Karl Kenneth HOMUTH

HOMUTH, Karl Kenneth

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Waterloo South (Ontario)
Birth Date
December 12, 1893
Deceased Date
March 19, 1951
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Kenneth_Homuth
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=21ef4ab0-5bdb-4468-9c93-b860e974eed4&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
manufacturer

Parliamentary Career

November 14, 1938 - January 25, 1940
CON
  Waterloo South (Ontario)
March 26, 1940 - April 16, 1945
NAT
  Waterloo South (Ontario)
June 11, 1945 - April 30, 1949
PC
  Waterloo South (Ontario)
June 27, 1949 - June 13, 1953
PC
  Waterloo South (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 466 of 466)


January 27, 1939

Mr. HOMUTH:

If we will forget this interprovincial disunity and the hostility of provincial governments to the federal government ; if we forget our political bickerings and get together and deal with this matter from the standpoint that there is no east and no west in Canada, no Quebec, no Ontario, but just one nation, willing to give and take, if need be to give more and take less-if we do that there is no reason why we cannot cure many of the ills that afflict us to-day without interfering with the sacredness of provincial rights. These things can be done. All we need is some lead from this government, who promised in 1935 that they would do it. Every hon. member of this house and I believe every provincial government in Canada would do its utmost to bring that about. Instead of that we have quarrelling, quarrelling, quarrelling; charges of conspiracy, and so on. I take some pride in the fact that the by-election in Waterloo South had

The Address-Mr. Homuth

something to do with bringing this condition into the open, because it is just as well for the people of Canada to know something of what is going on behind the scenes. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) did not have to go to Toronto to see Mr. Hepburn in order to find out why the Liberals lost the election in Waterloo South. They lost it because of the three years of do-nothing policy of this government, and fear of their trade treaties. Is it strange that when we think of this break between the Prime Minister of Canada and the various provincial premiers, particularly Mr. Hepburn, we wonder if there is the solidarity in the dominion cabinet that hon. gentlemen opposite would like us to believe exists? In fact if the editorial suggestion of the Montreal Standard of Saturday last is true, they had a very interesting caucus a week or so ago. And the two peacemakers who went to the Bannockburn farm and tried to bring peace and harmony in the party apparently were thoroughly chastised for their efforts.

In the campaign in Waterloo South we had three cabinet ministers taking part, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe). Whom did they come to speak for? Naturally for the Liberal candidate. But I do say they did me a lot of good. What was the Liberal candidate's attitude so far as the Prime Minister of Canada is concerned? Let me read what he said in his nomination speech. And. mark you, this gentleman made this the one great point throughout his campaign.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

January 27, 1939

Mr. HOMUTH:

And a lot more of you are going the same way too. This is what Mr. R. K. Serviss, the Liberal candidate, said at his nomination meeting:

"It is my belief," the mayor continued, "that the urban workers particularly in the textile and shoe industries must have adequate protection. We in Ontario are the big brother among the provinces of Canada. If we are going down into our pockets to help sustain the free trader prairie provinces by subsidizing their wheat at 30 cents a bushel, the farmer in Ontario whose province is contributing 47 per cent of the total revenue to the dominion treasury is entitled to some consideration too. These same free traders be they Liberal, Conservative or bolshevik must give consideration to the working men and women in Waterloo South. They must make their contribution by permitting an adequate tariff for the protection of the workers."

Listen to this. This is the prime piece of the whole platform on which the gentleman ran:

"The two greatest problems in our country to-day," said the speaker, "are relief and the railway problem, and we will never solve the latter problem until you get a man like Mitch Hepburn at Ottawa to do the job for you."

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

January 27, 1939

Mr. HOMUTH:

The government has a

chance to do something. It has a chance to do something to make up for the disastrous three years through which the people of Canada have just passed, in spite of the promises made in 1935. If the government had had a proper approach to the provincial governments, if it had gone out in a spirit of compromise, we would have in Canada to-day national health laws, national hospitalization and national labour laws, all of which are badly needed. All these improvements could have been law to-day if the government had been willing to compromise with the provinces, as it ought to have done.

And so I say that when one reads of the promises of 1935 he has cause to wonder. I well remember the morning of October 15, 1935, when I thought the sky had fallen and there was no longer any chance for Canada. I picked up a paper and read a statement made by the Prime Minister, to which my leader referred in the course of his observations. I read that speech of dedication, and I read it carefully. Who could help being impressed by those beautiful words, those wonderful phrases? They were music to the ears of everyone in Canada who had hoped that something good would come from the election of the Liberal party. I read that

dedication speech-and then, of course, I realized who had made it. I recalled the flowery speeches he had made in the past and I began to understand that perhaps after all the sky actually had fallen. Three years later we find that it has; the people of Canada are absolutely crushed under the burden which has been placed upon them.

Not only do I like the wording and phrasing of this speech, but I think hon. members of the house and the people of Canada generally should be impressed with the significance of the wonderful dedication speech made by the right hon. gentleman; we may then realize how little he has lived up to it. The Prime Minister said:

In the new era which dawns to-day the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, he carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and misery, are the enemies rvhieh Liberalism will seek to banish from the land. They have lain in wait at the gate of every Canadian home during the past five years, and their menacing mien has served to destroy the souls as well as the minds and bodies of an ever-increasing number of men, women and children in our land. We take up at once, as our supreme task, the endeavour to end poverty in the midst of plenty, starvation and unnecessary suffering in a land of abundance, discontent and distress in a country more blessed by Providence than any other on the face of the globe, and to gain for individual lives, and for the nation as a whole, that "health and peace and sweet content" which is the rightful heritage of all.

And then they tell the hungry, ill clad, ill housed people of Canada that we are hunting for some place to get rid of our meats, our butter, our eggs, our milk and other things that our own Canadian people have not the money to buy.

At least in that dedication speech the right hon. gentleman admitted that the Conservative government had kept these terrible enemies of the people at the gate. We were slowly but surely driving them from the country. But this government has opened the gate. Those enemies have opened the door and entered the homes of our Canadian people, and out of them they have driven peace, happiness and security. The words of the Prime Minister's statement were brave words, but what use are they without deeds?

I say that unless this government makes some definite move to do something it will stand indicted before the highest tribunal in the land, the Canadian people, as a government which has absolutely forgotten those who put them into power. When the opportunity comes, as it must come, and the people hope it will be soon, they will be in a position to undo the wrong that they did themselves

The Address-Miss Macphail

in 1935. After all there is no hope for the government that is in power. No blood transfusion or dope or anything elseh can revive the little spark of life that once was there. They are on their way out. Politically they are dead. All that is necessary now is an election so that the people of Canada can give them a proper burial under an avalanche of ballots. When we come into power we will once more make effective the policies which in the past brought security to Canada.

Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I intend to lump my congratulations. I offer them to the mover (Mr. Matthews) and the seconder (Mr. Chevrier) of the address in reply, to the new leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Manion) and to the new members, although I think perhaps I should offer condolences rather than congratulations. I offer them to the new cabinet ministers. Their appointment particularly interested me. This choosing of cabinet ministers is a strange business. There must be some rules by which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) decides who is to be appointed. I do not know what they are and I was wondering if some time he would not take the house into his confidence. We would then have some idea as to who were to be our future cabinet ministers.

I do not intend to follow the very eloquent speech of the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Homuth). He is new to this house, but has had legislative experience. There are only two things I would say to him. First, we did not have a riot in British Columbia when the Conservatives were in power, but there was one in Regina. I get no enjoyment out of saying this, but I think it is well for us to remember it. The other thing I want to say is that much as I would like to become enthusiastic over the trade treaties, my honest opinion is that if we heard nothing of them one way or another for six months we would never know they had been signed. I have waited so long for Canada to be relieved of its difficulties by means of trade treaties that I do not intend to be fooled by this one.

I do not intend to follow the speech from the throne paragraph by paragraph. I shall refer to only one subject in it. I intend to confine myself entirely to a few questions which seem important to me.

In these days of confusion and tragedy abroad one's mind turns to things at home, to things that one can understand. All over the world we are seeing liberty, freedom and personal security being swept away for thousands, yes even millions of people. We

JMr. Homuth.]

see democracy backing away before the onslaught of fascism. What surprises me more than anything else is the fact that the conscience of the world has been seared to such an extent that we can endure the tragedy of China, the betrayal of Czechoslovakia and the unparalleled agony of Spain without doing anything about it. We even see Great Britain and France, countries which we thought were great democracies, aiding the fascists to overthrow the Spanish government by means of the non-intervention pact. Quite apart from what was in our innermost hearts, we listened to the Prime Minister of Great Britain being lauded the world over in the name of peace, or this new word "appeasement", for having delivered democracy into the hands of the fascists in response to a gigantic bluff on the part of the greatest dictator of them all. In many countries we see thousands of people who are striving to get away from fascism, who want to be allowed to enter the free democracies. An Austrian woman who was my guest yesterday told me that the actions of the leaders in the fascist countries did not break the spirits of the people as much as did the indifference of the democratic peoples like ourselves.

I feel that something has happened to the spirit of mankind when we can go about our daily tasks, even earnestly about the business of government, in days like this, unmoved by others' misery. As I said before, in despair we turn to things at home. I think it can be said that every hon. member of this house wants democracy in Canada. We want to save and perfect the democratic system, but I think we all realize that that cannot be done unless we solve the economic problems of the people. We must pass from a liberal democracy to a social democracy. In the last analysis a desperately driven people will be ready to give up liberty and freedom in search of economic security. As a matter of fact, there is no liberty and there is no freedom for a person who is absolutely destitute. We as members of the parliament of Canada must set ourselves resolutely to the task of solving the economic problems which face the Canadian people. I say in all seriousness that if we do not do this a harassed and bewildered and disillusioned people will turn from the democratic form of government to anything else that they think will give them economic security. In my opinion that other form of government will never be communism, but I think they are ready to consider some form of fascism unless we who are the guardians and trustees of democracy discharge well our duties.

The Address-Miss Macphail

If we really want to preserve democracy, and I believe we all do, we must be willing to forsake all artificial differences. We must be ready to acknowledge that up until now there have been artificial differences between members and parties in this house. We must be willing to get rid of them. It is true that in a democracy there must be free expression of opinion. The beauty of democracy is the fact that we are free to advocate different solutions to a problem. But surely we have reached the time when we should be willing to vote in support of that in which we believe. Surely we have reached the time when we should not be looking for either personal or party glorification in what we do. We should be willing to support the things in which we believe, no matter by whom they are suggested or by whom they are supported.

As I listened to the speeches delivered in the opening days of this session by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Manion), whom we all welcome again to this house, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I felt that there was danger in the fact that the people of Canada will believe the unkind things they said about each other and about each other's policies. That is exactly what has happened. When the terrible row between the Prime Minister and Mr. Hepburn was on -in my opinion it is still on-I heard many people in my constituency say, "Well, at least we are hearing some truth now"; that is, they thought each was telling the truth about the other. I say in all seriousness it is time we stopped political scrapping and settled down as honest people to find solutions for the problems which are besetting and wearing down the spirit of our Canadian people, because I think in Canada we cannot afford to lessen the confidence of the people in our members of parliament and public men and in our parliamentary institutions. In simpler days-and one can look back to seventeen years ago and regard them now as simpler days, when there were not the pressing problems we have to-day-there was an interest taken in the rough-and-tumble of political strife between the leaders and members of different [DOT] political parties. Nobody minded that very much then. I think perhaps the country even took an interest in it, but I again say in all seriousness that that day is done.

When I heard the speeches of the first day or two at the opening of the session I thought: Can it be tiue that we must all session hear this drivel again? When you come from places where you see people who do not know what they are going to do to live, who have not

houses, who have not clothes, who cannot educate their children, who do not know where the next meal is coming from, and then come here and see people with fine abilities- because I am not one of those who think that members of parliament have not ability; I think they have-use those fine abilities in a verbal battle over non-essentials, it seems to me nothing but a complete waste of time. If we are to save democracy the only kind of partisans we can afford from now on are partisans in favour of democracy, both political and economic.

There are only two subjects on which I shall speak, and the first is agriculture. I feel that we can do more towards solving unemployment and a great many of our other problems in Canada by restoring the purchasing power of the farmer than we can do by any other method. In Canada we have some 728,623 farms, and it is true of almost every farm family that they cannot buy the goods they need; and we have idle machines, unemployed workers, and a drift of rural youth to the cities and into white-collared jobs and into the professions, if that is possible.

Agriculture until now has been asked to buy in a protected market, and not only a protected market but a market restricted in many ways, and to sell in a non-protected market. Farmers have been asked to pay exorbitant prices for farm machinery. I am sure no other industry passing through such times as agriculture is experiencing would have been asked to pay such high prices and to stand such a high tariff on their implements of production. Farmers have been asked to pay high prices for the goods and services which they require, and the high prices which they had to pay were very largely the result of the regulating of supply to meet effective demand. And yet the farmer, because he had this mounting overhead, went on produeir-more and more goods without any consideration for the effective demand for his goods.

Farmers have been asked to pay high interest rates. Even the farm loan board-I am grateful to have it as it is, but it could be so much better-charges the farmers five per cent. That is too much, because agriculture cannot pay five per cent. Since I have been in this house the farmers in western Canada have been charged, by various discounting methods, rates as high as twelve per cent. Farmers have suffered very much from a tight money policy. During the last administration, when we could have benefited as Australia and New Zealand and the Argentine did by valuing the British pound at close to six dollars, it was quoted here at only $3.75, and that did very much to impoverish agriculture in Canada.

The Address-Miss Macphail

What immigrants we took in, and I think we ought now to consider very carefully taking in people from countries from which all sense of humanity has gone, agriculture in the last few years has been asked to absorb- not labour, not the professions, not business, but agriculture. The result is, and it need hardly be mentioned, that we have had such an overplus of agricultural products that prices have dropped lower and lower and for a period of years now our farmers have been selling their products below the cost of production. I notice that Mr. Robert Gardiner, at the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta, a few days ago, had this to say, and I am quoting from the Western Farm Leader of January 20, at page 2:

It is time that the government and the people of Canada realize that they cannot forever expect that the primary producer will be content to continue to produce new wealth at a loss a loss which means economic insecurity, hardship and debt for the farmer and his family.

All this, of course, has resulted in certain things. It has resulted in farm mortgages being a drug on the market; nobody wants to invest his money in a farm mortgage. Even farm buildings show the decadent agriculture we have to-day. You do not need to be able to read to know the present condition of agriculture. All you need to do is to drive along country roads and see the farm dwellings in need of repair, old buildings falling down, unpainted houses, houses where just the trim needs painting and even that not done; farm homes, the great majority of them, without the comforts and conveniences which even people of small means in the city think are essential. We see farmers working very hard and getting very little pay. We see farmers suffering for lack of medical and dental care. We see a vastly increasing number of cases of high blood pressure and heart disease among our agriculturists. This, Mr. Speaker, cannot go on forever. The farmers are rousing themselves again. They go into long sleeps, and they are now just emerging from one.

The farmer in Canada knows that there were thirty-three acts passed by the British parliament, during the last seven or eight years, having to do with agriculture and tending to raise the price of agricultural products, so that the British farmer did not have to sell below the cost of production. Our farmers see that the farmer in Britain gets $1.30 a bushel for his wheat, in France $1,50, in Italy $2, and in Germany $2.50; and the farmer in Canada, and certainly the farmer of Ontario, feels that something must be done about it.

The first thing that must be done, and the only thing that the farmer can do for himself, is to organize farmers so completely that there will be one body that can speak for agriculture.

I hear farmers talking for the first time m favour of producing for a known market. They see that other countries which used to buy our farm products do not do so any longer. They regret that there are people in Canada who would like to buy cream and eggs, steaks, cereals, chickens-all the things that go to make up a good table-but who cannot afford them. I saw in the Journal of, 1^ think, last night, that a man living at North Bay died of voluntary starvation in order that his wife and children might eat. That happened in this country, where we have such surpluses that we do not know what to do with them. But the farmer is coming to recognize the meaning of these great surpluses, and although he would like to see them consumed by needy people in urban places and the needy who are to be found sometimes in country places, he cannot afford to produce for nothing. He cannot afford to give the goods to the people who need them. So for the first time in his life the Ontario farmer, and I think I can say the Canadian farmer, is coming to the conclusion that what he must do is to produce goods for a known market; that is, to estimate how much the market will absorb and produce that much and no -more.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

January 27, 1939

Mr. HOMUTH:

I referred a moment ago to the distress of our people and some of the promises that were made in 1935. Who can forget the tirade carried on by the Prime Minister, particularly in 1935, against the camps that were established throughout this country, or the promises he made that he would take the boys out of those semimilitary institutions and give them jobs throughout the country at decent wages? Yes, they closed the camps, but what did they do with the boys? Scattered them over the highways and byway's of Canada. Motoring through the country I have picked up many of them, forgotten men, uncared for by anyone. Who are these young men? If the crisis which threatened last September had broken, as many of us feared it would, they are the young men that this government would have expected to take their part in the military service of this country. They are the young men they would have expected to line up for whatever service the Department of National Defence wanted. They are the young men they would have gone to and said: Here is your opportunity to do something for your country. "Fight for the country-why?" they would ask. "Fight for the privilege of wandering up and down the highways and byways of this country, not wanted by anyone?" What answer could this government have given to them? If that crisis had broken, this government would have found ways to raise millions, yes hundreds of millions of dollars for the purpose of equipping these men, feeding and clothing them-for what? To defend Canada, yes; to be killed or to kill. If we can find money for that, why can we not find money to give them a chance to live and work out their destiny here? If we had been in power when the riots occurred in British Columbia about which we all read, I can easily imagine the Prime Minister and his supporters hurling taunts and accusations across the floor of the house about it. The riots that occurred out there were directly due to the policy of this government.

I have referred to the destitute people of this country. By destitute I mean people who are hungry, ill clad, ill housed, without decent

The Address-Mr. Homuth

living conditions. This government is working on a long range policy, so hon. members tell us in their speeches. As a result of it we have had three disastrous years. They are so busy looking at that long range policy, looking at the horizon hoping against hope that the sun of prosperity will break through, that they fail to see the poverty and destitution at their feet. We hear of communism in this country. Certainly -we have communism. The surprise to me, after the failure of this government to do something for the people of this country, is that we have not something worse. We all read the stories that appeared in the Globe and Mail relative to the condition of the fisherfolk of the mari-times. You do not have to go down there to find poverty-stricken people. You can find them in Ontario; you can find them in Ottawa; you can find them in every township, village, town and city throughout the Dominion of Canada.

I wonder what the poor, hungry people of this country think when they read in the press all the talk coming from the Liberal benches, and learn that the government are hunting for markets for the milk and cream produced on the farms of Canada, when we have thousands of children who are not getting enough milk to build strong, healthy bodies; that they are hunting for markets for our pork and our beef, when we have families in Canada that do not see meat twice a week. The same thing applies to many other commodities the hon. gentlemen are talking about exporting. Give our people jobs; give them adequate, steady wages; give the farmers decent prices for their produce. Then a great deal of this surplus produce will be used up. Our people do not want government pap; they do not need it. We have the right kind of people, who can work out their own destiny if they are only given the opportunity by those who are in power in the provinces and the dominion.

I said I wanted to deal at some length with the trade treaty, and because of my knowledge of the condition of industry in this dominion to-day I say that industry has the jitters and is afraid. There is no security for industry.

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink

January 27, 1939

Mr. HOMUTH:

You will have the jitters too, before this is all over. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce said they had heard no real protests against this trade treaty. Perhaps not, but there will be plenty of protests yet. I do say that industry is afraid when the Liberal party is in power, 71492-25J

because for the last few years it has been their direct policy continually to chisel, chisel, chisel at the tariffs under which these industries have been operating. Sometimes I am amazed at the childlike simplicity of the Prime Minister, at his belief in the benevolence of those countries with whom we make trade treaties. He believes they would do him no wrong, but in the working out of the treaties we find that they are the sort of countries who would trade a coconut for a peanut any day, and we would get the peanut. I recall a little ditty that I heard in my childhood and which, with a little revamping, fits very well the attitude of the Prime. Minister since 1935 in connection with trade treaties:

Tinker, tinker, little man;

Do your tinkering while you can.

Mischievous tinkering cannot last;

Elections come and your tinkering's past.

The other day the Prime Minister accused our party of being apostles of economic nationalism and of saying that trade was war. He also suggested that we were not being fair to the government in that we continually knocked it. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) said the other day, we are not the apostles of economic nationalism. We are interested in national economics, which is something this government apparently has forgotten. And when the Prime Minister asks us to say something kind and good about this government, why do they not give us a chance to do so? Why do they not do something so that at least we can go to our people, who are worried and harried and wondering what is going to happen in the future, and say, "At least the government are going to do this." Would it not be a good idea for the Prime Minister to take some of that philosophy to heart? Can one forget the campaign that he carried on in 1935? Was there ever a more bitter tirade against a leader or a party than that of the Prime Minister and his supporters in 1935? The Prime Minister accuses us of saying that trade is war. Well, Mr. Speaker, speaking for myself I say yes; trade is war. It is commercial war, and when we make a deal with another country the only way to figure out whether or not that deal is fair to Canada is by the number of lucrative jobs that are given the workingmen of this country as a result of that deal, and the type of market that is given to the farmers at the same time.

The other day we heard two different lines of thought from hon. gentlemen opposite. In his speech the Prime Minister referred to trade

The Address-Mr. Homuth

under the new treaty but dealt more particularly with the treaty from the standpoint of appeasement; that it was necessary to do this; that even if the benefits were not as great as they should be, this was the one thing Canada had to do. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, my fellow representative from Waterloo county, dealt with the question from an entirely different angle; and to my mind, poor as his argument was in regard to the benefits that Canada would receive as a result of this trade treaty, at least he dealt with it strictly from the standpoint of the trade between the two countries. To me that is the right way to deal with it; because under this so-cajled trade treaty from the Prime Minister's standpoint of appeasement, we make a treaty not only with the United States but with Germany, Italy and Japan, while some of the nationals of those very countries are to-day attacking us and trying to undermine the British constitutional system of government. So I ask: What mandate has this government from the people to go out and try to make a trade treaty as a gesture of appeasement to Japan, Germany and Italy? If the safety of the democratic institutions of the United States, Great Britain and Canada is to be predicated only upon the question whether or not we are prepared to sell out our workingmen and farmers to the people of the United States and other countries, then, as reverently as I can, I say God help democracy.

In his speech the other day our leader referred to the question of shoes. The Minister of Trade and Commerce immediately checked him up and quoted figures showing that only some two or three per cent of the shoes used in Canada were brought in from other countries. I still say, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the trade treaty of 1935 and the trade treaty just negotiated we are going to give work to Czechs, to Germans, to Japanese and to people in the United States, while our own people will be put out of work. But it is not a question alone of how much stuff comes in, because after all we are not going to have the factories closed. Men who own industries dare not close them. Every cent they own is invested in them. They dare not close their doors; they have to keep them going. And so, regardless of what is done with the tariff, they try to keep their industries in operation.

How do they do it? Right to-day, in order to compete with the United States on shoes, manufacturers have to reduce wages in the shoe industry in Canada. They will have to lower the quality of the goods which go into many lines of shoes. It is not a question of how much stuff comes into Canada because

of trade agreements; rather it is a question of what, as a result, will have to be done in our industrial areas in order to compete against conditions in other countries. When the trade agreement is up for discussion I shall be able to show only too plainly that the conditions are just as I have described them. I will give facts and figures which will indicate that even though they are importing shoes to-day, and bringing them into Canada in competition with shoes made in the county of Waterloo and other parts of the country, the consumers in this country will not get them one cent cheaper. They are purchased over there simply on the basis of the amount of write-up that the merchant and wholesaler can put on them.

So that when we look back and read what the Prime Minister said in 1935 as to what he expected the trade treaty to do, we have cause to wonder. I challenge the Minister of Labour to go out to any industrial riding in Canada and say to the people, "As a result of the trade treaty of 1935 we have brought you prosperity." I challenge the Minister of Agriculture to go among the farmers of Canada and say to them, "As a result of the trade treaty of 1935 we have brought you prosperity, as predicted by our leader at that time."

Topic:   GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Full View Permalink