Mr. WALSH:

Can the hon. gentleman

suggest when that report may be anticipated?

Mr. GLEN:

That question should not be addressed to me. I should like to have it now and I hope we have it soon. Whither

are these gentlemen headed? Mr. McCullagh is now lecturing us over the radio? I realize it is dangerous to prophesy with regard to anyone, and it is particularly dangerous to prophesy about him. If his addresses mean anything, he is about to suggest a business government or, as he would call it, a union government in which he and his confreres would take a leading part. We had experience with a Union government in this country, and they had experience with a Business government in Britain. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that the experience of both these countries was not any too good. I suppose if these gentlemen had the power they would settle our railroad problem as Mr. McCullagh seems to desire, by amalgamating both railways into one system. I want to say that the continued expression of such views on government as have been expressed in the Financial Post do not tend to allay the fears of western Canada. They tend to create panic and dismay.

I would direct the attention of these Canadians to the viewpoint of others who are in opposition. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) was evidently instructed to lay down the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation when he spoke on January 24, as reported on pages 275 and following of Hansard. The president of the Confederation Life spoke of the burden of taxation on private industry and referred to how it discouraged private industry. What does he think of the program of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation? The hon. member for Weyburn had submitted the proposals advocated by that group. Out of curiosity I began to wonder what it would cost to put all these into operation. Perhaps at some later date the hon. member will amplify his remarks and give an estimate of the cost. I submit that the question of cost must enter into the consideration of these proposals. One of the proposals suggested by the hon. member, as reported on page 275 of Hansard, was:

1. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have asked for fixed guaranteed prices to the primary producers under a properly planned marketing system.

I suppose when the hon. member refers to the primary producers he includes the farmers, the fishermen, the miners and the lumbermen. The hon. gentleman does not state whether prices are to be fixed for the products of all these industries, or whether the fixed price is to apply only to the farmer. He does not state at what level the prices are to be fixed or the extent to which the

The Address-Mr. Glen

government will be called upon to pay subsidies to the various groups. The gross value of agricultural production in Canada for 1937, the latest year for which the dominion bureau of statistics has published figures, is

SI,051,698,000. If the government had subsidized our farmers to the extent that they received ten per cent more gross return on their farm production, it would have cost about $100,000,000 in 1937.

Then the hon. member states his second suggestion:

2. Members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation consistently advocated a crop insurance scheme which would enable farmers to manage in those years in which, through no fault of their own, they are deprived of a crop.

Insurance on a purely actuarial basis would mean that the farmers themselves would contribute the premiums necessary to provide for benefits during years of crop failure. Merely to provide the administrative machinery for such a scheme would not cost much, but the hon. member does not state whether it is contemplated that the government should make any contribution to the insurance fund out of which benefits would be paid, and consequently no estimate can be given of the cost.

Next he gives this suggestion:

3. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group have advocated consistently a work and wages program which would utilize the unemployed in the city and farmers of the drought stricken areas.

That proposal surely needs amplification. It might be noted that in their annual review of the unemployment situation the dominion bureau of statistics bulletin shows that the average number of wage-earners unemployed in the first eleven months of 1938 was 401,000. Merely as an indication of the size of the problem, it might be noted that to supply

401,000 workers with incomes of $1,000 each a year would cost $401,000,000. His next suggestion is:

4. Members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have advocated the lowering of the age for old age pensions and increasing the amount of the pension.

The hon. member mentioned in his speech the age of sixty-five. It is estimated that the additional cost to the dominion for the fiscal year 1939-40 through lowering the pensionable age to sixty-five would be between $18,000,000 and $19,000,000. The next proposal is:

5. Members of this group have consistently advocated an unemployment insurance scheme.

What does that mean?

Mr. HEAPS:

So has the government.

71492-33J

Mr. GLEN:

Just a minute. What does

that mean? Does the hon. member suggest insurance on an actuarial basis, with workers and employers together contributing the full amount of the premiums necessary so that it would cost the government nothing other than administrative expenses? Generally such schemes contemplate some government contribution, but in the absence of any specific suggestions with respect to government contributions to such a scheme, any estimate of cost is impossible. For the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), I may say that I am giving some indication of the cost of these various schemes.

Proposals Nos. 6 and 7 speak of federal grants to education and national scholarships, and the cooperative handling of farm machinery. I do not know what the hon. member means by that; he has not explained it.

Then in No. 8 he speaks of a comprehensive scheme of slum clearance, as advocated by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil); and in No. 9, of an extension of the principle of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. Then No. 10 states:

10. Members of this group have suggested that such a program could be financed without increasing the burden of taxation which now rests too heavily upon the people least able to bear it, not by an eight per cent sales tax to which we are violently opposed, but by (a) an increased income tax in the higher brackets; (b) a surplus profits tax, and (c) by deriving revenues from some of the great monopolies such as the tobacco industry, the meat packing industry, and the gasoline industry.

It is interesting to note that the total amount of income tax collected from individuals and corporations in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1938, was about $120,000,000. Even doubling income tax rates all across the board would not have produced more than $120,000,000 for these proposals, which is a small amount as compared with the proposed additional cost.

Mr. COLD WELL:

May I ask what the

hon. member proposes to do about these problems?

Mr. GLEN:

I stated at the beginning

that I was dealing with the proposals and the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and I am asking for their explanation of their own platform. I am not sure they can give it, but I shall be very glad to hear it if they would.

Mr. COLDWELL:

I think the hon.

gentleman has heard the explanation of these proposals in the house from time to time.

Mr. WALSH:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

The Address-Mr. Glen

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order. The

hon. member may ask a question only with the permission of the hon. gentleman who has the floor.

Mr. GLEN:

What is the question?

Mr. WALSH:

I would ask the hon. member if he subscribes to any one or to all of the suggestions he has just read.

Mr. GLEN:

My viewpoint is very well

known, but I am dealing now with the platform of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and asking the members of that party to explain their program as they have laid it down.

The total cost of these proposals cannot be computed, of course, because a great many of them would be estimates only; but I think I am within the mark in saying that at least $500,000,000 more would have to be ingathered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in order to meet these proposals; and if the revenue of to-day is not great enough to carry the country's expenditures, what possible hope is there that these things can be carried out by the government of the day?

Mr. POOLE:

Could these proposals not

be financed by the method suggested by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in Vancouver, by the issuance of $500,000,000 in currency?

Mr. EULER:

You could not do that every year, could you?

Mr. GLEN:

Unless the hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) obtains the fountain pen of Mr. Aberhart in order to create the money, I do not know where it is to come from.

Mr. COLD WELL:

The pen of the Minister of National Defence, or the Prime Minister's.

Mr. GLEN:

I find one very serious omission, Mr. Speaker, in this program of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I do not find in it anything with regard to the socialization of land. I know that is rather a delicate question so far as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are concerned, but with such high minds and pure motives they will surely let the country know, as it is entitled to know, definitely and concretely, where the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation do stand on the question of the socialization of land.

Mr. COLDWELL:

If the hon. gentleman wants an answer, I shall give it to him. We do not believe in the socialization of land because it is not a monopoly.

Mr. BOTHWELL:

When did you strike it out of your platform?

Mr. COLDWELL:

It never was in.