1931-04-14

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table of the house the authentic text of the draft conventions and recommendations which have been adopted by the tenth, eleventh, twelfth and fourteenth sessions respectively of the International Labour conference in accordance with the provisions of article 405 of the treaty of Versailles and the corresponding provisions of the other treaties of peace. Also the text of certain orders in council which have been adopted dealing with the competence of parliament and of the provincial legislatures respectively with regard to the subject matters of these draft conventions and recommendations. The text of the draft conventions and recommendations and the orders in council which have been mentioned have been transmitted to the lieutenant-governors of the various provinces.



CANADIAN NATIONALS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 24, to define Canadian nationals and to provide for loss or renunciation of Canadian nationality.
An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Mr. CAHAN:: This bill is to revise chapter 21 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927, which is entitled an act to define Canadian nationals and to provide for loss or renunciation of Canadian nationality. Upon assuming the duties of Secretary of State I found that investigations had been made with re-

Salmon Fisheries Regulations
spect to the application of the existing statute by the permanent officials of the State department and the permanent officials of the Department of External Affairs. I found also that during the regime of the previous government the then Prime Minister, the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) had procured from Professor W. P. M. Kennedy of Toronto university a very lengthy study of the essentials of Canadian nationality. With the assistance of the permanent officials of the State department and of the Department of External Affairs I have drafted this bill in order to express in appropriate terms for legislative enactment what I believe to be the essential qualifications for Canadian nationality. For instance in dealing with the claims for reparations under the treaty of Versailles some hundreds of claimants are compelled in the first place to prove that they are Canadian nationals. Many of these claimants have found themselves in extreme difficulties when they were asked to determine whether or not they were Canadian nationals within the scope and the meaning of the treaty of Versailles. Since the treaty of Versailles was ratified the government of Canada with the approval of parliament has entered into a series of international treaties and conventions, and with respect to the administration for Canada of those treaties and conventions it is necessary in many, many cases arising in my department daily and weekly to determine whether certain residents in Canada are Canadian nationals within the meaning of these treaties and conventions. Then, in respect to the administration of certain acts, such as the Copyright Act, and to a lesser degree the Patent Act, it becomes necessary daily to determine whether or not the applicant is a Canadian national. The two primary qualifications of course are first that the applicant is a British subject and second that he has a domicile in Canada. There are, however, certain variations which must be determined. This bill is an attempt, with the aid of such expert assistance as is available in the various departments and the assistance of the reports of experts which were received by the previous government, to determine and to express in simple language who are Canadian nationals within the meaning of our statutes and of the conventions and treaties above mentioned. I think it is absolutely necessary for the proper administration of the affairs of the State department that Canadian nationals should be clearly defined so as to avoid the difficulties which from day to day are arising in the administration of that department. I have

not introduced this bill as a partisan measure. In the Department of State we are really attempting to carry into effect the result of investigations and reports made to the previous government which have been amplified somewhat since the present government took office. I desire to have the bill read in order that it may be distributed to members of the house, and I ask from hon. members on both sides of the house serious consideration of the elements of this bill. Such a measure should not be passed for partisan purposes or as a party measure. It is a measure which if it is to be enacted should receive the approval of a majority of members on both sides of this house.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REPARATIONS COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I ask the hon. the Secretary
of State if, during the present session of parliament, he expects to be in a position to present to the house a supplementary report of the reparations commissioner dealing with the cases of soldiers who were prisoners of war?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That will depend entirely upon the progress which the commissioner makes. I have already presented a report of the decisions up to the date of the report. If it is possible to secure hearings and decisions in other cases which are before the commissioner I shall endeavour to comply with the suggestion of the hon. gentleman.



SALMON FISHERIES REGULATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: May
I be permitted to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) to a situation which has arisen in the maritime provinces and especially the province of New Brunswick in connection with salmon net fishing. Recently regulations were passed which if put into effect immediately, it is argued, would cause a grave injustice to the salmon net fishermen of the province of New Brunswick. Especially would the injustice be felt where net fishing is carried on along the shore of the open bays. I do not wish

Department of Interior-Retiring Employees
to argue the merits of the regulations but I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries concerning them. I have no doubt he has received some protests and I would like to know if having received those protests he will thoroughly investigate the complaints before the regulations are put into effect. Will the minister have bis officials report upon the advisability of postponing for one year the operation of these new regulations to give time fully to investigate all phases of the situation, in case such investigation cannot be made before the opening of the season this year?


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) :: In reply to the question of my hon.
friend from Gloucester (Mr. Yeniot) I may say that the regulations in question were proposed following a conference which was held at Ottawa in February. That conference was attended by upwards of thirty persons representative of every phase of the fishing industry, and the conclusions reached are substantially those embodied in the regulations. It has transpired that objections have been raised since the regulations have been announced due I think chiefly to objections arising with respect to the date of the opening of the fishing season. The question has become more acute by reason of the fact that this year promises to be an earlier year with respect to fishing than has any year within the last fifty. In view of objections which have been raised the deputy minister has been instructed to proceed immediately to the province of New Brunswick for the purpose of a further conference with those representing the industry. If it appears after such further inquiry that any hardships will result to the fishermen and to the industry, the question of modification or of postponing the application of the regulations as proposed will be favourably considered.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Will these regulations apply to the province of Quebec as well as to the province of New Brunswick? Was the province of Quebec represented ait the conference?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The province of Quebec
was represented at the conference by F. M. Gibaut, Superintendent of Maritime Fisheries, Department of Colonization, Game and Fisheries of Quebec. The regulations were made in conformity with his view as to their acceptability to the province of Quebec.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: In
view of the stigma attached to the admin- _ istration of the Civil Service Commission as a result of evidence brought down in the recent trial of two civil service employees does the government intend to investigate the commission?


Mr. POWER:: Abolish it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As I presume to represent in this house the Civil Service Commission I would suggest that until the evidence in that case is thoroughly digested by the government it would be impossible to give a definite answer to the inquiry of the hon. gentleman.



REPORTED RETIREMENT OF EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART West Edmonton) :	Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a
question to the Minister of the Interior with respect to the abolition of positions in the Department of the Interior. In this morning's issue of the Ottawa Citizen I notice that a ohange is to be made in the arrangement concerning motor cars which were formerly supplied to ministers, and they are now to be granted $2,000 in lieu of motor cars. But what I am particularly interested in-if the information is correct- is the fact that those chauffeurs who have been employed for more than three years are guaranteed positions in the civil service. In reply to my question yesterday, the hon. Minister of the Interior stated that those civil servants whose positions had been abolished in the Department of the Interior were being given consideration for transfer or otherwise, and that the matter was under discussion with the Civil Service Commission. I was somewhat astonished last night-I hope it is not true-to read in the Evening Journal a statement, purporting to be made by Dr. Roche, chairman of the Civil Service Commission, in which he said that the matter had not been referred to the commission. I say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I am prepared to accept the statement of the minister. I hope that the same consideration which is being granted to the chauffeurs will be extended to those civil servants who find themselves without positions in the Department of the Interior.
[Stage Direction]
Air Mail Service
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Why
did'nt you take care of them?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I did, and
I shall be very glad to discuss the matter with the hon. member to-morrow when the estimates are under consideration.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: I have
directed a question to the Minister of the Interior, and I think I should be given the courtesy of an answer.


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: I did not hear the question.


Charles A. Stewart: I expressed
the hope that the minister would be able to assure me that the same treatment would be meted out to the officers of the Department of the Interior who found themselves out of positions as was being given to the chauffeurs in the employ of the government.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I did not
hear the hon. ex-Minister of the Interior put his question. He made a statement. Then he expressed the hope that the same consideration or treatment would be given to the employees who might lose their positions in the Department of the Interior as was being granted to chauffeurs who might be dismissed. The statement, I think he said, appeared in the Journal.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, the
Ottawa Journal.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: The statement was that
this treatment was being accorded the chauffeurs-^


Charles A. Stewart: I beg the
hon. minister's pardon. I did not say that. It was so reported in the Citizen.


Thomas Gerow Murphy: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that I am not responsible for what newspapers may state as to the policy of the government in that regard.



AIR MAIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, I desired to ask
a question of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) but since he is not in his seat,
I think-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. McINTOSH:: It may be all right; I
understand it is impossible for him to be in the house at the moment.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Put it on the order paper.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I will put the hon. member on the order paper before long.


Mr. GOTT:: Where will this take place?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thought, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) or the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) might answer my question since the right hon. Prime Minister is not present.


Eccles James Gott: You are all excited.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not the slightest. It is a perfectly legitimate question, Mr. Speaker; I just want some information.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: All I want to know is this. There have been reports in the daily and weekly press that a substantial reduction would be made in the appropriation for civil aviation, and we find in the main estimates tabled yesterday that that reduction amounts to two and a third million dollars. My question is in regard to the air mail lines of western Canada. Many of our western centres, cities large and small, are gravely concerned as to what is the policy of the -government with respect to this service. What is the government's -policy in this regard; are they going to continue or discontinue the existing air mail lines in western Canada? If they are going t-o continue them, are they going to develop and make them air mail lines that will be really effective in the building up of real air mail facilities in western Canada?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member ought to know thait a question so put is not in order.



PRIVILEGE-MR. DURANLEAU

[Stage Direction]
On -the orders of the day:
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege in order to correct a statement made in the house yesterday. On that occasion the hon. member for Provenc'her (Mr. Beaubien) read a Canadian Press despatch to a local paper stating that I had said at a public meeting that last winter about 1,000,000 people found employment under the joint federal-provincial-municipal relief fund. I wish to declare, sir, that the statement is not correct. I never staited any such thing. I desire to repeat the substance of what I said, namely, that in round figures 250,000 people, men and women, -had found employment under the Un-

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
employment Relief Act of last session, and that owing to the fact that the greater number of the men so employed were the heads of families, we might infer that about 1,000,000 people had received food, lodging and so forth under that legislation. I think my statement was quite in accord with the facts.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. minister's statement. I read the despatch from the newspaper in good faith, and I did so because I thought the public should know the facts.


Mr. POULIOT:: Unborn children weTe included in the statement.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 13, 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. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, in rising to make
a few remarks in this debate may I say that last night I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), when he presented what he considered to be some of the causes for the present commercial and industrial depression. He made a statement to the effect that the farmers were being exploited. As I listened to him I was wondering just when the farmers were not exploited under our present fiscal system, and I was surprised that he did not realize that the policy for which he and his party stand, the policy of raising the protective wall higher and still higher, will result in our farmers being exploited more and more as the years go by. He dealt also with the banking system and said it was not perfect. Of course we know it is not perfect. I understand the Bank Act will be revised in the session of 1932, and then we shall see just how far the hon. member for Qu'Appelle and his party will go in so revising the statute that our farmers will no longer be exploited nor the national prosperity menaced. My hon. friend also dealt with the wheat situation. He said he did not want to blame the pools, but he stressed the fact that the sales agency was to blame for the abnormal carry-over of wheat. So far as the pools are concerned, I believe that those in western Canada who are standing for a 100 per cent marketing proposition and those who are in favour of a voluntary organization will 22110-374
decide the issue among themselves and decide it correctly. Apparently the hon. gentleman also accepted the fact that the fiscal system under which we are labouring in Canada is perfect; he believes that all we have to do is to apply it more equitably to all Canada, and he is quite certain that agriculturally and industrially 'by means of it we are going to have a great dominion built up, with a complete organization of industries all across Canada, and that everything will be fine.
The hon. gentleman also said he would make certain suggestions which might remove these causes and improve conditions commercially and industrially, and among his suggestions was one that the Department of Trade and Commerce should be more active. He tried to throw the blame for the present industrial crisis in Canada on that department under the Liberal government. I think the Department of Trade and Commerce was quite active from 1922 to 1930; in fact it was more active during those years than it ever had been in the history of Canada. The trade returns prove that statement. In 1922 the aggregate trade of Canada was $1,502,000,000. or a per capita aggregate trade of approximately $1,500. What was the situation in 1929, seven years later? Our aggregate trade amounted to $2,655,000,000, or a per capita aggregate trade of $2,655, almost double that of 1922. These figures prove, I believe, that the department was active, and it does away with the argument that under the previous government the Department of Trade and Commerce was responsible for present conditions. It was not.
Then the hon. member said that the way to build up our agricultural life was to build it up around expert farmers in western Canada. That has been the policy of the Department of Agriculture almost from time immemorial, so far as I can see-at least since confederation. We have been building up experimental and demonstration farms to show the way in scientific farming; we have been carrying on this program from coast to coast, so there is nothing new in that argument. Then the hon. gentleman said a duty should be imposed on com for feeding purposes. I would suggest that he and other Conservative members from western Canada who agree with that argument should get together with government members from central Ontario and Quebec and present a solid front. When they do this the rest of us might be able to meet them.
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, we may expect to have our ups and downs industrially and agriculturally. We may naturally expect to have to meet major problems arising out of our national, our imperial and our international
sso
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. McIntosh
existence. We may expect that through these problems governments will rise and fall. Under these conditions parliament has assembled again this year, and I take it for granted that our objective is to evolve a legislative program for Canada that will benefit this country from coast to coast. We listened to the speech from the throne, and I was pleased to hear the hon. member for ReStigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier) move the address in reply. I have known the hon. member for several years; I first became acquainted with him seven years ago, when we were crossing the north Atlantic in order to visit the British Isles and the battlefields of the empire on the continent. On that occasion the bilingual ability of the hon. gentleman saved the party of which he was a member a great deal of trouble and inconvenience, and through his proficiency he was able to do away with a great deal of red tape which otherwise might have interfered with the enjoyment of our visit to continental Europe. Now I might suggest to the hon. gentleman that, having proved himself so helpful seven years ago on the continent of Europe, he should prove as helpful now on the continent of America, right here in Canada, by restraining his leader and those who are supporting him in the House of Commons from enacting any extreme legislation that may have the effect of dismembering Canada in time to come, that may have the effect not of building up a prosperous dominion but rather of developing a sectionalism that will not do any good at all. May I therefore ask him to use all the influence he has in this very helpful direction. It is greatly needed.
The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous), who seconded the address, represents in this house the county and constituency in which I was born, and I compliment him upon the observations which he made during the course of his speech. I was interested in the gesture he made to the French-Canadian members of this house and also the French-Canadian people throughout Canada, when he said we ought to have a national vision big enough, broad enough and deep enough to include the two major races in Canada, the British and the French. I would say we must have a national vision broad enough for that, of course, and we should have a national vision broad enough to include not only the two major races but also all the people from the continents of the world and the isles of the sea whom we have invited to come to Canada to help us build up a new nation on the northern portion of the North American continent. I would like to see the hon. member for North Grey get in touch with members of his own
(Air. McIntosh.]
party from western Canada, so that those who do not follow that vision in that part of our country will be big enough, broad enough and tolerant enough to stand for such a vision throughout the west. During the last two or three years the leaders of the Conservative party in Saskatchewan have been standing for something which is anything but truly national or soundly imperial, something absolutely intolerant and impossible of acceptance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the speech from the throne. On close examination I find it to be divided in a triangular way. It has three sides, which are very unequal; it has unequal angles, and everything about it is unequal, leading one to conclude that in framing it the right hon. Prime Minister looked at the big questions of Canada from a lop-sided point of view. Therefore I have not much hope that out of this speech from the throne will come a program of legislation that will unite all parties and all sections of this Dominion in order to build up a great, united nation. For instance, we know that a triangle is made up of lines and points. A line has length but no breadth, and the same definition might be applied to the speech from the throne. It has lots of length, lots of words and lots of lines and paragraphs, but when you come to examine its width, which it should have if we are to have breadth in our national vision, we find there is none. It does not apply as it should to the maritimes; we have heard hon. members on this side of the house find fault with it in that respect. It does not apply to central Canada as it should; it does not apply to the middle west or to the far west. Consequently, though it has length, which is the simplest measurement anything can have, it really has no breadth of thought or vision or determination, and not having breadth of thought there is no pronounced area to it. We must have more than length and breadth in Canada with regard to a national policy; we must get under the soil and go down deep. We must have volume. Any policy that is to be beneficial to Canada must scale the heights and plumb the depths of Canadian national aspirations. If it does not do that it will be a failure. I am afraid that the program of the last special session, coupled with the one we have based upon this speech from the throne, will in time prove a failure so far as successfully meeting the exigencies throughout the country is concerned.
In the first part of the speech from the throne we find the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) trying to sell to the people of Canada what we might call an artificial Cana-dianism. I fancy this is an example of what

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
they call their Canada first policy. We have in Canada to-day canned foods, canned music and canned propaganda, and we have in the speech from the throne an example of a canned or restricted Canadianism. And hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to sell to the people of Canada this canned Canadianism. That is to say, they tell us that if we tie up the national qualities of the Canadian people to the Tory program we shall have prosperity and happiness. Tie up the program of the government to the faith, the fortitude, the honesty and the industry of the Canadian people and it will not be long before we have Canada actually and ideally bridged when all will be well, and we shall never have to submit again to world depression. Now that is all nonsense; it is simply an impossible viewpoint. The Canadian people will judge for themselves what party and what policy they will support in the years to come, and I only hope the people of this country will do their best to become thoroughly posted on national problems-so thoroughly posted that when they go to the polls every four or five years they will make no mistake, but will decide squarely on the issues before them. If they do so I am satisfied that we shall not have the mistake repeated which was made last July, when a government that was progressive in every sense of the word was torpedoed and an opposition without much history behind it was returned to sit on the right of Mr. Speaker.
With regard to the second part of the speech from the throne, figuratively speaking, so far as the triangle I mentioned is concerned, we have the portions dealing with the special session of parliament, the Imperial conference, and one or two other things. At the special session of parliament we dealt with unemployment and the sum of 820,000,000 was brought down with the idea of wiping out unemployment. The Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers and all their followers in the election said, "If you just give us one chance we will wipe out unemployment; we will do away with it. We will not discuss it or consider it, but will absolutely eliminate it." And the people of Canada took them at their word. I do not believe that one unemployed person in Canada voted for the present opposition in the election. Practically every unemployed man and woman in Canada went to the polls and voted for our friends opposite. Those hon. gentlemen therefore are absolutely on trial, and unless they can fairly and squarely face this issue and remove it from the arena of party politics, standing true to their promises, I am
afraid their political stock will go down considerably during the next few years.
What do we find with regard to unemployment? We find that in 1930, August 1, the employment figure was 118 * S; on September 1, 116-6; October 1, 116-2; November 1, 112-9; December 1, 108-5; January 1, 101*7; and February 1, 100-7. That means that the employment index of Canadian industry has dropped from 118 to 100, a decline of 18 points in nine months; that is to say, 2 points per month. If that is not mathematical proof that hon. gentlemen opposite are not facing fairly t'he issue of employment and unemployment, I should like to know what they desire in the way of proof. Take again the unemployment situation. Unemployment on July 31 stood at 9-2; August 31, 9-3; September 30, 9-4; October 31, 10-8; November 30, 13'. 8-you will observe it is steadily increasing
__December 31, 17; January 31, 16. In other
words, the unemployment index has increased from 9-2 to 16, which is an increase of 7 points in practically nine months, or almost 1 point per month. That is another proof, so far as unemployment is concerned, that the situation has not improved. It is the duty of hon. gentlemen opposite to face the music and have this stigma removed from our national life, as they promised to do.
The other part of the speech from the throne deals with the present program of the government. We can neither analyze nor criticize it until it is brought down. When it is before us we shall study it. Now, face o face with the speech from the throne, with ,hese three aspects of it, is the amendment moved by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). That amendment, I think, is very effectively arranged. The first part of it deals with the fact that the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite has not proven any remedy in the way of putting an end to unemployment; that agricultural conditions are worse than they were nine months ago; that industrial unemployment is worse than it was nine months ago; that our revenues are decreasing, and unless we do something Canada is in financial danger. The second part of the amendment deals with the fact that the Imperial conference was not a success; and that the policy propounded, the way in which it was presented, and what was done to defeat a freer trade budget in the election and, in its place, to erect high tariff walls in the House of Commons before the Prime Minister went to London, rendered the Imperial conference not only a farce but an imperial blunder. In this regard, then, the conclusion is reached that our trade relations with the motherland have been
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. McIntosh
adversely affected, and until something is done conditions are not going to improve. And the last part of the amendment expresses the hope that the Prime Minister and his party, when the conference re-convenes in Ottawa, will do better than the right hon. gentleman did in London; because the situation in Canada is serious and all Canadians are looking to hon. gentlemen opposite for guidance through the depressing conditions now prevailing.
May I now deal briefly with certain matters touching the riding I have the honour to represent in the House of Commons. Before leaving for Ottawa in March I thought it would be wise to have a certain number of public meetings in the constituency in order to find out just what the people were thinking about in the way of a national policy and the record of the government. To this end meetings were held at eleven or twelve different points. One meeting was held at Whitkow, and at that meeting the people went on record 100 per cent as being opposed to high protection and in favour of freer trade. At Turtleford there was only a small minority in favour of high protection; the meeting went by a large vote in favour of freer trade for Canada. At Edam the meeting voted in favour of three important resolutions. One of these resolutions was with regard to the Hudson Bay railway, the Hudson bay port, Churchill, and trade between Canada and the motherland via Churchill. The idea was expressed that the lower the rates we had across the north Atlantic, the better the port facilities, and the more the Crowsnest rates were applied to the Hudson Bay railway, the greatei success that artery of traffic would be. Another resolution went in favour of a bonus to wheat farmers in order that they might get cost of production out of the 1980 crop. The third resolution was in favour of freer trade as opposed to high and higher protection in Canada. This was the sentiment by almost a straight 100 per cent.
The next day another meeting was held at Medstead which went on record as being opposed to the drastic action of putting tariffs higher and higher in Canada. At Borden also the meeting went on record as being in favour of freer trade as opposed to protection. At Maymont the same thing took place. At Speers there was the same result. At Krydor, where 350 people were present, the meeting went on record as being one hundred per cent in favour of freer trade as opposed to higher protection. At Hafford the following night the meeting went on record as being in favour of freer trade as opposed to higher protection.
£Mr. McIntosh.]
At Glaslyn the meeting went on record as being in favour of a fiscal system along the line of freer trade as opposed to a fiscal system which afforded higher protection and which would in time divide Canada and ruin her export trade.
Previous to these meetings being held I had received resolutions from all sections of my riding, and I believe this to be the proper time to bring them to the attention of this house. This is the time when all hon. members should be given an idea of just what is taking place and the conditions which prevail in the different ridings of Canada. This is about the only way in which an hon. member can find out exactly what the conditions are industrially and commercially. The first resolution was received from Meota, a few miles out of North Battleford, and reads as follows:
1.	That we advocate government supervision of the grain exchange.
2.	That we ask the federal government to guarantee a minimum fixed price of seventy cents for the 1930 wheat crop.
The resolution received from Turtleford reads as follows:
Resolved that the Dominion government be requested to set a minimum price for wheat of seventy cents per bushel basis No. 1 northern. Fort William or Port Arthur.
The resolution received from Speers reads as follows:
In view of the very serious situation that has developed as a result of the collapse of the wheat market:-
we the members of the wheat pool^ "Speers local" urgently request that the Dominion government guarantee a minimum price of seventy cents a bushel at Fort William for No. 1 northern wheat grown during the season of 1930.
These resolutions contain many suggestions including a fixed price for wheat. The resolution received from Rabbit Lake reads as follows:
Resolved: That this council demand that Dominion government take steps to stabilize *the wheat market so that a minimum price of at least seventy cents be maintained.
From another point in the north, at Edam, the following was received:
1.	That the Dominion government be strongly urged to set a price of seventy cents per bushel basis No. 1 at Fort William.
2.	That the Dominion government are hereby requested to supervise the Canadian banks with regard to interest charges and have same reduced to a maximum of seven per cent.
3.	That in the opinion of this meeting it has become necessary and expedient for the Dominion government in the interests of the farming community to declare a moratorium until such time as conditions affecting agriculture shall have sufficiently improved to warrant its removal.

The Address-Mr. McIntosh
4.	That whereas the price to-day is approximately 56 cents Fort William for one bushel of No. 1 wheat, and whereas the price to-day is approximately $3.35 per 98 pound sack of flour. This meeting is of the opinion, and strongly urges the Dominion government that a price be set on all wheat used for consumption in Canada of one dollar and twenty-five cents per bushel. And further that the price of flour per 98 pound sack should also be set at a reasonable price, which should not exceed present
P 5. That all freight rates be lowered twenty per cent.
These resolutions have been received from points in northern Saskatchewan and they give a resume of the conditions prevailing in western Canada. They were received from pool and U.F.C. locals, the members of which know what they are talking about. When they say that conditions are serious, they are serious. I would like to know what the government intends to do. Resolutions were also received from Spiritwood, about eighty miles north of North Battleford, reading as follows:
(a)	That a moratorium be asked for embracing a period of one year at least, or for such time as is necessary to give facilities to the farmer to revert to his accustomed prosperity.
(b) That all interests and indemnities on taxes bo cancelled until a fair measure of pros-peritv be restored.
(e)	Failing a moratorium, the meeting asks that no pressure be brought to bear against those persons upon whom debts are pressing heavily.	,
(d) That all debts owing by farmers to banks, machine companies or any wealthy corporation be treated in the same manner as shown in resolution (b).
(e)	That a set price be established on
wheat and other agricultural products, and in the event of the selling price falling below this set price that the difference be met by general taxation.	.
(f)	That all banks, natural resources, timber. mines, oil wells, and water-powers be nationalized.
(g)	That the extension of credit should be through the banks alone, controlled by the government. with a suitable provision made for those in distress for whom the said credit was rendered necessary,
I notice the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is not in his seat, but that is nothing uncommon. Throughout this present session the members of the cabinet seem to be always absent. They are the ones individually and collectively responsible to Canada, but they absent themselves when important discussions are taking place. I would suggest to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that although he and his department, as well as the right hon. the Prime Minister have been telling us during the last six months that mixed farming would be the saving grace of western Canada, such statements do not apply to the constituency of North Battle-ford nor to northern Saskatchewan. That part
of Canada has been carrying on mixed farming for the last fifteen or twenty years. It has the best water and feed facilities for that class of farming and is also benefited through having more natural protection than have the prairies.	_	_
The people too possess the determination to go ahead, and they have gone ahead. They have worked by day and by night; they have toiled late and early; they have done their utmost; they have economized as best they could but they find their position to-day to be a precarious one. They find they are in financial difficulties; they find that their farms and the equities they have in them are slipping away from them, they find that they cannot pay their debts and that they owe the banks and the machine companies, and consequently something must be done. When a whole community or a whole industry finds itself in danger, naturally it looks in all directions for help. The farmers of northern Saskatchewan and of the North Battleford federal riding have been looking to the Agriculture department, to the Minister of Agriculture, to the Prime Minister and to his cabinet for many months past to see if any help was forthcoming. I read resolution after resolution which shows that the farmers think they ought to have a fixed price for their wheat. They think that because parliament met in special session in September and the government pegged the price of 170 articles which the farmers have to buy, the Prime Minister should in the name of justice come as well to the aid of agriculture. Although the system of pegging the price of wheat or any other product may not be a sound one economically, is there any reason in the world why a government which would go to the rescue of the manufacturers and the industrialists, Should not come forward and extend equal help to the farmers? These men constitute the foundation of agriculture, the basic industry of Canada, they make the wealth upon which Canada prospers; they cultivate the soil upon which all secondary industries are based and unless they succeed our industrial fabric will fall to the ground. Is there any reason why this government should not do something? Is there? I understand 'that these resolutions were most carefully forwarded to the Prime Minister and his colleagues but not one cabinet minister has dared to bring a solitary one of them to the attention of the house. Not one has been read to the house, and that is the reason I am bringing them to light and asking this government to take immediate and constructive action upon them.
The Prime Minister came out to Regina and said that nothing would be done, but I tell
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. McIntosh
him this afternoon that 'that does not satisfy the western agriculturists; they are going to see that something will be done or something will be doing. They are going to carry on the fight and if they do not obtain redress, we all know what is going to take place when the next elections occur-there are not going to be as many votes cast in western Canada for Tory candidates.
An hon. MEMBER:: We will take a chance.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, it will be a chance, and a very slim one.
The Minister of Agriculture has been doing considerable advertising. I believe in advertising if you have a good thing to advertise, but it should be remembered that every time you advertise you have to make good or else you will fall behind. The hon. minister has been telling us what he is going to do, he has told us about the wonderful national agricultural policy which he is going to evolve. We have not seen it as yet. I would like to have him bring that down with the other resolutions that were spoken of. Let him bring it out of the closet even for half an hour. Let us examine the creature. The day has gone by for talking theoretically about mixed farming, for promises, discussions, mere conferences, announcements, commissions, theories, departmental propaganda, press despatches and statements of policy in magazines and weekly and daily newspapers across the country. The time for action has arrived. The time for fooling, twisting, backing up and turning, and doing nothing practical is over, and I should like to see the government sitting to the right of you, Mr. Speaker, do something. If something practical were done in the way of proving to Canada that agriculture and particularly wheat growing under present conditions and under the present extremely capitalistic fiscal policy, cannot prosper, that would at least be a constructive proceeding.
For instance, I would like to see the Minister of Agriculture, backed up by the government and their supporters in the house, start say two or three practical farms in Saskatchewan, in order to prove this. Let him pick out a farm in northern Saskatchewan, another in the centre and a third in the south. Let him make the farm whatever size he likes. Let him appoint a manager, select his working crew, and secure machinery. Let them start to cultivate the soil scientifically, with all the energy they have. Let the head men be selected by the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister of Canada, and let them go to work and try to
fMr. McIntosh.]
demonstrate to the people of Saskatchewan, north, south, east and west, whether agriculture can prosper under the fiscal system of higher and higher tariff as we have it to-day in western Canada. I venture to say that such an experiment cannot succeed, but I would like to see a real business test made to find out just where agriculture stands.
A farm managed in that way would have a system of accounting and would be expected to pay operating expenses, wages of the help, interest on capital invested, depreciation, repairs and dividends. If it cannot pay these items as big business, industry and commerce pay them, then it will be amply demonstrated to all Canada that with the best of virgin soil, the best of management, the best of equipment and everything in its favour excepting a false fiscal system, agriculture is in the doldrums and cannot be gotten out without some help. It is in a slough of despond. Something practical and constructive ought to be brought forward to prove that under present conditions the problem of farming must be faced resolutely and courageously, with no more theories and mere discussions, and without any more promises made to the people. The time for correlated action has arrived, and the people of Canada are anxiously awaiting for the government to do something.
We have heard from time to time from hon. members opposite that the farmers of western Canada do not know their business; that they do not know how to cultivate the soil; that they are not practical.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That they are
lazy.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: They tell us they are
not thrifty enough. They tell us that they do not go at the problem of agriculture constructively as our railway authorities and commercial experts do in their particular lines.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The hon. member for
Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) has aocused them of being lazy.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes. They tell us that the farmers of western Canada are lazy and that no matter what you do with those at present farming in western Canada, they cannot get anywhere. I resent that unfair imputation. Let the Prime Minister, who is a man of big business, and other hon. gentlemen who are men of genius, so we are told, get behind these practical farms. Let them give these farms their united support and let us see what they can prove to the people of

The Address-Mr. Barrette
Canada with regard to the farming situation. If they can prove that such farms can be made a success, their political future is made. If they cannot do so, their political future is not made; it will be doomed to dire failure, and something constructive for agriculture will have to be undertaken from coast to coast.
May I give some figures just to illustrate the present serious agricultural situation? I have under my hand a trade chart, and I find that price trends are all against the agriculturist and in favour of the industrialist. The figures are as follows:
Price Trend
Declines in commodity price levels from November, 1929, to January, 1931
lion and steel	 5 percent
Pipe		2.2 per cent
Scrap	-	
19.4 percentHardware	
1.6	percentWire	
no	changeManufactured Products	
14.5	percentFlour and milled	products.. 39.5	percentTextiles and fibres	
15.9	percentRaw cotton	
41.3	percentCotton fabrics	
10.1	percentRaw wool	
37.4	per centWool cloth	
14.0	percentCarpets	
no	changeFarm products across	Canada.. 49.7	percent
Field crops throughout the
Dominion	 54.6	percent
The price of grain in western Canada has declined practically 60 per cent; in other words, wheat is worth now only 40 per cent of what it was a year ago, and the farmer is caught betwixt the upper and nether millstone, -between the price of the industrial products he has to buy, which has been pegged by the present government, and the price of the farm products he has to sell. Consequently, there should be no misunderstanding as to the reason for his present serious economic condition.


Mr. J. A. BARRETTE (Translation) (Ber-thier-Maskinonge):: Mr. Speaker, I first wish
to extend my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the thrcne. In carrying out their task they made use of very appropriate language and their eloquence did them credit.
I wish also to refer to the sudden demise of two colleagues who were still with us at the emergency session in September last. I mean the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Rennie) whom I had not the privilege of knowing personally, but my recollection of him is that of an upright man, who has known but the path which leads to honour. As to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bettez), I knew him intimately and he frankly welcomed me to his friendship. The member for Three Rivers was truly one to emulate, he was a
conscientious worker and the result at the polls on July 28, 1930, was ample proof of his popularity. Yet, the old Liberal guard was hostile to him. The leader of this faction was the hon. Senator Jacques Bureau, who openly opposed Mr. Bettez, and that surely was the cause of bitter feelings and heartburns in the ranks of the Liberal party, and I hope the effects will be apparent shortly; when the by-election takes place.


Mr. CARDIN (Translation):: That remains to be seen!


Joseph Arthur Barrette: It affords me much pleasure to welcome back my friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), following his illness; I knew him on the benches of our university. He is a fine specimen of our race and certainly does us credit.
May I state, sir, that following the elections of 1911, I had the privilege of visiting western Canada. In passing through Calgary I was the guest of honour of the member who then represented that riding, at Ottawa, the right hon. Mr. Bennett, and on that occasion I predicted that he would one day become Prime Minister of Canada. My prophecy has come true. I was a guest at dinner that night of the Prime Minister of to-day.
In 1911, I was elected as member for the riding of Berthier, and from 1911 to 1917 my contentions are that I conscientiously fulfilled my duties as the people's representative in this house. I honestly admit that, at times, it was a real hardship to detach mysel'f from my party, especially on questions of the utmost importance. On imperial questions- those of a higher order-I almost invariably took issue with my party. I obeyed in this the voice of my conscience and justified the expectations of those who had done me the honour of electing me in 1911. I always stated openly what was in my mind and I shall continue to abide by the same rule.
In 1921, I was a candidate in the riding of Berthier. In 1925 and in 1926 I was a candidate in the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge- there was an increase in the family. In each of these elections, you must recall the fact, you gentlemen of the Liberal party, an appeal was made to fanaticism, to public passions, and it was stated that all the leaders of the Conservative party then and in the past, were dangerous imperialists. To be an imperialist meant to foster the interests of England in preference to those of Canada: all for England and nothing for Canada. You will recall, sir, that in all those elections, in the Liberal shops new wars were being turned
5S6
The Address-Mr. Barrette

out. In 1921 it was in Japan. In 1925 and 1926 it was in Russia. In 1930 it was in India. The latter being a dangerous and a serious one. The following manoeuvres were concocted in Liberal clubs: we shall organize, we the good Liberals; once more shall we frighten the people, we shall wave the flag of conscription and with such phantoms we shall win the elections. They succeeded in 1921; again they did the trick in 1925 and 1926, but in 1930 they missed their shot. To prove to you how well their manoeuvres were planned, may I tell you that the Liberals organized an extraordinary press campaign, threats of conscription were resorted to by a leading newspaper of Montreal, three days previous to the 1930 elections:
Threats of Conscription
The English Imperialists rely on the Conservatives of Canada assuming powTer in order to submit at the next Imperial conference in London the question of the empire's defence and a project of military conscription extending to all dominions.
They made use of such an item to further their end, this newspaper was distributed in large numbers in the most remote places of all French speaking counties in Quebec, and even in other provinces where French Canadian parishes existed. This means that absolutely nothing was neglected to influence public opinion, everything was permissible, even the w'aving of the flag of conscription, in order to secure a victory similar to those of 1921, 1925 and 1926.
To show you how little consistent were these prophets of calamities, may I ask what happened to the amendment of the member for Yamaska, which was moved on December 3, 1912, when the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne took place? Did those who were then members of this house, support this amendment worded as follows:
That this house is ready and willing to adopt, at any time, efficient measures for the defence of Canada, an autonomous colony under the British crown; but that this house is nevertheless of opinion that the Canadian parliament has no right to impose on the Canadian people responsibilities in regard to the general defence of the empire, as long as under the present statutes of constitutional relations between Canada and the United Empire of Great Britain and Ireland, the government of His Majesty responsible to the people of the United Empire alone, will reserve for itself the exclusive management and control of Imperial and international questions.
This amendment was opposed by the Prime Minister of that date. He stated that he could not accept such an amendment maintaining that its adoption would prevent

Canada of even raising a finger in defence of the empire. I notice that, of all those who are in the house, I am the only one who supported that amendment. No one else here now gave it their support. As to the result of the vote, you may refer to the debates of 1912, page 590. The only members, at that time, who voted in favour of this amendment were Messrs. Achim, Barrette, Lamarche and Mondou.
In the course of the same session, Sir Robert Borden moved that an amount of $35,000,000 be appropriated to increase the empire's naval forces. I supported the leader of the opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who opposed this measure which fortunately was rejected in the Senate.
On June 20, 1917, I had the privilege to move in the house a subamendment to Bill No. 75, known generally as the Conscription Act, and which is as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "this bill be not now read a second time, but it be read a second time this day six months."
The following were the views of the director of the Devoir, at that time. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), at a large meeting which he held on the following night, June 21, 1917, in the St. Henry Hall, stated:
A subamendment has just been moved by a member whom 1 cannot exactly place and whose intentions I do not wish to know, but which should oblige everybody to vote by a straight "yes" or "no."
It is the sub-amendment of Mr. Barrette, member for Berthier, who moved the six months hoist of the bill, in other words, its death without a murmur.
Mr. Georges Pelletier, one of the principal editors of the Devoir, wrote:
The proposal of Mr. Barrette, member for Berthier, to give the Borden bill a six months' hoist, is rational, from whatever quarter it may come. It will have the advantage to show * to the people who is for and against conscription. Everybody will have to vote on the principle itself of the bill. This will seem somewhat embarrassing for many politicians, but one must bear in mind first that the interest of the country as a whole passes before those of private individuals. Those interested will come out from their hiding places-and that is what the electorate demands.
And the vote was taken. Nine members supported the subamendment.
The following were the views, at the time, of the editor of the newspaper La Province, and who, is to-day the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve):
The six months' hoist is nothing less than a motion^ to kill the bill. It is a parliamentary way of strongly opposing a bill. We regret

The Address-Mr. Barrette
that Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not see fit to have his followers vote in favour of Mr. Barrette's subamendment. Would not this have been the means of proving his sincerity and firm determination of opposing conscription?
May I point out to the house that after voting for the subamendment, I gave my support to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's referendum.
I also wish to point out that I voted later, against the conscription bill.
The Liberal party, in voting against my sub-amendment, accepted the principle of conscription, according to the evidence just quoted. The leaders of the Liberal party who had the privilege of travelling through France after the war had quite a different story to tell over there. They stated that here, in Canada, we were all of the same mind and that the Canadian people had made an extraordinary effort in the war.
Some with mezzo-soprano voices, but all with unusual glee proclaimed that we were ready to make any sacrifice for England, for the defence of the empire and to help France. Shortly after, we read in the press of this country that Messrs Dandurand, Lemieux, Taschereau, Beland had been awarded decorations by the French Republic for services rendered to France.
And, I do not wish to omit the provincial secretary, the Hon. Mr. Athanase David, who while in France had himself dubbed "Ministre des Beaux Arts." He also was given a little button-hole rosette for his devotion to the cause of the defence of the national policy. I could mention many others who were thus awarded decorations.
Once back on this side, these people still proclaimed: "We are still against all participation in the war, against any Canadian effort." They once more appeal to prejudice. And why? Did they intend thereby to prove their sincerity? Had France known of this deception would she still have awarded decorations to these gentlemen? I have my doubts.
I am not aware that the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), whose presence in the house I heartily welcome, has been awarded any decorations. If he has, he does not attach to them as much importance as ro his other hon. friends. If he has not, then I congratulate him, because it is well that France should know her true friends. After pointing out these facts, I wonder who will truly prove themselves to be real national heroes.
I shall add a word about that Senator prisoner. From 1914 to 1918, Senator Beland was a prisoner of war. The Conservative party did its utmost to come to his rescue. He was even paid his parliamentary indemnity
during his entire absence from the house; he was paid the sum of $16,000. The hon. Minister of Justice of that day, Mr. Doherty, offered to exchange two German prisoners, known as Baron Von Polenz and Baron Mundheim in order to have our Canadian prisoner set free. On his return to this country, in his native village of Louiseville, the hon. Senator declared that the Canadian government had carried out their entire duty in the Great war. But when the elections were in full swing, he held public meetings and appealed to prejudice so as to rouse public opinion against the Conservative party which previously, according to his own words, had fulfilled their entire duty. Those were his thanks to his friends who had come to his rescue during the war.
At the last general elections, the leader of the Conservative party carried on a very remarkable campaign. He pledged himself to work out a national and truly Canadian policy, that of "Canada First." Tariff protection was to be given, for the first time, a place of honour in this country. The leaders of the Liberal party never were sincere in applying the policy of protection, and each time the Liberal party endeavoured to deal with this economic problem, the people always withdrew from them their confidence. Thus, in 1911, one of the principal factors of the Liberal party's defeat was-in addition to the naval question-the fiscal policy advocated by the hon. Mr. Fielding. In 1931), the Dunning budget was equally rejected by the popular vote. The results of the last election has wholly changed the appearance of this house. My eyes are resting on my friend the exMinister of Justice who sat on this side of the house, and because of his personal charm, I feel sorry to see him sitting on the opposition benches. All is different, "toto coelo differt." A great change has taken place. However, I trust that the change is for the best and in the interest of the Canadian people.
The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen stated one day:
I have no fear of going before the Canadian electorate when an actual question of protection arises, because the Canadian people are protectionists.
The Prime Minister also promised, to the farmers and industrialists, the old age pensions, unemployment relief and cessation of immigration. Having assumed power on July 28, what did our government do? They first stopped the flow of immigration in prder to protect the Canadian workers. They called an emergency session and appropriated $20,000,000 to help the unemployed. They then
The Address-Mr. Barrette

appreciably increased the tariff on foreign products so as to help the farming and industrial classes.
The leader of the Liberal party, when in power, made the following statement:
The government cannot be held responsible for this economic crisis: it is word-wide and unemployment exists mostly in our opponents' imagination.
Now that the Conservatives are in power if anything goes wrong, they say: The fault lies with the Tories. You may judge, sir, how rational these gentlemen are!
Truly, could we have done more? Since our party assumed power, we have had an emergency session, an Imperial conference and prepared the program of an important session in the course of which we shall enact measures with the view of bringing back prosperity to this country.
The Liberals contend that butter still sells at low prices. That may be. They filled our cold-storages with foreign butter from the very first year of their administration up to October of last year. We have butter to last a year. It is therefore not astonishing that butter sells cheap.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): There is no more.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: To realize how popular protection was, even among the Liberals, ask the ex-ministers, those who wield the greatest influence in the Liberal ranks, such as the ex-minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), the ex-minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Did they interfere with the tariff affecting the principal industries existing in their ridings? I do not think so. Were tariff changes made on boots and shoes in the riding of Quebec East? Were tariff changes made affecting the industries which were operating in Huron and North Bruce? I am not aware of it.
The Liberal, moreover, contend that the Conservative policy tends to protect private interests. What is the nature of these private interests and whom do they affect? Are they referring to the Canadian Pacific Railway whose president, Mr. Beatty, is an intimate friend of the hon. leader cf the opposition, the former having been appointed chairman of a royal commission to inquire into the salaries of the civil servants and make suggestions? Do they refer to the bank of Montreal, where the government make their deposits? Are they the textile companies? Are those industries too highly protected?
I Mr. Barrette.]
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Certainly.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: They are too highly protected?
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Yes.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: In what
respect?
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation) :	We shall
prove it.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Does the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition suggest any remedies? No, sir. That amendment simply express regrets of not being any longer in power; that the present government has done nothing so far and has greatly increased the unemployment crisis. Again do I state that the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the opposition suggests absolutely nothing which can be of any help to the farming class or even to the unemployed.
What do we find in the speech from the throne? A pledge is given that special arrangements will be made with foreign countries and that a tariff board will be appointed.
I could enumerate many good results accruing from a protective tariff. In my own riding, in the town of Louiseville, the Associated Textiles is in operation since a year and employs 400 people, next autumn it will employ 800, and this is due to tariff protection as advocated by the right hon. Prime Minister. The following is an extract from the newspaper The Drapeau, dated March 24, 1931: Deeds Speak Louder Than Words
As Le Drapeau announced last week, the Nash Company will establish an automobile factory in Canada.
On his return to the United States, after having made here the necessary arrangements for the organization of a new company to be known as the Dominion Motors Limited, Mr. Nash made the following statement:
1.	The aim of the Nash Motors Company, in this new enterprise, is to serve the best interests of Canadian distributors and salesmen of the Nash car pursuant to the new tariff regulations of Canada;
2.	Owing to my long experience and my practical knowledge of leaders among Canadian business men, I must acknowledge my deep admiration for their manufacturing ability and their spirit of progress in industrial matters.
These are two instances which cannot be invoked in support of the old policy of Mackenzie King. The first company mentioned states that it is the Bennett tariff that put them under the necessity of establishing a factory in Canada.
This is a statement which further strengthens others of that nature and is a clear proof of the beneficial effects of the policy which Mr. APRIL 14, 1931
The Address-Mr. Barrette
King persists in regarding as detrimental. The American workers who are employed in the manufacture of motor cars, which Mr. Nash sells later to Canadians, also find this policy disastrous, since it will deprive them of work which will hereafter be done by the artisans of this country.
Mr. Nash's statement has almost the same importance, for we must not forget that Mr. Bennett stated at the short session of September, 1930, that it was recognized that Canada possessed the natural resources and 'the technical business equipment to supply all its requirements in manufactured products. The American and English industrialists are acknowledging this fact. In less than eight months Mr. Bennett gave work to more than 200,000 people. Mr. King will have to make many speeches before this is forgotten.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: I do not like to interrupt the hon.
member who is speaking, but through an agreement by all parties I must call your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is now six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: When
the house, sir, took recess at 4.30 o'clock this afternoon so that we might attend a lovely wedding, I was just going to discuss the Imperial conference. Our opponents were inquiring: who will represent Canada at the Imperial conference? They felt anxious about the fate of Canada. Yet, time has shown that our delegates did as much credit and lived up to the expectations of the Canadian people. Our Prime Minister played one of the leading parts at that conference. He proclaimed the policy "Canada first" in the presence of our King, George V, and the Prime Minister of England. This policy met with the approval of the dominions and also that of the leader of the Conservatives in England. I am pleased to quote in this connection the views of the director of the Devoir:
"In my opinion," he says, "and I state this after giving it full consideration, the Prime Minister took the right attitude at the opening of the conference."
The ex-Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) devoted the greatest part of his speech to the Imperial conference. He seems to attach much importance to the fate of the empire. How things have changed! To-day, our leader returns more Canadian and our good friends in the opposition find that
the Prime Minister of this country is not sufficiently English. Quite the contrary to what had been contended that all the leaders of our nation were avowed Imperialists, to-day it is thought that they are not imperialist enough.
The leader of the Liberal party in his splendid speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne stated:
I never thought the day would come in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, when it would fall to the lot of any member of this House of Commons to protest against an attempt on the part of a Canadian ministry, to force the hand of a British government but since that day has come there appears to be an element of poetic justice in the circumstance that I have the privilege of being the first to make that protest. 1 do make it very strongly indeed, that any ministry from Canada should seek, by means of coercion to influence the government of Great Britain with respect to any matter of policy which is entirely within its own rights.
Recently an order in council placing an embargo on Russian products was passed by the Canadian cabinet. For that act the Prime Minister received congratulations from the whole country. Among the high dignitaries in religious and civil life who approved of such action, I must especially quote an extract of an article by the Rev. Abbe Omer Valois, editor of the Action Populaire, dated March 5, 1931:
All will admit that Mr. Bennett's government has just made a decision which will have a great social bearing. By Order in Council, he has prohibited the entry of Russian products into Canada: lumber of all kind, paper-pulp, pulp-wood, asbestos and furs. Our natural resources are unrivalled and as unemployment exists, this is not the time to import things which God has placed at our disposal. AVe must protect ourselves-as the United State have done by prohibiting the entry of Russian lumber in their country-against a nation which has virtually reduced the workers to the state of slavery.
May I now, sir, make a few comments on the wheat crisis. I lately cut out an article from the Action Catholique quoting the Oservatore Romano, which suggested a solution to the wheat .crisis. If you will permit me, sir, I shall read this article, it is interesting:
"Store up the wheat in the years of abundance, by withdrawing from the markets its surplus so as to return to the market in lean years." This solution written in biblical style is suggested in the present wheat crisis, by the "Oservatore Romano" the Vatican organ, on the eve of the International wheat Congress which opens to-day in Rome.
"The newspaper adds:" thus the price of wheat could be controlled, and, to attain this end, a small proportion of the world's gold resources would suffice.
The Address-Mr. Barrette

The present surplus of wheat is 420,000,000 bushels. If this wheat was bought at a fixed price of two shillings and nine pence per bushel, that would only call for 2J per cent of the world's gold reserves.
This brings us back to the time of Pharaoh's regime, the latter had as his administrator Joseph who was sold by his brothers. I shall not refer to the wife of Potiphar. If you remember this narrat-iye, Joseph had been appointed superintendent by Pharaoh; the former had accumulated in the granaries of the country'' the entire surplus of wheat accruing from years of abundance and the legend tells us that-


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: History.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): History', not the legend.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: History
tells us that in the lean y'ears Joseph's policy rendered great service to humanity. I do not see w'hy' w'e should not adopt the same policy in this country.
One third, sir, of the population of Canada speaks the French language, and I think that proportionately to the total population, we are responsible for one third of the country's debts, w'e should, therefore, on the same basis, equally enjoy its privileges. I have always felt independent in parliament. The leader of the Conservative party' stated, at the last elections, that Quebec would not be neglected and nothing would be too good for her. I heartily and joyfully endorsed such a statement. I am aware that the Prime Minister has been too busy to look into this matter and grant what we have a right to expect, however, I hope that the day is not far off when w'e shall receive all that we have a right to, when we shall hold the position to w'hich w'e are entitled in this country. Under the late administration w'e were neglected; we must be better dealt with and I feel certain that the leader of the government will be lavish in his grants.
As long as I occupy' a seat in this parliament, rest assured that I shall be the champion of our rights, race, language and creed.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, seeing that the bird of time has but a little way to flutter and the bird is on the wing, I hope the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address to His Excellency will take the amenities for granted.
The speech from the throne which is now being discussed by the house is, I think, characteristic of most of such speeches which it has been my privilege to hear. It of

course claims a great deal more to have resulted from the actions of the government than the facts would warrant; in order to give much needed inspiration to the nation it indicates hopes of prosperity which really have no basis in economic reality; and it is as vague as to the scope and the nature of the legislation which is proposed as speeches of this kind usually are. With regard to the amendment, I think we may describe it as being cold cabbage from the table of the Liberal defeat which is no more acceptable after being warmed up than it was when first served.	.
I want first of all frankly to recognize the colossal task which confronts the administration. There were no doubt tremendous difficulties to be overcome at the time of Confederation; in 1914 when this country entered the Great war the government of the day was faced with great tasks; but perhaps no government in the history of Canada has ever been called upon to grapple with problems so pressing, so baffling in their nature, so complex in their ramifications, and so fraught with possibilities both grave and hopeful as has the present government. I shall in a few moments attempt to describe very briefly the economic crisis through which we are passing. But before doing so let me indicate that so far as I can be of any assistance as an individual member of this house I desire to offer to the administration that cooperation which is embodied in the principles of the movement I represent. It is essential to my mind that the government should be successful. I notice that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) already has branded the government as a failure before it has fairly got its toes in the stirrups of power, but I am rather inclined to think that the wish is father to the thought. What will happen if the government is a failure? If this government is a failure it will be the failure	of Canada, and the
people of Canada will suffer accordingly. I would like to suggest to the opposition that it will show a greater fitness for power when it has indicated to the people of Canada that it has given assistance to the government in order to make it truly successful. Let it be said that the government has shown some action, as was stated by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). Whether that action meets with the approval of all members of this house or of the country at large remains to be seen, but at least the government has acted. It did relieve some of the distress caused by unemployment last winter; it did try to secure a market for

The Address-Mr. Irvine
Canadian wheat at prices higher than those prevailing in the markets of the world; it has checked immigration; it did guarantee the wheat pool to the banks, and it has raised the tariff. I presume that the raising of the tariff was the real policy of the administration. That was the policy upon which the government based its hopes for the wiping out of unemployment; that was the policy by the introduction of which the government hoped it would bring prosperity to Canada. I have no hesitation in saying that I think the hopes of the government were much too sanguine in that respect, but that was its policy and let me say again that if the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his nine years of power had reduced the tariff as much as the present government has raised it in eight months, his attack with respect to the keeping of promises would have had a great deal more force than I think we can attach to it.
Let me now for a moment glance at the economic situation. I would like to commend once more to the house the perusal of the speech made by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) and also the speech of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man). These hon. gentlemen have not been accustomed to use hyperbole in their descriptions of the situation in western Canada. They know what they are talking about; they do not overdraw the picture. I shall not waste any of my time in giving more of the harrowing details to which this house has listened with respect to the conditions which exist at the present time in western Canada. Those hon. members who are in touch with public questions, as I am sure all members are, have noticed in the daily press that at meetings and conventions of farmers and before agricultural committees of the various legislative assemblies of the western provinces we have had voluminous evidences of an economic situation the like of which western Canada has never before experienced. This is not a criticism of the present administration; this is merely a statement of fact, and I shall indicate to you how it comes about.
The western farmers have not been put in a bad position just during the last year; the western farmers haw been suffering from unjust burdens for generations. It is sometimes said that it is a strange thing that agriculture in the west could not stand one bad year, and it is a marvel to some people in the east that the west is in such a plight when only 1930 is regarded as being a bad year. The situation is not so difficult to understand if we examine it carefully. Up to 1930 the farmers had been working from hand to mouth,
as the saying goes. They had been burdened with more than their share of taxation through the tariff; they were burdened with a higher rate of interest than is charged anywhere else in Canada; they were burdened with a heavy freight rate both coming and going on all the business which they had to do, and then, as now, they found themselves trying to sell wheat in a market that was really a dump market. They never had anything left over; they had no resources upon which they could fall back when a year like 1930 came along, and the result was that when it did come along they were in a very poor position to meet it.
I think it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who remarked, in effect during the course of his speech, that while the world is passing through an economic crisis, if the Canadian government had applied proper policies during the last decade or so Canada might have escaped this crisis. I do not know to what extent it would have been possible for Canada to escape a condition which is world-wide, but I do know that certain things could have been done by previous governments which would have made a vast difference to the economic life of Canada at the present time. I will not forego this opportunity of laying at the door of the previous government one of the greatest crimes against Canada that ever has been committed by any government. I refer to the return to the gold standard which, either by their failure to understand or through their disregard of consequences, they deliberately perpetrated upon the people of Canada, more than doubling not only the national debt and the provincial and municipal debts, but all private debts contracted under the inflation which took place during the war, and by so doing they placed the farmers of the west in a position which is hopeless.
The government were well warned. I presume they did not think the warning was sufficiently backed by the intelligentsia because it happened to come from this corner, but the question of finance is not beyond the average intelligence, and in this corner of the house we have spent some time on it. We know it was wrong to go back to the gold basis; we warned the government not to do so. By so doing the government have defrauded the entire public of Canada in the interests of a few bondholders. By a proper policy on that one matter alone the previous government would have saved Canada from a great deal of what this country is suffering from at the present moment.
The Address-Mr. Irvine

Added to the burdens which come from an overstocked wheat market and the burdens which come from a tariff which is borne more by the western farmers than by any other class in Canada; added to the excessive interest charges and the doubled war debt brought about by going back to the gold basis, is the world situation. Of course none of us blames either the present or the previous government for the world situation, but we must not allow that world situation to excuse us from getting rid of it, as far as Canada is concerned, as speedily as possible. The depression is world-wide, and I do not know that we would be wise in blaming any particular government, because in this world of ours we have a great many different kinds of governments. We have Labour governments, Socialist governments, Communist governments, Fascist governments, Conservative governments, Republican governments, Liberal governments and even U. F. A. governments, and yet no government has been able to avoid its share of this world crisis. As a matter of fact, in my view the plain truth is that no government in the world knows exactly what to do at the present time. The present situation demands a new type of statesmanship; a vision which partyism seldom breeds, and a courage that may not be conducive to large majorities.
I believe that we are witnessing to-day throughout the world the disintegration of our economic system. I believe that, however long a time it may take to accomplish the transformation, we are passing out of the capitalistic Stage into what we sometimes call the cooperative commonwealth. I believe that the sooner governments appreciate that fact and, to the best of their ability, adjust themselves to the conditions as they exist, with that fact in view, the better it will be for every country concerned. I believe that nothing but disaster can come if we stand in the way of changes which are imminent, and try to carry on the old system in the old way. I believe, as I say, that we are witnessing a disintegration; and integration should certainly take place along with that disintegration if we wish to avoid greater difficulties.
Now let me turn for a few moments to a consideration of the government's policy in so far as it directly affects the agricultural class which I represent in this house. Protection for Canada is not a cure and never can be made a cure for any of our fundamental economic ills. Nevertheless it is in my opinion a necessity-a necessity in view of the laws of national existence, which are as rigorous

in their demands upon nations as is the law of life upon the individual. Either adaptation or death is the law of life, and Canada must obey that law, just as the individuals composing her citizenship must obey it.
What then is the condition to which Canada must necessarily adapt herself in relation to tariffs? The position may be stated very briefly. Practically every country in the world has barred its doors against the importation of Canadian goods. They did not wait for us to raise our tariffs; they raised theirs. That is the first fact. They may have been stupid in doing so, and I think that subsequent history will show that they were. But we cannot speculate on what might have been or what ought to be. It is what is that we must face. And that is the fact: they have actually raised their tariffs against Canada, not only with respect to her manufactured products but also with respect to her raw products such as wheat and every other kind of farm produce.
It has been very truly said by hon. gentlemen to my right that if we do not buy from other countries we cannot sell to other countries. Very true. But it is surely equally true that if we do not sell to other countries we cannot buy from other countries. And other countries have already said, "You cannot sell to us because we will, not allow you to do so." They have already put up their tariff walls. In this connection, let me quote a statement made at the Imperial conference. We have had a good many quotations from that memorable conference, and this is one of the memorable statements which we ought to notice. It is from a speech delivered at the conference by Mr. Thomas, the right hon gentleman whose famous phrase has been discussed at such length in this house. I quote Mr. Thomas:
I therefore, sir, on behalf of the United Kingdom government, want this morning to look at the cold facts as recorded in our trade returns. In 1928 the volume of the world's trade was, roughly, 20 per cent greater than in the pre-war year, 1913. In 1928 the empire trade as a whole had also increased by just about that amount, so that we find ourselves in this position, that, taking the British empire as a whole, its share in the world's trade marches as it were equally with that of the rest of the world. But when we come to the United Kingdom's share of the world's trade for the same period. 1913-1928, the United Kingdom's share of that trade is less by 20 per cent. Now, sir, those are very remarkable figures, and they clearly indicate that, whilst the empire as a whole has shared in the general world development in that period, so far as the United Kingdom's portion is concerned, we have not only not held our own, but we have very much gone back.

The Address-Mr. Irvine
In other words, while the protected world gained 20 per cent, while the protected members of the empire gained 20 per cent of trade in that given period, the only free trade country in the world lost 20 per cent, making a difference of 40 per cent between that country, the only example of free trade the world has, and the protected countries. I am not saying for a moment that this disparity was all due to the fact that she had free trade; there are ten thousand different things that enter into consideration. But the fact is that her free trade did not prevent her from dropping behind all the others in her trade returns. Hon. gentlemen to my right insist -when they are out of office of course-that it would be to the best advantage of Canada if we opened our door. Well, Britain opened her doors and lost 40 per cent more trade than the rest of the world. That is the fact; there is evidence from Mr. Thomas in support of it. Why was that so? Because, while Great Britain opened her doors to other countries, other countries would not open their doors to her; and since trade was made impossible by the refusal of one party to bargain, nothing else could result than what actually did ensue. That is what I mean by saying that, however stupid tariffs may be, however uneconomic, however much against the -best interests of mankind, however much they may stand in the way of internationalism, the fact remains as I have indicated. And it is a fact with which we must square ourselves, and with which we must deal.
That is what I mean when I say that for Canada to exist in a protected world she must have protection. If you want any further proof of that, turn to my hon. friends to the right. For a while they' sounded the death knell of protection on the hustings, though they never tolled any of its knells in legislation. Why? Was it because the manufacturers ruled that government? I know that some people say that, but I will not say it. Or was it because the Liberals deliberately set themselves to deceive the people of Canada? I know that some people say that, but I will not say it. I do not think the Liberals deceive the people any more than I do.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: I might tell my' hon. friend that I am giving him perhaps a higher recommendation than I have a right to; but for the moment I am generous. I believe the reason really1 was that they discovered that, whether protection was a good policy or a bad policy, they could not interfere with it in Canada, but had to continue it. And they did continue it.
I am merely interested in this fact. I do not think protection is a good policy as a world policy; I would rather incline to world free trade if anyone ivere working at it. But there is no one working at it. The world is not interested in free trade, and the world is too far away just now. I am living in western Canada and I see the ravages of economic difficulties, which by the way are made worse by this tariff. Nevertheless I can see the eastern problem and the problem of Canada as a nation in relation to other countries, and I am here reluctantly admitting the fact as it actually is. We must therefore find other policies to deal with agriculture to recompense it for a tariff policy which is inevitable in our relations with other nations. Eastern Canada, then, by virtue of the history of the Liberal party, by virtue of our relationship with the world, must have a tariff. The industrial east insists upon it and is getting it. But just as far as the industrial east needs a tariff, to that extent a tariff is disastrous to western Canada as things now stand. That is the problem which confronts us, the problem of adjusting the rights of one class in the community to the rights of another class. The solving of this problem should engage the very best attention of parliament; it should be taken entirely out of politics. I have often said in this house, and I say now, that it is a disgrace that two historic parties such as we have in Canada should divide the nation on a question in respect to which they both follow the same policy, hopelessly alienating one section of the country from another in the hope of obtaining power. The time has come when we must deal with this question, not as an abstract one but as one of practical necessity for the internal wellbeing of the state. The west cannot go on with the tariffs as they are to-day, just as the east cannot go on without them.
Reference has been made in the past to the possibility of secession. Those references may have been made rather lightly but I want to say that I do not think they can be regarded too lightly. I happened to be at the United Farmers of Alberta convention last year when a resolution was moved to that effect. I spoke against it to the best of my ability, as I believed it would be a disastrous move to make. I do not think it would bring any benefits, but tlat is not the point. The point is that a distressed, discouraged people will try anything, and if we at this esssion of the house-not at the next session or the one after that-do not find some means of compensating agriculture for the extra burden

The Aildress-Mr. Irvine

which the tariff has imposed upon it, we shall have to face the disintegration of our Dominion.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, no.


William Irvine: I hear protests from the other side, but I can protest just as loudly. I was careful to point out that I argued against this resolution to the best of my ability, and I would do the same thing again. However, such things have been argued against in other countries in times past, but it was of no avail. The economic pressure in western Canada today is of such a nature that it will drive the people to adopt similar action to that taken under similar conditions in the past. The western farmer cannot stand and will not stand another year like. 1930. I want that point to be brought home to the parliamentarians in this house; the western farmer cannot stand this hopeless burden any longer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Lots of other people are standing it.


William Irvine: 
Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate, but having in mind that one-half of the constituency which I have the honour to represent is rural, and having in mind also the fact that Ontario produces 29 per cent of the agricultural wealth of the Dominion, I feel I would be remiss in my duty did I not rise in my place to protest against the silence and the apparent refusal of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to participate in the debate. His silence is the more surprising when he must realize that the whole country awaits some pronouncement on his part. Instead of that, what do we find? Silence in the House of Commons, and a so-called exclusive article on agriculture in MacLean's magazine.
I feel also that I would fail in my duty did I not protest as vigorously as possible against the fact that, although this government came into office on a promise to end unemployment, no statement on labour conditions or on the remedy proposed to relieve unemployment can be made by a responsible minister in the house. This is not fair, and it does not speak volumes for the opinion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) of his elected followers, whose sole duty appears to be to applaud loudly his every move and action.
Some six months have passed since the special session of parliament, and as one sits on this side of the house he is struck by the changed appearance of the ministry opposite. They have now been guiding the destinies of the country for something over eight months. In September last we saw them smiling, happy, confident. Their modern Moses had led them into the promised land, and I think we could go one step further and say that they must have found it a land full of promises. To-day we see them silent and unsmiling, all except the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) whose smile lights up an otherwise drab picture of the cabinet as we see it from this side, and one might be pardoned for suspecting that that smile is in anticipation of the three thousand dollars extra salary which according to a resolution which appears on the order paper, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) has promised him.
I have referred to the silence of the Minister of Agriculture and to the absence from the house of the Minister of Labour. Where are our Ontario ministers in this debate? The Prime Minister has honoured my native province by appointing to his cabinet six men from that province. Not one of them has participated in this debate. What about the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. 
Manion) ? Here may I say to him we are grateful at least for the interest he has taken in this debate by listening with an attentive ear to practically every speech. But should we not have expected more from this red-blooded Canadian who is now clothed in all the might and strength of a cabinet minister? In view of his campaign utterances I would think he would have risen in his place and struck old man hard-times a blow in the jaw and with a few strokes of his mighty pen have restored prosperity. *What about the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe)? The hon. gentleman went up and down the province of Ontario telling the farmers that their sole trouble could be attributed to the fact that there was a Liberal administration in power. Where is he in this debate? And what about the member for South Essex (Mr. Gott) who on July 8 last issued a manifesto consisting of three pages? On the first page there is a full page cut of the illustrious gentleman himself, and he is quoted as follows:
None realized my position in the opposition better than I did as I fought for the farmers alone.
Is he doing that to-day? And a little further on he is quoted as follows:
Canada is facing an economic crisis to-day, second only to the Great War. Under proper administration the unemployment problem that we are facing should be impossible in a country such as ours so rich in agricultural possibilities and undeveloped natural resources, the greatest in the world.
May we take it that from his point of view the proper administration is now in office? Yet the unemployment situation grows steadily worse. Then follow further modest statements by the hon. gentleman, and when we come to the third page we find this paragraph :
People cannot live on budgets

no matter what they promise. Whoever lived on promises?
Well, Mr. Speaker, if there ever was a time when the hon. gentleman's question might be put to the test it is under the present administration. Speaking of promises, someone has dedicated a few lines of poetry to the right hon. the Prime Minister. The poem is called "I Promise You," and the text is as follows:
I promise all things, great and small, East, west, north, south, to each and all- Or perish in the attempt.
I promise proofs to make it plain That all old shibboleths are vain-
I promise my full strength shall bend All unemployment quick to end-
Or perish in the attempt.

The Address-Mr. Gray
I promise that a seaway wide At once be built to ocean tide-*
I promise quickly and engage To pensions pay for all old age-
I promise that, without delay,
I'll build trans-Canada highway-
Or perish in the attempt.
I promise that each mill and loom And factory will forthwith resume-
I promise that all ills endured By farmers will at once be cured-
I promise, too, when overseas To bring opponents to their knees-[DOT]
I promise that I'll make the grade,
And blast a way for world-wide trade-
Or perish in the attempt.
I promise that I'll show the cause Of Britain's failing trade and laws

Or perish in the attempt.
I promise-but why specify?
Just mention what you want-and why; For all you ask I will comply (A superman indeed am I) -
Or perish in the attempt.
The hon. member for South Essex closed his remarkable manifesto with these words:
Thanking you for your forbearance in me and in my shortcomings.
To which I think this whole house might rise and say, "Amen." When the right hon. the Prime Minister is displeased about something we hear him making use of the expression "what a spectacle; what a spectacle." Mr. Speaker, I ask if there could be any greater spectacle than the sight of a cabinet unable to speak on the two great questions of agriculture and labour. I say that this statement applies equally to the two excellent speeches which we have already heard from cabinet ministers who have failed to touch on either of these great problems.
Various western members have already brought to the attention of parliament the very serious condition of agriculture in the western provinces. I feel sure they have succeeded in convincing those of us from the eastern constituencies that there must be complete cooperation between the east and the west if we are to find a way out of the difficulty. I have already referred to the fact that Ontario produces 29 per cent of the agricultural wealth of the Dominion. This fact must not be disregarded. Sometimes I feel that we Ontario members do not sufficiently emphasize that important fact. Farming conditions in Ontario, and I speak particularly of western Ontario, are not good. Farmers are in a serious plight to-day. Mortgages are being foreclosed not because of a failure to pay the principal but because the farmer has been unable to meet his interest payments. It is not simply a question of low prices;
prices have been low in the past. To-day we find that the increased cost of production, increased taxes, increased interest rates both to chartered banks and to mortgage companies, make conditions such that unless something is done to relieve the situation there will this fall be more assignments in bankruptcy, more mortgages foreclosed against farmers, than ever before in the history of the [province of Ontario. Take for instance the question of taxes alone. During the Easter recess I was told by one farmer that he had been through a similar period of depression when iprices were about the same. While at that time it took only four pigs to pay his taxes, now it requires twelve. I cannot speak as a practical farmer, but I was born and raised on the farm and I think I know something of the problems of the farmer. I do not believe the suggestions I have read and which have purported to come from the lips of the Minister of Agriculture will solve the problem. Many of them are not new. For instance, the suggestion that the farmers should allow a more general introduction of high grade live stock is by no means new. It has been advocated for years. I say to hon. gentlemen opposite, however, that it would indeed require a brave man to accept the suggestion at this time without more encouragement than he has been receiving, realizing it would take four or five years before his stock could possibly be developed. What is required is immediate relief. We hear men say that prosperity is just around the corner, but may I say to them that when the manufacturers, the bankers, the railway corporations, the professional men- yes, in many cases even the wage earners themselves-are prepared to make the same relative sacrifice that the farmer is making to-day, we will have reached a basis upon which reconstruction can start. Then an truth will we be in a position where we may say prosperity is just around the corner.
I would like to say a few words in connection with the Canadian National Railways. During the past few months there have been rumours of political interference with the management of this railroad. If there is any way in which these rumours can be stopped, if by speeches of hon. members or by a statement from the hon. the Minister of Railways these rumours can be nailed, now is the time to do it. Coming as I do fi'om a city where there is a large Canadian National terminal I may say that there is a feeling of uneasiness among employees that has not been noticed in many years past. During the years when the railway company was able to announce
59S

if he had made such comment upon the Canadian industrial and political situation before sailing from England to assume his duties here as British High Commissioner.
How did the press view the speech of the High Commissioner? I quote but one comment which is typical of the majority. The Ottawa Citizen of December 9 described it as follows:
The comical little man capped the performance by describing himself as an imperial missionary, sacrificing himself on the altar of patriotism. He is laying down the cares of state in Ontario to save the British Empire, and particularly to remould the spirit of the British people.
How did the right hon. Prime Minister handle the situation? The new Albany club was opened in Toronto on January 19, 1931. The great and near great of the Conservative party were present. The Mail and Empire, reporting the meeting in its issue of the following day, said:
Bennett and Ferguson engaged in witty repartee as new Albany club is dedicated
Premier provokes laughter with threat to recall new High Commissioner
Reference by Mr. Bennett to some of exPremier Ferguson's recent speeches started the fun. Mr. Bennett jocularly reminded the new High Commissioner of the recall suffered by Sackville-West. Saskville-West was British ambassador at Washington from 1881 to 1888, in which year he retired after what history records as "an unfortunate interference in American domestic politics."
Sackville-West was recalled. Hon. G. Howard Ferguson never should have been allowed to start until he had been rebuked to a much greater extent by the leader of this government.
His arrival in England was marked by another outburst. Speaking before the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London, England, Mr. Ferguson said:
When I see in England such slogans as "Buy British goods made in England by British labour" it seems to me to be forgotten that goods of Canada and other parts of the empire are equally British. Imperial consolidation cannot be effected on the lines of discrimination.
Does he forget that the policy of the government he represents is "Buy Canadian goods made in Canada by Canadian labour?" Does he forget entirely the part played by the Empire Marketing Board, which costs thousands of pounds annually, which amount is largely paid by the British taxpayer, and which is used in advertising in that country and throughout the whole empire Canadian apples, Canadian cheese and other products? Why should he complain of a slogan of that 
kind when the policy of the government he represents is to bar from Canada British goods by the erection of high tariffs?
What are the results of the speeches which have been made by these two hon. gentlemen? Through the methods adopted by Hon. G. Howard Ferguson and by the right hon. Prime Minister, who made an offer to Britain supposedly based upon mutual advantage but which asked for much and gave nothing in return; by the tenor and method of that offer, I say they have weakened our position and placed a wholly unnecessary and unwarranted stigma on Canadians in the eyes of the British people.
In spite of all that has been said and done, however, I am firmly of the conviction that if the Prime Minister of Canada will approach the conference which is to be held in Ottawa in a different spirit, much good will result. I do not mean the spirit in which he proceeded to the Imperial conference at London, where he said in effect, "Here is my plan. Make up your minds once and for all." I do not mean the spirit in which he rose to reply to the right hon. leader of the opposition, after his speech, in which he declared frankly that he had nothing to withdraw, " not a word, not a syllable, not a line," but rather in the spirit in which he announced the policy of Canada, speaking at Regina on December 30 last. I wish to read from the report which appeared in the Manitoba Free Press of the following day:
On the day after the session of parliament ended, I sailed for England to attend the Imperial conference. I left Canada determined to do my best to foster and support a plan for greater empire trade based on mutual advantages. With that purpose in mind I made a proposal to the conference for closer empire economic association based on mutually advantageous tariff preferences. I frankly stated my position. I said that the motive which governed my proposal tvas the interest of Canada first, and I said our primary concern at that time was to secure a more stable market in the United Kingdom for our wheat. How that market is to be secured to us as against the foreigner is naturally a matter to be determined by the government of the United Kingdom. For my part I expressed my entire willingness, having regard particularly to the Russian menace, to accept in lieu of a price preference a quantity preference, called the quota, which would guarantee us a minimum export of wheat to the United Kingdom. To say that this offer has been definitely declined is to unjustifiably anticipate the outcome of the continuing deliberations of the government of the United Kingdom. [DOT]
Does that speech indicate a change of heart? Is the Prime Minister now willing to approach the conference which is to be held in Ottawa prepared to give to Great Britain something which will be really of mutual ad-

The Address-Mr. Hall
vantage, whether it is decided that the best plan is a quota, an import board or bulk purchases? There are those on the opposite side of the house who ask, "Why do you not suggest something? Why do you not cooperate? Has the Prime Minister, through his actions in this debate, shown any desire to cooperate? Even though he has not done so, I say to him now that if he will assure this house that he meant what he said in Regina; if he is prepared to retreat from his "once and for alb attitude and trade with the mother country on some basis of mutual advantage; if he will realize when he uses the word preference that the greatest preference we can have for the mother of the empire is the preference which we hold in our hearts, then 1 for one am willing to do my share in cooperating to bring about the success of that conference, and thus restore in some part at least that measure of prosperity which the Canadian people so richly deserve.


Mr. W. A. HALL (South Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, at this late stage in the debate may I be pardoned if I forego the oft repeated and well deserved congratulations that have prefaced almost every speech and proceed at once with what I have to say?
The speech from the throne, though like its author in many respects, is lacking in that brutal frankness and explicitness in which the Prime Minister prides himself. As is the custom, the speech foreshadows a number of measures which the government proposes to present to parliament, but it does more; it insinuates that the late administration had no eyes with which to peer into the future and that as a consequence no measures were advanced which would have relieved the present distress. In effect the speech from the throne says that if there had been adequate protection in past years the present depression would have been prevented, yet strange to say the speech also admits that Canada is better off than most countries. If that means anything it means that Canada, without a high tariff wall, is much better off than those countries which have built up high protection, such as Australia, the United States and other high tariff countries. That being the case, why raise the tariff wall?
The reference in that speech to agriculture is not very encouraging, especially to the western farmer, as it is a wait-and-see policy, leaving conditions pretty much alone and watching developments.
This reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of a case of acute blood poisoning to which I was called in consultation. On asking the attending physician his treatment, the answer was,
"I am leaving her pretty much alone and watching developments"-effective and heroic treatment, indeed. But the critical depression of the west ought to be a challenge to this government to do something. But what it has done by increasing the cost of production and by losing their markets, has added greatly to the distress of the west, besides destroying the morale of the people.
According to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, the country is every day in every way getting better and better since the first dose of the Tory patent medicine at the special session in September, and all that is required now to bring about complete recovery is a larger does of the same medicine. This high tariff medicine is rather nauseating and languishing to some of us, especially to the agriculturists, but wonderfully delicious and invigorating to many others, particularly to the manufacturers and some deluded farmers. As a proof of this improvement the Tory press is printing stories of factories humming that were closed or languishing during the late administration but now have long payrolls instead of bread lines as before.
But what are the facts? According to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the industrial production of Canada in 1930 fell by 14 per cent as compared with 1929. The fall was chiefly after July 28. The corresponding decline in Britain was only 10 per cent. In Canada from 1924 to 1929 inclusive, there was an annual increase in production of 10 per cent. What a striking contrast in the volume of output during the administrations of the low and of the high tariff medicine men.
Doubtless, Mr. Speaker, there are some industries that have been revived by the Prime Minister's stimulant and are being nourished on the fiscal dole. Yet these gains are offset many times by other productions being slowed down. Manifestly this government realizes that the symptoms of depression have been growing worse, with a consequent increase of unemployment, notwithstanding what they say to the contrary; as a result they are preparing a strong and drastic dose of stimulant in the shape of higher and higher customs taxation. But the primary reason for this is to reward those money interests that had spent so much in the recent campaign to elect the present government. However, the first dose of medicine satisfied the capacity of only a few of the great multitude clamouring for reward. Doubtless these increased duties will impose additional burdens on the people for whom the depression of general business was otherwise bound to reduce the cost of living.
The Address-Mr. Hall

Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the chief task of this session is a general upward revision of the tariff. I need scarcely say that the main concern of the government will be the interests of the manufacturers. But there seems to be no one in this government to care for the consumer, although he is everybody. The staple argument just now is that the provision of work for our own people justifies all increases. Apparently no account is taken of the fact that there is no real market for what is produced, as exports are greatly reduced because imports are blocked. Besides that, the high cost of living reduces the power of buying and so lessens the home market. Also, in these days of less and less hand labour, it is the machine chiefly and not the man that finds more employment. But who controls the machine? It is he who gets the profits-the manufacturer.
Notwithstanding this condition of things, there are daily bulletins in the Tory press showing how business is humming as the result of the new duties which the people now have to pay to keep certain helpless industries alive. The speech from the throne also smacks of the same boast. It was part of the bargain that they should get going and expect further tariff increases during the present session. This looks bad for the farmers, especially for those in the prairie provinces. These men of the west, almost in despair because of unsold crops, or of low prices for w'hat they do sell, or of excessive rates of interest, or of high rates of transportation, or of many other difficulties of which the rest of Canada has little conception, are compelled to buy much of what they need from the very interests that seek the higher taxation. This increase may force prices up or at least prevent their decline, while all other prices are being reduced. As a consequence, the manufacturer, without raising the price of his goods, is, by increased protection, making a much larger profit. Thus he is able to hide the real benefit that increased protection gives him behind the pledge that he will not raise his price but just increase his profit. It will be noticed that this pledge fixes the manufacturer's prices, at least indirectly. This is preposterous. What other classes have their prices fixed? The prices cannot go up and will not come down although everything else is down. What about the agriculturist?
I have always sympathized strongly with the farmer. No one is more resolutely opposed to tariff raising, such as was so recklessly practised at the first session of this parliament and such as seems likely to take 
place this session, according to the speech from the throne. May I say that secession talk is of little advantage as a threat, whether its origin is in the maritimes or in the west?
However, Mr. Speaker, I frankly confess that this government has a strong mandate from the people of Canada to do what they did at the emergency session as well as to cany out what is promised in the speech from the throne. But what is strange is the fact that this mandate came from many of the rural districts. Apparently the farmers of the Canadian west were hypnotized by the Prime Minister through his nostrum of duties against the other countries of the world as well as by the hope of getting local industries at their doors on account of protection. Besides, the Prime Minister assured them that this nostrum was a good old family medicine, tried and proved, and must be all right. Indeed, Sir, John A. Macdonald had dispensed the same kind of medicine fifty-three years ago, with wonderful results-yes, with wonderful results for the Tory party, but with disastrous results for the country. By the way, it was first compounded and dispensed on the American side.
The manufacturers at that time succeeded in getting trade barriers built to protect themselves in overcharging the Canadian consumer, as doubtless they will succeed at this time. Indeed, the present day tactics are very similar to those employed fifty-three years ago. They won the support of the press by revenue from advertising. They won the votes of the workers by promising fatter pay envelopes as part of their share in the general hold-up. They won the dairymen by a tariff of eight cents per pound on butter. They won the western fruit farmers by taxing the prairies for them. They won the prairie farmers by promising them local industries. But, Mr. Speaker, the real reason came from the feeling that things could hardly be worse than they were last summer and a change of any kind might be better. Besides, the Prime Minister was full of promises for an immediate deliverance from all their troubles. He pledged himself many times during the campaign to find a job for every Canadian or perish in the attempt. He said a young country like Canada had no right to have unemployment. Why, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) claimed that the unemployment problem could be solved in three days by the return of a Tory government. Well, a Tory government was returned, and $20,000,000 was voted as temporary relief, with the result that unemployment has been almost doubled.

The Address-Mr. Hall
Has the Prime Minister delivered the people from all their troubles as he promised everywhere before the election? No; on the contrary, he has increased them many times. He even raised the tariff walls much higher against the mother country-Canada's one good customer, indeed her best; and after thus refusing to accept her commodities in payment for Canadian products, he bullied her for not preferring our wheat, with the consequent reaction against the Canadian wheat grower, leaving him without a market for his wheat.
The most absurd thing any country can do is to make that which the farmer has to purchase, including his hired help, as dear as possible by means of a tariff, simply for the sake of carrying on an unnatural business at a loss to the country. This is especially so in view of the present condition of the producing industry upon which all the artificial industries have been feeding and will continue to feed. No doubt this will blast or destroy the selling market by excluding all products sent in return, as well as increase the cost of transportation through having only one way cargoes.
Apparently the government has no misgiving in carrying out any atrocity it may desire to perpetrate, feeling as it does that it has a docile and unshakeable majority-a majority obtained, strange to say, with the assistance of one-third of the farmers of Canada. Apparently the government thinks that the jacking up of the tariff is the panacea for Canada's commercial ills as well as the only cure for unemployment. The Prime Minister seems to be bound hand and foot to the manufacturers. This was quite apparent at the farcical inquiry in connection with the proposed tariff changes, where he and some of his colleagues constituted themselves as special pleaders for the privileged interests. I need scarcely say that there was little pretence of openmindedness.
The greedy and privileged classes which were instrumental in putting the Prime Minister into power look upon him as being at their service. As a recognition of their legitimate claims he gave them a hurried but lavish luncheon with the special session of last September. This was to tide them over until dinner-time, which, according to the speech from the throne, is set for this session. It would seem that each claimant got just enough at the special session luncheon to whet his appetite. Why should those who put the caterer into power with a large majority not get what they want? They were promised it, and who should now object? Not the
opposition at any rate, because the Prime Minister has the country's mandate although it may have been obtained by questionable means. Until the people express at the polls a change of mind, they have every right to get what they asked for at the last general elections, namely, high protection and riches for the manufacturers and bondage and poverty for the farmers.
Under such conditions what need is there for a tariff board? Retaining it would be humbug and needless expense, as its findings would be totally ignored; abolishing it would be but brutal frankness and economy under a one man ruler such as the Prime Minister. It is simply for the hungry ones to say how much they want, and who else can say that so well? It is for the caterer to fill the orders with a free hand. He does not have to pay, because that is added to the daily cost of our living. In gorging his masters he is carrying out with all haste the mandate he received from the country on July 28, 1930.
Some time ago the Prime Minister was considering the adjournment of the demands for further protection until the Imperial conference to be held in Ottawa next summer. Few if any of the promises made to gather in the votes have been fulfilled. About the only thing which has been realized is tfie payment of $20,000,000 for the promised temporary relief of unemployment. The Prime Minister seems to be endeavouring to find some way to cover his dire failure. The postponement of action would give him time to fill other orders on the program and allow him to distract the country's mind with such contentious matters as the St. Lawrence waterway. But apparently the privileged classes would agree to no adjournment of action on tariff matters. They saw that their chance was now or never. So once more the Prime Minister has to cater to his masters and we have the proposed increases in the tariff indicated in the speech from the throne. This will give the mother country another slap in the face in forestalling and frustrating the purpose of the coming conference at Ottawa, a similar result to that accomplished at the London conference by the Bennett ultimatum. It is another case of blasting.
It must be remembered that the Prime Minister has a docile majority to which he will be true as well as to himself. He will always be true to the outside privileged classes whom, though the heavens fall, he will feed on the blood of the nation. The alacrity with which the Prime Minister has acted in certain matters since gaining power has given rise to the cry: Give Bennett a chance, he does things.

The Address-Mr. Hall
Since assuming office he has had as free a chance as that given to Mussolini, but what has he done? Permit me to mention some of his achievements.
1.	He raised the duties on imports from Great Britain to such an extent as to amount practically to an embargo-in the case of cheap tweeds the increase from 22| per cent to 96 per cent.
2.	He has almost doubled unemployment since taking office.
3.	He has blocked our trade with New Zealand.
4.	He has antagonized the buying public of Great Britain by his "blasting" speeches made in the old country.
5.	He has blocked imports and so has decreased exports, reducing our trade to a prewar level.
6.	He has increased the cost of transportation by permitting only one-way cargoes.
7.	He has lowered the price of farm products from 20 to 40 per cent, but has kept up the manufacturers' prices at former levels.
S. He has decreased the price of farm lands through reducing the price of farm products.
9.	He has decreased the industrial production of Canada.
10.	He has decreased the revenue of Canada.
[DOT]11. He has lowered the moral tone of the country by promises that might be intended to bribe.
12. He has barred trade with Russia, thus depriving Canadian workmen of considerable employment.
While the Prime Minister has been adopting this course of action, the farmers in the west have been talking secession instead of protesting against the legislation which permits the manufacturer to plunder by not reducing prices commensurate with the prices received for farm products. Evidently the pledges given seem to have pegged the manufacturers' prices, so why not peg the farmers' prices, especially for wheat? If the government has secured profitable prices for the manufacturer at the expense of the people and primarily of the farmer, it is only right that it should secure also fair prices for the farmer. Any subsidy given would have to be paid out of the public treasury, and it must be admitted that that would be very unpalatable to the country, but the nation could take any amount of that sort of medicine if it were mixed up with its food and drink, that is, in the daily cost of living. The Prime Minister should treat all classes alike.
The Prime Minister has the support of a majority in this house in any action he elects 
to take, because hon. members opposite were elected for that purpose. The incident of the glass firm at Hamilton is a case in point. At the request of .this firm parliament voted at the special session to increase the duty on window glass to such an extent as would double the cost of glass to the consumer. This would have cost the country over 81,500,000 in order to give work to about 150 men, or over 810,000 per workman. Fortunately for the country this factory did not reopen, the firm simply doubling the price on their imported glass. This brought forth such a protest that the minister, exercising his autocratic power, revoked .the duty and down came the price. So the Bennett government was lauded by its political admirers for having shut down on this bonused firm because it had failed to perform the reopening trick. lit must not be forgotten that this same government was willing to take over $1,500,000 from the country each year in order to keep this glass factory running and employing only 150 men.
As I said before, the first thing this government did was to reward its benefactors or those who had put it into power. This was done at the special session by the jacking up of the tariff on about 170 different articles out of a total of 1,188 items in the Canadian tariff schedule. Then followed an effort, through preferential trade agreements with the other members of the empire, to increase imperial trade and unity. This was undertaken at the Imperial conference at London when the Prime Minister presented bis offer or "ultimatum." In effect he said: The time has come-and it will not brook delay-to decide between Britain sacrificing herseilf to the dominions or losing them. Such was the import of the Prime Minister's speech at the conference, supported, as the report shows,, only in part by the representatives of the other dominions, and apparently by a sweeping election majority in Canada. But this issue was neither before the people of Canada nor before parliament. It had its origin and development in the Prime Minister's brain, of which it is quite characteristic, although it should have been decided by the people at the polls on election day and afterwards approved by parliament. Doubtless the Prime Minister considered these things as useless formalities when he, the Prime Minister, was Canada.	'
But as the demand was that Britain should tax her food, thus throttling her commerce and so reversing the policy that had made her famous and prosperous for almost a century, Britain's answer, through Mr. Thomas, to the representatives of the dominions, was that she was still a part of the

The Address-Mr. Desrochers
British Empire and might also be allowed an equal right to say "Britain first," just as the Prime Minister had claimed that his proposals were inspired by the principles of "Canada first"-or, more accurately expressed, the principle of "some Canadians first." I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that these "some" do not include the farmers for whom he professes that his heart is bleeding. His policy is high protection for the manufacturers, especially for the manufacturers of textiles, but the farmers are hurt instead of helped by the heavy duties on everything they have to buy, nor are they ensured any better price for their wheat in Great Britain by the Prime Minister's scheme, as the suggested preference is an increase of only 10 per cent of the duty. This scheme has few of the advantages of empire free trade.
As soon as Britain gives the dominions a worth-while preference, she imperils her food supply and increases the cost of the raw materials for her industries. But more important is the fact that the Prime Minister's proposed scheme would most likely provoke endless jealousy and friction within the empire as well as increase hostility without the empire. Moreover, it is a one-man scheme, the Prime Minister's, endorsed by neither the people nor the parliament of Canada. Consequently, let all lovers of the empire, by whatever names they are known, oppose this scheme with might and main both in and out of parliament, in season and out of season, and thus maintain unity and concord among all parts of the empire as well as the goodwill of all the nations. May all such selfish schemes as this be aborted or perish at birth. As the Prime Minister himself would say: I will cause the abortion or death of any such scheme or perish in the attempt. Indeed, many times during the recent election campaign he made a number of such declarations or promises, but as yet he has refused or at least has failed to carry them out or even to perish. As, however, he is a man of action as well as of many words, it makes one wonder whether these promises were intended only to bribe or to deceive. Let the Prime Minister answer.


Mr. JULES DESROCHERS (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, all my thoughts apparently have already been expressed by previous speakers in this debate on the address. I therefore have the easy task of repeating what others have said. Whether it foe as regards form or substance, all is exhausted and I even think the whole musical gamut has been put to use.
After the splendid speeches of our older parliamentarians, I did not wish to miss the opportunity, perhaps unique, of joining the ranks of the younger members.
I associate myself with those who have praised your remarkable impartiality, sir, and I bear witness to that kind yet firm nature of yours which is in strict keeping with your dignified bearing.
Should I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for having changed his attitude, so energetic and triumphant of the first days-when he was so sure of solving the economic problems which were responsible for his assuming office-into a stoicism which hardly allows him to appear in the house and, to-day, only draws from him the statement that he is convinced of having done his duty as an excellent servant of this country. He was to conquer or perish at the task. I simply congratulate him on having survived.
I congratulate my leader on the great skill with which he handled the hot iron over and within the sores inflicted by the new administration which acknowledged the powerlessness to relieve a single one of the ills that already exist: unemployment and economic depression, the fruits, it was said, of a poor Liberal administration.
Our good friends living in the riding of Portneuf who, at the elections, polled their votes in favour of your political program are always and more than ever proud of being Liberals.
On their behalf and that of the entire riding I offer you the tribute of 49 consecutive years of loyal support to the great party of which you are the so distinguished leader.
Before proceeding further, sir, permit me, as a newcomer to this house, to express my amazement and to strongly protest against the tactics employed by our opponents at the last election, tactics again resorted to in this honoured chamber. Such tactics as shouting and interrupting are so in contrast with your dignified example and British fair play that we trust they will soon be things of the past.
What shall I say now with reference to unemployment, the tariff and the Imperial conference, if not that all these measures enacted to improve our lot were rather detrimental to the country and that we shall soon find the proof of this in the budget speech.
Unemployment-a spectre much exploited in the last election-became a reality by dint of talking about it, and our friends on the government side seem to have lost much of their enthusiasm in this respect. We stated that it was world-wide, they considered it as local. We contended that it was beyond the control of the ordinary economic laws, they

The Address-Mr. Desrochers
insisted that it was due especially to the deficiency of government methods. The government has since changed and they are now forced to admit that it is world-wide, that all countries suffer somewhat more than we do, and that time only will find a remedy. Did the special session and remedies administered have any other results than to definitely graft it upon us? That is what we have reason to fear. There are unemployed people who are paid at a fixed rate of 30 cents per hour, when in my district the genuine unemployed are willing to accept 20 cents and would have preferred to work for a longer time and complete the work left unfinished. Is this not encouraging idleness? Is it not wasting private and public money to oblige municipalities to undertake work-very strictly specified in the regulations referring to unemployment-such as digging up frozen earth or breaking the ice so as to lay foundations of wharves and bridges which in certain localities are already crumbling, work which cost double because of climatic conditions.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: In what localities are bridges falling down?


Jules Desrochers: There are wharfs in my own riding which are already giving way in many places. It is not necessary to go any further than St. Raymond.
Is it not, to a certain degree, an attempt against our provincial and municipal autonomy to make it imperative to pass unusual by-laws in order to participate in a small federal grant? I agree with a newspaper whose sympathies are with our friends opposite, the Evenement of Quebec, dated February 20, 1931:
If we can judge, says the Evenement, by the meagre results obtained from the assistance given to the unemployed in Quebec, it would be wise for the Prime Minister to assure us that he will no longer have recourse to this system of aid.
It will have cost more than what it is worth it would therefore be better not to recur to it again.
On that score the opposition could render a public service by obtaining the publication of all the good and bad features in connection with the Unemployment Relief Act. and. by also inviting the Prime Minister to state that the comparative uselessness of this policy is officially acknowledged.
I could not better express myself than this newspaper which is in sympathy with our friends opposite.
Would not the policy advocated by my leader, during the last elections, have been fairer and more expedient? Grant, to a cer-

tain extent, the requests for help, provincial or municipal, without burdensome restrictions.
Permit me, sir, to extend all our sympathy to the western farmers and especially to those who specialized in growing wheat. Let me tell them that we suffer with them, for them and like them. Our banks, with the 68 or 70 million dollars which they have hoarded out there have become commonplace saving banks. Our farmers are not granted any credit. Our manufacturers and merchants can no more depend on any margin of credit. They are helpless owing to prevailing conditions.
I do not wish to enter into details and figures as regards the tariff question, because our leader discussed it as a practical business man and not as an idealist or partisan of a sect or class. I will take the liberty of quoting in this respect the words of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, who, although as amicable as he may seem, is not without representing the views of the crown and British government, when he travels abroad as representative of his country. I quote a despatch of the Associated Press at the opening of the Buenos Aires exhibition.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): It is more
respectable than the Evenement.


Mr DESROCHERS (Translation):: No
doubt. Both speak well and do not follow your example.
The Prince gives as his opinion that mutual trade exchanges have been responsible for the success of that country, and that the word-wide depression is due in a great measure, if not entirely, to a lack of a friendly business intercourse.
In brief, the economic crisis is the fruit of an economic war. Is this not a fatal consequence of high protection, a plank dear to our opponents, a policy which encloses us in a fortress where nothing enters and whence nothing comes out? On the summit of this fortress, the Prime Minister raised his standard with the motto: "Canada First."
Canada First! Sir, for over three centuries this sentiment or cry has been engraved in our hearts from birth, it grows in our soul with the years. But must we as a -conqueror cross the seas and fling it with closed fists at our mother country? Canada First! with the plea that we have followers-Australia and New Zealand. "It is up to you to accept or refuse; there is no need of arguing over it," those are the words of Mr. Bennett.
The answer to an extremist in a sad plight; who has no regard for the sad lot of others, was soon forthcoming: "We cannot!"

The Address-Mr. Vermlle
Often have we seen our representatives go overseas to attend Imperial conferences and always return with substantial concessions, in keeping with the development and progress of our country. Never in our history have we suffered such rebuke!
Never, sir, have Liberal principles and doctrine been to such extremes, and we are ready to fight as long as our voice can be heard in this house, conscious that we are working in the best interest of our country and fellow-citizens.
The Liberal doctrine, thank Heaven, can adapt itself to all circumstances-to depression as well as prosperity-to all provinces, all nationalities and all creeds. It respects itself and respects others. That is our way of shouting:	"Canada First"!
Before resuming my seat permit me, Sir, to extend my congratulations to my old friend and University fellow student, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), on his complete recovery from his illness, I also wish to express the pleasure we feel in finding him as bright and active as we have ever known him. His eloquence finds admirers on both sides of the House.
I want to sympathize with my friend the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Barrette). He complained of his colleagues of both sides of the house. He did not receive a fair deal. Monuments were raised to the unknown soldier.
Perhaps the time has come to present a medal to this gentleman who should be better appreciated. He has all my sympathies.
As to my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), after the debate in which he figured prominently and his great oratorical effort for which I cannot congratulate him, sinee he attacked our great Liberal leader.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation):	That was
awful!


Jules Desrochers: It was dreadful. His speech reminded me of a passage in my old classic books. A Greek author has said somewhere:	"One day, the handsome Alcibiades, in quest of fame, had the tail of his dog cut. It was a great event in Athens". The embargo against Russia gave my hon. friend the opportunity of covering himself with fame and to again embrace the Conservative party. He was once more found among the extremists, where we have always thought he belonged. I think that by the brilliancy of his intellect and the subtlety of his wit my hon. member was really born a poet-''nascuntur poetae-and that he should never have become an orator.
Mr. J. A. VERVILLE (Lotbiniere). (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not here for the hon. Solicitor General's (Mr. Dupre) speech yesterday afternoon. He honours me with his personal friendship-
Mr. DORION. Hear, hear.


Mr. VERVILLE:: I read the report of his speech in the papers this morning. I was very much impressed with the fact that he had spoken, that he had given expression to ideas and thoughts,-by the way, they are not mine. At least one minister of the crown has had the courage to speak out on the floor of the house! Which adds one more quality to those my hon. friend already had. A minister who dares to speak up when he is under the thumb of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett)!
Mr. Speaker, Lotbiniere county, which I have the honour to represent here, is a rural county where conditions are perhaps no worse than elsewhere throughout the country but where, nevertheless, a pronounced spirit of unrest has already gained a foothold. The people of the country are hard-working folks, labour is plentiful and the relations between the classes are of the very best. Naturally our people feel the effects of the present crisis; for the most part they are working twice as hard and making more sacrifices than ever in the hope that, thanks to their labour and their thrift, they will succeed in weathering the storm.
The election of last July brought to these folks, as it did to all the taxpayers of this country, a multitude of promises, each more appealing, more alluring than the other. If the majority of the voters in my riding did not yield to these promises I beg of you to believe that it was because their political virtue was strong enough to resist the temptations dangled before them by our conservative opponents. Allow me to add, Mr. Speaker, that since July 28th last our people have seen their condition go from bad to worse because our friends to your right, once they had won power, caused very deep, almost heartbreaking, disappointment. You remember, Mr. Speaker, that Voltaire was a reformer full of overweening pride. And you remember that he used to advise bis followers thus: "Keep on lying, tell lie after lie: some oi them are bound to stick." Far be it from me to draw any comparison between the right hon. Prime Minister of the day and Voltaire; but I must confess that, during the last campaign, I was not far from thinking that Mr. Bennett had given Voltaire's slogan to his followers. You know that the public, if they
The Address-Mr. Verville

hear the same thing often enough, and in the selfsame way, finally begin to believe that after all it might be true, despite all appearances to the contrary.
During the last campaign we witnessed a bewildering succession of promises. Our opponents never stopped saying: "This is not a world crisis; Canada alone is affected, owing to the maladministration of the King government. Drive them out of office, put me in their place and rest assured that the day after election you will find yourselves better off." And they added: "Farmers, your plight is scandalous, you are taxed on all sides-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Just like Mr. Taschereau.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -you cannot sell your produce any more, except at famine prices. The policies of the Liberal government have made your lot an unhappy and difficult one. The friends of this government will tell you that at the last session the Hon. Mr. Dunning brought down a very good budget, well adapted to our present needs; but do not be misled now any more than you were taken in by tfie fake measures passed by this government during the last nine years."
The Dunning budget, Mr. Speaker, afforded the country reasonable protection, having regard to the needs of Canadian industry, without neglecting the interests of the other classes of our population:	with its countervailing
duties it kept the American market for us and it retained the European market for our natural products. On the other hand what has the present gouvernment done? What did Mr. Bennett do in London when he suggested to the British people that they tax their own food so as to buy our wheat? On the one hand you have the Dunning tariff: protection for Canada and for all Canada's citizens; on the other, Mr. Bennett, whose sole object is to protect a privileged group at the expense of the Candian people.
And our friends would go on: "It is true that the liberal administration has shown a surplus nearly every year; it is true also that they have paid off a goodly part of our national debt; it is true that they have considerably lightened the burden of taxation; but after all what good is all that to you if you cannot get a better price for your butter?"


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: The potatoes are rather small.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I even heard one speaker say before an audience of several hundred people: "If it really is true that the government has these surpluses why don't they dis-

tribute them among the people instead of paying off the country's debts?" What a pitiable thing to hear from the lips of a man whose mission was most assuredly to pacify the people rather than incite in them feelings that are unworthy and that bear the closest resemblance to the Russian revolutionary attitude which we are striving to overcome. It would take much too long to even begin a recital of the things our opponents did and said in appealing to the worst instincts and prejudices of the people.
Unfortunately some of the public were taken in by these untruthful statements; but, like those who were wise enough to avoid the trap, they are still awaiting the fulfilment, I do not say of all, but at least of some, of the promises made them. But like Sister Anne,-to borrow the. expression used the other day by my good friend from St. Hyacinthe-Rouville (Mr. Fontaine)-they strain their eyes in vain; they see nothing on the horizon.
That is why I said a moment ago that the plight of our farmers is getting worse instead of better; on top of all they have, been sorely disappointed, particularly those who put some faith in the promises made by our opponents. You can imagine the look on the faces of those farmers who had come to believe, because it had been told them times without number, that after July 28th, if there were a change of government, butter would be selling at 40, 50, even at 75 cents a pound-
Mr. LaVERGNE: The "assiette au beurre" is changed.


Paul Mercier: That is why there is nothing in it.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -that eggs would bring 50, 60 and 75 cents in the month of February-
Mr. LaVERGNE: You control the hens.


Paul Mercier: If we happen to need roosters we won't look for them over there.


Joseph-Achille Verville: -and so on without end for all other manner of produce. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, and I ask my friends to your right-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Ask, and you shall receive.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Very well, I am going to ask you a few questions. Is it the fault of King and of his government-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Yes.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Wait. Don't answer the question before I have asked it. Is it King's

The Address-Mr. Verville
fault, is it his government's fault, if butter is being retailed to-day at 32 cents a pound in our country districts-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Yes.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Yes? Wait.
-while at. the same date last year butter was selling in the same places for 35 and 36 cents a pound? There has been a drop of 5 cents in the price.
Are King and his government to blame-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Wait. -if eggs are selling to-day for 15 cents, while last year at the same date they sold for 45 and even 50 cents throughout the countryside ?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: The. Chinese eggs had not come in yet.


Joseph-Achille Verville: We are not dealing with them: we are speaking of Canadian eggs, laid by Canadian hens. I am not speaking about Chinese eggs, it is you who. go outside of Canada for your arguments. We stay at home.
Are King and his government to blame-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Will you wait? You always answer before I ask my question. That is because you always have the same answer ready. Interrupt me as much as you please. Four years from now you will no longer be there to interrupt.
Are King and his government to blame-
Several hon. MEMBERS: Yes.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Your answer is so intelligent that it pleases me. Keep on repeating it throughout the session.
-if our farmers are obliged after eight months of an administration that was going to make them all rich-that is what you promised-to sell their produce for the lowest prices obtained since before 1914?
Mr. Speaker, in so far as the farmers are concerned, they cannot be satisfied with the present administration because this government promised to relieve them of all their ills and instead of that they have added the further pain of profound disappointment.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	They are not angry;
they went to war.


Joseph-Achille Verville: What is that? Will you repeat your question?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	The farmers are not
angry; they fought in the war.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Yes they are angry; all the farmers are angry against you who promised all sorts of things you were not able to give them.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It must be the farmers of Lotbiniere who are angry at having re-elected the hon. member.


Joseph-Achille Verville: No; the farmers of Lotbiniere are much too decent for that. They are not so angry as the farmers of Montmorency who will put you where you belong the next time.
Other speakers have told us what took place during the last campaign. I wanted to emphasize what happened in my county in order to show that our opponents' tactics were the same all through the country, particularly in Quebec province. You made capital out of the unemployment issue in the cities and out of the butter issue in the country districts.
As far as my own electors are concerned I must say truthfully that unemployment was a side-issue with us. The main issue had to do with butter. Lord, Mr. Speaker, what quantities of butter we had to make during the few weeks that preceded the election! The quantity of butter we made was extraordinary !
Mr. LaVERGNE:	The taste of the tub
isn't noticeable.


Joseph-Achille Verville: There were plenty of them.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: And you are still well-buttered.


Joseph-Achille Verville: You are covered with butter yourselves.
Long beforehand public opinion had been prepared, not to say poisoned for months and months, with all sorts of circulars, well got-up-I grant you that-well got-up, but deceitful; and well distributed. That is where I admire your organization.


An hon. MEMBER:: The man was Moraud, from Lotbiniere.


Joseph-Achille Verville: A good fellow; he has had his reward.


Paul Mercier: What did he
get?


Joseph-Achille Verville: Hasn't he been appointed to the railway board? You were against that.
We have the right to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, if a government that got itself elected to office by speculating on the sufferings of the people and on the hard times which the country was experiencing in common with the rest of the world, we have the right to ask ourselves if such a government is deserving of our confidence. Does such a government deserve the people's confidence which it won through lying and deceit, and after making promises which it cannot keep.

The Address-Mr. Verville

I ask the question and for my own part I reply that we have not the right to put any faith in the present government. I do not wish to be unjust towards the present prime minister, nor towards our opponents, several of whom are my very good friends; I am willing to give them whatever credit they deserve; I will go further: I will even allow them all the credit they give themselves. First of all I agree with the government that the unemployment question is settled.


An hon. MEMBER:: Aih! Ah!


Joseph-Achille Verville: You are laughing? But I tell you the unemployment question is settled.


Paul Mercier: In what way?


Joseph-Achille Verville: 
Charles Napoléon Dorion: This is the last year,
though.


Paul Mercier: Do not be too sure about that.


Joseph-Achille Verville: They are coming to life. Since, at the same time, a Liberal government was in office at Ottawa

unfortunately that has been changed; the people have been punished-they claimed that if the people were suffering it was because these two governments were overburdening the country with taxation. For a number of years the provincial government of Quebec province has made every possible effort to lighten taxes. Everybody is well aware of that, even the Conservative members in this house. AVhether you admit it or not, the people know it for a fact; that is sufficient. Quite recently the Quebec government, with its customary generosity, gave the taxpayers of the province, the rural population especially, the benefit of $16,000,000 in taxes that had been levied to meet the indebtedness of the government and of the municipalities in the matter of road construction. I see the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) in his seat. That is one of the things you asked for. I hope you are pleased; the government has done what you asked. During the past nine years the federal government considerably reduced the taxpayers' burden. Even our opponents admitted that during the last campaign. I ask the present government to follow the same policy; and on this point may I be permitted to draw their attention- I mean the attention of the government, not of the ministers who come and go-may I draw the government's attention to the fact that if they wish to relieve our agricultural classes they can do so by reducing or abolishing certain taxes, particularly the contributions levied on municipalities for the organization of sanitary units. This system of sanitary 22110-39i
units has been very successful in the province of Quebec for a number of years; so successful, in fact, that the provincial authorities of Ontario, and even the American authorities, have become interested-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has
exhausted his forty minutes.


Mr. L. E. PARENT (Terrebonne):: In rising for the first time to address the house it affords me great pleasure to congratulate Your Honour on the ability, judgment and impartiality with which you discharge the important functions of your high office. It also affords me great pleasure as a Canadian of French descent to congratulate Your Honour on the progress which you have made in the French language since you have occupied the chair. May I be permitted to express the hope that this good example will be followed by your co-nationals on both sides of the house, for it would be a step to strengthen the spirit of cooperation and bonne entente between the two great races that compose the major part of our population. I desire to extend my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne for the ability with which they have discharged their task, for it is recognized that it was a pretty hard task. Of course, I do not agree with all that they said.
In deference to my province and my constituency, and also in memory of my ancestor, who, for over half a century took a prominent part in all debates for the defence of French-Canadian rights, I will now continue my speech in my mother tongue.
(Translation) Mr. Speaker, the county of Terrebonne which I have the honour to represent, has its own political history, thanks to its spokesmen of the past, some of whom have left their names on the annals of our nation. Without taking up too much of the time of the house I would like to mention a few:
In 1930, long before the Union, the county of Terrebonne elected one of our great Canadians, Sir Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine, a stalwart champion of the rights of his race. Louis-Michel Viger and Norbert Morin were also in the forefront of the struggle for the rights of our fellow French-Canadians. Gedeon Melassippe Prevost, one of the pioneers of northern Quebec. Sir Adolphe Chapleau, who gave twenty-five years of his life to the service
The Address-Mr. Parent

of his country. Sir Louis-Frangois Rodrigue Masson, who was appointed lieutenant-governor. But a man who played an important part in the public life of our country, a man whose name I am particularly happy to mention, is the Hon. Raymond Pre-fontaine, former minister of Marine in the Laurier cabinet: in 1900, rallying round him the Liberal youth of the time, he laid siege to the Conservative fortress that the county of Terrebonne had always been up till then; he forced it to capitulate, and since that day the Liberal banner floats over the Laurentide hills, in Terrebonne county.
All these men did a great deal for their province and for their country; it is fitting that their names should be recalled to the memory of the members of this house and of the Canadian people.
I find my inspiration, Mr. Speaker, in the Latin words: "Ex Alto Lumen." The public conduct of certain of these great departed is . to me a source of patriotism which will light my way in the accomplishment of my duties as a public man, as a member of this house.
Experience has taught me, Mr. Speaker, that to be successful in business one must enjoy the trust and confidence of one's fellow-citizens. And this trust is won through honesty, fair-dealing, respect for one's given word and for one's fellow-man. What applies to the individual applies also to the group; what is true of the business-man is equally true of a political party and of all governments.
What confidence, or what measure of confidence can the Canadian people have in the present government after having elected it to office on July 28th? If the people grasp the contradiction between what was said, before and after the election, by the members of this government and notably by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett; if they analyse their pledges, fulfilled or disregarded; if they analyse what has been accomplished since, what a disappointing performance the Canadian people have witnessed since the 28th of July. The people certainly did not expect to see a ministry formed of such a large number of speechless men who refuse to discuss, each in turn, as parliamentary custom demands, the pregnant issues that confront the government. The people surely did not expect a one-man government; which offers us the spectacle of such a large number of Conservative representatives and ministers being treated as the " enfants terrifoles " of the big family to your right, Mr. Speaker; they must
fMr. Parent.]
not open their mouths doubtless so as to avoid any risk of compromising or entangling their leader.
At yesterday's sitting the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay) confirmed what I have just said when he stated that since the opening of the session he has been awaiting the Minister of Agriculture's statement of policy so as to pass along the information to the voters of his riding. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are waiting and we are anxious to know how long we must wait for the government to tell us, in the interests of the country, how it proposes to solve the important problems before the house. Such is the spectacle the Conservative government has offered the Canadian people since its accession; it was the same during the special session of September; it is the same during the present session.
I mentioned contradictions, Mr. Speaker. I turn now to the speech from the throne, from which I quote the opening lines. His Excellency said:
I welcome you to your duties at a time when the nations of the world are passing through a period of great economic depression. Canada has not escaped it.
These words spoken to the Canadian people, put into the mouth of His Excellency, give the lie direct to the campaign of falsehood indulged in by the Conservative candidates during the last election when, prompted by their leader, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), they told the voters from one end of Canada to the other that the Liberal administration was to blame for the crisis w'hich had come upon the country.
I continue my quotation, Mr. Speaker:
In prosperity they were united. In adversity that union is made still stronger by the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding which is the surest bulwark of the nation's welfare and happiness.
I repeat: "In prosperity the Canadian people were united." Indeed, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be truer than these words addressed to the people of Canada by His Excellency. This union had its roots, in and owed its vigorous growth to the wise, considerate and enlightened policy of the Liberal administration.
But since the accession of the new Conservative regime there are mutterings of discontent; in certain parts of our country this spirit of unity appears to be seriously threatened.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Interim Supply Bill
Wednesday, April 15, 1931