1930-02-25

[Stage Direction]
Report of the royal commission on technical aind professional services.-Mr. Dunning.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Post Office Act (Newspaper Ownership) .
Mr. DUNNING:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The object of this bill is
to require in the public interest the names and addresses of the owners, editors, publishers and stockholders in newspapers and periodicals published' in Canada to be filed and printed in such papers. The bill as passed last session required the filing and printing of the ownership of publications, including the names and addresses of the editor, publisher, business managers, owners, stockholders, known bondholders and other security holders. This bill adds that such additional information is to be given concerning the interest, direct or indirect, of any person in such publication or its stock, bonds, or other securities as the Postmaster General shall by regulation require, such information to disclose the ownership of such publication.
The bill is the same as that which passed this house the past four years with the addition of "the interest direct or indirect of any person in such publication of its stock, bonds or other securities'' in view of the revelations before the United States trade commission of the secret buying of several large American papers by the Graustein interests and the power and paper trust.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (Approval of Parliament).
He said: This is the same bill as was before the house last year. It transfers from the governor in council to parliament the consent or sanction to these permits of works in international boundary waterways between Canada and the United States.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time. CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Criminal Code (Motor Vehicles).
He said: The sections of the criminal code at present dealing with "motor manslaughter" are sections 284 and 285; which this bill amends. Judges and grand juries have been complaining of the lack of a proper section to cover such cases, while the deaths are appalling. Chief Justice Meredith in addressing the grand jury at the London assizes recently stated that the present sections are too uncertain, too inconsistent and altogether insufficient to meet present needs. Almost any amendment might improve it.
A new offence named "involuntary homicide" is created. That i®, homicide Which is not wanton or wilful but which is to be an offence even though the deceased was negligent and his negligence contributed to the accident. If the accused could by the use of ordinary care have avoided the accident he is liable.
A new section allows a magistrate or a judge to assess damages and require a bond before the accused is released. At present the accused can go back to the United States and the injured party has to sue in the jurisdiction of Canada and.then register his judgment in the United States which is a hardship on a poor person. This section is supported by the Chief Constables' Association of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Criminal Code (Firearms, Homicide, Offences).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Privilege-Mr. Bennett
[Stage Direction]
PRIVILEGE-Mr. BENNETT
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: Before the orders of the day
are called, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the debates yesterday. I think from the record it is possible the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) -was confusing the report of the Associated Press as to certain matters in connection with wheat pools in Canada with the report from other sources. He observed that so-me Tory newspaper was responsible for the propaganda, and that he had been informed by the High Commisisoner's office that a sensational despatch had appeared- an. the London Times sent by its correspondent here. I took the trouble this morning to go through the recent numbers of the London Times and I find that the -statement in question appears on page 13 of the issue of Friday, February 7, 1930. In reasonably small type appear the words:
Canadian Wheat Pools
A Grave Situation
(From Our Own Correspondent)
Ottawa, February 6,
The second paragraph reads:
The Toronto Star, yesterday, under the heading "Financial catastrophe confronts Dominion if wheat sale forced,"
And so on. I took the trouble to get the Star for Februaj}' 5, and it contains the statement quoted:
Financial catastrophe confronts Dominion if Wheat sale forced.
On the following day the Toronto Star printed in large type these words:
Grain prices drop despite guarantee.
I think there has been misapprehension on the -part of the right hon. Prime Minister as to where the despatch came from. What appeared in the London Times was an accurate statement of what was printed in the Toronto Star of the preceding day.


Right Hon.   W@: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend is quite right in stating that the article to which I had reference is the one which he has just read. An article appeared- in the Toronto Star about a financial catastrophe confronting the Dominion. As I said last night, any one in Canada who understood the situation would have known that that was a sensational article as it appeared in the Toronto Star, and would not in the circumstances have cabled it to England. But it was cabled to the London Times by its correspondent in Canada and was published in
[Mr. Church,!
the Times, as my hon. friend has just indicated to the house. When the article appeared in the London Times I received from the High Commissioner's office in England a communication stating that there was considerable concern in London as a consequence of the article which had appeared in the London Times and asking that as speedily as possible some word be sent which would be reassuring to the British public with respect to any financial situation that had arisen in Canada through the efforts of the pool to market the grain. If I remember correctly-I am speaking from memory at the moment-that communication came on a Saturday morning, and before the day was far advanced I had prepared and sent to the High Commissioner's office a communication indicating that the article quoted was simply a despatch that had appeared in one of the Canadian papers, that it was without any real foundation and that there was no occasion for any fear as to the financial situation with respect to the -marketing of grain, and in Monday's papers in England the erroneous impression which had been created by this despatch was -corrected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was in Tuesday's
Times; I have it before me.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: That is so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of privilege to which I desired to direct attention was in reference to the -remark that the article had appeared in a Tory paper.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I question
whether this is at all a matter of privilege, but if my hon. friend looks at my re-marks he will see that the reference to what appeared in the London Times has n-o relation to my remarks about a Tory paper. My remark about the Tory paper had reference to what appeared with respect to placards which were supposed to be distributed 'by some bakery o-r restaurant establishment in England.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it did not appear in the Times.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, that has nothing to do with the Times. However, if I might be afforded the same measure of privilege -as my hon. friend I might continue to enlighten him on the subject to which he referred. I have now here the communication which came from the High Cominrissione-r's office with respect to the despatch and I might give it to the house exactly as received, because I think it is a matter of publii-c interest. The High Coimmissionea-'s office sent the following despatch under date of February 7:

Civil Service
A despatch from Ottawa appearing in the "Times" states that there are rumours that number of grain firms are seriously involved in Winnipeg grain market situation and that an appeal has been made to the government to (treat?) matter as a national emergency and take over the whole crop. It cites article in "Toronto Star" of Wednesday under heading "Financial catastrophe confronts Dominion if wheat sales forced". And also statement in that paiper from leading grain dealers that if pools were forced to sell a great financial calamity would follow. I have been approached by representative of Canadian financial house in the city who informs me that this despatch has had very disturbing effect in the city and enquired if it would not be possible for our government to issue statement with a view of reassuring public here.
The following reply was sent by myself as Secretary of State for External Affairs under date of February 8, to the High Commissioner's office:
Your telegram No. 15 of 7th February. Prime Minister considers it would be preferable that statement should be made by the High Commissioner's Office referring to the reports in question and stating that they have been brought to the attention of the Canadian government, which has replied that the financial and credit position is thoroughly sound, that there is absolutely nothing in the situation which warrants the reported reference to hypothetical financial catastrophes, and that there is no foundation for the statement that representations have been made to the Dominion government urging that surplus wheat be taken over by the government to meet an alleged national emergency. With reference to statements which have been made as to restrictions on credit facilities by the banks and misapprehension which may exist of the relations between the banks arid the wheat .pool, you may call attention to the following statement issued yesterday by the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, Mr. Beaudry Leman, for the purpose of removing any misapprehension:
There has never been any restriction of credit facilities to the pool by the banks, and the voluntary action of the governments of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, without solicitation from the banks has removed any possibility of wheat being thrown upon the market, and should assure its orderly marketing.
Before the action by the governments, no pressure to liquidate present wheat stocks was exerted by the banks, nor do they contemplate any such action.
The Canadian hanks stand ready, in co-operation with the governments of the prairie provinces, to grant a full measure of assistance for the protection of the legitimate interests of the western wheat growers.
Notwithstanding the advances made by the banks to the pool, there has been no restriction whatever by Canadian banks in the making of advances to other borrowers entitled to credit.
Secretary of State
for External Affairs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By whom was the first
telegram signed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was simply signed "High Commissioner," evidently it was sent by the Acting High Commissioner.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That appeared also in
the London Times.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, last session I addressed a question to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) in connection with the eight hour day for all Dominion civil servants. He assured me then that he was taking action in the matter, and I would like to ask him what progress has been made and what action has been taken to ensure to the civil servants in Canada and all employees of the Dominion government the eight hour day?


Mr. SPEAKER:: This might serve as a
notice.



ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT COUNCILS

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: A few years ago the government agreed to the establishment of joint councils in the civil service. Could the Minister of Labour inform us when these councils will be set up?


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: I hope to be able to make a
definite announcement within the next two weeks.



UNEMPLOYMENT DEPUTATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
should like to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. According to the press a deputation will wait upon him to-morrow dealing with the unemployment situation. A number of the members of that deputation come from constituencies which some of us represent, and some of us have been asked to attend with the deputation at the office of the minister. I should like to know at what hour the meeting will be held and also whether there would be any objection to members of parliament coming with the deputation to ascertain the situation.


Peter Heenan: The meeting will take place tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock in room 239, joining the Privy Council room, and everyone is welcome.
The Address-Mr. Brady



GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. R. W. Gray for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday whom parliament assembled we had tihe unique honour of hearing two very fine speeches on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I could not help 'but notice that nature smiled favourably at that moment; the sun was shining through the eastern windows and everything seemed to point to a very successful sitting of this parliament. I likewise noticed that the hon. and most distinguished member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who, I believe has done yeoman service in this parliament for many years, came and focussed himself in one of the doorways and, as it were, sensed the coming battle which will be waged this year; at least that was the impression he gave me. Moreover I thought, Mr. Speaker, that the young gentleman who had the honour to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the bon. member from West Lambton (Mir. Gray) gave much thoughtful preparation to his speech but as I read it afterwards I came to the conclusion that it .is a very dangerous precedent for a young member entering parliament for the first time to be limited in his point of view as 'he seemed to be. I therefore, sir, take this opportunity of looking at the situation that exists in Canada to-day and I hope that anything I say will not be local in its character or limited in its significance.
The first thing, I think, that parliament should do is to take cognizance of the fact that in the speech from the throne there was no indication whatsoever that things were not satisfactory in Canada, Now I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, the picture of public life of Canada was not truer to facts, for we must .realize that we in this parliament are but the agents of public good1. I thought in the speech from the throne there should be at least some indication that the day had come in this period of Canada's history, for something more constructive and less vague. What, Mr. Speaker, is the situation in Canada to-day? I think that to-day the people are going to take into their own hands the destiny of Canada. Government is but the instrument of our social organization and after all our social life has within it all the factors that go to direct and guide the doings
[Mr. Heenan.3
of a parliament. What do I find? I find, sir, to-day that the government which is but the agent to complete the happiness, the peace, the comfort and prosperity of the people 'has not fulfilled its duty. How shall I prove that? I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is mot one either within the precincts of this house or in the broad fields of public life .amid commercial activity in Canada who will dare contradict what I am going to say. What are the facts? I look first to agriculture. I take a picture of agriculture from the maritimes to British Columbia and what is the 'situation to-day? Thie answer is that agriculture in Canada is in a parlous state. What did , Disraeli say at a great crisis in England's history when he noticed the danger that Britain was entering into owing to depression in agricultural pursuits? He looked at the state of agriculture in Britain and used these words, he said, the very principle of prosperity, the very essence of a people's greatness lies in the success of agriculture. You may for a short time after agriculture ceases to be successful have your ports filled with shipping, your industries may still resound with the noise of the anvil or the hammer but the time comes very speedily when these activities of industrial life shall .cease.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to labour a point which is known to every thinking miam and woman in Canada to-day. Our agriculture is not in the state we should expect, from such a magnificent country and one with such a wonderful and varied climate as Canada possesses.
Furthermore, sir, let us take another question which is uppermost in the minds of the people of Canada to-day. I refer to unemployment. I at least am honest enough to confess it has taken three years of quiet patient study to come to the realization that in Canada to-day we have what should not exist with the manifold and the wonderful natural resources which Canada possesses. I refer to the great body of men who through no fault of their own are out of employment to-day. I find, Mr. .Speaker, that in examining into the employment or unemployment situation there are two main classes affected and their numbers are increasing year by year. The first class is composed of industrial men who owe their unemployment to depression in industry. The second class is composed of the men who are unable to get employment because of the fact that by new methods in .industry and labour-saving devices they are not able to fit in. The result, Mr. Speaker, is that among these two classes alone we find a continual steady increase in the number of

The Address-Mr. Brady
unemployed. I find, sir, that to-day in Canada it is almost impossible for a man of forty years of age who is out of employment to fit himself in and get a job. Is it the fate of a man who 'has been economical, prudent, thrifty, temperate, to find himself in this Canada of ours, hopelessly left out in the scheme of social endeavour? I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a question of paramount importance and should concern parliament and the government of Canada. I was more than surprised when I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speak as he did. I think he spoke at least iwith full thought and with foreknowledge of what he was going to say, and he said that the question of unemployment is an individual question. It concerns, first, he says, the individual; then it concerns the locality wherein he lives; then the provincial government, and last and perhaps least, the federal government. Any man who has taken the trouble to read the story of industrial life must come to one conclusion, that unemployment is the result of our modern industrial system. Unemployment did not exist in the middle ages. During that period the problem was to get men enough to do the work which the state demanded, and even when we come down to the days of slavery in the United States we find that there was no unemployment. The slaves were whipped and beaten and made to do the work of the master. I claim that it shows a dereliction of duty, it shows a lack of vision and sympathetic understanding and a lack of good government when it is said that the unemployment question is not a part of the duty of the federal government. Go back into history and what do you find? You will find that in those days the natural resources of the country belonged to the people, but with the rise of governments we find that the governments began to control the natural resources of the country. What do we find to-day? We find to-day that the labourer is limited in his ability to earn a livelihood. The word "prosperity" has become nauseous to the ears of ninety per cent of the wage earners of Canada. But there is prosperity in this great country of ours. We see the wonders and marvels of our natural resources, but what do they produce for us? In the statistics of this country I find that for the twelve months ending October 31, 1929, the people of Canada purchased from the United States $900,000,000 worth of manufactured goods. I wonder how many people realize the significance of that very simple statement. It melans that every man, woman and child in Canada bought in that period from the United States $90 worth of manufactured goods.
I have the highest respect for the United States. Their genius and their capacity for world trade and industrial development is devoted exclusively to the wellbeing of their 116,000,000 people. But what about us today? I will tell you. The knell has sounded for the present policy which has defrauded Canada of its legitimate right to benefit by the great wealth which is being poured out through every channel of trade and which should be diverted to solve this very problem of unemployment. There is the answer.
I do not intend to cover the various points mentioned in the speech from the throne; it would be impossible for me to do that in the forty minutes' time which I am allowed, but I do want to give you a picture of what I conceive to be the actual condition in Canada to-day. In giving you this picture I am giving it through the eyes of the people of Canada. What is that situation? Go to the fisheries to-day and what do you find? You find that that great industry, both on the Pacific and the Atlantic seaboards, is being menaced by that aggressive state to the south of us. In what way? I will give you an illustration which should arouse the blood of all Canadian people and make them want to defend their very birthright. In the port of Prince Rupert, where I live and which I have the honour to represent, a situation exists which demands immediate relief from the present government. This port is the largest fishing centre on the North American continent and is a free port for American halibut vessels which ply the waters from Seattle to Kodiak, within the Arctic circle. These American fishermen bring their catches to Prince Rupert but do not pay one cent for the use of that port, beyond one dollar for their fishing licence. But what about the Canadian fisherman? He has a tax of 2 cents per pound placed upon his fish entering the American market. Although in the last five 3'ears that tax has amounted to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars we find today that the American interests are advocating that this tax be increased to 5 cents pel pound on frozen halibut entering the United States from foreign ports. Are we to protect our people, our fishermen, or aTe we not? The people of Canada are asking that question. The present government are being weighed in the balance and they are being found wanting. I came into parliament sufficiently independent in thought at least tc recognize merit whether it belongs to the government benches or to the members who are to my left, but I want to tell the house this afternoon that by the very action of the
The Address-Mr. Brady

government in closing their ears to the call of justice on the part of the Canadian people, their hour has now come and it is too late for the government to remedy their inaction.
That reminds me at this moment of a little story which is significant because of its truth. In one of the hospitals lately young medical students were being examined' by the doctors in charge, and one of the questions asked of one of the young medical students was this: what is a dose of croton oil? The student thought for a moment and said " A taJble-spoonful". The professor bent down, said nothing, but wrote in a little book on the table. Fifteen minutes later the young student, realizing the error he had made, went up to the iprofessor and said: "Will you please listen for a moment? I made a mistake. I discovered my error about that dose. May I correct it?" The answer was this: "No, young man; your patient has been dead for fifteen minutes". The present Liberal government has been dead, not for fifteen minutes but for the last two years. Why do I say that? I say it because of the fact public opinion is against it.
What do I find regarding our natural resources, for example? Even the record in the United States Senate reveals a story that is indicative of the trend of the suicidal policy which Canada has entered upon. We find that there it is admitted that Canada is the storehouse for the great masses of United States industrial life. Without Canada the United States to-day would find it difficult to get the raw materials that are essential for the building up of their industries and she recognizes that. Read the last report of the chief forester of the United States and it is a story which shows that in that great country their forest reserves have diminished to such an extent that it will be many years before they can be replaced and in some cases they will never be. Yet we in Canada are proud to think that to-day our export trade in raw puLp and lumber is expanding.
Is there anything else we want to see wherein we have failed? There is no department of Canadian life that we are not injuring, and we seem to be ignorant of the fact. Take the millions of homes in Canada. Take the magazines that are pouring in by the hundreds of thousands from the great republic to the south. Furthermore, go to your moving picture shows to-day and you will see how the youth of Canada are being brought up to recognize and look up to one great nation and one only, namely the United States. Moreover, go to-day -where radio passes and brings messages to every home even in the remotest parts of Canada, and

what do you find? You find that all the air channels, with very few exceptions, are controlled by the United States. Does anyone contend that the people of Canada are going to continue heedless, forgetful of the fact that the noblest work that a government was ever asked to do was to build up a nation? Is it possible that we have forgotten the glory and greatness of the men who built empires and nations? Whatever others may think, I believe the people of Canada to-day are so keenly alive to what Canada has been brought to that 1911 will be but a miniature of what is going to take place if an election should come in this country in the near future.
But I have one thing more to say in this short period. I come here assuredly with no petty view and with a most profound respect for the ministers who sit opposite me. My town was honoured this year by the presence therein of two of the outstanding characters in Canadian life. I refer to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I remember on a wonderful summer evening in 1910, another great leader of Canada's greatness, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, visited there likewise and received exactly the same inspiration which every thoughtful man receives when he croses the Rocky mountains and sees the glories of our Pacific coast. Therein there is a tale to tell. I speak now on a very important question. It is one that I regret that I at this hour should be called to present before parliament, but it is only an indication that the present government were blind to the wonderful opportunity of doing something outstanding and noble in building up western Canada. I refer to the Peace River country. The story of the Canadian National, of the Grand Trunk Pacific, is redolent of memories of struggle and heroic endeavour. But what do I find? I find that when Laurier stood in that western seaport town and envisioned the greatness of the Pacific trade, he uttered what was more or less a prophecy, that that port, now that a band oi steel linked it with the great continental arc of 'Canada, would come into its own. Thie result has bean that for the last nine years the wonderful possibilities of that port have remained undeveloped, due to the tragic dieiaith of Mr. 'Charles M. Hays who went down in the Titanic and later to the apathy of the Canadian National Railways. But for Mr. Hay's death I believe the port of Prince Rupert to-day would be one of the greatest ports for oriental and continental trade.
But the members of this government are also to blame. For the last four years a number of us have been urging in this house

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
that an outlet to the Pacific coast from the Peace River country should be .provided, but the government, because of a lack of courage and vision, have failed to do what the people demanded. Last September representatives of the chambers of commerce of Great Britain and Canada visited the Peace River country, and they were marvellously impressed with its possibilities, and passed resolutions demanding an outlet. They were amazed at its potential wealth and its -possibilities for development. But nothing has been done to develop that rich empire; -for it is an empire in itself. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that a fair estimate of the acreage of the Peace River country in northwestern Alberta and eastern British Columbia is -put at 47,000,000 acres of fertile land? That is an empire in itself, the richest garden in the whole British Empire, not exceeded even by the 10,000,000 fertile acres of Egypt. It is as large in area as Scotland, Ireland -and Wales combined. But when we spoke in this house of the wonderful possibilities of that country the Minister of Railways and 'his government failed to listen to us, and our demand for an -ouitlet- to th-e Pacific -coast has been consistently refused. I regret to-day, as I regretted -last year that the Canadian National amd Canadian Pacific agreed -to take over the railway lines in northern Alberta. I regret that 'the great spirit of the men who built the Canadian National railway and the Canadian Pacific railway seemed to have 'passed away. These roads were built originally for colonization purposes, to build up the country. Today, Mr. Speaker, the prospects of -the greatest -port in Canada -are -being jeopardized because of a lukewarm attitude on -the part of those who should know better. During twelve months of the last year 30,000 new settlers went into the Peace River country, where in 1911 there ware only 2,000 people. To-day the Peace River country has a -population of over 60,000. I a.m speaking of what I kno-w, and I ask why these people should be denied sun outlet to the legitimate -port to which t-heir products Should go. What de we find' in Canada today? Every Canadian regrets the serious situation that exists among the wheat farmers of western Canada, but we trust that the situation will improve, or otherwise inevitably the cities and the rest of the oou-nitiry will suffer. Last September I visited the Peace River country, which last year had Wheat fields as large as twelve hundred acres producing forty and fifty bushels of wheat to the acre, and yet a producing country like that has been denied an outlet to the Pacific coast. I am not -thinking simply of Prince Rupert.
I am thinking first and foremost of th-e whole people of Canada, because the development of -the port of Prince Rupert is a matter of national concern, and in conclusion I say, Mr. Speaker, that it was the duty of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and of the government to which -he belongs to see that an outlet from the Peace River country be built, an important Canadian port developed and a railway Which cost millions be made productive to the people of Canada.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I regret, Air. Speaker, that I did not hear the first part of the speech of my hon. friend from Skecna (Mr. Brady). He made, I am told, a kind reference to me. I do not kn-ow just what that reference was, but I am given to understand that he alluded to the radiance of my physiognomy. I admit that at the beginning of every session I do feel happy, and1 that is one of the reasons why I am standing up now to say the nice and agreeable things before I am -perhaps forced to be disagreeable later on. First of all, let me thank my hon-. friend. I am only sorry that the radiance whioh he found o-n my face has not penetrated his mind, 'because then he would not have felt as despondent as he appeared to be, in his speech.
The debate has been very interesting. The more I come to this house the younger I feel, and the more I sympathize with the young members, including my good neighbour here (Mr. Neill). Unfortunately I missed most of the speech of the mover of the address (Mr. Gray), but I read it this morning, and it struck me as one of the best speeches that have been made for many years in moving the address. While looking through the curtains before I entered the chamber I was struck by the resemblance of the hon. member to th-e late Sir Clifford Sifton, in profile, gesture, and something in -his voice. May I be permitted, in justice to all, past and present, to say that i-f the bon. member for West Lamibton (Mr. Gray) takes of the -best which that statesman contributed bo the policies of Canada, and leaves the rest aside, he will be a valuable addition to th-e membership of this house.
So far as my young friend from Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) is concerned, there was one point in his speech that I want to emphasize for the benefit especially of those members of the house who -have not the advantage of understanding both languages. He expressed as his personal opinion-and may I give him now the advice that when a young member, and even the older members, express their personal opinions they are apt

the British constitution that there should be a limitation to the time during which a parliament might sit before being sent back to the people to consult the electorate, but that likewise it was a good provision that the government of the day should choose the opportune moment to appeal to the people. Well, Mr. Speaker, that statement needs qualification. The Prime Minister knows, as the leader of the opposition and everyone familiar with the history of the British constitution know, that the limitation upon the prerogative of the king to maintain parliament as long as the king thought fit was imposed upon the crown after centuries of struggle, after the great revolutions of 1646 and 1688, in order to prevent a repetition of such abuses which took their most acute and concrete form in the maintenance of the Long Parliament; and that was a victory of British common sense over the instinct of autocracy which is dormant in the rulers of all lands, English as well as others.
However, there ds another aspect to the question with regard to the power of dissolution, and here, at the risk of meeting my fate as the leader of the opposition did yesterday, I will quote my authority. A good many years ago I was struck with the opinion expressed by so conservative a thinker and writer as Mr. Lecky, who wrote in such a happy manner, so quietly and unpretentiously but so clearly and so much to the point, which made him and my late friend Goldwin Smith, opposed as they were in everything, the most delightful writers of constitutional history of whom I knew or read. Lecky made the observation that the evolution of constitutional government as practised in England from the time of John Lackland to the present day has been, first, a victory of aristocracy over the king, then a gradual gain of communal liberties over aristocracy and the king; then, as in France, a kind of unwritten understanding between the king and the commons against the aristocracy or, at times, between the king and the aristocracy against the people. In other words, the king relied on the commons to curtail the powers of the lords and upon the lords to curb the pretensions of the commons. But through all those struggles there proceeded a development which very few observed at the time, namely, the growth of autocratic and oligarchic power of the cabinet over king, lords and commons. As a true Britisher, sir, and a true Canadian, also-though I a.m not too proud of it-as a democrat who is forced to live in a democracy, I deprecate the exercise of that autocratic will of the cabinet to decide at 
the pleasure of ten or twelve gentlemen, possibly men of genius; generally, I hope, honest men, but for the most part, in this as in all other countries, politicians who are more concerned about the fate of their party than about important matters of state. It is but natural that a government composed only of angels and archangels would have a sorry life in a terrestial community. There would be too great a discrepancy between the ordinary level of public morality and the mentality of a ministry of that type. A prime minister, therefore, is careful not to choose too many of that kind in selecting the members of the cabinet or replenishing -its numbers when vacancies occur. Since the cabinet, then, must be composed of average men presumed to represent the people, they should not decide behind closed doors what the date of an election shall be, simply because it may be convenient for ministers representing Ontario to have the election this year, or for representatives of Quebec another year, or for western representatives this month or that, without concerning themselves for five minutes -well, yes, they may concern themselves for say fifteen minutes-with the wishes of their partisans. But generally, they decide such matters beforehand and then call a caucus. Thirty years ago I assisted in three or four caucuses-and never went back. Having thus decided, they implore the acquiescence of their friends-I mean such of them as are strong enough to resist-whereupon they pounce it upon the heads of the rest. That is generally the result of caucuses; that is well known on both sides.
But there is something of much more importance than consulting the opinion of 110 or 120 gentlemen sitting on this or on any side of the house, and that is consulting the interests of the country, consulting the interests of trade. Everybody knows that a general election is an inconvenience to -the trade of the country, and this is especially true with respect to a general election in -the period in which we now find ourselves-an election which may come this year, may come within six months or be delayed for eighteen. Out present- system is worse than the system in the United States. I have long ceased to do what is so frequently done in this house -to copy the Americans, or to taunt my opponents because they may say something which savours of Americanism. The United States is a great nation; the United States government, like all others, has its faults and its good qualities. The United States constitution is in many respects inferior to the British, but in some -respects it is superior. Having regard to the conditions in a country

The Address-Mr. Bourassa
like Canada, I say it is high time to do as the Americans do in this respect and let the Canadian people know the exact time that they will be called upon, as a jury to pass a verdict upon the actions of their government and parliament.


Mr. HEAPS:: Do you favour a fixed term of parliament?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course I do; I advocated that in the Quebec legislature twenty years ago. I advocated it in this parliament, I think, before I left twenty-three years ago -always subject, of course, to the prerogative of the king on the advice of his ministers to ask for dissolution and get it as a matter of right should the government be defeated in the house. That explains why I helped to save this government from disaster in 1926, when the then Governor General and the then leader of the opposition played football with the principles not only of the British constitution but as well of a true and sound democracy. I do not regret having done that, but I say to this government as I would to any other: Do not pose as wise men who possess in themselves all knowledge as to what is good for the country, who can decide within their owm council whether an appeal should be made to the people this year or the other year. No; if you think there is a question of such importance that it requires consultation with the people, do as they now usually do in England-where they have no need to alter the constitution but may change the practice according to their needs-announce your policy; obtain a pronouncement of public opinion; place before the people your views. Do this and when the time comes you will get a saner verdict, one given in cooler blood, than can be brought about by any mysterious, underhand procedure involving all the wire-pullings which go with the sudden launching out upon an election in order to snatch an expression of public opinion. I have never believed in that, and I express my opinion about it this afternoon quite candidly.
Similarly, I do not think it is fair to the members of the house to leave them in ignorance of the day they will be called to Ottawa to meet in parliamentary session. Here I speak most disinterestedly because to me as to half the members who come from Quebec and Ontario, it does not make much difference. But to hon. members who come from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the maritime provinces- to them it is mot a question of coming here for five days in the week and going home to meet their families and look after their business
bdtween Saturday and Monday. It is a question either of leaving their families behind or of bringing them here, and of abandoning their private business affairs for five or six months. To members from these parts of the country it is extremely inconvenient mot to know whether they will be called to Ottawa in January or in February. To millionaires or paupers it means nothing, but it does mean something to the average Canadian who is earning an honest living outside of parliament -because I know it is difficult to earn an honest living in parliament, even to earn honestly the indemnity we receive from the people of Canada. I say, therefore, that for the average member of parliament living at a considerable distance from Ottawa, the present arrangement in this respect is unjust. Again it is ridiculous to say that because it is done in London we should do it here. I repeat the illustration I have frequently used -that because it is raining in London I do not feel the necessity of turning up the bottom of my trousers. I choose my garments according to the climate of Canada, and I think we should fit the habits of parliament according to the needs of parliament. In England, three-fourths of the members of both houses live in London, and those who come from Wales and Scotland have only a few hours to travel to the capital. But when it is a question of travelling one, two or three thousand miles, to spend five months in Ottawa, I think it is due in justice to three-quarters of the members of the house to let them know in advance at what time of the year they will have to quit their personal business in order to attend to the business of the country. If that notice were given the members would be better off both in their private capacity and in the execution of their duty to the country.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition has made an appeal to the members of this house to state whether or not they are more prosperous to-day than previously. I do not know about the hon. gentleman since he resigned all his directorships for the platonic honour of leading the great historic-and hysterical-Conservative party. He may not feel as prosperous as when he was free to denounce the former leader of his party as being the megaphone of some railroad company; but for those of us who have no prospect or ambition of becoming advisers of the crown, those of us who simply endeavour to exercise their humble functions, I do not think we are any worse off to-day. Those of us who have not been stock-gambling, whose sons and daughters still stay at home
The Address-Mr. Bourassa

instead of going to such fashionable hotels as the Mount Royal and the Ritz Carlton to live a fast life, well, I think we are a little better off than we were twenty years ago. On the contrary, those of us who have adopted modern habits realize that it requires more money.
As far as the labour element is concerned, I agree to some extent with the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), but I must relate an experience I had last year. Out of the savings of twenty years of arduous life I was foolish enough to build myself a modest home; and during the six months which it took to build that house it was always surrounded with the automobiles of the gentlemen painters, the gentlemen carpenters and the gentlemen bricklayers who came to erect my house. It cost me so much money that I have had to renounce for the rest of my life the luxury of owning an automobile.
There are many other factors which could be mentioned, but I mention only that one little point, the convenience of members of parliament in attending to their own business as well as the country's business. I leave it to the conscience of the government and to their common sense, whether it is not high time that they should renounce their aristocratic attitude, shrouded with mystery, similar to that attitude which permitted the leaders of governments in England, long ago, to launch an election or to refuse it. To-day no government in England would dare to appeal to the country without giving such notice in advance as permits all parties, all leaders, - and all expressers of opinion, ample time in which to face the issues. As far as I am concerned, I am absolutely indifferent. I am prepared to go to the polls to-morrow, six months hence or a year hence. Whether I am elected or defeated is all the same to me. I will say to my people simply and candidly what I think, and I will be judged by their common sense, as I hope I will be judged in this house, not upon the few pinpricks which I may have sent right and left, but on my real thought as disclosed to the members on all sides of the house.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that it is my misfortune to follow the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) after his delivery of such an interesting and instructive speech. I do not have very -much concern as to the time of the -next election, but I do hope that when the government goes to the country the electors will know exactly what the government stands for, as well as the stand taken by the opposition.

I do not think I would have taken any part in this debate, except that I desire some information as to the " unprecedented prosperity " which has been spoken of by both leaders, as well as referred to in the speech from the throne. I am hoping that some day the workers of this country, the farmers and the wage earners particularly, will have more to say as to the politics which concern them, and that in this house their opinions as to prosperity will be voiced rather than the opinions of the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the presidents of our banks. Of course, the banks are prosperous because of the adversity of other people. I have listened to the speeches of both the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition in an effort to find some indication of policy which would give a hopeful outlook to the workers and farmers of this country, but I have been disappointed. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, can anyone in this house say that one party is protectionist and the other party for free trade? What does one party stand for which distinguishes it from the other? Both parties stand for the utmost in privilege, both stand for the utmost in trade restriction for the farmer, both deny the workers and wage earners the freedom of exchange in goods and labour. Both parties stand for the utmost in class privilege, and I would like to mention some of the means used to carry on this game of privilege. There is, first, the intimidation of the workers in our industrial centres; then there is the concealment of the real facts regarding the administration of the customs tariff. The act does not say that the amount of duty levied on any article is to be according to the status of the person who happens to be the importer. Such status is always defined by the privileged interests, the manufacturers and the distributors-their decision is taken and acted upon by those who administer the act. I have here a statement from one who has seen many years of active service in the administration of the Customs Act. He plainly shows that so far as the manufacturer is protected against the private importer or the purchasing public, his protection is not 30 or 35 per cent but often over 100 per cent and sometimes 150 per cent. Let me show how this is done. He says:
To appro-ach a discussion of the tariff question properly, there are two acts of parliament to consider, and these acts cannot be divorced. The Customs Act is the controlling factor in the amount of revenue collected from any importer, the Tariff Act only classifying the merchandise and giving the rate of the impost. The Customs Act lays down the method of arriving at the value for duty and also the method of arriving at the status of the importer by the customs appraisers.

The Address-Mr. Evans
This determines the amount of duty that any importer, a private person, any one of the consuming public, has to pay. The tariff schedule, as it stands to-day, is no indication of the amount of tariff to be collected on any article. This is how it is done. The small dealer always gets from the manufacturer a discount of 50 per cent plus 15 plus 5. The rate of duty on a set of articles which this gentleman deals with, namely, kitchen utensils, is 30 per cent. The value for duty for the small dealer is $40.38. The large dealer gets a discount of 50 per cent plus 15 plus 10, and his value for duty is $38.25. Then the departmental store comes a Little better and its value for duty is S36.13. The jobber gets a discount of 50 per cent plus 15 plus 20, so that the value for duty in his case is $34.01. All these discounts are allowed in the appraisement for customs purposes. The list price to all is $100. If any consumer imports these articles, the discount is not allowed for customs purposes and so he pays on a value of $100. Therefore what costs the consumer $130, costs the jobber $44.21, the departmental store, $46.96, the large dealer, $49.72 and the small dealer, S52.49. Is there any fairness in that? AJ1 laws should be made for all people alike, and all should stand equal before the law. Has the government any right to accept a classification in this way from the Canadian manufacturers and distributors?
For the purpose of facilitating the immunity of the manufacturer from competition-it is a great game, lonig played by governments and manufacturers on the consuming public-this system of discounts was inaugurated a long time ago all over the North American continent. As classified here, they pay the duty on the net cost of the article. The classification of the citizen is made by the manufacturing and distributing combines. There is not a hint of such a classification in the customs tariff. This gentleman's statement is a direct accusation of intrigue on the part of the government with the manufacturers whom they put out of competition entirely with any other importer. Indeed, Mr. Deachman, who is, I believe, the propagandist for the Liberal party, says that at 30 per cent there is more duty collected on these articles-kitchen utensils-than is paid as wages in the whole industry in Canada. But even then he did not take into account the classification of the different importers or how each one is entitled to favourable appraisements. This statement to which I refer was secured from one in the outside service. I submitted it to an expert at Ottawa and he illuminates the figures as follows:
There is only one mistake, if any, and that is in t'he classification of the third, the departmental store.
The consumer or private importer pays three times as much as the wholesale jobber, two and four-fifths times as much as the departmental store, two and three-quarter times as much as the large dealer and two and one-half times as much as the small dealer.
But to pass on, by these means the workers are completely delivered over to the manufacturers. The more the worker is plucked of his earnings, the greater the cry of prosperity to be heard around this house. Because of the tariff as it stands and the way in which the act is administered, the farmer too is precluded from any hope of success or competence. He has to find his market price against the competition of the whole world, and he meets the competition of cheap labour of even Asia and Europe. Yet he has to buy his supplies in a protected market whereby as a consumer he is discriminated against in this way. This, we are told is prosperity.
To show how it works and the state of agriculture to-day, particularly in western Canada, I clipped these figures from the Saskatoon Star of February 12 last:	The farm
loan board deficit of Saskatchewan amounts to date to S2,526,729.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: On what does
the hon. member base his statement? If it is a statement of figures, who found that out by actual investigation?


John Evans: I copied these figures from
those given in the legislature in Regina the other day.


Malcolm McLean: And disproved,
discredited.


John Evans: From the auditor's statement. The loss on foreclosed loans has been $281,954. This can be better understood when it is known that in no case, or in hardly any, has the farm loan board given more than 50 per cent of the value of appraisal given by their appraisers on any farm. Add this 50 per cent to the $281,954, and on those farms the land has fallen in value to that extent. Indeed, as I was coming here from Toronto the other day, I had a conversation with a gentleman who ought to know something of conditions in Ontario, and he told me that no farmer expecting to sell out in certain counties in western Ontario ever thinks of getting more than the price of his buildings. I quote that to show the extent to which the system of protection and privilege has brought the farming population down.
Like the Prime Minister, who hopes that the break in the stock market will prove a


Mr. BROWN:: Is the hon. gentleman advocating that?


John Evans: No, I am not advocating it. But what will the leader of the opposition do, seeing that this parliament has guaranteed to him and his clients a complete profit over the whole of their output whether sold for domestic use or in the foreign market? What is he going to do for agriculture when facing a situation such as this? Retaliation? What is retaliation? Retaliation, according to the idea of the protectionists, is to raise the tariff in this oountry so high that no goods can come in, but still allow our manufacturers to export goods over the tap of any tariff wall that any other country may erect. There is no other meaning to retaliation. There cannot be such a thing as retaliation against anyone in a foreign country by erecting a higher tariff wall around Canada.
To meet a supposed situation in the United States our manufacturers are calling for a higher tariff. Who will be the sufferers? The consumers of Canada alone. If France puts a duty of 73 cents a bushel on our wheat, who suffers? The French consumers. We are guaranteeing a profit to our manufacturers, who call for more and more protection to the extent that they may charge the home consumer a price that will give them a profit over the whole of their output, whether sold ait home or abroad. There is no other reason in asking for higher protection to-day. Our present tariff has reduced the western farmer to a state where he can hardly make ends meet. To-day in Canada a man cannot on his own ability and industry establish himself in any small enterprise, obickem-raising, if you like, or a small farm, the cost of everything having gone up too much to allow this; and
prices are going higher and still higher. Today the cost of living in Canada is as high or higher than 'in any other country in the world to which we are shipping out goods. I had -the pleasure of laying a set of figures before the immigration inquiry commission of the Saskatchewan government, at present sitting in Saskatchewan. Taking the prices of staple foods from the Labour Gazette published under the authority of the Minister of Labour here, I find that in Saskatoon the price of bread for the month of December averaged 8.8 cents a pound, while in the British Isles where we ship our flour and our wheat it was 4.8 cents. But that is not the only evil of protection. Protection unites everyone who has a privilege and a benefit under it. Our millers to-day are controlling our bakeries, and it is ony where there is plenty of .competition from .private parties that the price of bread is even somewhere near where it ought to be. While bread was 8.8cents a pound in Saskatoon, it was 6.7 cents a pound in Font William. These are things which I want the government to know. Prices for necessaries are now such that no working main can afford even to establish a home.
As I say, I listened to the speeches of the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition in Saskatoon, and I was much amused at an exhibition which the leader of the opposition made before his audience by producing a five dollar bill. It seems that some shippers of certain goods in British Columbia had been importing their packing cases from the United States, and the hon. leader of the opposition produced a five dollar bill and said:	If this money had only been
spent in Canada it would have gone around to the lumber-workers and to those who feed them and so on. Well, I expect he impressed the natives of British Columbia with the same exhibition; evidently he got away with his joke and the five dollar bill in that province. But in Saskatoon he never said where he got all that money; and what impressed me more than anything was that he never said where the five dollar bill went. He said:	Now,
we will take this five dollar bill. "Take" was the word, and that is the method of the protectionist, I believe. Then he told the audience that some of the requirements of certain primary producers were being imported from the United States, that if these things had been manufactured in Canada this five dollar bill would have circulated among the lumber-workers and all those who produced to feed the men who made these articles. But never mind where it came from, let us follow this five dollar bill and see
The Address-Mr. Evans

Two other notices bore the date of January 20. Still the minister in his wire tells me that there will be no dispossession until spring. Just imagine these papers being received by registered mail, taken home by the settler and read by him to his wife and family sitting around him in their little shack. What other conclusion can. he arrive at than that he must hand over his stock and leave the place in two cases on the 20th February and. in this case on the 28th February. Yet the minister says that they are not being dispossessed until spring. The soldier settlement board was established for the sole purpose of reestablishing these men, assisting them and encouraging them to stay on the land, but it has become nothing more than a glorified collection department. Case after case has been presented to the house. Last session it will be remembered that cases were presented by some of the hon. members for western Canada showing that it was impossible to obtain sufficient revenue from these holdings to meet the demands of the board and the cost of living. These have been termed' exceptional cases. I have a file of these cases and I have come across so many I do not think they can any longer be considered as isolated cases. From my experience they are general. But I am not going to take up the time of the house in presenting these or any of them. I would just like to draw the attention of the minister and the government to the convention of the Canadian Legion. A special committee at that convention went thoroughly into this question; they brought witnesses before them and they collected a good deal of evidence. They came to the conclusion that it was impossible for these settlers to make good under present conditions and they so reported to the convention. The convention recommended the " remission of interest and a straight cut of 25 per cent."
We are told that there is outstanding on these loans, $73,000,000. This of course stands against the 10.000 abandoned farms as well as against the 13,000 occupied holdings. What portion is standing against the occupied holdings, we do not know, but we do know that to administer and' care for these 13.000 holdings it is costing this country $1,500,000 a year, or -more than $100 a year or about $10 a month for each holding. It might be good [DOT]business for Canada to give these men their title and wipe out this expenditure of $1,500,000 a year. But the returned men are not asking for that; they want simply a square deal, and I would suggest to the government that this session they seriously consider the recommendation of the Canadian Legion and at the same time take into consideration the

appointment of a commission, independent of the board, to go thoroughly into this as well as the 3,000 family scheme under which we have so many dissatisfied settlers.
This is all I wish to draw to the attention of the government at the present time. It is a very important question to the soldier settler, and I hope the government will take it into their serious consideration and make some provision for the relief of these men who are undertaking to make good on the land throughout the Dominion of Canada.
Motion (Mr. Gray) agreed to.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That the address be engrossed and transmitted to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of the house as are of the honour-aible the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) for Mr. Dunning moved:
That this house will to-morrow resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved1:
That this house will to-morrow resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Wednesday, February 26, 1930