1931-04-17

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 29, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This proposed amendment applies only to the province of Saskatchewan. As the house will remember, an agreement was made in the year 1928 under which the administration of the police force in that province was undertaken by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the object of this amendment is to extend the provisions of the present Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to certain men of the Saskatchewan [Mr. Hackett.J
police who have been incorporated into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is for pension purposes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Before the orders of the day are
called, Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the government to an article which appeared in The Mail and Empire of Thursday, April 16, with reference to a riot in the streets of Winnipeg, involving 6,000 unemployed, and disturbances in other centres of Canada. There had been a request that an unemployment insurance bill be put through the legislature, and Premier Bracken replied that:
A resolution, already passed, favoured the calling of a conference of federal and provincial governments to consider a scheme of unemployment insurance.
I was wondering, in view of this serious situation, whether or not the Prime Minister would give the country an assurance as to whether he intended calling a conference with the provincial governments with a view to putting through an unemployment insurance scheme at an early date.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: In view of the fact that nine years
have passed without such a conference having been called, the hon. gentleman might ask himself whether the government should be expected to call a conference while parliament is in session and we have been in power but a few months.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker, I do not
wish to move the adjournment of the house, as I am entitled to do in view of such an answer as the Prime Minister has given. Let me point out, however, that during the time I was Minister of Labour there were no riots nor bloodshed in any period of unemployment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Peter Heenan: And I still think-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Unless the hon. member
proposes to address a question to the Prime Minister or to a minister I must rule him out of order.

Unemployment Situation


Peter Heenan: Then I will ask for the
adjournment of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: For the same reason
given to the house on a recent date, I now rule this application out of order, inasmuch as the matter therein referred to has already bteen discussed by the house and will no doubt be again considered in the course of the debate now proceeding.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Will your honour read
the motion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member wishes
to move the adjournment of the house to discuss what he describes as a matter ot urgent public importance, namely, a report of a riot in Winnipeg.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman must abide by the rules of the house.


Peter Heenan: Then, Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to appeal against your ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Speaker having decided that the application by Mr. Heenan for leave to move the adjournment of the house to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the reported riots of unemployed in Winnipeg and other points in Canada, to be out of order as not being a definite matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Heenan appeals from that decision.


Peter Heenan: Before you give your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I would remind you, sir, that there has not been discussed in the house so far during this session the question of riots in this country. I submit, sir, that this is an entirely new question-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There were no riots to
start with.


Peter Heenan: -and therefore I think I have not only a right but a duty to raise the question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman may
not proceed to make a speech at the moment. My ruling is that the application is not in order, inasmuch as the matter to which reference is made is not one of urgent public importance.


Peter Heenan: Will your honour not allow me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is only one course
for the hon. gentleman to take; he may appeal from the Speaker's ruling.


Peter Heenan: Will you not allow us to
argue a point of order?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman can
appeal from the ruling of the chair; there is no other method I know of which he may take.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-High Park),
Barber,
Baribeau,
Barrette,
Beaubier,
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Beynon,
Bowman,
Burns,
Bury,
Cahan,
Cantley,
Carmichael,
Casselman,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Cotnam,
Cowan (Long Lake), Dickie,
Dorion,
Duguay,
Embury,
Ernst,
Esling,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Ganong,
Gordon,
Guthrie,
Hackett,
Hanson (York-Sunbury),
Hay,
Johnstone,
Jones,
LaVergne,
Loucks,
Macdougall,
MacLaren,
MacMillan
(Saskatoon),
MacNicol,
McGregor,
MeLure,
Maloney,
Morand,
Myers,
Nicholson,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Perley (Sir George), Picket,
Plunkett,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Robinson,
Rogers,
Ross,
Ryerson,
Senn,
Shaver,
Short,	.
Smith (Vietoria-Carleton),
Smith (Cumberland), Smoke,
Spankie,
Spence,
Spotton,
Sproule,
Stanley,
Stewart (Lethbridge), Stitt (Nelson),
Stitt (Selkirk), Sullivan,
Sutherland,
Swanston,
Thompson (Simcoe East),
Thompson (Lanark), Turnbull,
Weir (Melfort), White (London), Willis,
Wright.-82.
Unemployment Situation

Blair,
Bothwell,
Bourassa,
Bradette,
Brasset,
Brown,
Butcher,
Campbell,
Cardin,
Cayley,
Coote,
Denis,
Desrochers,
Donnelly,
Dubois,

Fafard,
Fise-t (Sir Eugene), Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Gershaw,
Hanson (Skeena), Heaps,
Heenan,
Howard,
Hurtubise,
Irvine,
Kennedy (Peace River),
King, Mackenzie,
++NAYS
Messrs:
Lapointe,
Lucas,
Luchkovich,
Maelnnis,
Mackenzie (Vancouver Centre),
MacLean,
Macphail (Miss), McMillan (Huron South),
McPhee,
Marcil,
Motherwell,
Minn,
Neill,
Parent,
Perras,
Reid,
Roberge,
Sa nderson,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Taylor,
Totzke,
Veniot,
Verville,
Weir (Macdonald), Woodswo-th,
Young.-56.
(The list of pairs as furnished by the chief whips.)
Peck,
Pettit,
Rhodes,
Rowe,
Ryekn.an,
Sauve,
Simpson (North Simcoe).
Simpson (Algoma), Stevens,
Stewart (Leeds),' Stinson,
Stirling,
Tetrault,
Tummon,
Wilson,
Weese,
White (Mount Royal),
Beaubien,
Bouchard,
Ralston,
Lacroix,
Chevrier,
Seguin,
Fraser
(Northumberland),
Casgrain,
Malcolm,
Hepburn,
Hall,
Hanbury,
Dumaine,
St-Pere,	.
Vallance,
Buckley,
Fournier.


Mr. POWER:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGib-bon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling of the Chair.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair.
Anderson (Halton), Arsenault,
Baker.
Bell (Hamilton),
Bell (St. Antoine), Black (Halifax), Boyes,
Bowen,
Cowan (PortArthur-Thunder Bay), Dupre,
Duranleau,
Edwards,
Gagnon.
Garland (Carleton), Geary,
Gobeil,
Gott.
Harris,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Lafleche,
Laurin,
Lawson,
Lennox,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), McDade,
McGibbon,
Manion,
Matthews,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Mullins,
Murphy,


Messrs:
Factor,
Thauvette,
Bertrand,
Mercier (St. Henri), Raymond,
Dubuc,
Deslauriers, McKenzie (Assiniboia), Ilsley,
Ferland,
Rinfret,
Elliott,
Boulanger,
Goulet,
Mercier (Laurier-Outremont), Rheaume, Rutherford,
Jacobs,
McIntosh,
Girouard,
Fontaine,
Gray,
Pouliot,
Urquhart,
Ahearn,
Dupuis,
Power,
Euler,
Moore (Ontario),
Robitaille,
Howden,
Stewart (Edmonton),


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.
Mr. ST-PERE:	I was paired with the
hon. member for South Hastings (Mr. Tummon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. BUCKLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. MOORE (Ontario):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Toronto East-Centre (Mr. Matthews). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Henri (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur):: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Ivings (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. McKBNZIE (Assiniboia):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. GOULET:: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted, I would have voted against the lul-ing.


Mr. HALL:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Victoria (Ont.) (Mr. Stinson). Had I not been paired, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Northeast Toronto (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. FONTAINE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the ruling.
Mr. MaeDONALD (Cape Breton South):
I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the luling.


Mr. SIMPSON (Simcoe):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling.


Mr. SAUVE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for l'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the ruling.



REPORTED EMPLOYMENT IN CANADA OF UNITED STATES WORKMEN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. PARENT (Terrebonne):: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Labour or of the Acting Minister of Labour
Unemployment Situation
to a despatch which appears in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, and which reads as follows:
U.S. Workers Admitted Rockport. Unemployed Claim Unfair Treatment Brockville, Ont., April 16.-Considerable feeling has been aroused in the Rockport area, in the Thousand Islands, through immigration officials permitting United States carpenters, painters and other tradesmen^ to enter the country for the purpose of carrying ont renovation and improvements to summer homes in the vicinity owned by Americans while Canadian residents of the neighbourhood remained unemployed.
I also wish to draw attention to another despatch which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday, the 16th instant, and which carries the information that the United States government, in order to protect the interests of its citizens, is taking steps to deport 30,000 French Canadians from the New England states.
The question which I wish to ask is this: Will the Minister of Labour or the Acting Minister of Labour, when the opportunity presents itself, as it apparently does in this Brockville case, retaliate against the United States government by deporting to their own country those painters, carpenters and other tradesmen who appear to be doing work which should be carried on by Canadian citizens.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :: This question of the interchange
of labour has arisen on many occasions, and the Department of Immigration is working in harmony with the Department of Labour. Whenever a complaint is made, immediate investigation is started and deportation takes place if the evidence is sufficient to warrant deportation. I am happy to state that the relationship along the international boundary even at this time is, I believe, harmonious and the interests of the Canadian workmen are being carefully guarded by both the Labour department and the Department of Immigration.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: The
hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Parent) has drawn the attention of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) to a situation that has developed along the border, and in Ontario, I believe. I wish to draw his attention to a similar situation in New Brunswick, which has not developed recently but has been in existence for some years back, and I would ask the minister, when considering the matter brought to his attention by the

Brodhagen Postmaster

hon. member for Terrebonne, at the same time to consider the situation as it has developed in the towns of St. Stephen and Milltown in New Brunswick.
Hon. VY. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :	The Department of Labour is always ready to consider any question that may arise at any time along the international boundary or anywhere else that affects the workers of this Dominion.


Peter John Veniot: I take it, then, that this
matter will be considered. Thank you.



BRODHAGEN, ONT., POSTMASTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I desire to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I have in my hand a clipping from the Toronto Globe under date of April 15, containing an interview given William March-ington of the Globe by the Postmaster General. I shall not read it all. It is in regard to the letters and affidavits that were sent out from the Post Office Department to postmasters charged with partisanship during the last election. I would draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the following phrase:
The letter is addressed only to postmasters accused by sworn statements or affidavits.
I desire to ask the Postmaster General a question with regard to the case of a postmaster in my constituency which I brought up in the house on March 31 last, namely, the postmaster at Brodhagen in South Perth. I would ask the Postmaster General if the letter and affidavit were sent to the postmaster at Brodhagen before any sworn statements were made in regard to his conduct during the election of last summer. I would also ask if there have been any sworn statements made against that postmaster. I would not expect an answer offhand unless the Postmaster General is prepared to give it to me, but I desire to know-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member says that he does not expect an answer offhand. Then why not put the question on the order paper?


Frederick George Sanderson: Would it not be better for the Postmaster General to say whether or not he can answeT the question now.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Stenographers are supplied for the use of members, and there is no trouble in writing to the minister and getting a reply to such a question.
[Mr. VemotJ


Frederick George Sanderson: I have directed my question to the Postmaster General in the house, and I await his answer.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not want to make a speech in answer to my hon. friend. I am glad to say, however, that the statement published by the Globe is correct.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is correct?


Arthur Sauvé: Yes, and I am ready to put the letter on the table in the regular way.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the Postmaster General-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am going to ask another question, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member has occupied enough of the time of the house at this stage. If every member present undertakes to ask half a dozen questions on the orders of the day respecting matters that are not of urgent importance, we shall never get on with any business. I must call the hon. member to order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you rule that I have no right to ask another question?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My ruling is that the hon. member has asked his question, and that it has been answered. I would therefore ask him to desist from asking further questions on the same subject just now.


Frederick George Sanderson: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that my question has not been answered, that only part of it has been answered.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Even so, the minister is not obliged to answer at all. He has seen fit to answer as he has, and the hon. member is obliged to accept that answer.


Frederick George Sanderson: If that is the attitude of the Postmaster General, well and good.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
ORIENTALS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: In view of the fact that a census is about to be taken throughout Canada I would ask the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Manion) if he would seriously consider,

Privilege-Mr. Bennett
in view of the great encroachment of orientals in British Columbia, the advisability of having the census takers ascertain the numbers of orientals who are illegally in the province of British Columbia?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The question of the illegality of the residence of orientals in British Columbia is a matter for the Department of Immigration rather than for the census takers.
AIR MAIL SERVICE On the orders of the day:
Mr. C- R- MdlNTOSH (North Battle-ford) : I have a question to direct to the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Just take your time;
the question is coming. And may I say there is an element of wonder in it. Psychologically, it would not be a question if there were not an element of wonder in it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put the question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am going to if you give me time. The question does not concern government policies. The question i3 simply this: Is the air mail service at present enjoyed between the cities of Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon and North Battleford to be discontinued or not? To be or not to be, that is the question.


Arthur Sauvé: The question is under consideration.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I want to thank the minister for his reply.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BENNETT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I very much regret being compelled to draw the attention of this house to what I conceive to be a breach of its privileges. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard), speaking in the house last evening, said, as reported at page 674 of Hansard:
If the Prime Minister were in his seat I would direct his attention to the statement he made yesterday on the floor of this house. He said that he would never consent to unemployment insurance, but I say to-night that if the manufacturers of Canada have to take on unemployment insurance in the near future they can date the cause back to the present government's attitude towards the needs of this country.
No such statement was made by me. On the preceding day, as reported in Hansard at page 631, these words occur:
They came here this morning to urge upon the government non-contributory unemployment insurance. I told them they would never get it from any government that I had to do with; that is what I told them; I was perfectly frank about it.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke either deliberately or otherwise left out the word "non-contributory." Either he heard what I said in the house or he did not. If he did not hear my statement he must have seen it in Hansard. Therefore either deliberately or otherwise he stated that which is not the fact.


Mr. YOUNG:: Inadvertently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To my mind the onlj
evidence that it was not inadvertently dohe would be the fact that possibility of inadvertence has been suggested by my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young). May I say that I can conceive of no greater breach of privilege in this house than a deliberate statement of that character made by an hon. member with respect to the observations on the preceding daj' of another hon. member.



EMBARGO AGAINST POTATOES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Question
No. 19, dealing with the embargo placed against Canadian potatoes by the British government has been on the order paper for some time. I would like to ask for information regarding the removal of this embargo against Canadian potatoes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I direct the attention of the house to
the fact that the question is already on the order paper.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker, there are
many questions in a similar position to that of the one mentioned by my hon. friend from Prince, and they have not yet been considered.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down; and let us get at it.


John Vallance: Hon. members on this
side want to get at it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It may be somewhat inconvenient, but I must state that the subject sought to be dealt'with is on the order paper and hon. members cannot anticipate such questions by asking them orally.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: This is a very urgent
question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. minister wanted to answer it.

The Address

Mr. Nicholson



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

[Stage Direction]
CONTINUATION OP DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS IN *	REPLY
The house resumed from Thursday, April 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Max D. Cormier for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Mr G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the house on a resolution which has been debated for something over three weeks one naturally feels that almost everything which could profitably be said has been said. However Canada is a big country and it has many problems. I believe that with the situation now prevailing, economically and socially the most serious which has prevailed for fifty years, it is our duty to explore every phase of the situation as thoroughly as possible in an effort to learn the causes and if possible to suggest some solution.
Before proceeding further, Mr. Speaker, I desire to congratulate you on your almost complete restoration to health and to express the wish which is in the heart and mind of every hon. member in this house that you will be long spared to preside over its deliberations. I also wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the resolution on the very able manner in which they dealt with the whole question now before us. I wish also to congratulate the government on the scope and character of the speech from the throne the details of which we will have ample opportunity to discuss as the session proceeds. Particularly I wish to congratulate the government on the vision and courage of which it has given evidence in the action it took at the special session of parliament to meet a situation inherited 'by them from their predecessors, the most difficult that any government in Canada has ever been called upon to face. They are to be congratulated equally on the success of the measures taken during that session to meet that emergent situation.
Particularly at this time I wish to refer to the action taken for the relief of unemployment. There is no use side-stepping such a question; there has been and there is serious unemployment in Canada. I state however without fear of satisfactory contradiction that there never has been a time in this country where so complete cooperative and favourable action has been taken between the federal, provincial and municipal authorities, employers of labour, and charitable institutions to meet a critical situation. As a result of the legislation passed at the special session of par-
Lament and the action taken by the Department of Labour under that legislation some 230,000 men have been given employment. True, in many cases the work was not of a character to which many of the men had been accustomed. Men who had been employed as mechanics and railway employees were given employment in road construction, mining and railway construction; nevertheless they got employment. Knowing the situation among many of these men and having been constantly in contact with them I wish to say now that they have nothing but gratitude in their hearts for the measures taken to relieve the situation with which they were face to face.
Since the beginning of this session there has been a chorus of criticism levelled against the government, led by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in a speech which lasted four and one-half hours and in which he dealt with three main points. First there was the failure of the government in regard to unemployment; secondly, the failure of the economic conference in London and thirdly the failure to market Canada's wheat. At the moment I have dealt so far as I intend to go with the question of unemployment. I can say only this that never in the history of this country has there been such comprehensive and effective action taken to meet emergent unemployment conditions as that taken by the present government when at the special session it presented special legislation to deal with the emergency.
If I may I would like to compare that action with the action or lack of action taken by the former government. During this session of parliament I have listened to the speeches of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan), also I have read the many speeches he has delivered and the numerous newspaper interviews he has given in which he has constantly deplored the lack of action on the part of the government. I have been led to wonder who this hon. member might be. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be an excellent act if someone would kindly take the hon. member and introduce him to the gentleman who was Minister of Labour in Canada from the years 1926 to 1930 (Mr. Heenan). It would be well to have the two parts of the hon. gentleman together and have them discuss the position the hon. gentleman took in this house just about or probably a little more than a year ago when for three and one-half hours he argued against a resolution presented by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) which merely asked that the house be given the privilege of considering the

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
conditions of unemployment in Canada. If the leader of the opposition were in his place I would ask him if he is the same right hon. gentleman who as Prime Minister stood up in this house a little over a year ago and amid the plaudits of his followers-principally his Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan)-declared positively and definitely that not one single five-cent piece would be permitted to be used by the federal authorities for the relief of unemployment in five of the provinces, including the province of Ontario, in which there is the great northern district to which the hon. member ' for Kenora (Mr. Heenan) is constantly referring. There is unemployment in northern Ontario, and before I conclude, if you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I will cite some of the reasons for this unemployment, and some of the efforts that have been made to relieve it.
As to the alleged failure of the Imperial economic conference, whether it fails or whether it is a success will depend on the course taken at the adjourned meeting which is to be held in this city during the present year. That the economic conference will be a success I am certain. Every man who has the interests of this country at heart, every man who has the interests of the British Empire at heart, sincerely hopes that it will be. That it may be a failure, I am equally certain is the wish of the right hon. leader of the opposition and those with him in this house and outside who have so consistently and determinedly misrepresented the position taken by the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues at the opening meeting in London last October. Should it be that the economic conference fails-and I say with all sincerity and humility, God forbid-but should it fail, then the British Empire in the aggregate and in its component parts will be face to face with an economic crisis-and this applies particularly to the United Kingdom -such as it has not been confronted with in the memory of any man now living. Before I sit down I shall endeavour to give some reasons for taking that position.
Now with regard to the question of the marketing of our wheat. I do not presume to be thoroughly familiar with the question, but I would ask: When was it that the free flow of wheat from Canada to the world-markets in which we had been selling began to back up; was it in August, 1930, or some date subsequent or previous? Anyone who has studied the question, anyone who has followed the course that our wheat marketing has taken, knows this, that from 1925 onward during eight years, as the accumulating sur-22110-44
plus of wheat continued to grow, right up until 1929, when the jam occurred, the free flow, the free marketing of our wheat, was gradually being slowed down. In the meantime what action was being taken by the government of my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition to relieve that situation or to find wider markets for Canadian wheat? As has been stated on the floor of this house many times, the position taken by the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) was that it was not the business of the government to find markets for our wheat. As a matter of fact, by the then government's discouragement of general industry, by its discouragement of general agriculture, by its placing emphasis on the production of wheat and nothing but the production of wheat, a situation was developed in this country that was utterly impossible of continuance. To illustrate the position taken, may I quote from a statement made in this house in 1920 by an ex-Minister of Railways, erstwhile leader of the grain movement in western Canada, erstwhile leader of the progressive group in this country, with regard to what should be Canada's economic policy. It is interesting to note that the statement made by the hon. gentleman on that occasion was applauded and supported by the then leader of the opposition and his supporters. The statement was this: That the course Canada should follow was to take her people out of the villages, towns and cities and put them on the land growing wheat and more wheat. You will pardon a personal reference, sir. I took the liberty on that occasion to state that if the destiny of western Canada was the growing of wheat for export to the markets of the world, she had attained that position in 1915, because then she was growing as much wheat as she would ever be able to find profitable export markets for. Ninety per cent of the economic troubles of this country is due to the unbalanced character of Canadian industry, brought about very largely by the lack of constructive policies that prevailed from 1922 to 1930.
I asked a moment ago what action did the government of the day take during the time that the accumulation of wheat was constantly gaining in western Canada. If the Department of Trade and Commerce of that day had been fulfilling its function it could at least have kept the producers of wheat and the marketing organizations in western Canada advised of world conditions; it could have done something to advise those producers and marketing organizations of the misunderstand-



The Address-Mr. Nicholson
-mgs and the hostile opinions then prevailing in the wheat importing countries of the world, because of the policy alleged to be followed by our wheat marketing organizations. Whether these misunderstandings and hostile opinions were well founded or not I shall not discuss; I am not in a position to do so. But I do know, as every member in this house knows, that these misunderstandings and hostile opinions prevailed and to a greater degree among the wheat importers and wheat distributors of Liverpool than among those located in any other part of the world. But no action was taken to remove these misunderstandings or to conciliate these hostile opinions. No, Mr. Speaker. The government of that day was too busy balancing one class and one section of Canada against another in order to maintain itself in power to give any thought whatsoever to the interests of the people as a whole, whether industrial, agricultural or wheat-producing.
Now I come to a brief review of the economic situation with which we are faced. As I said with regard to unemployment, so with regard to our economic position, it is difficult, sometimes it is virtually impossible, to see a way out. Suggestions, however, may be made and I intend to make one or two. But first, what are the actual conditions? As I said, I am not as competent to deal fully with the wheat situation as are many members who are directly and personally engaged in the business. I may say, however, that it has been a matter of disappointment to me that in all the speeches to which I have listened during this debate, speeches from men actually engaged in the wheat business, men presumed to know all about it, both from the production and the marketing end, I have failed to hear one single suggestion as to a remedy that may be applied, or a means that may be employed, to find a continuous market for Canada's wheat at a price that will make it possible for the western farmer to produce *wheat and live as a Canadian citizen should live. Perhaps I can best illustrate the situation by referring to a business I am presumed to know at least a little about. There are two main industries in Canada that have been furnishing the large bulk of our exports, namely, the wheat-producing industry and the forest products industry. The forest products industry is, in proportion to its size, in a position just, as difficult, and in some cases more difficult than the wheat-producing industry. One part of the forest products industry is in an utterly impossible position as conditions are at the present time. The two branches of the forest products industry are, first, the pulp and paper industry and, sec-
ondly, what is generally termed the lumbering industry. The pulp and paper industry will come back more quickly than either the wheat producing industry or the general lumbering industry, provided it is not subject to possible competition, to which the other two industries are subject, by virtue of an economic condition to which I shall refer in a moment.
The pulp and paper industry as it exists at present depends for its market very largely on the United States and Canada, and as general economic conditions improve so will the market for newsprint paper improve. In the meantimte, however, many suggestions arte being made. Drawing on memory, I believe I heard it stated in this house-it has been stated in the press-that delegations have waited on the governments of Quebec and Ontario asking that the paper companies be penalized because they are not operating their mills to capacity. It has been suggested that the timber lands upon which these industries are based should be taken away from them because they cannot operate their mills. It would be just as reasonable to suggest that because the western wheat producer cannot find a profitable market for his wheat, therefore the land on which he is growing, or expects to grow wheat, or on which he expects to continue in some form of agriculture should be taken from him. The newsprint men are as anxious to sell paper and operate their mills as the wheat producer is to produce and sell wheat at a profitable price; he is just as anxious to operate his mills as are the men who are now out of employment by reason of the fact that the mills are not operating.
To come to the general lumbering industry. Difficulties in this industry began in 1902 and increased through 1923 and 1924 up to 1929 and 1930, when virtual paralysis resulted from two main causes. First there was the drying-up and general paralysis of the industry due to the economic course or lack of economic course or policy followed from 1922 to 1930, killing the home market for the lumberman's product. But the principal reason for the situation is-and here may I say that the same remark applies, in my judgment, to the market for wheat-that the British market was taken away from us. The British market for all kinds and classes of Canadian lumber began to be transferred to other countries than Canada much earlier than in the case of any other product we have, because the country that was and is now supplying that market was in a position to dump lumber more quickly than they could dump anything else. The result is that whereas, prior to 1922, the lumber industry of Canada found its export

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
market largely in the United Kingdom, in 1930 less than 4 per cent of the total requirements of the United Kingdom was purchased from Canada, or indeed, from any part of the British Empire, while 94 per cent of the total requirements of soft woods in the United Kingdom was purchased through the dumping policy of the Soviet government of Russia. Here let me say this. The lumber industry in Canada cannot live; the wheat industry in Canada cannot live; no other industry in Canada or in any other civilized country can exist and provide a standard of living-at any rate, such as the people in Canada hope to have and are entitled to-in competition with 150 million or 160 million slaves. That is the situation with which the lumber industry is brought into conflict-the situation which in my opinion bedevilled the wheat industry in 1929 and 1930, just as the lumber industry has been affected from 1922 to 1930. In this regard I would congratulate the government upon the courageous action they took in prohibiting the importation of Russian products. I will go a step further and say I sincerely trust that the government will become the crusader in this movement and will endeavour to bring behind them the British Empire, the United States and the countries of Europe in a determined effort to isolate Russia so far as this dumping is concerned.
In this connection may I just cite one instance in relation to the trade of the United Kingdom itself. In 1929-30 Great Britain purchased from Russia $40,000,000 worth of goods more than she purchased from that country in the previous year. During that same period she purchased from Canada approximately $40,000,000 iess of goods than she purchased from us in the previous year. In 1929 Great Britain purchased from Russia approximately $170,000,000 worth of goods and sold to Russia $30,000,000. a balance in favour of the communist government of Russia of $140,000,000. Now it is true that we are not responsible for conditions in the United Kingdom; but as a citizen of the British Empire I will presume to make one observation in this regard. If someone suggested, in Manchester or Leeds, or some of the industrial centres of Great Britain, that they send to Russia and bring over a sufficient number of people from that country into England, to live under the conditions prevailing in Russia, to work for the wages, if they can be called wages, now prevailing in Russia, and to produce these goods for the British people, there would be a revolution in England. But what are they doing? They are taking their trade away from Canada, purchasing goods from Russia and bringing them, into their own 22110-44i
market not only in competition with the rest of the British Empire but in competition with their own people, creating the condition presently prevailing to a large degree in the United Kingdom
I wish to put into the record a few quotations which will give the house some idea of how goods are being produced. In support of the action taken by the government of Canada in imposing an embargo upon Russian goods, and in furtherance of the hope I have expressed that this government will take the position of crusader in this movement, I wish to read an extract from the Philadelphia Evening Public Ledger. Referring to the order in council of the Canadian government, *this paper says:
Their order in council frankly recognizes that the Russian Soviet is seeking to divide the world and to destroy the economic basis of western civilization. With this conviction and not from any concern about details of international trade, the Canadians have struck the most powerful blow yet aimed at Russian plans for a communized world.
Nations, whose lives are ordered on the basis of a sane regard for the dignity of human life and the right of the individual to be matter of his own destiny, cannot be blamed if they view this experiment with distrust and hatred.
Next I desire to quote from a statement handed out by the Permanent Bureau of the Entente Internationale with headquarters at Geneva. After citing conditions in Europe generally and the attitude taken iby the nations of Europe in trading with Russia, the statement proceeds:
The offensive of the Soviet government and its alter ego the Comintern is directed against contemporary civilization:
(1) By the destruction and the disintegration of religious and moral values.
2.	By the continuation of the political-social agitation.
3.	By subversive action in Asia.
4.	By the offensive against industry and
commerce, by means of dumping,	*
5.	By the constantly more intensive training of the Red army.
An extract from a statement made by Oscar Berl, an outstanding economist of Vienna, Austria, reads as follows:
Russia is awake, and the whole world sleeps. Soviet products are being sold regardless of the cost of production, and are an important cause for unemployment. Unless the world unites for self defence, world depression will be impossible to overcome.
Commander Carlyon Bellairs, a member of Parliament in Great Britain, discussing the investigation into conditions prevailing in the lumber industry in Russia, which had been carried on continuously from July, 1929, to

The Address-Mr. Nicholson
July, 1930, stated that the exiles are working in the camps at Solovki. He says:
The work goes on from five in the morning until eight at night. The prisoners are fed twice a day. The food is repulsive.
A second affidavit by Commander Bellairs reads:
It is stated in the lumber camp at Solobetsk out of 29,000 prisoners over 19,000 died from typhus.
He continues:
The more one reads about Russia, the more evidence accumulates of what it is doing and trying to do, and the more it becomes clear what a slimy, barbarous and beastly thing the Soviet republic is.
In dealing with the same situation, a Paris correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph states:
More than 570,000 men, 74,000 women and
18.000	children are employed under forced labour conditions in the concentration lumber camps of the Soviet union, and more than
73.000	died from exhaustion last year.
The following is an extract from the chief officer of a boat which had brought to England a cargo of timber from Russia. It reads:
I have just completed a second voyage to northern Russia, in both cases returning with a huge cargo of pit props. I left Archangel about a month ago, and there were then 110 vessels in port, all loading. There were berths for nine vessels at the one we loaded at, and there were 40.000 convicts allotted to that section alone. They worked twelve hour shifts and marched up and down in batches of 200 and 300 like soldiers, all in a state of extreme destitution. These men are not convicts as civilized people understand the word, nor are they of convict type. They are slaves pure and simple, and as with slaves, 95 per cent do not know why they are there. To see them hungrily watching our men going along the decks at meal times with their steaming soup, roast beef, vegetables and duff would make a stone heart bleed. We seamen often wondered what our own government was doing to allow profits to be made out of such abject misery, and why our so-called union leaders allowed decent men to handle goods produced by such means. If you could once see just one man hungrily disposing of a raw pickled herring and chunk of black, filthy bread, you would hate the sight of anything produced in Russia forever. It is a wicked, shameful and disgusting trade, and should be ruthlessly stamped out, as was the slave trade in days gone by.
The following is from an article by H. R. Knickerbocker, dealing with an interview held with Ivan Jakovlevitch, president of the lumber combine. This article appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of December 3, 1930, and reads:
After describing the manner in which production had increased, the president stated as follows: "As to the workers in the mills, they receive an average pay of two rubles a day."

If the ruble meant anything in Canada or any other part of the civilized world, that would be equivalent to one dollar, but from the standpoint of purchasing power, the ruble is worth six cents. I believe this article was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). I may be mistaken in this, and if so, he can correct me. The article goes on to state that the farmers or peasants are not allowed to work around the sawmills because the danger of sabotage would be too great. They are employed only for felling and transporting the lumber. Mr. Knickerbocker quotes Attorney General Krylenko as follows:
There were 500,000 farmers forcibly dispossessed by punitive measures and sent to the woods. The total number of peasant families in the territory before March, 1930, was 14,000,000.
Mr. Knickerbocker then called attention to the fact that Krylenko meant not 500,000 individuals, but 500,000 families, which would include the women and children.
At this point I would like to read an extract from a speech delivered by an outstanding Canadian public man to the students of Toronto university. This speech was delivered a comparatively short time ago, and reads:
Farmers that wanted nothing more than to till land they owned and sell the product of their own soil in the markets of the world were classed at once as counter-revolutionists and ordered to ignominious exile or death. The story of this tragedy does not end merely with bloodshed and despotism. The forces of Lenin set out to remould the whole Russian nation, to uproot the institutions of ages and to refashion the ways of men. One after another of those things towards which humanity has clung in every land and every age, has been taken up by the roots and destroyed.
Western civilization can no more live in competition with that kind of slavery than can the western farmers grow wheat and sell it at Fort William for fifty cents per bushel and live as the Canadian western farmer is entitled to live.
It has been stated throughout this country and it has been stated in this house that there are people who believe that the conditions in Russia are as they should be. The very foundation of existing civilization is being attacked by communistic Russia. In support of that statement I will read from the remarks of Mr. H. G. Bartholomew, an engineer from the city of Toronto who has been resident in Russia for eighteen months. Mr. Bartholomew is chief mechanical engineer of the Vato board at Moscow, a department of the supreme council which supervises the construction of tractors and agricultural machinery. In view of the fact that a quota-

The Address-Mr. MacLean
tion has been given in this house from a statement made by one of the engineers at the head of this so-called five-year plan, Mr. Bartholomew's article may be very interesting. The interview is headed:	Glowing Review of Soviet Five-Year Plan. So that the house will not feel that I am quoting a biased witness as to social conditions in Russia, I might point out that after indicating the success of the five-year plan from the mechanical side without any regard whatever to the life of the people engaged in it, Mr. Bartholomew goes on to say:
A man does not even own his own soul in Russia, but they seem to be happy. The peasants are in the great majority, but the worker* who support the communists are the direct rulers of the country. The peasant worker makes about fifty roubles, or approximately $25 per month. Community centres-
And this is the point to which I wish to direct particular attention:
Community centres are provided where large apartment dwelling houses house two hundred workers, male and female. All eat in a community diningroom, use community washrooms, are supposed to congregate together socially each evening. Single people have one room, married people two, but these rooms are not to be occupied except during sleeping hours. All cooking is done in a general kitchen. The cooked food is carried to a main diningroom where a general air of jollity is supposed to prevail. After the meal all are supposed to join in merrymaking or attend the community theatre.
And here is the point:
Children are placed in kindergartens or institutions controlled by the state.
How does that measure up with the Canadian idea of what the home life of the country should be? When you destroy the home life of any country; when you destroy the inviolability of womanhood; when you take away from the father or mother the child which they have brought into the world, you destroy the very' foundation upon which civilization rests, and I say again the civilized world cannot afford to do so.
Just one further quotation, and this is from Mr. AVilliam Z. Foster, leader of the communist party in the United States and at one time communist candidate for the presidency of the United States. This is a question addressed to him by the chairman of the congressional committee inquiring into communist activities and propaganda in the United States:
Can members of the Communist party in Russia be married in a church and maintain religious belief?
The answer is:
A member of the Communist party of the Soviet union who would be married in a church would not be of any value to the Communist party.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I wish to compliment the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) who has just taken his seat. I look upon him, a former resident of our province, as one of the successful Islanders abroad, and we are glad to see him back in this chamber and restored, comparatively, to his usual health and strength. He has dealt with a situation, that in Russia, which is undoubtedly attracting the attention of the whole world. I believe the greatest danger which Canada is facing is not so much the importation of Russian goods as the foundation which is being laid in Canada of communist doctrine. This to my mind is far more dangerous than the importation of a few million dollars' worth of Russian goods.
The hon. member stated that during the short session the unemployment situation was dealt with by the most comprehensive legislation ever put through parliament. Speaking for our own province of Prince Edward Island, I find that the assistance given has not been of very much help to us. It came very late in the fall, and no work of any importance was carried on. Besides, many different municipalities and provincial governments have been loaded with a burden equal to the assistance given, and if the $20,000,000 had not been voted they would not likely have assumed such a large responsibility. This assistance may have been of advantage in some of the larger centres, but as regards the relief of the unemployment situation in Prince Edward Island, it was not very beneficial. This year, however, there is some money to be spent which may give employment, but in the summer months we have not much difficulty with unemployment.
I should at the start have congratulated the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne, especially in view of the fact that the mover is a maritime man and I understand it was considered an honour to the French Acadian people that he should move the address. If so, I wish to share in that honour, because I represent a constituency in which there is a large number of French Acadians. I wish to pay them this

The Address-Mr. MacLean
tribute, that they are amongst our very finest citizens; through their wonderful perseverance, their patient toil, thrift and industry, they have built up the finest homes in that province and have made a splendid contribution to the maritimes and to the Dominion as a whole. Further than that, they have made a splendid contribution to the literary development of our country.
Some of the difficulties which we are told exist in the western provinces are also experienced by the farmers of eastern Canada. Although possibly we do not get as much publicity through the press or even in the house, still we have our difficulties down by the sea, and with these I shall deal as I proceed.
The other night the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Myers)-and I see his smiling countenance across the floor-gave a very fine address. In fact portions of that address might very well have been delivered on this side of the house, and I was wondering whether my good friend had really had a change of heart since coming to Ottawa and was now considering becoming a real, honest-to-goodness Liberal. I have to take exception, however, to his contradiction of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) regarding some circulars which he, Mr. Veniot referred to when speaking and which my hon. friend claimed were never circulated in the province of Prince Edward Island. My hon. friend stated that he knew the province from end to end and that he was in a position to speak for it. He is something like Pat who was going to beat up everybody in the house; when he got through with that he was going to beat up everybody in the village, and when he got through with that he was going to beat up everybody in the country side. But he ran up against somebody who gave him a trimming and he said: "The only mistake I made is that I took in a little too much territory." Possibly my hon. friend can speak well for his own county, out when it comes to the other two counties md just what happened there at election time, perhaps he is not in a position to speak so authoritatively, and in this case like Pat he took in a little too much territory. Large numbers of these circulars, not only the ordinary printed ones, but also typewritten copies which had been made, were handed into my office after the election was over. So I think the ex-Postmaster General, when he spoke of these circulars the other night, was well within the facts. I will go this far, however, and say that we frown on any such 
tactics. Liberals and Conservatives alike do not wish to see such tactics adopted in any election. When we traced the thing down we found that it was done by a party from outside the province altogether.
My good friend (Mr. Myers) then took up the question of the current depression. He said that if the rest of the world were prosperous and the depression was confined to Canada, he would say that the fault must lie either with the Canadian government or with the Canadian people. I do not think our friends opposite were so generous at the last election. They went up and down the country saying the depression was entirely due to the policies of the King government and that conditions throughout the rest of the world were all right. They pointed to the wonderful prosperity of the United States and said that Canada was suffering from depression and unemployment just because the King government happened to be in power.
My hon. friend then went on to deal with the causes of the depression. He said: We have no answer unless it is that the country was stock crazy. During the last election even the stock market crash was blamed on the King government. It was not contended that the crash came because people were crazy to buy stocks at that time, but because the King government had put crazy policies into effect which were ruining the people.
Next, my hon. friend came to the potato industry, and referred to the high duties against our potatoes entering 'the United States. We all agree that this duty is entirely too high, and we would like to see it reduced. My hon. friend spoke of the countervailing duties brought down by the Dunning budget last year, and said that he approved of them. If I remember correctly, our friends were not so generous on that score in the last election either. They went up and down the country telling the people that the countervailing duties were a "made-in-Washington policy" which would enable the United States to control the situation. If the countervailing duties remained in effect, what would happen, they asked? They said that the United States would have the making of the Canadian tariff as well as their own, and that during the season from June to October, when our potatoes are off the market, the United States would take down their tariff wall and automatically ours would come down, and during that period the Canadian market would be flooded with American potatoes; then, when our potatoes were coming on the market, the United States would put up their

The Address-Mr. MacLean
tariff wall and we would have no sale for our potatoes in Canada or the United States. I think that that was an alarming statement to make to the farmers of Prince Edward Island, and it was made from almost every platform during the campaign. The farmers were led to believe that the countervailing duties were a very dangerous thing.
Not only does my hon. friend approve of the countervailing duties now, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) himself, in the short session last September, instead of placing a straight duty against American potatoes as he advocated during the election, moved that the countervailing duties as provided by the Dunning budget be left in effect so far as potatoes were concerned. So our friends opposite are not consistent in this matter.
Another question brought up during the campaign was that of markets. We were given to believe in the election campaign that immediately the Conservative party came into power a golden era would commence, and immediate markets would be provided in Canada-a wonderful home market which wa3 to be built up over night, and in which we would find a sale for all our products. But conditions to-day in Prince Edward Island are just the same so far as markets are concerned. Our potatoes and other products are selling at lower prices than have prevailed in many years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We are having the greatest difficulty in selling our potatoes at the present time. So far as I can see, that home market has not materalized.
My hon. friend from Queens also referred
to the price of agricultural machinery, and said that the farmers had to pay entirely too much for their agricultural implements. I agree with my hon. friend. That is good Liberal doctrine which might well be proclaimed from this side of the house. The Liberal party, in fact, did everything they could to remedy that situation. Year after year we reduced the duties on the implements of production all along the line, the implements used by the farmers and by the fishermen. But one of the first things done by the Conservative government during the short session last fall was to increase the duty on agricultural implements and make the price of agricultural machinery just that much higher for the farmers of the maritime provinces, and one of the very first acts of hon. gentlemen opposite, including my hon. friend, was to vote for that increase in duty. Everyone in the maritimes knows that the John
Deere Company ship their products in, and our farmers buy them. There is no use telling the fanners down there that an increased duty is not going to increase the price when they know that on account of the new tariff they have to pay from 10 to 15 per cent more on the cost of these goods coming into Canada.


Mr. MORAND:: We are making them in
Canada now.


William Earl Rowe: Did the Liberal government decrease the price of agricultural implements?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friends cannot
get away with that kind of propaganda now, because everybody in this country knows that the prices of all raw products are coming down. I could cite instance after instance to show that the spread between the price of the raw product and the price of the manufactured article is a great deal higher to-day than it was under the Liberal government. You cannot satisfy the people of this country by telling them that prices are holding the same or have not increased, because they know very well that that is not the case. Thej'' know that the prices of all raw materials are coming down, and they believe that the prices of the finished products should also come down.


Mr. COTNAM:: Would the hon. gentleman say that before there was a reduction in the price of raw products, the price of agricultural implements came down in this country after the Liberal government reduced the duty?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I know that machinery
was brought in this winter paying a 10 per cent duty, and a dealer, a strong supporter of the government's policies, came to me and said, "How in the world are we going to get our stuff in against that duty? Can we get it knocked down and brought in piece by piece to evade the duty? Can you tell me any way in which we can get it in without paying the duty?-because our farmers cannot pay an increased price." He told me that he had brought in a carload of potato graders, that he could sell a carload more at the old price, but that it was no use bringing them in against an increased duty of 10 or 12 per cent because the farmers would not buy them at an increased price.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I submit, Mr. Speaker,
that the hon. gentleman has evaded the question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make your own
speech.

The Address-Mr. MacLean


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: We can show you that
the price of machinery has increased. I have the proof in my pocket.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The hon. member for
Queens also brought up the question of the improvement of transportation to and from Prince Edward Island, and said that Sir Robert Borden in 1911 gave a pledge to the people of Prince Edward Island that they would receive continuous steam communication with the mainland. That pledge, he said, was fulfilled and a new car ferry provided. While I admit that the Conservative party did improve our means of transportation, successive governments had constantly been trying to improve the service and provide a better steamer. The Liberal government gave us the Earl Grey, which improved the situation. Next came the car ferry. However my good friend was not fair enough to tell the house and the people that within the last two and one-half years the Liberal party by estimates submitted to this house provided for another car ferry, a bigger and better boat, an oil-burning, three-track boat, one that will cost when completed, along with the improvements to the piers, possibly as much as the new car ferry and the new piers did in 1911. If my hon. friend had wished to be fair he would have told the house that that was done by the Liberal party when it was in power. If one was a whale of a promise, as ho has told the house, then the other is a bigger whale of a promise and has been fulfilled by the Liberal party. As yet not one dollar of Conservative money has been voted for that project. It may be that some vote may be put through at this session.
My hon. friend has said that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has perished politically, but let me tell him that so far as the Liberal party is concerned they are further from perishing to-day than they have been in a great many years. My hon. friends on this side have not perished in the matter of implementing their promises in connection with the maritime provinces. In that respect we have something to look back upon with pride. My hon. friends opposite know that one of the first things the Liberal party did in 1922 when it assumed office was to vote money for the widening of the railway gauge in Prince Edward Island. Every foot of that railway gauge has been widened, and in that province we have standard equipment and loading facilities which we never had before. In addition to that my hon. friends know we have the best shipping facilities we ever had. They know that potato warehouses have been built at every important
[Mr MacLean.]
shipping point. They know that the dredging of the harbour has been completed to such an extent that the largest ships afloat can enter and load produce for all ports of the world. They know that the Liberal party gave the province a subsidy of $125,000 per year. All those things go to prove that the Liberal party can look back with pride to its record. I can say only this to my hon. friends opposite, that I wish them the same amount of success in getting improvements for the province of Prince Edward Island that members of the Liberal party had during the last few years of the Liberal administration. If my hon. friends opposite are as successful as we were I should wish to step across the floor of the chamber and congratulate them.
Hon., .members on this side have no apologies to make for- the policies of the Liberal party. As I have said, the policy of that party has been one of reducing taxation and duties. It has (been one of extending markets and of building up prosperity in this Dominion. So far as that policy is concerned I am prepared to stand by it and to let this country judge how the record of the Liberal party will compare in the next few years with that of the administration now in power.
I need not refer to the financial situation. Everyone knows that there is a record on the public accounts of this house which never can be equalled by any party which in the future may come into power; I believe the record of the last administration will never be duplicated in the lifetime of any member at present sitting in this house. We had a succession of surpluses, reductions in debt and reduction in interest charges which I do not think can ever be duplicated. In the last five years of the previous Conservative administration there was a deficit of $1,542,949,000. As against that we have a reduction made by the Liberal party in seven surpluses of $272,819,000. I do not think that is a record of which anybody need be ashamed -and we did not " perish in the attempt," but put our legislation through with flying colours.
May I come to the other point in favour of the previous administration? As I said it has been the policy of the Liberal government to reduce duties. We reduced the duty on motor cars; we reduced the duties on all implements of production as well as on the equipment of the fishermen and farmer. We cut down the income tax; we cut down the sales tax and on a group of 216 items we abolished it. Although last year was considered a poor year Mr. Dunning when he brought down his budget was able to show a

The Address-Mr. MacLean
surplus of over $44,000,000. In addition to that he was in a position to cut the sales tax to one per cent and to tell the people of Canada that if the Liberal government were in power another year the sales tax would disappear altogether. We hear rumours of increases in the sales tax; we hear rumours of a turn over tax; we hear rumours on every hand of deficits and taxation. Because of the falling off in trade I do not think our friends can balance their budget unless they resort to something of that kind. If my hon. friends opposite are going to go ahead and give to the manufacturers in respect of other commodities the protection they provided for them in the short session-no doubt they intend to continue the principle in this session-and if they compel the consuming communities to pay that increased cost, then those protected manufacturers are the people who ought to pay the increased taxation. What is going to happen? The sales tax is to be placed back on the goods the manufacturer has to sell and instead of the manufacturer absorbing the tax, as he ought to do when he receives protection, the consumer will be exploited. The consumer will have to pay the increased duties and also the increased sales tax, or whatever tax it may be. Is this fair?
The seconder of the address in reply stated that the policy of Sir John A. Macdonald had never been given a chance to operate until this government came into power. What were we led to believe in respect to that policy? I was always led to believe that the tariff was to be operative only until certain industries got on their feet and were able to take care of themselves. I understood that the moment those industries got away to a good start and were able to carry on successfully the tariff was to be withdrawn. What do we find to-day? After fifty years of tariff protection the seconder of the address in reply has said that this is the first government which has ever put into effect fully the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald. If that is so, what may we expect? There can be no use in endeavouring to help those industries by tariffs, because they are going to come back here year after year asking for further increases, while the farmer has to sell in the world's market. I do not think that under the Liberal administration we had many requests from manufacturers for increased tariffs. The Massey-Harris Company and other companies took a reduction in duty and were able to sell their machinery; it gave their business a boost. My hon. friends opposite are not. dealing fairly with the public when they increase the duty on manufactured articles used by the consumers, farmers and fishermen, unless there is a very strong demand for such increases, and until those manufacturing concerns can truthfully say they are unable to carry on without such protection. We were led to believe that the duty placed on butter and eggs would increase the price to the farmer and immediately they would be put back on easy street and would have no more worry. I do not believe that improvement has taken place in the price of any of those commodities; in fact those farm commodities are to-day selling lower than ever.
Last year during the election campaign there was such a wonderful program or promises that I think it would be only fair to put some of them on record. It should be a revelation to the house to hear the inducements held out to our good friends in the province of Prince Edward Island to vote for the Conservative party. I would not be anxious to place these statements on record if our friends in the Conservative party at; every meeting had not been so prolific in their promises, which were heralded not only in the press but also on the public platform. Everything in the way of inducement was held out as to why the people of Prince Edward Island should vote for the Conservative party. I have in my hand a paper published in my own town, the Summer-side Journal, and this particular issue is dated . July 25, 1930. I find the following:
A vote for Arnett means a vote for Bennett.
I might explain that Mr. Arnett was the Conservative candidate. Then it continues:
Why you should vote for Bennett. Bennett will protect the farmers' markets. Bennett will cancel countervailing tariffs and save your potato industry.
I think I have explained how those countervailing tariffs on potatoes were cancelled. My hon. friend approves of countervailing tariffs; the Prime Minister stood in his place, said he approved of them, and moved that they be left in force in the same form as they were brought down in the Dunning budget. I quote further:
Bennett will provide employment for all men who are willing to work.
Bennett will enable our manufacturers to pay higher wages.
Bennett will keep Canadians in Canada.
Bennett will send a fertilizing stream of new money over the country.
Bennett wall provide Canada with national highways and assist the construction of roads, and by so doing relieve the existing unemployment situation.
Bennett will return to Prince Edward Island her federal highway grant which the Liberals took away.

Of Prince Edward Island-
-who exports 1,000 bushels of potatoes from the necessity of paying a tax of $450 to Washington for the privilege of selling United States our potatoes which they cannot do without.
There was a direct promise to the farmers of Prince Edward Island who had potatoes to sell, and if on every 1,000 bushels or $1,000 worth of potatoes the farmers could save $450, I am sure they would jump at the offer and be only too willing to vote for any party that could give them so much; but judging by the results of the elections our farmers did not take these seductive promises too seriously
Bennett will stop 125,000,000 tons of Russian coal mined by	bolshevist enemies of	Christianity from flooding Canada's markets.
There is only a little error of over 100,000,000 tons, but that is nothing to our good friends opposite; where election promises are concerned, it is a question of win at any cost.
Bennett will revive our dairy industry. t	Bennett	will	revive	our	egg	and poultry
industry.
Bennett	will	revive	our	hog	and	bacon
industry.
Bennett	will	revive	our	beef	and	cattle
industry.
Bennett will revive our fisheries.
Bennett will revive our home manufacturing industries.
Bennett will see that Canadian raw materials are manufactured in Canada.
We all know that the Liberals have tried for nine years and failed.
Bennett will relieve you from paying old age pensions to the western provinces which you cannot enjoy in Prince Edwmrd Island owing to Mackenzie King's unfair pension scheme.
Bennett will see that each and every aged and destitute person in Canada receives a pension direct from Ottawa without any strings to it and without costing any province one cent.
That was another direct promise. Now we find our friends opposite are not quite so anxious to come right out and make these definite statements on the floor of the house. They say they will do so a little later on. V eil, I hope when the time comes they will not seek to evade the issue. Last July there was nothing said about progressive stages by which their promises would be carried out, nothing about demands on the federal exchequer, nothing about the economic condition of Canada; all these things we find mentioned now in the speech from the throne. On that occasion the pledge was unequivocal and unconditional and definite. Now we shall see whether our friends opposite will redeem this pledge in regard to old age pensions.

The Address-Mr. MacLean
Our people in Prince Edward Island are very much interested, and I sincerely trust the government will implement this promise. Personally, I do not think the right hon. Prime Minister need have made the definite promises he did make throughout the length and breadth of Canada with regard to old age pensions and paying all from the federal treasury. There was no complaint on the part of the various five provincial governments about contributing 50 per cent to the cost of old age pensions where they were in a position to make this contribution. But the right hon. gentleman comes along and says: "I will relieve these provinces of the payment of millions and millions of dollars by paying the money out of the federal exchequer." To my mind the better plan was that put forward by the right hon. leader of the opposition when he was in control of the government, that is to say, to pay 50 per cent out of the federal treasury towards the cost of old age pensions. He intended to assist the maritime provinces by granting them increased subsidies as recommended by the Duncan commission, and which was then being investigated by the audit board, and thus put them in a position where they could take care of their share of the cost of old age pensions. The plan of the Mackenzie King government would have saved the Dominion for all time to come at least $25,000,000 annually, and would have given the old age pension to all our people just the same.
Now I come to the question of markets. As our good friends opposite have stated, our great trouble in Prince Edward Island is markets. If we could market our products we could produce a great deal more than we are doing at the present time. But our markets are curtailed, and to-day even Cuba is threatening to shut us out. Recently the government sent a delegate to Havana to interview the Cuban government, but no report has as yet been brought down as to just what happened. For information on the point we have to rely on the press. The following is an extract from the Cuban paper Mundo:
Commercial relations between Cuba and Canada, after expiration of the existing modus vivendi in December, were discussed at a conference between Canadian minister Macdonald, Canadian commercial attache Marmack, officials of the Departments of State, and of Agriculture, Commerce and Labour and members of the Tariff Commission. The state department is said to have indicated that Cuba will not change her tariff policy, but will consider modifications in favour of Canada provided that country makes special concessions as to Cuban sugar, rum and tobacco, and the Canadian representatives agreed to study the question.


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: If the
hon. gentleman will permit me-why cannot the government of Canada enter into reciprocal trade, relations with the Cuban government and take her sugar?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: If my hon. friend has any suggestion to make to the house I shall be happy to give him an opportunity to present it. The Cuban authorities say they are willing to enter into reciprocal discussion with us.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: But why cannot we do it?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I do not think there is any reason why we cannot. We know the United States has a preference of 20 per cent in the Cuban market. As I say, these people are willing to discuss trade matters with us, according to their own paper. Why did the government send Mr. Macdonald down to Cuba if they knew no negotiations wouid be effective?


Benjamin Franklin Smith: He went
down there-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My hon. friend no doubt knows the reason. One of the reasons is that in the short session the Conservative party increased the duty on Cuban sugar coming into Canada and in consequence the very first thing our representative found when he got there was that the sugar growers there were in very bad shape. Hence this duty was placed on Canadian potatoes with the idea of helping their own farmers, allowing them to go into diversified farming and the growing of potatoes. That was as much as to say to the Canadian government, "You put a duty on our sugar going into your country; why in the world should we not impose a duty on Canadian potatoes coming into our market?" There is no doubt in the world that this is what happened, and my hon. friend who is in the potato business knows it perfectly well. We hope that the delegation will have proved a success, but unless the government are prepared to give some concessions along reciprocal lines, then I do not think they can hope to accomplish very much; because after all Cuba, like every other country, is looking out for itself. The Cubans, I believe, will be willing to consider a reciprocal proposal, but I do not think they will be willing to give us free admission, because they say here definitely that they have no idea of removing the duty, though willing to consider a reciprocal arrangement.

The Address-Mr. MacLean


An hon. MEMBER:: Does not the hon.
member know that the treaty ties our hands?
Mr. MaoLEAN:	My hon. friend is not
correct.


Mr. MALONEY:: Just for information, may I ask my hon. friend this question: Where is sugar produced in Canada?


An hon. MEMBER:: From the maple trees.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Where is it produced?


Martin James Maloney: Yes, in Canada-apart from maple sugar.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Sugar is produced from sugar beets; there is a large plant at Winnipeg and there are others elsewhere. But why did my hon. friend vote for the increase in duty? We are perfectly willing to let sugar come in free.


Martin James Maloney: I am asking my hon. friend to tell me if he can where sugar is produced in Canada, apart from maple sugar.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That is not relevant to the question, because I am not arguing that there was any need of a duty to protect any sugar interests in Canada. In my opinion the sugar industry was all right, and the Liberal party in the Robb budget reduced the duty on imports of raw sugar, while our good friends were the first to go and increase that duty, thus antagonizing Cuba, with the result which we have at the present time.
This is a live question in my province, inasmuch as we have large quantities of potatoes to sell. I have a question on the order paper since March 16 asking if the government was endeavouring to get Britain to lift the embargo against Canadian potatoes, and I endeavoured to get a reply from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to-day. I have had correspondence with Great Britain, and they are short of potatoes over there at the present time. They are perfectly willing to take our potatoes because they have to import Spanish potatoes into the British market. Our potatoes are shut out of that market for one reason alone, and that is, we have the Colorado beetle in Canada. The question for Great Britain to decide is this: Are they going to import potatoes from Spain, where there is also the Colorado beetle, or are they going to give the preference to Canada? I endeavoured to get a reply from the minister to-day and he was good enough to send a letter across the floor to me; he informed me that he had information on his desk and would give it to me. This is an important question; the matter is an urgent one. Our potatoes are not like western wheat, which can be kept for years; we must dispose of them within the next few months or we cannot sell them.

When the minister was getting up to reply to me he was stopped by the Prime Minister. That is all our friends across the way care for the farmers of Prince Edward Island. We desire to give those farmers the necessary information as soon as possible, and I submit that it was due to the members of this house, and especially to those from the maritime provinces, that they should have been given this information to-day, even if it were not in strict accordance with the rules.


John Francis Buckley: As a new member of the house it had not been my intention to participate in this debate as I have frequently been told that it is the duty of a new member to be seen and not heard. But I think that it is incumbent upon me, by virtue of the duty I owe to my constituents, to lay their views before the house and to place on record just exactly how conditions are in the constituency of Athabaska, which I have the honour to represent. Before doing so, however, may I congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address on the very eloquent way in which they discharged their duty.
The constituency of Athabaska is one of the largest in the whole Dominion, being, roughly, 600 miles in length by about 200 in width. The southern portion is devoted to agriculture whilst the northern 400 miles is muskeg and rough country, but very rich in many natural resources. Of this I shall have something to say later.
For the moment I wish to confine my remarks to the conditions under which agriculture is suffering at the present time. I have listened with great interest to the addresses of the previous speakers and I am obliged to agree with most of them that conditions are so very bad that I doubt very much if they could be worse. I was astonished to hear the member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) state that in his part of Saskatchewan conditions were not so very bad and might be worse-that, in fact, in that district they were about to turn the corner. This prompted me to wonder whether he had ever taken the trouble to visit any portions of rural Saskatchewan, and I concluded that he had not. I imagine that had he done so he would have come to the same conclusion as did the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), who told us exactly how conditions are in Saskatchewan, to say nothing of the other members from that province who have spoken in this debate. In fact, I do not think I can do better than to refer hon. members to an article by Grant Dexter in MacLean's Magazine of April 1, 1931, entitled "Are the Banks refusing Fanners Loans?" I do not wish to quote from the

The Address-Mr. Buckley
article in question but I do wish to say that both sides of the question are ably set out therein, and I commend it to the attention of all.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say this-that conditions are just as bad in Alberta as they are in Saskatchewan, and, in the constituency I have the honour to represent, are probably worse, owing to certain railway conditions to which I will presently refer.
Let me give the prices which farmers received for their grain at St. Paul, Alberta, on the 20th of last month:
Wheat	Cents
No. 1	 34
No. 2	 33
No. 3	 27
No. 4	 23
No. 5	 21
No. 6	 21
Oats
No. 2	C.W	
12No. 3	C.W	
9
Feed
F.xtra No. 1	 9
No. 1	 7
No. 2	 5
Barley
No. 2	C.W	
11No. 3	C.W	
8
Now, sir, wheat costs, to thresh, anywhere from 8 to 10 cents per bushel, and oats and barley from 7 to 9 cents. It can be easily seen that oats to-day do not bring at the elevator the bare cost of threshing. There are also other expenses which the farmer has had to pay. Add to this cost of threshing, the' cost of seed, the cost of seeding, the cost of cutting the crop, the cost of twine, the cost of stooking, the cost of hauling, and I am sure you will agree with me that every farmer last year not only lost actual money by seeding his land, but is now not in a position to pay any of his debts or to pay his taxes. Let me illustrate this point by saying that I personally shipped a carload of wheat containing 1,563 bushels to the Alberta Wheat Pool, and all I received therefor was $252. The taxes on the property upon which this grain was grown-school, municipal and supplementary revenue-amounted to $170, leaving a bare $82 in excess of the amount received. I did not pay any thresh bill and that, even at 8 cents per bushel, would have amounted to $125 I do not know what the seed cost or what would be a fair charge for putting it in or taking it off, but the above figures indicate that quite apart from what these costs are there is already a big deficit with wheat, and it can be realized how much more so it is with the coarser grains. In fact, sir, at the presen",
time it is absolutely impossible to sell the coarser grains and get even the freight out of them.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me say most emphatically that in my opinion agriculture could not possibly be in a worse condition than it is to-day, and the effect of all this is that every business and professional man in the west is feeling the effects of this depression. The farmer finds it absolutely impossible to pay his debts. For many years a practice has prevailed in rural centres whereby the local storekeeper has grubstaked the farmer and every fall the farmer has come in and paid his account. To-day he cannot do so and consequently the storekeeper has been unable to pay his debts, with the result tha:. he is liable to be closed out by his own creditors, and many of these storekeepers are liable to be made bankrupt. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) has stated that a large percentage of his constituents are bankrupt. I will go further and say that this would be true of almost all the people in western Canada, in view of the definition of bankruptcy given in section 3 of the Bankruptcy Act. This definition reads as follows "a debtor commits an act of bankruptcy in each of the following cases"-here follows a list of cases all lettered alphabetically, until we come to the last one, which reads:
(j) If lie ceases to meet his liabilities generally as they become due.
Everyone will realize that according to this definition a very large number of people in the prairie provinces could be declared bankrupt. I have a practical suggestion to make to the government, and ask that even though it comes from this side of the house it be given sympathetic consideration. It is that the Bankruptcy Act be amended either by striking out subsection (j) or alternatively suspending its operation during the present period of depression. Many local merchants are being threatened by their creditors that they will be put into bankruptcy unless they make a voluntary assignment. While these men may be bankrupt according to the strict letter of the law, they are not insolvent. I know many men who although they cannot pay their debts as they fall due, yet have a substantial surplus of assets over liabilities. Should they make a voluntary assignment or be forced into bankruptcy, all this surplus disappears. Their stock is sold for about 40 to 50 cents on the dollar and after the trustee's expenses have been paid, the creditor gets little and the debtor is broke.
The Address-Mr. Buckley


Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate in the hope and expectation that something would be said by some member of the government as to its policy with regard to agriculture. So far it has been a case of hope deferred. Although two members of the government have up to now taken part in the debate, no policy has been propounded. After the last election the people throughout western Canada expected that some program would be put forward by the government to help them to sell their crop. They were told during the last election that that would be done, and naturally they expected some action. But as month after month went by and no program was announced, they began last fall to ask what the program was. When still no program was announced and winter came on with conditions getting worse and worse, they asked again what the program was, and.at the present time throughout western Canada the people are demanding more and more strenuously that they be informed as to the policy of the government with regard to agriculture. What is the government going to do for the grain growers of western Canada? As yet we have received no answer. To-night from my place in this house I again ask the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir): What is your program with regard to the grain growers, and what are you going to do to help the farmers of western Canada? Eight months have gone by; conditions have gone from bad to worse, yet we hear no voice from the government, nothing in any way, shape or form for the benefit of the farmers.
The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) said that conditions in western Canada were bad but might be worse. I do not know how much worse they could be. Speaking for my own constituency, I do not know how conditions could be worse than they are at the present time. I have seen men who were good farmers come singly and in twos, threes, fours and dozens into our municipal offices stand before the desk and say: "I want food for my family because they are hungry." I have had men come to me and say: "I want clothes for my children so that I may send them to school." The condition is not one of unemployment; it is a famine condition. If you can find conditions worse than that, I do not know what they can be. Some hon. members may say: That is all very well, but

The Address-Mr. Donnelly
in your district they were dried out and the circumstances are exceptional. To that I reply that I haw land in other parts of Saskatchewan; I 'e land in places where we have had crops for the last two years. I have land in those districts where the production has been as much as twenty bushels to the acre, and from those lands which I have had rented I have not received enough during the last two years to pay the taxes. That is not exceptional; the same is true with respect to many farmers in western Canada. They are not receiving enough for their crops. We have now reached the time when the farmers in western Canada should be starting to seed, and in many instances they are doubtful whether or not it is advisable to do so. They are waiting to see whether there will be rain and whether they will seed or save the seed. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, if they do seed, they will be worse off next fall than they are now. Next fall they will not receive enough to compensate them for their work and trouble, let alone pay their taxes. Trom present prospects conditions are bound to be worse in Canada next fall than they are now. Ninety per cent of our farmers in western Canada have not paid taxes; they have not paid interest on loans. They are living on what should be paid as interest on loans and taxes, and next fall they are bound to pay the interest and taxes so that they cannot help being worse off.
In the face of that we find the government sitting mutely here without giving any indication as to what they expect to do for the farmers of western Canada. Surely the Minister of Agriculture, who comes from western Canada, knows the conditions there. After eight months of studying the problem, he should be able to tell us what he is going to do. Are we to wait until the people revolt? Are we to wait until we see, as we saw the other day in Winnipeg, another riot before any action is taken by the government?
Let us see, on the other hand, what the record of the government has been since it took office. During the last election, what did the Conservative party do? The present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) went out west, visited the different parts of the country and told the peode what he was going to do for agriculture. This is what he said at Winnipeg:
Listen you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada, you have been taught to _moek at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for

you? You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
Tariffs have not been working very hard so far as the farmers of western Canada are concerned; they have been lying down on the job. If they have been doing any fighting, they have been very badly beaten because 1 cannot see any benefits they have conferred upon the farmers of western Canada.
On June 19 last the present Prime Minister visited Calgary and he said:
Then comes the problem that is more important, the problem of marketing and of selling wheat. There it seems to me is a fertile field for the endeavour of a- government. France, Germany and Italy have raised tariffs against Canadian wheat. We will look over the top of the hill and beyond the horizon to make provision for the Canadian agriculturist and secure for him markets. That is a question which will have to be solved. I told my *audience at Winnipeg, and I tell you here and now that condition I will not permit to continue in this country.
Then when he visited Vancouver on June 18, he had this to say:
If Mr. Mackenzie King thinks I will not so build up our agricultural and industrial life that its strength will drive our products into the markets of the world, then he is wrong. For that 1 will do. If he thinks I will not establish new markets for these products, strive with all my heart to retain them, drive our products with all my power into new markets, into old markets, into reluctant markets, he is wrong. For that I will do.
Those are the words of the Prime Minister as to what he was going to do for agriculture and for the agriculturists. Naturally the agriculturists of western Canada expected that something would be done, and we are still hoping. What about his followers? What did they say during the last election? They went from place to place at least in my constituency, and they said:	Look at
the price of butter! Look at the price of eggs! If we get into power we are going to put up the price of butter. Butter will be seventy-five cents a pound anyway; we, will put it up for you. We will put up the price of eggs.
We have been disappointed at the result. At that time, in the middle of the summer, the price of creamery butter was forty-five cents a pound, and the very same people who were selling it then at that price, were selling it this winter for thirty cents a pound. At that time in the middle of the summer our dairy butter was selling at twenty-five cents a pound. What do we find now? We find dairy butter being sold by our farmers to the

The Address-Mr. Donnelly
country stores at 12 and 15 cents a pound. Just think of it! It takes two pounds of butter to buy a pound of axle grease. And what is the price of eggs? In the middle of the summer eggs were selling for 25 cents a dozen. During the past winter we have been getting eight and ten cents a dozen for eggs. It takes a wagon box of eggs to buy a pair of shoes. Why do not hon. gentlemen opposite bring in a resolution now and talk about the Australian treaty which I have heard them talk about for two sessions in this house?
Again, they went around and said: "Loo!: at the price of your wheat. It is only SO cents a bushel. Where is Dunning now?" Can you blame the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, now that we are getting about 30 to 40 cents a bushel, for asking:	Where is the Bennett
government now, and what is it doing to put up the price of wheat? We cannot get the government over there to say even one wori as to what they are going to do about it.


Mr. BRADETTE:: They are not allowed
to.


Thomas F. Donnelly: No, they are not allowed. Even in this house we have heard some of the echoes of what was said in the last election. We heard the hon. member for Rose town (Mr. Loucks) say from his place in this house, "Why did you not sell your wheat for $1.47 a bushel which was offered by Mr. Thomas?" Did you ever hear anything more ridiculous, Mr. Speaker? Ha1' this government any wheat for sale anywhere? It never had any wheat for sale any more than it had boots, or shoes or clothing, or any other commodity. Of course, the government could not sell wheat, and more than that Mr. Thomas never made the offer. It is wonderfully easy to look back and say that we should have taken advantage of an offer of that kind. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of western Canada at that time were out buying wheat themselves at $1.55 and $1.65 a bushel because they thought the price was going up. Now it is said that we should have sold at $1.47 a bushel. If we could only have foreseen these things-oh, the money we could have made! If we only had men like the hon. member for Rosetown to tell us what is going to happen, if only our fore-vision was as good as our hind-vision, how well off we should be.
Le us see what Mr. Thomas actually did say. If hon. gentlemen will look up the official report of the parliamentary debates in the House of Commons at Westminster, at 'page 1085 of the British Hansard of July
15, 1930, they will see that Mr. Lambert asked Mr. Thomas a question, and that Mr. Thomas replied:
On the contrary I took the view that when wheat was $1.40 it was too high.
And then it is said he offered $1.47 a bushel. What a generous person he must have been! Not only that but the late prime minister and members of his government told me distinctly that this offer was never made. The i pool officials have also told me the same thing, that such an offer was never made to them, and yet hon. members opposite have the audacity to say that we should have sold our wheat to Mr. Thomas. Why, it is ridiculous.
Some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house have said: The government does not make the world price of wheat. No, I admit that. But the government does regulate the price which we receive for our wheat as compared with the price received in other countries of the world. There is no doubt about that. In my constituency in the fall of 1929 we were receiving 19 and 20 cents more a bushel for our wheat than the price received in Montana, just across the line, and the Americans were hauling their wheat into Canada, paying the duty, and selling it for
19	and 20 cents a bushel more than, they could get at home. That was because our wheat was receiving its due, because it had been put up to its true value and had been kept there on account of the changes made in the Grain Act by the late government. What do we find this year? We find that in the very same territory the Americans are receiving
20	and 30 cents a bushel more than we are. It is the government that has done that. Yes, the government and no one else, because the Americans fixed the price of their wheat at 81 cents, and some of our American friends are actually coming across and getting Canadian wheat and smuggling it into the United States to make the extra profit. It is the American government that is responsible for their higher price, yet our government sits over there on the opposite benches and does nothing for the farmers in western Canada.
Our Canadian wheat growers, as I have said before in this house, receive less than any other farmers in the world for their wheat. I have just spoken of the conditions in the United States. The farmers in Germany, France and Italy receive in the neighbourhood of $1.50 for their wheat because they consume more wheat than they produce, and they have a duty on wheat. Those countries are protecting their wheat growers. Not only that,



The Address-Mr. Donnelly
but we find that in Australia, the Argentine and Russia, the farmers can put their wheat on the market for 12 and IS cents a bushel, while it costs the farmer in western Canada, as the grain commissioners stated the other day, in the neighbourhood of 35 cents a bushel to put their wheat on the market. So I say that our wheat growers in western Canada receive less than other wheat growers in the world for their wheat.
After the election was over last July, we had a special session of the house, at which we saw our manufacturing industries protected, but not a thing was done for the wheat growers. The farmers were still expectant, still in- hopes that something would be done. They hoped that something would come from the Imperial conference. The Prime Minister went over to the Imperial conference to get a market for our wheat. That is what he said he went over there for. He said that he went over there to blast and enlarge the channel through which our river of wheat would flow to the markets of the world, and that is what we thought he was there for. But as one farmer said, every time the Prime Minister put in a blast, instead of enlarging the channel he threw up a dam, and every time he threw up a dam the farmer in western Canada uttered ten thousand damns. I have sat in this house and listened to hon. gentlemen telling us about what happened in England at the conference, and what a great success our Prime Minister made over there. I have heard members quote from different papers as to what the Englishmen and the Irishmen and Canadians thought of the Prime Minister, and what he did at the Imperial conference. The Englishmen are too courteous to say anything but nice things about him anyway; they wTould not like to do anything else. But let us hear from some unbiased authorities or from some papers outside this country, say an American paper, and see what they say about him. I am going to read what one American newspaper said:
The weakness of the plan, so far as the British people were concerned, was that while it involved a guarantee that the British would buy Canada's wheat there was no corresponding guarantee that the Canadian people would buy British goods. On the contrary, the actual position was that, taking account of the tariff increases imposed by the special session of the Canadian parliament, the barriers against British goods were higher than before.
In the circumstances, Canadian opinion did not greatly blame Britain for rejecting the Bennett plan.
The conference might have ended amicably, and with possibility for achievement when it resumes next year at Ottawa, had it not been for an unfortunate phrase used by Mr. J. H.
[Mr. Donnelly.)
Thomas, a leading member for the MacDonald ministry. In a debate in the British Commons, Mr. Thomas, under attack, and caught off his guard, characterized Mr. Bennett's plan as "humbug." It was one of those unfortunate lapses which often influence politics more than men of measures, and it produced a storm of criticism and recrimination between the two countries. The chief effect of the conference, indeed, so far as Canada was concerned, was that Mr. Bennett, who went to England with a high ambition for imperial economic unity-based upon tariffs, left London with a veiled threat of economic separatism.
Nor was this the end. Air. G. Howard Ferguson, Premier of Ontario, recently appointed Canadian High Commissioner to London, committed the extraordinary indiscretion of making a vigorous attack upon the Socialist policy of the Labour government to which he has been accredited. This, not unnaturally, has added to the strained relations between Ottawa and Downing Street, has made cooperation between the two governments difficult, if not impossible. Mr. Philip Snowden, the acid-tongued Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, has a good memory.
So Air. Bennett has returned to Canada which has still some 250.000,000 bushels of unsold wheat, which has an acute unemployment problem, and whose declining revenues threaten an enormous deficit at the close of the fiscal year. The weakness of his position is that, like Mr. Hoover, in the United States, he took office on a platform of prosperity. Air. Bennett, electioneering told the Canadian people that failure to market the western wheat crop and prevalence of unemployment were the fruits of the Liberal ministry of Air. King..
After four months in office, and despite millions voted for unemployment relief, unemployment is still acute and the wheat of the west remains unsold.
This is from the Commonweal of New York.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Who is the writer?


Thomas F. Donnelly: The author of this
article is the man who writes the biographies of the different members of the government for publication in MacLean's magazine. I do not know what the members of the government pay him for writing these biographies, but I do know that he is the man who writes them in MacLeans-Mr. Grattan O'Leary, a Tory mouthpiece in this city. I must say that this is a Tory opinion, not a Liberal opinion. I do not hear any applause from the other side, and is it any wonder? The western farmers were discouraged because of the results of the Imperial conference. Then the Prime Minister came west and promised to leave in Regina a message of hope for the western farmers. Out in the west we were foolish enough to believe that he would tell us something which would be of benefit to us. We went to Regina to hear him, but when we arrived what did we find? The audience were waiting expectantly. Tho

The Address-Mr. Donnelly
chairman, Mr. Reilly, made some opening remarks. The premier of Saskatchewan made some further remarks, and the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) stated that the Prime Minister had a great message for western Canada. These gentlemen did not know what the message was going to be, but they said it was going to be a wonderful message. We moved over to the edges of our chairs and began to follow every word. _ The farmers had their ears cocked and listened carefully so as not to miss anything. When the meeting was over one farmer turned to the other and said, "Is he through?" "Yes,". "Well," he said, "he has not told us anything; he talked for an hour but he did not say what he was going to do." Right then and there the farmers of western Canada realized they had been handed a gold-brick last July. That feeling has been growing and is increasing in western Canada to-day. Let me say that there are not many Tories in the west at the present time, and unless conditions improve there will be very few of them left.


William Earl Rowe: My hon. friend told us that last year.


Thomas F. Donnelly: And I will tell it again. What were the proposals of the Prime Minister? There were three. First, he said: "We are going to have a market in China." We woke up next morning and found that this promise had been merely a nightmare. However, I cannot deal with that phase of the matter any further, because I must hurry on. Next he promised that we were going to sell
9.000.	000 bushels of wheat to France. Following that promise the farmers in the west began to consult past records to learn what they contained. They found that in the year 1926 we sold 12,000,000 bushels of wheat to France; in 1927, 13,000,000 bushels; in 1928,
18.000.	000 bushels; in 1929, 19,000,000 bushels and in 1930, 10,250,000 bushels. When they were confronted with these figures they said, "To sell 7,000,000 or 9,000,000 bushels is no use to us; this is less than we usually sell to France." It looked as if the Prime Minister had done a little blasting in France. The people in the west however, thought that France wanted something in return. In the following month, the month of January, when we should have been exporting to France about a million bushels of wheat, we exported only 440,000 bushels. The people in France got their backs up because they did not receive consideration in our markets. As they did not receive a preference in Canada, they were not disposed to deal with us. That is the record in regard to France.
The next suggestion he made was that western Canada should adopt mixed farming. Oh, yes, mixed farming was the thing! "We will help you if we get you into mixed farming." I would like to go into this matter fully, but I am afraid that it alone would take the whole of my forty minutes. In connection with mixed farming, however, I would say that there are no better, no more intelligent, or more up-to-date farmers in the world than those of western Canada. They do not have to take a back seat for anybody. They resent the idea of a man sitting down here in a financial office, or some member of parliament such as my hon. friend who interrupted some time ago, telling us in western Canada how to farm. I wonder if hon. members know that an easterner has to live a year in western Canada before he knows how to farm properly. I wonder if hon. members know that; if they do not I will tell them that it is a fact. I want to tell my hon. friends more than that. There are no two places, even on the bald prairie, where farming can be conducted in the same way. Different districts require different methods.
I would like to devote more time to this point but my time is limited, and I wish to spend a minute or two on another question.
One of my hon. friends opposite, I think it was the hon. member for Regina, said that he had sat in the house and listened to the long debate but had not heard a suggestion from anybody on this side as to what might be done. One of my hon. friends interrupted me a few minutes ago and asked me the very same question. May I say to my hon. friends that if they have not heard suggestions from this side of the house they must be deaf. If they had been listening they would have heard the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) make a concrete suggestion. They would have heard the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) make a further suggestion. The hon. member for South Battleford suggested that the price of wheat should be pegged. The hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) suggested that the processing of meats should be investigated. He said that 823,000 had been set aside to make this investigation, but that the Conservative government had not spent it. If hon. members had consulted the order paper they would have seen my suggestion that the domestic freight rates on grain and grain products should be the same as export rates. With that particular point I shall deal at greater length at a later time.
Why has the government not done something? Why has it not pegged the price of

The Address-Mr. Donnelly

wheat? That is its policy. It has pegged the price of manufactured goods. If the Liberal government had been in power such action would not have been necessary. The policy of the Liberal party is for freer trade and open markets. Our policy has been to trade more freely with other countries. We in western Canada believe that if the Dunning budget had gone into effect we would be selling our wheat more freely to-day. There would be a more favourable attitude towards us in England; there is no doubt about that. We believe we would have been able to make favourable trade treaties with Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy and other European countries. We might have got a preference in their markets for our wheat, and we could have given them a preference in our market for some of their manufactured goods. Some one may say, "Why didn't you do that when you were in'power?"


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Yes, "hear, hear."
Why not? Because neither my hon. friend opposite nor anyone else in this house thought fifteen or ten years ago, or even a year ago, that we would ever be looking for a market for our wheat. We believed that our wheat would always find a market. It. is only lately that this situation has developed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Well, my hon. friends
opposite seem to know, they seem to believe that two or three years ago there was some fear of our losing our market. Well, let them go to the west and see if they can make people believe it.


William Earl Rowe: You know last year it was
lost.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I should know better
than an Ontario farmer working 160 or 200 acres of land. The hon. member must know that his leader told us that he would sell our surplus wheat. I tell him right now that there is more wheat in Canada to-day than there was a year ago. I have the figures right here from their own records. This information comes from the Department of Trade and Commerce under the authority of the present minister, (Mr. Stevens). It says that at the present time there are 277,180,987 bushels of wheat in Canada, while this time last year-that is comparing 1931 with 1930- there were 228,646,307 bushels, or somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50,000,000 more this year than a year ago. Well, you have been in power marketing this crop, you have been looking after it.
[Mr. Don'-lly.)


William Earl Rowe: We had the 1929 crop, too,
to look after.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Yrou have not sold
last year's yet.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why didn't you sell the
1929 crop?


Thomas F. Donnelly: The Conservative party was elected to office to find a market. You said you would find a market, you promised us you would sell our wheat. Why don't you do it? We have heard nothing but promises -promises that come from you as freely as pious statements from mealy-mouthed philanthropists who divorce the word from her mate the deed."


An hon. MEMBER:: I would like to ask
my hon. friend a question.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Sit down; I want to
finish.


William Earl Rowe: Why didn't you sell the 1928 crop?


An hon. MEMBER:: Why didn't you sell
the 1927 crop?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I have only a few
moments left and I would ask hon. gentlemen to allow me to finish. Since the government saw fit to turn down the proposition of the three prairie premiers to peg the price of wheat, why have they not applied to our wheat the Pattersen scheme which the Australian government put into effect in relation to butter? Let us look at the Paterson scheme as it could be applied to our wheat, suppose we set a price f.o.b. Fort William of $1.50 for No. 1. northern wheat to be ground into flour for home consumption; then pay to our farmers an initial price of 70 cents a bushel. We could appoint a board to look after this.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much wheat
do we consume in Canada?


Thomas F. Donnelly: We consume here
something like 50,000,000 bushels. The board would make a profit on every bushel of wheat of something like 80 cents, or on 50,000,000 bushels a total profit of $40,000,000.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: One hundred per
cent profit.


Thomas F. Donnelly: That is nothing to
what some of our Conservative friends make. During the last five years we have been exporting from western Canada about 250,000,000 to 300,000,000 bushels of wheat. The price last year ranged from 50 cents up to SI. Suppose the average export price at Fort

The Address-Mr. Hanbury
William was 60 cents. Then out of the $40,000,000 the board could pay to the farmers 10 cents a bushel on this 250,000,000 or 300,000,000 bushels of wheat and have left over something in the neighbourhood of $15,000,000 or $10,000,000 for a final payment, which would net the western farmers somewhere between 70 and 75 cents a bushel. That would not cost the national revenue one cent. But even if it did, we do not feel that we need come to this government on bended knees to ask for this consideration, because in 1917 and 1918 the then Conservative government pegged the price of wheat to keep it from going too high-that is the only product of which they pegged the price; the wheat growers were the only people they penalized-and they made at that time between $70,000,000 and $100,000,000. That money has never been paid back to the farmers. So if it did cost the country a little money, this help is coming to the western farmer; they don't need to beg for it, it is their own money and it should be paid back to them. The only people who would have to pay more would be the consumers. Well, that is the policy of the Conservative party. Peg the price of wheat? Yes. Why not? They have pegged the price of manufactured goods by putting up the tariff so that those prices will not come down as otherwise they would. Why not protect the wheat grower of western Canada in the only way in which you can protect him? Peg the price for his wheat.


Mr. CAHAN:: Have you convinced your
colleagues of the soundness of your proposition?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I have told you what
the Liberal policy was.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: They never had
one.


John Vallance: You boys don't like
your medicine, but you had better take it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. member will
allow me to ask him a courteous question? Has he convinced his colleagues so that they are prepared to support a pegging policy such as he has announced?


Mr. DUFF:: Have you the Prime Minister's permission to ask that question?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I told the house what the Liberal policy was. The Liberal policy was freer trade and open markets. I will repeat it lest he did not hear it. We would enter into trade relations with Germany, France and the other European countries so
we could exchange our wheat for their commodities. But it is the policy of this government to build a tariff wall around Canada and force us to consume our own wheat. Therefore the only way to protect the farmer is to set a price for his products the same as the government has set a price for manufactured goods. I am putting this forward so the government may be consistent in their policy.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the hon. gentleman prepared to support such a policy?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I would sooner have
open markets, freer trade.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not the hon. gentleman know that every country in continental Europe during the latter part of the Liberal regime raised its duties against Canadian wheat?


William Duff: Send for the Prime Minister, send for the Prime Minister.


John Vallance: The hon. member for
St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) knows the answer to his question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: So do you.


John Vallance: Do you want me to
give it to you?


Thomas F. Donnelly: This is one of the suggestions I make. As I say, I have listened for the last three weeks for.some suggestions from the Conservative party, but I have not heard one.


An hon. MEMBER:: You waited for
nine years.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Well, I don't know
whether my hon. friend and his government are going to take my suggestion now. I do not know what they have got in the back of their heads.


Peter John Veniot: They have not got anything.


Thomas F. Donnelly: They are not telling
us what they will do. Well, my time is up.


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much
pleased that the first words of my first speech in this House of Commons are words of congratulation to you, sir, upon having been elected to the high office which you now so ably dignify, and to express further, to you and the members of the house, my appreciation of your having been called to this high office in view of the fact that you are a resi-
The Address-Mr. Hanbury

dent of my own city, Vancouver. I regret the absence from the house of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and I am greatly pleased to have heard recently that he will likely take his seat here in the course of the next few days. In referring to these two hon. gentlemen I would observe that not only is Vancouver fortunate in being represented by three good Liberals but that we from the city of Vancouver have also the representation of the Speaker of this house and of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I think you will agree with me that the importance of Vancouver justifies this representation.
Some hon. members will no doubt remember that an election was held in July of last year, and members on this side have listened I am sure, with a great deal of patience to some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side who have been telling them quite frankly that they were beaten at the last election. You will pardon me, therefore, if for a few minutes on behalf of the citizens of Vancouver as well as on behalf of the members on this side of the house. I gloat a little over the result in greater Vancouver in the last election. As you know, there was a change in the lower mainland in British Columbia. This change. Mr. Speaker-and I believe, sir, you will realize this by reason of your residence there -was 'based absolutely on the trade extension policy of the Liberal government. It was based on the extension of foreign trade, on the development of foreign markets. Vancouver is a port city and is vitally interested in foreign markets; and it was that interest in foreign markets and the extension of foreign trade that brought Vancouver after a hard struggle into the Liberal fold, where we feel sure it will remain for a long time to come.
My congratulation to the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address is not only on the fact that they presented their arguments in an able manner but, as well, on the fact that they have accomplished what I am now attempting: they have finished their maiden speech At the same time I wish to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), my chief. It was the policies of that right hon. gentleman that made me change my politics, in a fashion similar to that of the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and, as one hon. gentleman reminds me, of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). It is the policy of foreign trade extension that is responsible for the change in my case. I am a follower of the Liberal party, because that policy of theirs brought Canada from a colony to 3 nation; it also raised

Canada to the position of fifth trading nation in the world. That policy' not only reduced taxes in Canada but at the same time materially reduced the debt of the country'.
I wish also to congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett) on having received an expression of confidence from the greatest people on earth, the Canadian nation; and I wish to convey to him and his followers a message from myself and, I am sure, from all members on this side of the house. We regard him as the leader of an opposing political party; but I regard him also as Prime Minister of my country, and I wish to assure him, as the Prime Minister of my country, of my full cooperation in any measure which is going to bring Canada through the present crisis.
Much has been said about conditions not only in Canada but throughout the world. Of course, we are particularly interested in the conditions that prevail in Canada. Now, conditions are not good; they are in fact the reverse-they are bad. And if we listen to some of our friends from the prairie provinces we shall be inclined to say they are even worse than that. However, it is admitted that conditions are not good. As to the causes, I fancy there are as many theories as to the reasons for the depression as there are people who attempt to think of causes at all. Overproduction or under-consumption- of course, that is an obvious reason. Then shortage of gold; I do not agree with that; I believe there is sufficient gold for the requirements of the world. But there is one cause that is particularly' true of Canada, and I think it is the propaganda that was either put out or permitted by the wheat pool during recent years. By that propaganda, and by their system of forcing their sale to the ultimate consumer, they also encouraged the production of wheat in other countries. By their propaganda, that wheat was to be $2 on a certain date, I am afraid that they did the 'Canadian producer much damage.
But, Mr. Speaker, the real question is not as to how we arrived at the stage we reached; our problem at the present time is to know where we	are.	Our next	problem is	to knowwhere we	are going and	then what	path weshall take to get to our destination. To show where we	are	as a nation to-day,	I haveonly to	say	that we	are one	of the
western nations of the world; and for the purpose of making my point, I visualize the world as a fortress of plenty. There is to-day a greater variety' and volume of commodities in the world than at any time in its history. This fortress of plenty is en-

The Address-Mr. Hanbury
circled by a magic wall the component parts of which are machinery, science, transportation and communication. This wall is contracting day after day and year after year, and in the process it is forcing the nations of the world into closer contact with each other and each country into closer competition with all the others. To my mind, it is this contracting process which brought about the upheaval known as the world war. During the past fifteen years the process has been accelerated, and particularly within the past few years, aided by the restriction of exchange of commodities, until to-day the nations have contracted the disease we now call economic depression, which in turn is accompanied by a lower standard of living. That is where we are to-day. We have reached the position where this contracting process has brought us into economic competition with the other nations of the world, and Canada is being forced to accept the lower standard of living prevailing in the countries with which we compete.
Where are we going? Within this fortress the groups we call nations are beginning to realize that the only cure for the prevailing disease is to break through the wall and thus be aible to move forward to the promised land of international cooperation, with its shorter working hours and higher standard of living. To my mind that is where we are going. But the cure will 'take years, because each nation is ineffectively attempting to bring about a cure by the erection of tariff walls to protect itself from other nations.
What can we do to bring relief to Canada? I advocate the course, peculiar as it may seem in view of the discussions we have heard in this house, of greater production and keener competition, and I hope to be able to offei a policy consistent with the Conservative policy. If we hope to cooperate with the government our suggestions must be consistent with their policies. I offer a suggestion which will make work for Canadians. This is a Conservative policy because it will permit Canada to blast her way into the markets of the world.
We must make Canada the economic Russia of the capitalistic nations of the world. We must fight for our place in the sun. We must tighten our national belt, and every individual in the nation must do his share. How are we to bring about this tightening process? The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), in the very able address he made recently, advocated a depreciated currency. Personally
I cannot accept that proposition because that which a depreciated currency would do can be obtained by other means which would permit us to maintain our standard of living. We want to be one of the leading nations of the world, proud of the fact that everywhere our money is worth one hundred cents on the dollar.
How can we tighten our national belt? First, we must provide more purchasing power by more and cheaper money; second, we must reduce wages; third, we must reduce freight rates, and, fourth, as a natural consequence after the first three are accomplished, we must reduce our taxes. Only by these policies can we lower the cost of living and thereby reduce the cost of production, which would permit us to blast our way with our lower prices into the markets of the world. Once the cost of production is reduced the tariff ceases to be an issue. Our clothing and our machinery could then be manufactured in Canada cheaper than it could be imported. Lower production costs would permit the refinement and fabrication in Canada of most of our resources now being exported in a raw or semi-manufactured state. And a most important result would be that by the adoption of these policies we could return to their proper relationship to the value of primary production such fixed charges as interest, freight rates and taxes. We would then be the one nation in the world outside of Russia where every man was working. We would have an advantage over those nations which are obliged to provide for the unemployed, and we would have a job for everyone in Canada willing to work.
The first policy which I advocate, the establishment of a federal reserve system, would have the immediate effect of materially increasing money available for loans. It would enable the banks to lend to individuals and industries the money they are now unable to lend because of their frozen assets in the shape of loans to agriculturists and to industry now impossible of collection. By increasing the total amount of credit available, money would be cheaper, which would result in lower interest charges without affecting the net earnings of the banks. By increasing credit there would be an increase in capital available for the expansion of our industries. More and cheaper money would increase the purchasing power of the Canadian people.
My second suggestion is that there should be a reduction in wages, such as has already taken place in many industries. Because of the decrease in the cost of living, those who are to-day receiving a fixed income are better
The Address-Mr. Hanbury

off than they were during the period of prosperity. My suggestion is that a reduction of 20 per cent be made in wages, but at the same time the cost of living must be reduced to the same extent.


Mr. HEAPS:: How could the purchasing power be increased if wages were decreased?


Wilfred Hanbury: The cost of living is
relative to wages; the purchasing power of a day's work will be as great as it is to-day This purchasing power of a day's work would increase when the worker, whose wages are to-day maintaining the unemployed-and this is a point to which I would invite the attention of hon. gentlemen in that corner of the house, that to-day the unemployed are being paid for by the employed worker-is relieved of that burden by the increased demand foi man power. Wage reduction is always difficult, but I am confident that we can prove to labour that their cooperation in this national emergency would permit many thousands of their numbers to return to the higher paid positions from which they have been displaced. As an illustration of this condition,
I have in mind thousands of railwaymen-and I mention railwaymen particularly because they are a strongly organized group, it is natural to expect that their consideration would not be favourable-who have been reduced in status and their earnings decreased as a result of declining railway traffic, and thousands more who are now on the spare list with no earnings at all. I know in British Columbia there are engineers who have been what they call "bumped" to a fireman's job and in fact some have been bumped right down to the roundhouse. There have been firemen bumped out of a job and shopmen bumped out of a job. Through greater production and greater traffic, those men can better afford to take a reduction in wages and get back to their proper position. I have no doubt of the cooperation of labour if labour has no reason to doubt the cooperation it will receive from industry and from government.
My next suggestion is a reduction of 20 per cent in freight rates, made possible by reduced costs, by the most improved equipment, and also by increased earnings through greater traffic. Lower wages and all other charges, with increased foreign trade and general business expansion, in addition to a reduction of 20 per cent in the pay of all government employees, can result only in lowered taxes. More and cheaper money, lower wages, lower freight, lower taxes, will bring lower production costs, but not necessarily a greatly decreased selling price for our farmers, lumber-fMr. Hanbury.J
men, fishermen and miners whose products are sold on the markets of the world.
Our object must be not crass indifference to the interests of all other nationals, not just cold blooded exploitation, but to provide work for all Canadians. We must ever keep before us the improvement in the Canadian standard of living, which our resources, education, and civilization will make a simple task if we have courage, energy and faith. To better our standard of living we must be prosperous, and Canada is not prosperous to-day. The advantage in world commerce, the place in the sun, will belong to that nation which first and best realizes the necessities of the present world economic position.
I am advocating the immediate adoption of a policy that otherwise we shall be forced into in a very short time, and if we wait for that day it is not inconceivable that our present institutions might not be then in control of the working out of that policy. Science, machinery, transportation, communications, are forcing the world forward at an ever increasing rate. The immediate future offers nothing but economic war; civilization demands a truce to regulate production through reducing the hours of work; civilization demands a world economic peace. In this new' world away from the age-old distrusts of the old world, let all the nations assemble to cooperate for the benefit of mankind. A suggestion I wish to make to the Prime Minister is that there is no other place in the world to-day where the question of international economic cooperation can be so well considered as it can be right here in Canada. Until that day, when world economic peace has been proclaimed, let us Canadians, with faith and courage, set our course to make Canada the barometer of world trade.


Mr. T. M. CAYLEY (South Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house for only a shout time to make a few observations. Since eight o'clock we have had the pleasure of listening to two excellent addresses. This recalls to my mind the words used by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) during his election campaign when he went throughout the west calling upon sinners to repent. It seems to me that those two splendid addresses are calling upon sinners to repent.
I should like in this public way to say how pleased I am at the elevation to a ministerial office of my old school friend and lifelong chum, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland), which has brought so much credit to the good old county of Oxford, half of which each of us represents. I see

The Address-Mr. Cayley
my friend the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) applauding; he too is an offspring of that good old county. With regard to the criticism that has been hurled against the front benchers on the other side for being absent so much, I should like to point out that my good friend from North Oxford, the Minister of National Defence, is not among that class. He has shown a great deal of interest at all times in the affairs of the house.
I want also to pay tribute to another old chum of mine in the person of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), with whom I had the privilege of attending school for some months. He has said that he is faced with a very heavy task, and I am sure he is. I want to assure both of these hon. gentlemen that in any effort which they undertake for the improvement of conditions in Canada, I shall personally be only too happy to cooperate with them, for my love of Canada is no less than theirs.
Listening to the addresses from different members from all parts of Canada, and knowing conditions in his own locality, one must admit that the world is passing -through dark days, and in spite of the attempt on the part of some to claim that conditions in Canada are only a legacy from the King administration, the consensus is that the present situation is due to world economic conditions If the government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) ever goes out of power-and it is -being prophesied now that this will happen soon-let us hope that his government will not leave any worse legacy than the one they took over. The King administration saved Canada from a much more serious state than would have been the case had they not been in office prior to the accession to power of the party opposite.
In a recent article in the New York Times, Raymond B. Fosdick, a distinguished lawyer and author, describes conditions as follows:
In a world that is bursting with goods and that has limitless capacity to produce, we are haunted by the spectre of compulsory idleness with its bony fingers upon the throat of our industrial life. Apparently the problem of the machine age is not so much a problem of producing goods as it is a problem of producing buyers. The unemployed are waiting for the flow of wages so that they can buy goods they need. The manufacturers with idle plants are waiting for consumers with sufficient money to start the wheels. All unwillingly we have slipped into the vicious circle.
The progress of science and invention has brought the world to this emergency. So must it lead us out into better times of its solution.
Some say we must do away with the machine and go back to more and more hand labour. But we cannot go back. The discoveries of modern times must carry us forever forward. There is no standing still, no going back, but ever the bringing to light of new -forces and ever changing conditions, to which -changing conditions the world must adapt itself.
The Right Hon. J. H. Thomas, Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, -in his statement before the 1930 Imperial conference used these significant words:
I would, therefore, sir, put to the conference this proposition. What we must apply ourselves to is how this conference, representative of the empire as a whole, can make a practical contribution toward the solution of the difficulties and problems we are faced with to-day, but I say a practical proposal and I say practical remedies, because we are faced with circumstances in which quack remedies and mere phrases or preorations will not lead to real results.
A quack is a pretender to medical or other skill, so the dictionary informs me. He usually has the one and only panacea for all ills. Such was the medicine man with his incantations and charms. His treatment may pacify and soothe -for a time, but seldom effects a permanent cure. Industrial success to-day is due to the elimination of the quack remedies in that sphere of activity; but in the world of politics and statecraft, the charmer and medicine man still holds sway. In this connection one may -recall the case of the sick Indian medicine man who was asked why he did not beat the drum for himself and take -his own medicine. His reply was, "Sometime drum all right, sometime medicine all right, but me sick." Canada is sick, but this government continues the use of the old time quack medicines, incantations and charms.
The need for reconstruction on a broad basis is urgently felt, as Mr. Thomas further points out, saying, "It is hardly necessary for me to say that the world has struck an economic blizzard"; and he implored all the representatives to forget "party," and forget "election promises" in the face of the great emergency, and suggest some practical remedy. One realizes now how incriminating those words sound in the face of Canada's un-ipre-ferential legislation of the special session of last autumn, and the bold, blunt proposals of Canada's Prime Minister, in which he outlined his "Canada first" policy.
With here and there a jarring note, one, nevertheless feels that the nations are beginning to realize that our political conceptions have not caught up with our machines and that we still cling to the idea that we
The Address-Mr. Cayley

can maintain, political isolation in a world in which economic isolation has long since gone by the board. This is our challenge.
We have the League of Nations-a world council of justice-great world conferences, material and religious-and we have our Imperial conferences, all in an endeavour to create a wider political system better able to protect the more extensive intersts of the nations they serve.
Higher and higher discriminatory tariffs are quack remedies. There seems to have developed an insatiable greed for tariffs, to build about us an insurmountable wall so that our only recreation will be that of charging each other high prices. Tariffs may be wisely applied, but in order to apply them sanely and wisely a government must have at its disposal all the data it can possibly obtain from a far-reaching investigation. For tariffs may be highly discriminatory, as was found to the dismay of the present government in the case of glass. A tariff board of well-trained impartial experts, non-ipolitical, nonpartisan, is an absolutely necessary adjunct of every government, and it is with great satisfaction that one learns of the government's intention to re-establish the tariff board which they so ruthlessly exterminated on coming into power.
We should learn from the past. Canada has had extraordinary periods of growth and prosperity. In those periods sprang into being her great industrial centres, her great ports and transportation systems. Then were settled, and tilled ever-increasingly, millions of acres of fertile land. Then Canadian shipping was found in the ports of the seven seas. Foreign commerce increasingly sought our shores. Canada flourished because her world trade flourished. Canada's growth in the fifteen years of the Laurier regime was wonderful, but the golden era of her prosperity was during the nine years of the Mackenzie King administration. I might implore this government to forget its pre-election promises, but that is unnecessary, as hon. members have so often pointed out. But I would urge that they formulate their policies along those lines which brought Canada such success during the regimes of these great Canadian statesmen, and welcome the coming Imperial conference in the spirit of the Dunning budget. This parliament might well, too, study the causes of the depression with a view to preventing its repetition; and not merly accept its recurrence as an act of providence but rather as a problem for sober-thinking representatives of a great people to solve. I do not doubt for a moment the ability of the 
present age to solve the economic problems of such a crisis as the present, when machinery has not only captured the workshop but is invading the home and leaving its impact on social and family- life. The great fact of to-day is the collapse of man power before machinery and narrow governmental policies. The solution will be found in a careful adjustment of conditions both at home and internationally. It will not be found in a wholly free trade policy, or in an exclusive high tariff policy, but in the careful adjustment of a free trade and moderately protective and mutually beneficial policy.
Foreign trade is not war but exchange. When Canada's ambassador to Tokyo seeks to sell wheat to Japan he is asked "what will Canada buy from us"? When he goes to China, China wants to know what Canada will buy from her. When the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald) seeks a market for potatoes in Cuba he will be asked the same question. When the Prime Minister endeavours to sell Canadian wheat in the motherland it is pointed out that the old land buys from Canada many more millions of dollars' worth than Canada buys from her, and the question is asked whether Canada will take more. What will Canada buy from Britain?
At present it would appear that the "Canada first" policy may have the effect of greatly reducing Canadian foreign trade. Already from one cause or another it is greatly reduced. Exports are falling off, our industries are languishing and unemployment becoming more and more a problem. It is true there is no great trek of our youth to the United States, for that country is in a worse economic condition; but a number of Canada's trained workmen and those technically trained are joining the large army going into Russia. Stephen Leacock, Professor of Economies at McGill University, speaking a few days ago under the auspices of the Montreal junior board of trade in the Windsor Hotel, is reported as saying:
Russia is going to fail; Russia is going to break. In Russia there is none of the apparatus of democracy as we know it-nothing but a huge driven herd of millions scarcely worth while counting. But they put Russia together.
The professor does admit that they are doing things in Russia, and it will be all the more difficult for the rest of the world where things languish.
Their political organization is on the pattern of political parties in the United States; their economy is copied from the American trusts.

The Address-Mr. Cayley
Further on Mr. Leacock is reported as saying:
Wliat are we going to do ? The virus of communism is eating into the souls ot the young people of Canada because we are not doing enough for the country and they know it; because we starving in a land of plenty and they know it. We must build something here which will be a bulwark against any communistic chance.
Continuing he says:
It is whether Russia will break or we will break first. In Canada we will have to be up and doing. We have the resources-more than 10.000.000 people could live here if they wanted. If Russia can build dams, pile up production, so can we. But we produce too much. Hitherto we thought of that as a kind of interesting paradox. We have to solve it. We must have a policy which will mean that there must be bread and work for all. Not the English dole system-all bread and no work that is no good.
The greatest problem, and the one that comprehends and includes all others, is the improvement of agriculture in Canada. The future of Canada is dependent upon having a prosperous happy and contented rural population. For agriculture is the basic industry. And in view of the urgent demand, arising out of the serious condition in which Canadian farmers find themselves, parliament would do well to spend a greater part of its time during this session in committee trying to find a solution for their difficulties. I am not going to attempt to describe conditions in my own county. Perhaps they are not as bad as they are in some other counties, but meeting farmers continually and knowing them intimately I do say that many of them have made committments and find themselves wondering how they are going to get through. They are a brave class of people. They come from a noble group of people who pioneered this country, and they are not easy to discourage.
I am going to quote from what I believe to be one of the best sources from which we could draw information regarding the condition of agriculture in Canada to-day. I have in my hand a manifesto on agricultural conditions, issued by the Canadian Council of Agriculture. This information is not gleaned from any particular part of Canada, but from Canada as a whole. The council knows whereof it speaks, and issues the following statement:
The conditions now prevailing among the agricultural population of the Dominion menace the whole social and economic fabric of tlie country. Exhortations to optimism and statements denying the widespread suffering and impoverishment of our rural people, even when made by prominent men, do not change the facts. Farmers are being reduced to
poverty; their families are being inadequately fed, clothed and educated; they are unable to meet their obligations to pay taxes, to redeem mortgages, to maintain payments of interest, to settle their debts for machinery, gas and oil, and other necessary purchases. Many lack seed for spring sowing and will be compellea to go deeper into debt in order to provide it. Even the minority who have hitherto occupied a position of financial independence have "gone behind" and are in danger of being submerged.
For many years the Canadian Council of Agriculture, speaking for the farmers provincial organizations, has protested against the handicaps imposed on the farming industry by tariff exactions, high transportation costs, inadequate and expensive credit facilities and inequitable taxation, to name only the more outstanding of their grievances. Such protests have been unavailing and the advent of the world-wide depression, resulting from the costs and ravages of the war, aggravated by the national jealousies and economic rivalries which have succeeded it, has found the Canadian farmers totally unable to cope with the difficulties and to make the sacrifices entailed by it. The continuance of the existing conditions throughout another crop year must inevitably involve in the most serious degree the financial and industrial institutions of the Dominion. Banks, trust companies, mortgage corporations and other lending institutions will find themselves in possession of the lands and chattels which form the security for their loans, but lacking purchasers to take them off their hands. Their security will have depreciated to an extent necessitating the writing off of very heavy losses. The manufacturing concerns, together with the great army of distributing agencies, will face stagnation owing to the inability to find purchasers for the products they produce or handle. The farmers will be either dispossessed or compelled to spend long years in carrying on an uphill struggle to liquidate the debts of principal and interest pyramided upon them. Large numbers will become tenant farmers, or farm labourers, living at a standard much below that, even, which they have been able to attain in the past.
I have heard from both sides of the house different suggestions as to the reason for the unfortunate position in which the farmers find themselves. Some people blame the farmers for laziness; some allege mismanagement; some say they are buying too much and some that they are buying too little. If there is any class of people in the Dominion of Canada which receives from the arm-chair and white-collared philosophers of our land more free advice than any other class, it is the poor farmers. In the present emergency they require some one really to show them how to surmount the difficulties which confront them. Show them what? How to do all the work on a 100-acre farm without help-grow, harvest and market the crops; build the buildings and keep them in repair; be machinist, agriculturist; pay the interest on the mortgages, pay the taxes; feed and clothe his family; support the church and local in-
The Address-Mr. Cayley

stitutions, and the other hundred and one things which time does not permit me to enumerate.
The farmer finds himself confronted with heavy capital commitments at a time of falling prices for his own productions. He is endeavouring to meet the payments of high-priced farms and equipment in the face of an income barely sufficient to maintain the living expenses of his own household. As I said, the betterment of the fanners' condition involves to a large extent the solution of the other great problems of industrial regeneration and unemployment. In view of the positive promises given to the countiy by the Prime Minister, that he would right the wrongs of the Canadian people, the farmers of Canada are awaiting with keen expectation the coming of that great day of fulfilment.
Considerable criticism has been offered by hon. members of Canadian banking institutions. Perhaps they might do more by way of assistance, but when one recalls the wholesale failures of banks in the neighbouring republic and their instability one must feel increased pride and confidence in Canadian banks.
What is most important is the adaptation of our institutions to modern conditions and needs, based on a world-wide conception. Internationally we are interdependent; we cannot live to ourselves; we all need markets and we all need each other. I say to-day is the empire's chance. For this emergency has she been preserved. Her's the chance to consolidate-to solve the great economic and social problems and preserve peace and freedom among 450,000,000 people. There is urgent need for an empire board to be working all the time, not periodically; a board, not of politicians but of experts in their particular lines. I repeat, we need world markets, more and more of them. Where are additional foreign markets to be found? It has been pointed out by leading economists and statesmen that more than a billion people throughout the world are potential consumers of our surplus products and that they could, under the right kind of governmental policies-including of course a liberal trade policy-be converted into actual consumers. All the great problems now facing the countiy-farm relief, agricultural surpluses, the utilization of manufacturing productivity, unemployment, maintenance of our standards of living, continued development and progress, international good will with resultant international peace- all seem to me to be bound up in the solution of this problem of the expansion of our foreign trade.

Unless the country is to abandon its high standards of living; unless our great manufacturing plants are to remain idle with accompanying unemployment; unless more and more farmers are to be driven from the land and forced to compete for a living with the surplus labour in the cities; unless progress and development are to cease and be followed by a recession, the result of which one can foretell, it seems to me we must abandon selfish and insular trade policies and set up a financial, commercial, economic policy that will be world-embracing in its aims. But the expansion of our foreign trade along the lines indicated can never be the policy of the Conservative party committed as it is to superprotection and economic isolation. It can come only by the ascendancy of the Liberal party with its broad and liberal tariff and trade policy that is a world policy. And that to my mind truly is the greatest of all Canadian policies-a Canada-first policy that means everything.
Out of the wreck of ages We grasped that truth divine,
It fires us still,
And, by God's will,
It shall to the end of time.
It shall lead and lift us upward lo a truer strength of soul;
It shall banish fear.
And bring us near
The freeman's destined goal.
On motion of Mr. Gardiner the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 9.40 p.m.
Monday, April 20, 1931