Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):
Mr. Speaker, to avoid vain repetitions, it is not my purpose to make any major comments on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, but in the manner somewhat of an intellectual Autolycus, a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles, I want to make some special references to things which I have noticed.
The Bank of Canada, the central bank of our country, authorized by the government to be the custodian and guardian of the people's currency, has recently issued the bilingual notes. Canada is already a fully established commercial country, and the fine arts and printing industry is definitely and well established here, and can be said, I think, to be second to none. The British American Bank Note Company is probably able to produce as excellent a bank note as any other bank note company in the world. Then why is it, Mr. Speaker, that in launching these notes in a public issue they should be of such a nature as to cause considerable distress and demand continuous acuteness of attention because of their faulty identification? Since coming to the house this session I have already from the cash desks of the house received change for a two-dollar tender instead of a five-dollar tender. True, the error was immediately corrected, but it indicates that there is something wrong with the currency when one is liable in the rapid handling of money to make such mistakes. I think greater care should have been taken in the production of these notes, not only as to their colour but as to their type, and I do hope that in any future printings these same mistakes will not be repeated.
The Address-Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo)
A great many people in this country, a great many more than we are disposed to think, are colour blind as to one or more colours, and when you have your five's and your one's so closely related in colour, green and blue, it is not at all unlikely that in certain coloured lights mistakes will be made. Not only that, but the backing of certain of the notes is very confusing alongside the old issue. I think if the matter is carefully considered by someone in the interests of the currency issue, we shall soon determine that something should be done.
Another thing, in somewhat happier vein. I desire very sincerely to congratulate the government and everybody more particularly connected with the stone carving which has been executed on the front porch or entrance of this stately building. More particularly do I feel satisfied and pleased that the supporters are symbolic. I remember when I left here last session learning that they would probably be, if not Atlantes, then typical of our historic past. The choice of the symbolic supporters for the shields is in my mind more permanently acceptable and I think will prove to be truer to the heraldic significance. Especially was I delighted to discover that the eastern escutcheon is left polished and uncharged. May I hope and have faith that that is left there so that our neighbour whose destinies lie in the isle so long ago discovered by the doughty Bristol rover John Cabot will recognize our quality as a nation and join us and blazon his charges on that waiting shield. Again, let me express pleasure in the treatment of the bosses around the stonework of the building, and with particular reference to the delicate idea which placed the initials of Edwardus Rex and the Roman numerals VIII on the boss immediately over the foundation stone of the Victory peace tower. These things are worth remembering while we are struggling with our political issues, because they represent to us sermons being carved in stones as well as in the hearts of our people.
But there is another matter of an entirely different nature to which I wish to refer. It is almost exactly two years ago since the hon. member for Nanaimo stood in his place to make his speech in somewhat similar case as to-night. In those exciting moments he definitely proclaimed and orientated the political parties in the house and declared, with W. S. Gilbert, that:
Every little boy and gal
That comes into this world alive Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative.
[Mr. .T. S. Taylor. 1
Nor was he nonplussed at the obvious question: Where, then, is the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation? Let me read just a few words from that speech, on page 181 of Hansard, February 13, 1936:
If the house is composed of Liberals and Conservatives, where does this puny group of seven orientate itself? The answer is really simpler than the question. For the first time in the history of this august parliament we have come to a truly foundational opposition by a coherent group; and we, sir, are that foundational opposition and that small group, the outgrowth of the long continued and persistent efforts of our respected leader. . . .We are the scientific students of economics which in this day and age of the downfall and portending holocaust of capitalism must discover to the world the personal advantages, the national security and the universal brotherhood which underlie as foundation stones the social structures and the social culture and advancement of the system of society called socialism.
Nor was he to know that within five months of that night he would be placed on suspension by that coherent group and thrown into line for complete expulsion in February of 1937. And so, sir, to be consistent and honest, I say with the deepest regret that in British Columbia at least the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is not a coherent group, nor does it represent any longer a truly foundational opposition to the existing so-called capitalist parties. Tragically, there has been lost to the cause of the constitutional and transitional development towards socialism the greatest mass movement which Canadian politics has ever experienced. I am not talking in spleen or in personal antagonism when I state those facts. I have been too closely identified with the very commencement of the movement in British Columbia to be in doubt of what I say. But I declare with sorrow that the ambitions and machinations of dogmatic and doctrinaire Marxian socialists brought about control of the British Columbia party's convention in 1936 and left no resting or abiding place for the socialists of a liberal structure of mind who would otherwise, in the enthusiasm of their desires, have provided added strength and intelligence to the new and greatly promising party. Whatever my personal thoughts may be, I shall not here lay blame on any particular person or persons, but I have little admiration for the intelligences that could conceive of the possibility of dominating one structure of mind by another without giving it even the opportunity of expressing itself or voicing its discontent. Of course this brings me to the unequivocal statement that the Cooperative Commonwealth Fed-
The Address-Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo)
eration is losing ground in British Columbia and, I would say, in every other province where the same or similar conditions obtain.
It must be apparent, sir, that if I am correct, and there are two structures of political mind, the Liberal and the Conservative, then these must be present in the interpretation of socialism as well as of capitalism. And they are, but not in the manner of the man in the street, who classifies the parties in their approach to socialism as conservatives, liberals, radicals, modern socialists, doctrinaire socialists, communists. The facts are that in capitalism we have the conservative and the liberal; in socialism we have the modern socialist and the doctrinaire or Marxian socialist. The liberal and the modern socialist have similar structures of mind. The conservative and the doctrinaire socialist have similar structures of mind. And if we want any verification of that fact, the obvious statements made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and remarked upon by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will at least have some value in bearing me out.
It thus follows, and it can be proved by numerous examples, that the conservative turned socialist becomes a dogmatic and doctrinaire socialist, and, according to his cultural and ethical outlook, a potential communist. If I am correct, then it must be right to say that fascism is an excess in the cultural and ethical expression of capital conservatism, and evidences will doubtless considerably support me. Through all this, it will be observed, I give communism no place;
I give fascism no place in the intellectual structures of our political life. They represent excesses in the moral and ethical development of the conservative, just as unbridled freedom and licence, or, under other conditions, bureaucracy, might represent excesses in the moral and ethical field of liberalism. It matters not whether it be a big stick of wood or a big rod of steel, fascism or communism, it means excess and is to be condemned and despised as such.
Now always, the dogmatic doctrinaire Marxist is a pro-communist; and here lies the grave danger developing out of the separation of the elements in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. Marx wrote the Communist 'Manifesto in German for the Germans in January, 1848, and Frederick Engels, who to my mind was very often his evil genius, made the following observations in January, 1888, in his introduction to Samuel Moores translation of the German Communist Manifesto published by Charles H.
Kerr and Company, of Chicago. With reference to the time when this was written, Engels says:
Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of a total social change, that portion, then, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of Communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian Communism, in France, of Cabet, and in Germany, of Weitling. Thus, Socialism was, in 1847, a middle-class movement, Communism a working class movement. Socialism was, on the continent at least, "respectable"; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
Now let me read from the last few lines of the fourth part of the Communist Manifesto:
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the riding classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working men of all countries, unite!
With such sentiments I will have no truck, nor will I blindly attach any adherence to them. Karl Marx I admire for his most excellent analysis of capital and capitalism
the capitalist economy of his day. His analyses were excellent, but his formulae for the most part leave me entirely unimpressed. Do I then fear the communists? No, save that they destroy everything and every organization to which they attach themselves. And they have attached and are attaching themselves with great assiduity and cunning to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation.
Through sixteen years, from the meeting of the Third International in Moscow in 1919 until 1935, the Russian-directed communists throughout the world had attempted to foster and project internecine war in every country of the world. In June, 1935, when the International again met in Moscow at their seventh communist congress, they acknowledged having pursued the wrong tactics and declared that thenceforth they must penetrate all
The Address-Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo)
human, ethical, social and political organizations everywhere. And this the least observant individual is able to discover to-day. This was in June, 1935. By November, 1935, they were already able to boast of their successful general penetration of the Canadian Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, as perusal of the reports and speeches at the ninth plenum of the central committee of the communist party of Canada in November, 1935, will most abundantly demonstrate. Let me read three short extracts from this publication-and I choose three at random from probably a hundred throughout the book, wdiich it is extremely difficult to get hold of:
We Strive to Remove All Barriers.
On all of these things we have common ground with the C.C.F. How can we win the C.C.F. for common action on all of these issues? How can we open up every possible avenue towards unity of action and remove every possible barrier that stands in the way?
We declare that in the interests of unity of action we are prepared to affiliate to the C.C.F., retaining our freedom of independent action on the basis of genuine democracy and to sincerely work with all our strength to transform the C.C.F. into the broadest united front party, embracing all the trade unions and farmers' organizations and endeavouring to come to an agreement and understanding with the mass organizations of middle class people on the basis of a united front program of action for peace, for democratic rights and to ease the economic position of the masses by shifting the burdens of the crisis on to the shoulders of the ruling class.
Then again on page 50 I find the following:
Cadres Decide Everything.
Let me explain what is meant by " cadres." Three, four or five communists whose loyalty is not doubted are assigned to inter-penetrate an organization. By dint of great purpose of mind, by strict attention to their duties and by working together ultimately they secure positions on committees: possibly a secretariat; possibly a chairmanship; possibly a delegateship, and so on. They wait until all the men who are toilers have gone home, then push through resolutions in their own interests. It is not long before the organization so interpenetrated is directly controlled, with a lightly gloved hand, by the communists. Those are the cadres, and this is what is said:
The organizational commission that we have set up at this plenum is taking up the problem of cadres as the central key problem confronting the party to-day. At the seventh congress of the Communist International this question was placed before all the parties as the decisive key problem. Comrade Dimitroff stated:
" The problem of what should be the correct policy with regard to cadres is the most vital one of our parties as well as the Y. C. L's-
That is the Young Communist League.
-and all other organizations of the entire labour movement."
Comrade Dimitroff pointed out six basic considerations in respect to the problem of cadres: first of all, we must know our people. Secondly we must institute a proper systematic promotion of new cadres. Thirdly, we must use all of our people to the best advantage. Fourth, wre must properly distribute our cadres. Sixth, the party must care for the proper preservation and protection of its cadres.
In this connection may I state that one of the delegates to the 1936 national convention of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, coming from the Fraser valley, was an avowed communist. Again I quote from page 94, and this is the last quotation:
First of all, we want to make the Young Communist League an organization that will have in its ranks not only communists, but also young socialists and youth who are not as yet communists, even youth who may still be Christians,-
Let me emphasize those words, " even youth who may still be Christians."
-an organization which stands on a program of the defence of the economic and political needs of the young people, the cultural interests of the young people, that stands on a platform of struggle against fascism and war and for socialism, but such an organization will not necessarily take a position on soviet power. Such an organization does not fight for soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is the task of the communists inside such an organization to convince and educate the young people inside the organization to agree to accept such a position.
I offer no comment, but I do say, after the most mature consideration, that the development of emotional adherence to new political parties and the sway of emotional political adherents by sectional dogmatism, are suicidal errors in political life. Based on this I declare the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in Canada to be already doomed as a constitutional transitional movement to socialism. It already, too, definitely represents, in British Columbia at least, doctrinaire and dogmatic socialism of the Marx-Engels- Lenin-Stalin type. Though I greatly respect the high quality and purpose of every one of its representatives in the house, I fear they are doomed to find themselves compelled by the body of their procession to march in directions differing entirely from those indicated by the signposts of the Cooperative' Commonwealth Federation.
So it is that while still a socialist I declare that I am essentially of the liberal structure of mind, and while my election in 1935 constrains me to call myself an independent for the time being I recognize the weakness to the country and my people in the stand I am constrained to take. I definitely believe that
The Address-Mr. Fleming
there are many not only potential but essential socialists in the Liberal and Conservative ranks, and I believe it would be to the advantage of the country and its progress if the leaders of the old line parties would declare their readiness to embrace all proper to their particular structure of mind, no matter how their intelligence and purpose may desire constitutionally to vary the country's present economy and economic social system.
In closing, and because I still have an earnest message to deliver, I must advise the government that I intend to vote for the amendment, not essentially because of its contents but as a definite protest against the continuance of orthodoxy in the treatment of the staggering problems of the country to-day.
Subtopic: CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY