest resentment throughout the whole constituency, and I can tell the hon. member now it would have been better left unsaid. I do not believe there is a constituency in the whole of Canada with a higher sense of public morality than the constituency of Brandon. And to link the name of the Minister of Agriculture with that canard, or one such as that, was a procedure viewed by the Brandon constituents as a gratuitous insult. I have not lost my respect for the hon. member; I know he can make a good argument, but I do suggest he might have made one better than the one I have just indicated.

To come to a wider field; it is evident that the whole stock-in-trade of the Tories in an early election will be, not the platform they recently formed and to which they seldom refer, but the need of leadership in public affairs. Most of this cry-not all-comes largely from what is now generally called the eastern interests, and in particular that organ known as the Financial Post has become its most notorious exponent. Would I be wrong if I were to call that paper a Tory organ? I have been reading the issue of January 28, and if it is not a Tory paper-well, I do not know what a Tory is.

In that paper they headline this cry for leadership, and they refer with considerable unction to statements of prominent gentlemen. First they instance the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), and his speech which was delivered in the house on Thursday, January 19. Of course the hon. member was singled out because he paid the paper the compliment of quoting from one of its editorials. Then the president of the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company speaks his piece, to be followed by the president of the North American Life Assurance Company. Then the editor of the Globe and Mail is quoted with approval and, to keep the pot boiling, Mr. Howard Ferguson, speaking as president of the Crown Life Insurance Company, dots the I's and crosses the T's of those other gentlemen. Last of all, Mr. Charles S. Macdonald of the Confederation Life Association is mentioned. Hon. members will notice that almost wholly it is the insurance companies which are represented in the article. May I observe that this is an outstanding example of that form of selfish 71492-33

thought which makes large companies anathema to the general public. No greater disservice to the life insurance business could have been given than by giving prominence to the statements of these gentlemen.

If any unit of business in Canada should be grateful to the government, surely it must be the life insurance business. In season and out of season this government has steadfastly refused and set its face against any process of inflation. Every hon. member knows that had a process of inflation come about in Canada, the first casualty would have been the life insurance companies, with all that that would mean to the vast body of men and women who have invested in life insurance.

It is plainly evident that Mr. McCullagh is one of those who has the solution right to hand. The Financial Post quotes Mr. McCullagh in its issue of January 28, and I shall place the quotation on Hansard:

We do not need great brilliancy in the administration of public affairs. We require rugged honesty, clear purpose, tireless energy and unswerving loyalty to principles which we, citizens of average intelligence, can appraise fairly.

If we want to see the government we have we have only to look into any mirror, for government is a reflection of ourselves. If we awaken and lead, our politicians must follow and we shall have honesty instead of expediency, action rather than procrastination.

What does that mean? To my mind, if it means anything it means that this body of men and women in this house, representing all sections of Canada, are lacking in those qualities of "rugged honesty, clear purpose, tireless energy and unswerving loyalty to the principles which we as citizens of average intelligence can appraise fairly." One can speak with any degree of certainty only from one's own observations. My observations lead me to believe that in this parliament are to be found men and women who have just those qualities of mind and heart which Mr. McCullagh refers to in his statement. I would say that in many instances their intelligence will rate just as high as the intelligence of the editor of the Globe and Mail. I think that gentleman should cultivate a sense of humour. He treats himself altogether too seriously. I only hope that none of us here will lose our perspective because of what has been said by this juvenile mind.

To be fair to these gentlemen, I assume that when they were making these statements they were referring to the differences that have occurred in provincial and dominion fields. I say, however, to them: Have you forgotten that a commission has been appointed for the

The Address-Mr. Glen

purpose of finding out the facts upon which legislation can be based? Do they not know that the Rowell commission was appointed for that very purpose? I assume that the leading life insurance companies submitted briefs to that commission. I do hope that in those briefs their views were from the Canadian standpoint, and not wholly from what I would call the eastern standpoint. I hope that they took cognizance of the problems of the citizens of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, I hope that they noted the conditions that obtain in Ontario and Quebec.

I hope that in their leisure moments they gave passing thought to those of us who live on the prairies, and that they went on to consider British Columbia and the Yukon.

Just as an illustration of the difference of thought, I ask the house to take note of the viewpoint of men who come from the prairies. I attended the marketing conference called in Manitoba last month by Premier Bracken. While there I had the pleasure of listening to the Hon. Mr. Taggart, Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan. In making his address Mr. Taggart stressed most emphatically that any scheme for dealing with our problem by way of a reduction of grain acreage, any suggestion to go more largely into dairy production, must be taken only after due regard had been given to the eastern dairy producer. He contended that any scheme which was formulated must recognize the fact that no industry in one section of the country should be encouraged to the detriment of the same industry in another section. That was the spirit of the west as it was acclaimed at that meeting. That is altogether different from the spirit manifested in the statements made by these men prominent in the insurance world. I suggest that this should be the attitude of those gentlemen and others similarly minded.

That brings me to this: Do they actually believe that this government is composed .of fools; that it would legislate without knowing the facts? Por what purpose other than the finding of facts was the Rowell commission apopinted? Nothing that this government has done will have a greater effect upon the economic, and, if you like, upon the political life of this dominion than the report of that commission. Instead of seeking political advantage for their party, it should behoove them to exercise a little patience and restraint.