Mr. DOUGLAS:

Does the minister think it will be sufficient adequately to take care of the applications for testing that are likely to be made on the basis of last year's figures?

Mr. DOUGLAS:

I draw the attention of hon. gentlemen, and particularly the very courteous gentleman across the floor who keeps making noises that are not quite audible or quite intelligible, to thei fact that the people of Canada are looking to this house to do something to implement the promises made during the campaign. I suggest that the time has come for action. We have a tremendous opportunity and a preponderant responsibility. The people of Canada look to us; the people of Canada trust in us; the people of Canada are counting on us; in heaven's name let us not fail them.

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):

Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last evening I was pointing out that the speech from the throne had entirely overlooked certain elements in our population, not the least of which were those now facing dire poverty and distress on the western prairies. I was on the point of observing that in the district immediately surrounding the city of Weybum alone we distributed last winter over two hundred babies' layettes where children h^d been born into the world to families without fitting garments in which to clothe them. It was not an unusual thing to find new bom children clad in garments made from washed-out flour sacks. I draw these facts to the attention of the house because I believe those people have been totally overlooked in the deliberations of the present administration.

I should like also to draw to the attention of the house some other elements in our population that I think have been

The Address-Mr. Douglas

neglected as far as the speech from the throne would indicate. First I would direct attention to the large farming population. The income of the farmers, particularly those of the west but also those of all Canada, has declined steadily during the last five years, with the result that to-day the best authorities tell us that the average farm income is about $350 per year, and I know many who are living on less. The cost of living and the cost of farm operation have not declined accordingly. The fixing of the price of wheat last summer by the late administration helped a great deal, more I think than they were given credit for, but I want to suggest to the present administration that we need to go further. I would particularly direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to two things that need to be done if we are to help western agriculture. The first is to have that fixed price apply to all grains as well as to wheat; the second is to have that fixed price made retroactive. I know of an instance, and it is not uncommon, of a man who sold his entire wheat crop under economic pressure just six days before the price of wheat was pegged, with the result that he lost eleven cents per bushel on a fairly large crop. But there are farmers who had no crop at all, and who did not get the benefit of this fixed price. At the present time they are faced with appalling conditions. I can remember sitting in an audience in the city of Estevan and listening to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggest that he was in favour of some type of crop insurance. I have read the speech from the throne again and again but I fail to find any indication that we are to have crop insurance or anything else that will take care of the economic insecurity of those who, through drought, grasshoppers and other whims of nature, find themselves deprived of their livelihood.

But, Mr. Speaker, there is another circumstance that is oppressing the agricultural community; that is the tremendous burden of debt that hangs about the necks of the farmers. The figures for last year show that the farm mortgage indebtedness of the Dominion of Canada is more than $671,000,000, while for the three prairie provinces it is $324,000,000. On July 1, 1932, the farm management department of the university of Saskatchewan published a statement edited by professors Allen and Hope concerning Scott municipality, which happens to be in my constituency. These gentlemen showed that there were eighty-four farm-owners in that municipality; that the average1 acreage

of these farms was 628 acres and that the average debt against each farm was $14,700. In many cases that is a great deal more than the farms could have been sold for at that time, or even at this. .

Of these debts eighty per cent were incurred when wheat was $2 or more per bushel. Today these people are trying to meet their obligations with wheat at 87^ cents or less, because many of them had only a feed wheat crop last year. Therefore I direct the attention of the government to the fact that the speech from the throne contains no adequate solution of the problem confronting this great agricultural community, that is looking to this house for some type of assistance at this time.

Then I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that across Canada there is a great army of unemployed, with over a million people living on some type of government assistance or relief. What does the speech from the throne suggest that the government is prepared to do for this army of peoplfe? It suggests that we are to have a national unemployment commission. I have read the words, " They asked for bread and they were given a stone." The unemployed of this country have asked for bread and they have been given a commission. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is not commissions and supervision we need; what we need is to deal with the fundamental economic issue of the reorganization of our economic system in order to put purchasing power back into the pockets of the common people to enable them to buy back the things they produce. I suggest that these fundamental issues are not being met. What about unemployment insurance; what about the work and wages program about which the Liberal party have spoken so frequently in the past? The people of this country are asking about this; they want to know.

Then I would direct your attention, sir, to another class of people, men and women between sixty and seventy years of age, the people who produced the wealth of this country, who helped build the Dominion of Canada to all that it is to-day. Thousands of them have come to the place where they can no longer face the future with any degree of optimism. Large industries are no longer hiring them; many of them, salesman, commercial travellers, technicians, have been cast aside like a squeezed out orange rind.- What do we propose to do for them? They produced the wealth of the country. I maintain that they have the right to a share in it. I maintain that legislation should be placed on our statute books to take care of men and

The Address-Mr. Douglas

women who, having served their day and generation faithfully and well, now look to society to do its part in giving to them a measure of economic security.

I should like to draw the attention of the house to the plight of the great class of merchants throughout Canada. I hold in my hand an excerpt from a Saskatchewan newspaper reporting a telegram sent by the present Prime Minister to some of his constituents in Prince Albert, in which he said:

I approve wholeheartedly of their recommendations in reference to report of price spreads commission.

From that I took it that the Prime Minister was opposed to rebates and discounts, to these unfair trade practices by which large mail order houses and chain stores have gradually and ruthlessly been driving down the business of the small merchants, yet in the speech from the throne I find nothing to indicate that concrete measures are to be placed upon our statute books to meet that situation. Are we to infer that the rule of laissez faire is to continue? Darwin said that the law,of the jungle is the survival of the fittest; I wonder if my hon. friends think the law of economics is the survival of the slickest. One would gather that, as one sees the very noticeable absence of any legislation in this respect.

I draw attention to the fact that across this dominion there are thousands of exsoldiers, burnt-outs, men who gave the best years of their lives in the great war, men who to-day are partly or wholly incapacitated in the race of life. They want to know what a grateful country-at -least vocally grateful-is prepared to do for them now that they are no longer able to do anything for themselves. Some fine recommendations were made by a commission called the Iiyndman commission; what does the government propose to do about those recommendations? I think the house has a right to know.

One of the most crying problems facing the Canadian people in all parts of this dominion is the tremendous one of public health. People need dental and medical and hospital care. We have all the facilities for rendering those services, yet there is not an hon. member who does not know that people who have money can secure those services and people who have not money cannot, and are not getting them.

Mr. DOUGLAS:

My hon. friend says it is not so. But we know that to be true on the prairies, and there is no doubt it is true in 12739-94

other parts of Canada. While doctors and dentists have given of themselves until some of them are almost bankrupt, many people have had to go without the necessary dental care, the necessary medical care, have had to stay at home and have treatment in their homes, simply because they have not the money. I am not saying this condition can be rectified overnight, but I suggest that the dominion government take immediate steps to formulate a co-ordinated health policy for the Dominion of Canada. The greatest asset of the country is the health and welfare of her people, and that should be the first consideration of any government.

I am most interested in the problem of youth. It was a move in the right direction when the relief camps were transferred from the Department of National Defence to the Department of Labour. I read with something of amusement that these camps are to be abolished at an early date "as expanding employment opportunities permit." In other words, as business absorbs these young men the camps will be abolished. Of course when business absorbs these young men the camps will not be needed. But that is not meeting the problem at all. What we need is the abolition of these camps; what we need is to place these young men in gainful employment and wholesome environment. In the report of the commission of inquiry, excerpts from which appeared in the press last week, we find them lamenting the subversive influences found in these camps. Let me say that there are other influences more subversive, for instance, the demoralizing influence upon young men of seeing the years go by and finding themselves without technical training or mental preparation for useful work, with the result that even if conditions do right themselves these young men will find that their places have been taken by those better skilled and younger than they are. There is the problem.

Last night the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) very proudly displayed some campaign literature. I do not know that it is . worth while in an assembly like this to spend our time metaphorically thumbing our noses back and forth across the floor. But I would like to draw attention to some campaign literature that the people of Canada have not forgotten: "Jobs or doles, which? Vote Liberal." "Vote Liberal and get back from the poorhouse." "Tory policies cannot end unemployment; vote Liberal."

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to take this opportunity of congratulating you upon your accession to the position which you now hold. I wish also to congratulate the mover (Mr. Slaght) and the seconder (Mr. Fournier) of the address.

In rising to speak to this motion I feel that not only do I represent the constituency of Weyburn; that not only do I represent a group in this house which holds a particular social viewpoint, but that as one of the youngest members in this house I represent a class of people in Canada who hitherto have been unrepresented. Might I point out that there are perhaps more young men in this House of Commons than there have been for many years past. I feel we can say, because of the contacts which some of us have with youth organizations across the dominion, that through us to some extent a certain section of young Canada speaks.

I wish to draw the attention of the house to one remarkable phrase in the speech from the throne, a phrase which seems to me to be pregnant with irony. It is this:

-in adhering to the aims and ideals of the League of Nations, and in seeking, in unison with members of the league as well as with other nations, to support by all appropriate and practical means the maintenance of peace, and the establishment of a world order based on justice and equity.

I should like this house to think for a moment of what that means and what steps the government has taken to maintain peace.

[Mr. E. Lapomte.i

I need hardly remind hon. members that in 1919 at the close of the great war the League of Nations was formed, and that in signing the covenant of the league, for the first time in the history of the human race over fifty nations gave up their sovereign right to wage war. But in return for giving up that right these fifty-seven nations required that they in turn would be guaranteed collective security. That after all is the only way that you and I can ever hope to live in a law-abiding and peaceful world. Just as you and I within the state, by giving up certain privileges of attacking the person of another individual, receive certain protection and certain privileges, so the nations of the world began this noble experiment of giving up the sovereign right to wage war and in return were guaranteed collective security.

Following that, Italy is declared by the nations of the league to be an aggressor against Ethiopia. I want here and now to commend the present administration upon two things which they have done. They interpreted correctly the mind of the Canadian people, first when they decided that the people wanted economic sanctions, and, second, when they correctly decided that the Canadian people did not want to indulge in a world war. That is, they understand what I suggest is the basic psychology of the Canadian people to-day, namely, that we will not trade with a murderer while he is engaged in the act of murdering, and that we will not have any trade or traffic with any brigand while he is engaged in international piracy. That I believe to be the attitude of the Canadian people, and the government correctly interpreted it.

What happened? We went through the motions of passing economic sanctions-and I say "through the motions," because it is very evident that sanctions have only one aim and one purpose, namely, to prevent war. Sanctions are valuable only if they are made effective. For instance we know today that it is absolute nonsense to talk about passing sanctions against Italy or any other country if the sanctions which are passed have the effect of boycotting commodities which are not needed by that country for purposes of war. Italy can get along without Christmas trees, Christmas candles and teddy bears, but there are certain basic commodities without which she cannot wage a war.

I believe Doctor Riddell took the logical position that if sanctions are to be valuable they must be effective, and that the most effective sanction in this day and age would be oil. Napoleon said that an army marches on its stomach; the modem army marches

The Address-Mr. Douglas

on oil. Without oil Italy could not continue to fight. What happened? The Canadian government gave the impression throughout the civilized world that Canada was not prepared to stand behind the statement that had been made by her representative. This afternoon the Prime Minister explained that what was meant was something similar to the statement made by Sir Samuel Hoare. That however was not the interpretation placed upon it, and I believe the statement was open to the interpretation that Canada was not in favour of oil sanctions.

There are two sources from which Italy has been drawing her oil, namely, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company of Great Britain and the Standard Oil Company of the United States. When Mr. Lloyd George made the statement during the last general election campaign in Great Britain that aeroplanes flying over Ethiopia had Anglo-Persian oil in their petrol tanks, the reply of the president of that company was significant. He said, "We are keeping the sanction; we are making Italy pay cash." In other words the only crime that, in the minds of certain financial interests could be perpetrated would be that of giving credit to Mussolini. Because of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in Great Britain and the influence that had been brought to bear in this country, we find today that oil sanctions are much further away than when they were first suggested. Why is that so? Is it because the oil interests have too much influence on the powers of government? Is it because those people who make their profits out of oil have a great deal more weight in the councils of the governments of the world than have the dictates of humanity?

The speech from the throne speaks about maintaining peace-peace to-day, when Canadian nickel is indirectly being shipped to Ethiopia. Peace to-day, when Italian aeroplanes are being flown with British oil! Peace! Mr. Speaker, if this be peace it must be like the peace of the Lord-it passeth all understanding. Hon. members in this comer of the chamber voice a logical protest. If the government is going to talk about sanctions, we urge that they be effective sanctions. The people of Canada are asking that we take a definite stand in the matter, a stand with the forces of peace rather than with those of financial interests desiring a greater sale of oil.

I would point out that the speech from the throne is notable not so much for what it says as for what it fails to say.