Mr. TUCKER:

I have not taken up any of the time of the committee discussing this agreement and I should like now to make this remark. We know that proportionately to value there is more labour going into the production of primary products in these days of machinery than there is going into highly finished products turned out in the factories. Do my hon. friends object to more labour being employed in the primary industries of the country? That seems to be their attitude. They argue that because we are producing material for the United States market, in connection with our primary industries, Canadians are being made hewers of wood and drawers of water. I say that if this agreement will enable thousands upon thousands of people in Canada to make their living in the primary industries, which they would not do before, it matters not whether you call them hewers of wood or drawers of water. If it means more employment for Canadians let us hew more wood and ship it to the United States.

Mr. TUCKER:

The members of the Conservative party take one position one minute and another position the next. They complained bitterly that we were not getting a low enough tariff on goods we shipped into the United States, and now the hon. gentleman who has been speaking for the Conservatives-

Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the house very long, but I want to bring to the attention of hon. members the situation in which we find ourselves as representing this dominion. Every hon. member who has spoken to-day has endorsed the principle of this resolution. They agree that those who have been unfortunate enough to lose their sight are deserving of some assistance from their more fortunate fellow Canadians. It is admitted that something should be done at once, but nearly every hon. member who has spoken has brought up the question of where the money is to come from. As I listened to the

speeches of hon. members I was reminded of David Copperfield. In that book mention is made of a person who was trying to write a history but who could not get around King Charles' head. It kept coming up and coming up. This problem of where to find the money keeps coming up in connection with every proposal made in the house. It is agreed that it is desirable to do something, but the contention is that we have not the money. We all know that if we were faced with war the necessary credit would be forthcoming. Great Britain considers that she is faced with the danger of war and she is able to make an immediate appropriation of $1,500,000,000. We know that if Canada were in the same danger we would have no difficulty in finding the necessary credit to carry on any defence plans deemed necessary.

The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ryan) who has just spoken has indicated that this resolution has been used by some hon. members as an excuse to make an attack upon the bankers.

I think the hon. gentleman has misconstrued the attitude of that increasing number of men who count themselves as monetary reformers. They do not attack the bankers as individuals; they attack the system which has grown up during the last fifty years. They do not suggest that the bankers are any less devoted than is anyone else to the best interests of society, but they do say that the financial system is not working in the best interests of the people. I would point out that some of the greatest economists in the world to-day have come to the definite conclusion that in the twentieth century we are trying to do business under a financial system that, while it may have done fair service in the nineteenth century, is just as much out of date to-day as is the ox-cart when compared with the motor car. I hear member after member say that the financial system is too complicated for parliament to deal with, but I suggested that if they really want something done along the lines which have been just suggested, they should devote their study to the financial system and the banking policy.

It is a well recognized fact that the country is continually going deeper into debt. If we could not afford to do a certain thing last year, there is not much hope of our being able to afford to do it this year and there is less hope of our being able to afford it in the future. We are willing to speak soft words on behalf of and offer sympathy to the blind, but we have not the money to do anything for them. This reminds me of a certain saying in the bible: They asked for bread and he gave them a stone. It reminds me of the

Pensions jor the Blind

parable of the loaves and fishes at the time when the multitude were to be fed. The question was asked where the money was to come from, but the multitude were fed with bread and fish without money coming into the question. We as a deliberative assembly must devote ourselves to finding ways and means of doing what is physically possible, Tegardless of whether the financial system as at present constituted stands in the way. If we do not do this we are not doing our duty to the people of Canada.

What these blind people need is food, clothing and some of the other good things of life. If the financial system does not permit us to do those things which we as a Christian people realize we should do, which we know we have the ability to do, then it should be changed. If we refuse to study this problem can we say that we are as serious as we should be in our desire to do something for these people? That is the question I put to the house. This is the test that faces this House of Commons. Do we really mean these things? Do we want to have them done? If so, let us begin to study some of the ways suggested by the greatest economists not only of the English-speaking nations but of the world. Let us begin to give serious and sympathetic consideration to those suggested ways and means whereby in this twentieth century we may go forward and place at the disposal of these blind people the things that it is physically possible to put at their disposal. The things that are physically possible should be financially possible, and if under our present system they are not financially possible, although physically possible, then we are subordinating the best interests of the people to adherence to a system; we are refusing, by our adherence to an outworn system which no longer serves humanity to the best possible advantage, to benefit by the abundance which providence has given us. I am not now advocating any particular change in the system, but I know that every hon. member present would like to do something for the blind as well as for others who are unable to look after themselves. As the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) has said, fifty-four per cent of what we raise in taxation is going towards paying interest on our debt. That is where the money is going and it is in that quarter that we should direct the searching gaze of parliament to find out whether we cannot there save money and thereby serve the best interests of the Canadian people.

Mr. TUCKER :

If we are going to deprive the farmer of practically all his money, if it takes all his earnings to pay interest, he can ill afford to pay a higher price for his farm implements. I thought the Minister of Finance would like to be reminded of those days when he pioneered in Saskatchewan, but as he does not want the time of the house taken up with these references I shall come back to the resolution.

The people .of Canada elected those whom they thought were the men likely to represent them best in this House of Commons. They hope tihat their representatives will do the best they can to figure out and solve their problems. During the next year they expect that something definite will be done to lighten their burdens and enable them once more to live the life which we expect ordinary Canadian citizens to live. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) has referred to the fact that these farm implement companies are raising their prices in the face of a reduction in the tariff. The right answer to that kind of action is: If you are in a position to raise your prices despite a lowered tariff, then we will take the tariff off altogether. It has been suspected that an international combine or cartel exists in connection with the marketing of oil and gasoline and perhaps one exists in connection with the manufacturing of farm implements. If it is found that the large manufacturers of the world are getting together to control prices regardless of tariffs, then I submit that the Liberal party has a policy well designed to deal with such a problem. A part of this policy is contained in the Combines Investigation Act.

Present conditions constitute a challenge to the intelligence and wisdom of parliament.

Over half our people have lost two-thirds of their purchasing power while the price of the articles they require has been rising. This is not my problem alone; it is the problem of every member of parliament. I commend most highly the hon. member who introduced this resolution (Mr. Johnston, Lake Centre). This problem should be submitted to some group of men who will examine into it and try to do something for the basic producers on the western plains who are endeavouring to do ail they can to get along under present conditions. I feel sure that hon. members from eastern Canada will give us their cooperation. They know that unless the great primary industries, such as the farming industry of Canada, are prosperous, the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec will be in a depression and faced with unemployment. No matter whether a member represents an agricultural constituency in western Canada or a manufacturing constituency in Ontario, it is equally his duty and his privilege to study this problem so that half the population of Canada may be brought back from practically a poverty stricken level to that upon which we want Canadians to be. Once the farmers of western Canada are able to buy the articles they need the manufacturing centres of the east will be prosperous and the spectre of unemployment will no longer stalk through our land.

Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):

Mr. Speaker, we know the condition in which agriculture finds itself in western Canada to-day after many years not only of drought but of low prices. Now we are met with a rise in the cost of farm implements, and I feel that I would not be doing my duty to those who sent me here if I did not say a few words in support of this resolution.

Farm Implements-Mr. Tucker

The situation may be put very briefly. We find that in 1928 the income of the farming industry of Canada was $1,501,000,000, or, roughly, one and a half billion dollars. Six years later, in 1934, that income had shrunk to $525,000,000, a reduction of about two-thirds or sixty-six per cent. That is the situation as to the money the farmers were getting for their products. What about the commodities they had to buy. Taking the index figure of one hundred as representing the retail price of articles they had to buy in 1926 we find that in 1929 there had been practically no change, and that the index figure remained at 99-9. By 1934 it had gone down only to 79. In other words, in those five years there had been a reduction in the index figure of retail prices amounting to roughly twenty per cent. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, that during that time, where the farmer had formerly received three dollars of income, he was now getting only one, but in the retail price of articles he had to purchase he had to pay eighty where he formerly paid one hundred.

We find that instead of decreasing, the burden of taxation has increased. Not only has the burden of his private debt not remained the same, but owing to the fall in the value of what he has to sell that burden has increased greatly. Under conditions where he received only one dollar where formerly he received three dollars, the burden of a debt of $100 became three times as heavy. In other words, the burden of debt on the farmers of Canada in those six years has increased by three hundred per cent. That is the situation. There has been an increase in the burden of taxation, a very small reduction in the index prices of their retail purchases, and an increase in the burden of their private indebtedness. That is the situation in a nutshell. Is it any wonder that as one watches the situation, especially, in agricultural western Canada, one sees that slowly but surely those good people are gradually being forced down, down, down to the level of a peasant population? It is the duty of every hon. member-and I do not say this for the purpose of setting the east against the west-to ask himself if he intends to be a party to a slow change that is going to reduce his fellow Canadians to the level of peasants, and a lowly class of peasants at that, when we understand that they have to live in such a state that they cannot educate their children, cannot provide them with proper medical attention and cannot do for their children

any of those things which every hon. member would want his fellow Canadians to be able to do.

Since I have come to this House of Commons, statements which have surprised me have been made by hon. members from Ontario. The suggestion is made that Ontario and Quebec are paying the bulk of the taxes. Why is it that Ontario and Quebec are paying the bulk of the taxes in Canada? Is not this the answer: They have the money.