1931-03-18

Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weybum):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege. Yesterday when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was concluding his speech he assured the house that at this session the fullest opportunity would be given thoroughly to discuss and consider all the legislation brought down, but he added that the house would not listen or the government did not propose to listen to such vaudeville effusions as emanated from the member for Weybum during the short session.
I know my right hon. friend has been working very hard. I know he is tired and his nerves are on edge, and I am prepared to make every possible allowance-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Young) would be better advised to make his remarks when we come to the orders of the day ratheT than at the present time, if he should be in order then.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I submit that a question of privilege is in order at any time. As a matter of fact, the rules of the house indicate that the sooner such a question is raised the better. I humbly submit-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for Weybum is raising a question of privilege he is in order. I did not understand him to be so doing.


Edward James Young: Yes, your honour, it is a question of personal privilege.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: He certainly was not discussing a question of privilege when called to order.
Privilege-Mr. Young


Edward James Young: I am prepared to state the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The question, as it appears to me and to everybody with whom I have discussed it since the statement was made by my right hon. friend yesterday, is this: Has the Prime Minister of this country the right or the power to say that a member shall or shall not be heard in this house?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is not privilege.


Edward James Young: Anything that I said during the short session was very much to the point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward James Young: I repeat, it was very much to the point.


An hon. MEMBER:: What point?


Edward James Young: To the point under discussion. If my right hon. friend or any of his supporters wish to silence the member for Weybum, all they have to do is demolish his argument;-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. \OUNG: -but if the Prime Minister undertakes to say with respect to any member whether he shall or shall not speak in this house, I submit-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. When the right hon. Prime Minister undertakes to interfere with the privileges of the hon. member for Weyburn or of any other hon. member, it will be time enough to deal with the matter.
I would suggest that the hon. member for Weyburn cannot now anticipate anything of the sort.


Edward James Young: He made the statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The right hon. Prime Minister in referring to the remarks made by the hon. member for Weyburn last session may have expressed his disapproval of those remarks, but until some action is attempted by the Prime Minister or by some other member to interfere with the rights of the hon. member for Weyburn it is idle for him to anticipate such action The hon. member for Weyburn has all the rights and privileges of a member of this house, and I am sure the Prime Minister would not wish to interfere with them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to say a word, Mr. Speaker, on the privilege of the house itself in matters of this kind. The statement I wish to draw to your honour's (Mr. Bennett.]
attention occurred in the course of the speech the right hon. Prime Minister made yesterday. I did not like to interrupt my right hon. friend while he was speaking, but I certainly intended to comment on the uncalled-for reference he made to the hon. member for Weyburn. As reported in Hansard of yesterday, at page 71, the right hon. gentleman said:
I will say we do not propose to listen to any vaudeville effusions such as we had last session from the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). An intelligent discussion is one thing; but the discussions that then took place were merely endeavours to wear out the patience of the minister in charge, and I think most of the hon. gentleman's friends held the same view.
I would refer the house to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, section 157, in which there is the following reference from May's Parliamentary Practice (12th edition):
Interference with or reflections upon members have been resented as indignities to the house itself.
Speaking for the opposition, I wish to say that we regard as an indignity upon the house itself the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday in reference to the hon. member for Weyburn, and as such I feel they cannot be too strongly resented. They were reflections upon an hon. gentleman who performed his duties as a member in a most efficient and effective manner during the session referred to. His offence, in the mind of my right hon. friend, was that his duties were performed so efficiently and effectively.
I would also direct attention to section 158, also quoting May:
In the Commons, on the 12th April, 1733, and on the 1st June, 1780, it was resolved that it was a high infringement of the privilege of the house, a crime and misdemeanor, to assault, insult or menace any member of the house, in his coming or going from the house, or upon the account of his behaviour in parliament.
I ask your honour if the words used yesterday by the Prime Minister were not in the nature of a menacing statement and a threat to an hon. member of this house with respect to his behaviour, which he described as "vaudeville effusions."


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister says it was. Then I say he is again offending the dignities of this house in making that statement. May I say further, Mr. Speaker, that the action of the Prime Minister in that particular is the more amazing in view of the great courtesy which was shown him by all hon. members on this side at the last session of parliament.

Privilege-Mr. Quinn


Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that the right hon. gentleman cannot address your honour as he is doing now unless he states the question of privilege-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He has stated it.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: -that it is not debatable, and that having made his statement he is restricted to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have made my statement. I am speaking on the rules with respect to the dignities of this house and the privileges of hon. members, and my remarks have been very carefully confined to that point. I wish to repeat that the statement made yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister was the more amazing and astounding in view of the extreme courtesy that was shown him and his colleagues at the special session of parliament. The Prime Minister-


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling upon the point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Apparently the right hon. gentleman is stating a question of privilege.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that he is making a speech. I ask for your honour's ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that the right hon. gentleman is in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it is evident that some hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied in seeking to coerce this side of the house; they desire as well to coerce your honour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is one thing we are going to watch very carefully during this session, and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Keep on watching.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -this arrogant and intolerant manner of my right hon. friend-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What a spectacle!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and the example he is setting his followers in that particular-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -cannot be persisted in if he hopes to get any business through the house this session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Such a spectacle!


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I tell my
right hon. friend at once that we of the opposition propose to exercise to the full our rights of free discussion, and as long as hon. members do their duty in discussing fully and freely any subject that is before the house they are entitled to the protection of his honour and indeed to the support of all hon. members. The Prime Minister owes it not only to the hon. member for Weybum but to this house to give an assurance now that his remarks yesterday were not intended to be offensive, were not intended as a threat, and that he is prepared to allow the hon. member the same rights that he expects to have conceded to himself in the discussions of this house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question of privilege has been fully stated and, as I said at the outset, the hon. member for Weybum and every other hon. member will at all times be accorded their proper privileges.



PRIVILEGE-MR. QUINN

Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a question of privilege. I wish to draw the attention of the house to an article which appeared in the morning and evening editions of the Ottawa Citizen of March 17. That article reflects upon me and upon my conduct in this house. I will read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Under the heading of
"Claquers" appears the following:
Mr. Mackenzie King has profound respect for parliamentary institutions. He admonished Premier Bennett yesterday to be more heedful of the advice of ministers and members around him. The level of political intelligence as reflected by noisy interrupters on the government side, however, would amply justify the prime minister's somewhat scant regard for this current form of political democracy. Members like Messrs. Cotnam, Felix Quinn, Eccles Gott and others, normal individuals outside the chamber, seem to labour under the belief that the elaquer is an essential part of the machinery of parliament. They should really be furnished with paper caps and penny rattles.
I desire, Mr. Speaker, to contradict what is imputed to me in this article. I did not in any way whatever interrupt or interfere with the address of the right hon. gentleman, and through you, sir, I am going to ask the Ottawa Citizen to give my denial as much prominence as it gave this article which I have just read.


Mr. POULIOT:: Did the hon. gentleman
speak for his colleagues as well.
Copyright Act



COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Copyright Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Mr. CAHAN:: This amendment to the
existing Copyright Aot is intended to provide, among other sections, one authorizing the governor in council to deposit at Rome ratification on behalf of Canada of the Rome Copyright convention of 1928, which was then signed on behalf of Canada by a representative of the preceding government; to inseit certain definitions in the act so as to cover changes necessary for the enforcement of certain provisions of the Rome Copyright convention; to modify section 40 of the existing act with regard to registration, concerning which complaints were made to the previous government as to its not being in strict conformity with the Berne convention, which the Rome convention now modifies; and lastly to provide for the regulation of companies, associations and societies which engage in the business of granting performing rights in respect of works in which copyright subsists. After the second reading of the bill, if it passes second reading, I propose to ask the house to refer it to a special committee to consider its provisions, as the questions involved in copyright are very complex. We have received a great number of representations in regard to it; and it may meet the approval of the house to refer the bill to a special committee for further consideration after second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Mr. MANION:: This bill is for the purpose of increasing the number of directors of the Canadian National Railways from fifteen to seventeen, with the object ultimately of giving representation to two of the provinces which at the present time have no representatives on the railway board. There is a second section which is merely intended to correct a technical error in the existing legislation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



FISH INSPECTION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Fish Inspection Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. RHODES:: This bill proposes certain
amendments to the existing Fish Inspection Act. Their object is to make more effective the methods of inspection including, in certain cases, compulsory inspection. The bill also provides for the inspection of containers for fish, and their marking as specified by regulation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMAND R. LaVERGNE (Mont-magny) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 7, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: The object of the bill is to amend the Criminal Code in order, first, that the defence shall address the jury after the crown has done so. Up to the present time an accused has had to defend himself before knowing exactly how he would be attacked before the jury. The bill provides, secondly, that the judge presiding at the court should be allowed to comment on law only and not on facts. The third provision is that the assizes in the province of Quebec shall be presided over by judges of the session of appeal instead of judges of the Court of King's Bench.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, to amend the Armistice Day Act.
He said: The Armistice Day Act, passed in 1921, comprises two sections. It provides that the Armistice day celebration shall be held on the Monday in the week in which November 11 falls. The second section provides that Thanksgiving day shall be held on the same day. The bill I now ask leave to introduce repeals both these sections, substituting for them one section which provides that the celebration of Armistice day shall be held on November 11 in each year and on no other day. It makes no reference to Thanksgiving day and therefore the procedure in regard to that will revert to the practice that prevailed prior to 1921, when by proclamation the government could fix the day at

The Address-Mr. Rinjret
any time they liked. I do not say anything in this bill as to Thanksgiving day, I leave that entirely open; I provide in one section that Armistice day shall be celebrated on November 11 and upon no other day.
Mr. BOURASSA:: I am opposed to that.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



VANCOUVER-SEYMOUR NARROWS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. I. A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) whether he has as yet received a report from the commission investigating the question of the ripple rock at the entrance to the Seymour Narrows in British Columbia, and if so, when he intends to present the same to parliament.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The report has been received but has not yet been considered by my department.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) advise the house if he has yet received the report from his department as to the route of the Peace River railway?


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) was good enough to advise me a couple of days ago that he was going to ask this question and I made inquiry thereon. I have been informed by the officers of the department that all reports which have been received have been already tabled in the house. Those that have been tabled are procurable at the distribution office. I believe the last one tabled was in May, 1929, and referred to branch lines. If my hon. friend has any other report in mind and will advise me I shall be glad to look into it further.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) if he is aware that letters are being sent out, at least from one department, the Post Office Department, and possibly from others, to persons in the civil service accusing them of partisanship without giving the name of the
accuser or any information with regard to the charge. Members of the civil service are being called upon to make an affidavit proving themselves innocent on pain of dismissal if that affidavit is not made. This practice is contrary to the usual rule and I think the Minister of Justice will be the first to appreciate that a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. Will the hon. minister consider having these letters recalled in view of their infraction of the rules and regulations which have existed in connection with the civil service?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: I do not know of anything which has been done in any department not in accordance with the usual practice in such matters, nor have I any personal knowledge of the letters to which my hon. friend has referred. I shall make inquiry into the matter and if I find that there is anything amiss I shall have no objection to calling the attention of the department to that matter. So far I have heard of nothing which departs from the usual practice in such matters.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- LIMOILOU SHOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Ternis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) to the fact that the Canadian National shops at Limoilou were burned yesterday. Owing to the fact that several hundred employees were deported from Riviere du Loup to St. Malo in 1920, do the Canadian National railways intend to send some of the men formerly employed at Limoilou shops to Riviere du Loup?
Robert James Manion: The point raised by the hon. member is entirely of an administrative character but I shall be very glad to bring his remarks to the attention of the management.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 17, 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.
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, the main argument of the Conservative party during the last campaign was that a disastrous situation existed in Can-
The Address-Mr. Rinjret

ada, that the country was on the verge of ruin and bankruptcy because of the actions of the King government, and that if the Conservative party were put into power that conditions would at once be remedied. Those remarks were thrice fallacious. In the first place the conditions then prevailing were grossly exaggerated to suit the purposes of my hon. friends and to facilitate their election campaign. In the second place no attention was paid to the fact that the crisis was world wide, that Canada was perhaps less involved in it than most other countries, and therefore this situation could not be possibly ascribed to the King government.
My hon. friends opposite should have known that if they were put into power it would not be possible to cure this situation at once, a situation which was not wholly Canadian and which did not result from any governmental action. My hon. friends opposite seem to realize that now; indeed in my humble opinion they never at any time failed to realize it. When they claimed that conditions in Canada should be ascribed to the Liberal party and that they could at once cure all our economic ills they knew very well that they could not do so. At that time they asked for power to do it, now they are asking for time to do it, and they claim that having been in power only eight months it is not fair for us to challenge their record in this regard. I invite the attention of hon. members to the collective efforts made by my right hon. friend and especially by his ministers to dissipate the impression they created during the last election campaign and to do away with the pessimism which to a certain degree they succeeded in spreading throughout Canada. By their pronouncements and official declarations since the election they have tried to avoid the effects of the false impression which they created during the campaign.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) yesterday resented the reference to his government as a one-man government, and claimed that he has the cooperation of his colleagues. Well, in his efforts to dissipate the wrong impression which he himself created by his campaign speeches he has had the cooperation at least of some of his colleagues, because quite a number of them have endeavoured to show the country that after all the conditions existing in Canada are not as bad as they claimed they were prior to July 28, 1930. It would require the putting on Hansard of a w'hole scrap book if I were to endeavour to give the house all the quotations from the different speeches which

relate to this endeavour, but perhaps I may be permitted to give a few quotations from some of the official declarations of the present government.
About a month after the elections, on August 22 to be exact, the press of this country published a report which emanated from the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) and I do not think there will be any objection if I read one paragraph of this official document which is in vivid contrast with the statements made by the Conservative party during the election. I quote one paragraph from the Montreal Gazette giving the text of the report of the Minister of Labour, as follows:
I do not for one moment suggest that the present unemployment is due to any governmental or lack of governmental activity. Unemployment is not a purely Canadian problem. It is world-wide. But it is not the business of the government of Canada to look after the world as a whole. It seems to me the problem first to be faced is for the government to look after the people of Canada and assist them to look after themselves.
This is a very fair statement; the only fault I find with it is that it came a month too late. It should have been presented to the Canadian people not after, but before they had an opportunity to vote.
The next official declaration that I should like to place upon Hansard is one that was given to the country on Thanksgiving Day -which happened to be the eleventh of November, may I say to the hon. gentleman beside me (Mr. Neill)-by the then Acting Prime Minister of Canada (Sir George Perley) who said-and this was on official declaration, mark you! -
The world has been passing through a period of serious economic and political disturbance. Canada has not escaped its share of the difficulties of readjustment. Many of our fellow-citizens are still suffering hardship and uncertainty. The testing time, however, has only served to prove the strength and solidity of the Canadian economic structure, and the determination and mutual helpfulness of our people. Few countries have been as fortunate.
Imagine the Acting Prime Minister of this country thanking the Almighty that this country was not such as his friends had depicted it to the electorate! I have to pass over many such quotations to come to a declaration which was made by the Prime Minister when he returned from England and which had much the same flavour. This is what the Prime Minister gave to the Montreal Standard on the 14th day of December, 1930:
I can only repeat to you what I said before, and I hope to make another statement soon. Our difficulties are the lesser ones. They are

The Address-Mr. Rinfret
those of a younger country, and incidental to its development. Nevertheless, they can be mastered only by coordinated effort which must be based upon a true realization of the causes from which the ills have arisen.
I could quote another declaration made by by the same right hon. gentleman on the first day of January, 1931, to a similar effect, namely that while this country has reached a certain state of depression, that while it has suffered somewhat from the reflex action, may I say, of the world crisis, at least we can congratulate ourselves that, as the Prime Minister puts it, our difficulties are the lesser ones, and if we compare Canada with other countries we find ourselves indeed in a very felicitous position. But another statement w'hich is perhaps even more to the point was given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) to the Annual Financial Review of the Montreal Gazette which is published in the early days of each year. I read there the following under the signature of the Minister of Trade and Commerce :
While the Dominion has been less affected than most other countries, as is evidenced by the comparative position of our securities on the money markets of London and New York-
But which was very little evidenced by the campaign speeches of the Conservative party.
yet the country has undoubtedly suffered severely from the repercussions of the world situation. The immediate cause of the depres-sion_ has been a great and disproportionate decline in wholesale prices throughout the world, affecting more particularly the food products and raw materials which we supply in large quantities to other countries.
I could go on for a long time quoting speeches and official declarations to that effect, showing that at last my hon. friends opposite have a certain sense of repentance and that now when they look upon the ill effects of their own campaigns, they are anxious to try to minimize, ameliorate and dissipate as much as they can the effects of their pronouncements of June and July last.
Even in the speech from the throne we have declarations similar to the ones I have just read, coming from the lips of His Excellency Ihe Administrator, but as everyone knows, really emanating from the government. Possibly some hon. gentlemen may think I stress the point too strongly, but really all these declarations are to the effect-it was hard to prove it to the people during the last campaign-not only that the King government was not responsible for the conditions *existing in Canada in June and July last, but that if we want to be just to that government
we should give them credit for the fact that in this world-wide crisis Canada was one of the countries less affected, one of the countries able to come through the crisis much better than most of the other countries of the world.
I do not believe in harping too long on what took place some time ago-the election is lost and we must make the best of it-but the point that particularly interests me now is the promise made by hon. gentlemen opposite that they would cure the situation and cure it at once. What do we hear from the Prime Minister himself? What do we hear from every one of the ministers, these great statesmen, these great economists, these marvelous doctors and magicians who were going to spread happiness over the whole of Canada? Has butter sold at sixty cents since they were elected? Have eggs sold at higher prices so that everyone wants to raise them in this country? My hon. friends wanted power. They said: Give us time; we have been in power only six months; we have been in power only eight months. How much more time do my hon. friends want? How long will it take for them to make good their promises to the electors? Will it be six months more? Will it be a year more? Will it be four years more? They do not know; we do not know, and unfortunately the poor electorate does not know either, but the people are just waiting, selling their butter at a cheaper price than it ever sold at before, selling their eggs for less than they ever before obtained for them, and generally enduring conditions that have not been improved, but that in many parts of the country are worse than they were previously. I suppose after two or three years have passed, in the ordinary trend of events and the normal evolution of business conditions throughout the world this country, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. friends are in power, will again reach the point it had attained two or three years ago, and then my hon. friends will say: We have done it; give us credit for it; we have cured the evil, not at once, but it cured itself without our aid. Give us credit for it. We have at last redeemed our election promises.
My hon. friends opposite are prone to say that they made good their promise to convene a special emergency session during the month of September last. The convening of that special session would be what I would call, Mr. Speaker, redeeming the letter of their promise. As a matter of fact, I fully share the stand taken by my hon. leader that it was quite unnecessary to have a special emergency session merely for the purpose
The Address-Mr. Rinjret

of voting a certain amount of money. In tbe situation that existed at that time, and after the campaign that had been waged throughout the country, the government would certainly have been fully justified in securing money, not by convening the members of this house from every part of the country, but merely by a governor general's warrant. The reason for the special emergency session, as I have said, was in the first place to redeem the letter of the promise of the government; and in the second place, as I shall try to show later, its purpose was to put through certain tariff resolutions which had nothing to do with the unemployment situation, but which had much to do with the desires of the Prime Minister.
After voting $20,000,000 last September and following the session, a conference took place between the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) and certain provincial ministers, and we are told that the cooperation of a number of the provincial governments was secured to start a certain number of public works.
I am quite willing to believe that, but so far as the city of Montreal, from which I come, is concerned, most of the government works that are now going on are works which not merely had nothing to do with the voting of the $20,000,000 at the special session but were works decided upon and for which money was voted by the King government in the previous session of 1930. By bill, Mr. Speaker, this house had voted the sum of $50,000,000 in the previous session for the building of terminal and railway facilities for the Canadian National Railways in the city of Montreal. That is a sum more than twice the amount which this government asked parliament to vote during the special session last September for the whole Dominion of Canada. Not only is this work for which the King government provided being carried on in the city of Montreal, furnishing employment to a great number of persons, but I wish to state to the house that it is going on notwithstanding the active opposition of Conservative forces in Montreal who have done everything in their power to prevent that work from being carried out.
The King government voted $5,000,000 for the harbour of Montreal, and a large proportion of that sum was available to perform work in the harbour of Montreal. In the month of January you could read in almost every paper in the city of Montreal, letters inquiring why certain work involving the expenditure of $1,500,000 at the Windmill Point wharf was not being done by this gov-

ernment or by the harbour commission. That was another instance, Mr. Speaker, of money that had been voted by the King government not being actually spent in the city of Montreal. For certain reasons unknown to me, but certainly known to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) either the harbour commission or the government delayed that work which should have gone on and been paid for out of moneys voted by the Liberal government, moneys voted in the regular course of events previous to the emergency session.
What about the tunnel under the Lachine canal? That is another work in the city of Montreal that is being credited to the unemployment program of the special session. But who is there in this house from the city of Montreal that does not know that this work has been in contemplation for a long time, and had actually been promised by the Hon. Mr. Dunning and the Hon. Mr. Crerar. I want to qualify that: It was not only promised but it was understood that the money would be available just as soon as the city authorities of Montreal would be in a position to commence the work.
Such are the works, Mr. Speaker, that are being performed, or delayed, in the city of Montreal, and for which credit is claimed by the Conservative party as a part of their program for unemployment relief. As far as we are concerned, I say that if there had been no change of government in July last, and no emergency session, not only would these moneys have been expended in the city of Montreal, but they would have been expended without the undue delay that a change of government brought about in this country.
But the real purpose of the special session, Mr. Speaker, was not to vote money which could have been appropriated in some other way, but to effect, changes in the tariff. Hon. members will remember the tariff resolutions, covering 20 pages of Hansard, brought down at the special emergency session, and upon which we were asked to pass judgment without having had opportunity to give the slighest consideration to the individual tariff items. My point is that these changes in the tariff should not have been made for many reasons. I claim that the government itself had not had time properly to consider the changes it proposed, and that such changes were proposed upon inadequate information.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister after being returned to power, abolished the tariff board. That was a body which had been established for the purpose of gathering

The Address-Mr. Rinfret
information on tariff matters, and to help the government in framing its tariff policy. I regret very much that my right hon. friend should have chosen to abolish that tariff board, but I regret even more that having abolished it, the Prime Minister went ahead as if all the time he was being supplied with adequate information upon which to base the changes in the tariff which he proposed at the special session. True, and this is very interesting, I must give the Prime Minister credit for having tried in a certain way to revive some kind of a tariff commission by having certain members of the cabinet sit in a ring to gather information from the general public on particular tariff matters. May I be permitted to put on record an account of the way in which that committee of cabinet ministers proceeded in a certain instance, as it shows the intense desire they evinced to gather information on fiscal matters?
I was in Ottawa on the 16th of February, and this report of that first tariff meeting of cabinet ministers is dated Ottawa, February 17. I am quoting from a report in the Montreal Gazette. A tariff meeting of that special committee of cabinet ministers on fiscal matters had been scheduled for February 16, but there was some misunderstanding as to the time the committee should sit. Certain people thought the hour was 10 o'clock, and others thought it was 11. What happened? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), I believe, proceeded to some room in the House of Commons, and sat there for about one minute, and when they found that nobody had arrived, they decided to adjourn the meeting sine die; and that concluded the hearing so far as that meeting was concerned. If that is an example, Mr. Speaker, of the high-handed discipline that my right hon. friend wants to institute in the public affairs of this country, it may perhaps be somewhat commended; but as an example of gathering information on fiscal matters, it certainly W'as not very encouraging. But there is more. When the Prime Minister adjourned that meeting, even his own ministers had not arrived. Perhaps hon. gentlemen wall not believe that. Let me quote from the Montreal Gazette. It says:
Ministers who arrived too late for the sitting were: Hon. T. G. Murphy, Minister of the Interior, Hon. Alfred Duranleau, Minister of Marine, and Hon. Arthur Sauve, Postmaster General. Even officials of the National Revenue department, including Robert W. Breadner, commissioner of customs, were uncertain as to the hour of opening and came on the assumption that the hearing would commence at eleven o'clock.
And the meeting was adjourned, Mr. Speaker, at exactly 10.31, by the Prime Minister of Canada. If you admit at all the principle of cabinet solidarity, you must come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister adjourned the meeting before he had actually arrived as a government. The eminent economist who now presides over the destinies of this country is willing to establish contacts with the common people and gather information upon which to base his fiscal policy. No wonder he made such a terrible blunder when he dealt with the glass items in the schedules. I am not sure I will have time to go fully into that matter but may I say briefly that the increases in the glass items were something tremendous. We were importing glass from Belgium bearing an ad valorem duty of 12i per cent. After securing certain information this government decided that the importation of glass should be stopped and it placed thereon a duty of so much per pound. I learned from people in Montreal who were interested in the glass business that a duty of 26 cents on an article valued at $2.30, or about 121 per cent, would have amounted to something like $3, S3.50 or $4 under the revised schedule. The Prime Minister stated that from the information gathered from all corners of Canada, in his * opinion, the price did not matter because we in Canada were going to produce glass. His view was that it did not matter what the duty would be because no more glass would have to be imported. I take as an example the position of one of the hon. members of this house, Mr. Bell (Hamilton), who stated that the measure would protect the industry in his constituency. The language used by the hon. gentleman was similar to that we heard throughout the session. He said he had investigated the position with extreme care and in his opinion within ten days from the time he was speaking there would be an increase from 150 to 500 in the number of men working in a certain plant.


Mr. VENIOT:: He is still looking for the
plant.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: What was the result?
The price of glass increased immediately and tremendously. Not only did it increase on the imported product but also on glass which had been stored throughout the country. The increase was of such an extreme nature that my hon. friend, the genial Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman), at once made use of his discretionary powers and inserted in that wonderful schedule the necessary corrective measure. He did away with that item. There was no more question of opening a plant and employing so many
The Address-Mr. Rinjret

hundred men; in at least one instance he recognized the government had been very hasty in its action and that the schedules had to be reconsidered. As a conclusion to the whole matter there was an editorial in the old Conservative newspaper, the Gazette, reviewing the whole matter under the very suggestive title, "A tragedy of errors."
We had another reason for resentment in the fact that the schedules were hurried through. Not only was this schedule put on the table in a state of unpreparedness but we were given no opportunity to discuss it. We were told very abruptly by the Prime Minister that we must either accept these items at once and put them through as they then existed or he would not go to the London conference. At the time we thought Canada should be represented at the conference. I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that if we could have foreseen the policy which was to be propounded by the right hon. gentleman, the manner in which he would present it and the way in which he would be received, I am not so sure but that it would have been good business to keep him here a little longer. Time passes however and I am only too happy to avail myself the most admirable description of the Imperial conference which was given Monday last by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). The speech of my right hon. leader has shown not only why the blasting process of the Prime Minister failed so lamentably but also how the whole procedure of the right hon. gentleman was doomed to utter failure. The Prime Minister has said that he did nothing more than was done in 1902 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. If he meant in a general way that at different times in the history of this country Canadian governments had sought preferences in the British market I will not deny his statement. I hope he does not intend however to parallel his action with the suave, diplomatic, mellow tone adopted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I hope he will not compare the blunt, aggressive and as he himself has called it, "brutal" way he addressed the Imperial conference with the manner adopted by the former leader of the Liberal party. It does not matter however whether his attitude was similar to that taken about thirty years ago when conditions were totally different, or whether he thought it best to present his case in that way or in some other way. The bare fact remains that he went to London in an effort to find a market for our wheat and he came back empty handed. That fact cannot be denied, Mr. Speaker. To quote a parallel incident 
which occurred thirty years ago does not in the least help the west to sell one bushel of wheat in the English market to-day. In my estimation the difficulty with my right hon. friend is that he puts too much faith in the policy of protection and in his own blunt way of presenting it. I think we must all admit that the problems facing the world to-day are over-production and under-marketing. The world has been producing too much and has not been able to get a wide enough distribution for that product. That is the problem, Mr. Speaker, but that was not the problem in the year 1902. We must face the problem of 1931. The great need is not so much to increase home production as to dispose of our surplus products in the markets of the world. My hon. friends talk about a policy of high protection but when they propose to grant a preference to some one it means they are further protecting someone else. That is their idea of a proper fiscal policy for Canada, and they call it the Canada-first policy. We know that the Conservative party has always claimed a monopoly of patriotism. It was a great Conservative leader who said once, "A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die," as if he was the only person to whom these things were likely to happen. That hon. gentleman propounded a tariff policy and was pleased to call it a national policy insinuating that any other procedure in fiscal matters would be anti-national just because it did not happen to be the policy with which he agreed. We had a similar situation in 1911. At that time I was not very old but I have not forgotten the discussions which were reported in the Montreal Star during the reciprocity campaign. We remember reading the words "Under which flag will you live?" Who is going to contend seriously that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier had won the election of 1911 we would not still be living under the British flag? The same applies to the present situation. My right hon. friend has been pleased to call his policy the Canada-first policy. But who will deny that any statesman in this country has not primarily the interests of Canada at heart? This is not a matter of pronouncement, it is a matter of performance and the means to be employed. For myself I do not believe that a policy of high protection is a good Canada-first policy. I do not believe in placing Canada behind high and impenetrable tariff walls, expecting to sell to all the countries of the world and refusing to buy from any. That is not a Canada-first policy. That is a policy of Canada alone, Canada ignoring the rest of the world, Canada isolated from all the

The Address-Mr. Turnbull
markets of the world. We too want a Canada-first policy, but we do not want to isolate our country behind the high walls of protection. We want Canada to face the world in all confidence, relying on her vast natural resources and the good will and resourcefulness of her people. In a word, we want Canada to trade with other countries, to sell her products to them in exchange for their products. I repeat, we too want a Canada-first policy- a policy that will place our porducts in all the markets of the world.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to join those hon. members who have already spoken in their congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porte-ous) upon the able manner in which they acquitted themselves. May I also extend my congratulations to you, sir, and to the house on Your Honour's recovery from your recent indisposition, a recovery which makes it possible for us during this session to sit under your presidency. And may I also congratulate the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) who during the recess had conferred upon him the distinguished honour of the presidency of the United Farmers of Alberta.
I should like further to congratulate the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the recovery of his belief in the principle of unity. And might I congratulate also the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), who by reason of the kindness of the recent government to his constituency was able to get along without a special session of parliament. I may remark that if his constituency and Montreal generally were so well taken care of with millions of dollars, there were other parts of the country that were not quite so well served, but it may be a subject for congratulation, for had it not been for those extensive votes on the eve of the general election we might not have had the privilege of listening to his delightful speech this afternoon.
I am glad the Liberal party is returning to the principle of unity and harmony. They never ran an election in western Canada, at least within the last twenty years, without the most bitter appeals to sectionalism. Elections in western Canada have been fought by my hon. friends opposite on the basis of telling our foreign-born citizens that if the Conservatives should be elected to office in the federal or in the provincial field their churches would be burned down, their school houses closed, their homesteads taken away from them, and they themselves deported to the land from which they came. They also
resorted to the tactics of frightening the foreign-bom element by stories of Egyptian and Turkish wars should the Conservatives be returned to power. To these possible wars they have now added the danger of a war with England. Well, there is at least one feature about that war if it ever materializes -and my right hon. friend from Prince Albert does not think it will-they will not be able to accuse us of lending our Canadian forces to aid Great Britain.
Yesterday we heard from the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) what I might call a confession of repentance by the Hon. Mr. Gardiner, the Liberal leader in the province of Saskatchewan. That statement was delivered at Portage la Prairie, shortly after Mr. Gardiner became premier of the province. But I fear that soon after he must have been disciplined by his leader in Ottawa, because he very speedily abandoned that profession, and in the fall of 1926 we find that the right hon. member for Prince Albert, instead of trying to promote unity and harmony in this country, was. trying to build up a bloc, preaching the doctrine of a solid Saskatchewan and a solid Quebec to govern Canada.


Mr. VALLANCE:: It cannot be done, and you know it.


Franklin White Turnbull: You know it.


John Vallance: Sixty-five and twenty-one-that is eighty-six out of two hundred and forty five.


Franklin White Turnbull: I am prepared to take care of all helpful interruptions even during my forty minutes, but I commend some hon. gentlemen opposite to the attention of the Ottawa Citizen. Now I wish to quote from the Saskatoon Daily Star of August 9, 1926, a paper supporting my hon. friends opposite. It reported the then Prime Minister of Canada, now the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition, as follows:
When Quebec and Saskatchewan get together at a common table stating their points of view and coming to a common decision, we have the keynote to unity and success.
One of the bright features of the last election, apart from the replacement of a government of vacillation by a government of action, was the fact that the solid blocs, gained by misrepresentation as I have described, were broken up, and Saskatchewan and Quebec are now sitting together at the council table, not alone but in common with the other provinces of Canada. It is only by
The Address-Mr. Turnbull

decisions arrived at under such conditions that the unity and harmony we all desire can be achieved.
To satisfy this house that Mr. Gardiner's action must have received the disapproval of his leader in Ottawa, I find that he did not follow along the lines of his confession of repentance very long. During the last session of the Saskatchewan legislature we had him making declarations in favour of the so-called sessionists. Let me quote from the Regina Leader-Post of January 13, 1931, which reports Mr. Gardiner as follows:
We have more in common with our natural customers in Britain than with this group of bloated plutocrats in Toronto and Montreal who fatten on our labour, declared the Liberal chieftain. I am far more concerned with keeping the empire together than in the relation between Regina and Montreal.
That is how our friends in Saskatchewan uphold the doctrines of unity that are preached so eloquently in the halls of Ottawa.
Let me say that there is no substantial secessionist movement in western Canada, and the people there, when they read the press, will resent the suggestion from the leader of the Liberal party in this house that the west is secessionist or that the people in the west are.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He never said so.


Franklin White Turnbull: If my hon. friends will turn to page 25 of Hansard they will find the words.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Will the hon. member
state what the leader of the opposition said?


Hugh Guthrie: Read page 25 of Hansard.


Franklin White Turnbull: He said this:
If 'western Canada feels the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite are not suited to the needs of -western Canada, then it is not for the people of western Canada to talk about secession or anything of that kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: Go on.


Franklin White Turnbull: The only talk of secession in western Canada arose from a meeting of six gentlemen in the town of Wilkie in the constituency of my hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance).


John Vallance: And it is not correct.


Franklin White Turnbull: And the only person
who knows about secession in western Canada is the hon. gentleman who represents that constituency. With regard to the Imperial conference I have very little to say. For

the first time within my recollection, in the history of imperial conferences, and I speak subject to correction, there were taken to that gathering representatives of the grain marketing interests of Canada, including representatives of the farming interests and western economists, in the persons of Mr. John I. McFarland, a retired grain merchant, Dr. D. A. MacGibbon, vice-chairman of the Board of Grain Commissioners, Dr. W. W. Swanson, head of the department of Economics of the university of Saskatchewan, and Mr. A. J. McPhail, president of the central selling agency of the Canadian wheat pool. There was at least an attempt on the part of those who represented Canada at that conference to solve the wheat marketing problem of western Canada, and until that conference is closed no one has any right to say that those wheat marketing problems will not be solved.
So far as the conduct of the Prime Minister at that conference is concerned, and so far as his proposals go, I can only say that they had the approval of the financial interests of Great Britain. They were accepted by the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, and they had the support of all the other dominion premiers at the conference, the only exception being the Prime Minister of the motherland. And they had the support of these professors and economists who went with the Prime Minister from Ottawa.
I have here a statement made in Toronto by Professor Swanson, reported under date of N ovember 28, 1930. He is not a follower of the Conservative party, but he is reported to have said:
Dr. Swanson declared himself a born free trader, but nevertheless he was actively in favour of Premier Bennett's preference offer. In supporting it in London, he declared: "I conceived that I was doing more service to the ideal world freedom of trade than I could have accomplished in any other manner-I felt I was assisting at the mobilization of the greatest army in history for the penetration of unjust trade barriers raised by foreign powers."
And this out and out free trader added:
The Imperial conference was an outstanding personal success for the Prime Minister of Canada.
For my part I would rather accept the opinion of Doctor Swanson than anything I have heard here since the opening of the session. But let us discuss Canada, because it is in the present condition of Canada that we are interested. I have listened, during the few days the house has 'been in session, for some suggestion from hon. gentlemen opposite as to what cure could be put into effect for the known economic ills of the country and I have

The Address-Mr. Turnbull
heard no broad statement of economic policy. There has come no ray of hope from Liberal ranks, but merely criticism and sniping. I have heard an attempted description of Conservative policies, and having listened to them I have only this to say, that if my hon. friends across the aisle were no more successful in describing their own policies to the electors of Canada than they have been in describing Conservative policies to this house, I do not wonder that they sit to the left of Mr. Speaker.
There is no doubt that conditions in western Canada are not as good as they might be, but it is also true that they are not as bad as they might be either; and they are far from being as bad as my hon. friends have been painting them. Western Canada is not whining about blue ruin or talking in desperation. Western Canada is not starving. But western Canada to-day realizes that it is up against an economic struggle and its people, with their backs to the wall, are digging in and making the best of the situation. Things are not so bad in the west as you might expect them. They are bad in spots it is true, because there are areas in southern Saskatchewan where there were crop failures in two successive years, where the farmers had not a bushel of grain and had no feed for their cattle. These conditions are beyond the control of any government; they were beyond the control of the government af my hon. friend. But no guaranteed price of wheat would be of advantage to people who had no wheat, and this constituted a large part of our trouble in Saskatchewan. After all, the question is not exactly what are conditions in western Canada but, to some extent, whose responsibility is it that conditions in the west are as they are. And, after that, the question is, what steps shall be taken to remedy these conditions. Personally, as representative of the capital city of Saskatchewan, I am listening anxiously for any word from any side of the house that will point a ray of hope and progress to this Dominion, and I have heard nothing at all from my friends across the way except the suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) that we should have a depreciated currency in this country.
What has happened to our markets in western Canada, and under whose dominion have these things occurred? I have in my hand a table showing what happened to the exports between 1920 and 1929. There was a decrease in exports of mutton and lamb of 340 per cent; in butter, of 240 per cent; in eggs, of 140 per cent; in sheep and lambs, of 90 per cent; in hog products, of 80 per "SUO-8
cent; in dressed beef, of 61 per cent; in live cattle, of 52 per cent, and in cheese, of 12 per cent. And the fact that we have had a decrease of over 100 per cent in certain items-


An hon. MEMBER:: How could there be?


Franklin White Turnbull: -is explained by the circumstances that we went off an export basis and heavily on to an import basis.


James Layton Ralston: Now for production.


Franklin White Turnbull: That net result of the reduction in these items was an unfavourable balance against us of $257,000,000 a year; and, as my hon. friends say, markets once lost are a little bit difficult to regain. Now it was between 1920 and 1929, under nine years of Liberal rule, that these markets for farm products were lost. We lost our markets for wheat. We had a declining price for wheat. But the price of wheat did not start to drop on the 28th of July; it dropped twice as much in the preceding year as it has done since. However, the price of wheat started to drop as a result of a gradually increasing piling-up of surpluses not only in Canada but in other wheat producing countries in the world. While these wheat surpluses were piling up, the Department of Trade and Commerce, which should have been interesting itself in our markets, was not paying any attention to what was happening .to the farmers of Canada. Other countries of the world were alive to this situation, and back in 1927 a conference was called in Rome by Benito Mussolini as a result of which the vineyards in Italy were torn up and planted with wheat, and what Mr. Mussolini called the battle of wheat began. It extended into France and Germany, and while we had a trade treaty with France this department stood supinely by and allowed France to shut our wheat completely out of their markets. The same thing took place in Germany and other European countries. During nine years of Liberal rule fifty-three trade treaties were entered into, but not one sold a single bushel of wheat. The Liberal party told the farmers of western Canada how interested they were in their problems and how much the Conservative party was the friend of the big interests. That "farmer against big interests" cry has been part of the history of western Canada for many years. The Department of Trade and Commerce allowed our markets one by one to slip from our grasp.

The Address-Mr. Turnbull

What has this department done? On March 14, 1929, the then Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) said:
The Department of Trade and Commerce is not exercised over the sale of such commodities as wheat, because those commodities find their own markets; but we are interested in assisting tbe sale of manufactured products.
That statement is made by a member of a party who tell us that the Conservatives are the friends of the manufacturers and big interests while the Liberals are the friends of the poor down-trodden farmer. The hon. member went on to say, as appears on page 948 of Hansard of last year:
Without unduly flattering the officers of my department, I believe we have representing the Dominion throughout the world as intelligent and aggressive a group of trade commissioners as any country could wish to possess.
It was not the fault of his personnel that these markets disappeared. Speaking on the New Zealand trade treaty, he says at page 946:
Do w-e want to get $15,000,000 worth of manufactured goods into New Zealand? If we do want to trade with New Zealand there is only one thing that New Zealand can sell us.
Those are the people who claimed to be the friends of the farmer, but how did they take care of them? On page 944 of Hansard the hon. member is reported as saying:
Providence provides opportunities for an industrious man to profit by the bounties provided.
Trade treaties were made for the betterment of the manufacturers and Canadian markets were given over to the farm products of other countries, while Providence took care of the poor farmer.
In the campaign literature used during the last elections in Saskatchewan it was stated that we had lost all our markets for wheat with the exception of one, the market in Great Britain, and that if the Dunning budget did not succeed in selling our wheat in that country then all was lost. That was the only remedy that the Liberal party could provide for our ills, and if that failed they were unable to provide anything else. The people of western Canada said that they would not take a chance on a party which had only one remedy left.
I have in my hand the Dominion report on the grain trade of Canada for the crop year ending July 31, 1926, wherein is listed the names and places to which we shipped grain. On page 146 appears a table showing the exports of Canadian wheat and wheat flour from United States Atlantic seaboard ports, by countries of destination, during the crop year ended July, 1926, and this table shows

that we shipped from United States seaboard ports to forty-six different countries in the world. If the campaign literature of the Liberal party told the truth, then within five years we have lost forty-five markets for our wheat. That is a wonderful record for any government which professes to be interested in the farmer. We made fifty-three trade treaties in nine years and lost forty-five markets in five years. Of course the statement that we had only one market left was exaggerated, as was most of the campaign literature; we had more markets than that. Canada's position to-day is not due to the lack of intelligence on the part of the trade commissioners but rather that their attention was directed towards manufactured goods. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) did not know what the situation was, because he is reported in the Regina Leader-Post of July 19, 1930, as follows:
Canada, in her effort to develop trade, had made certain treaties. "When the treaty was entered into with New Zealand, there was about as much thought of butter coming from New Zealand as there is of grain coming from Great Britain," Mr. King asserted.
The Department of Trade and Commerce negotiated a treaty which resulted in 50,000,000 pounds of butter coming into .this country within one year, as well as considerable quantities in other years, without considering the posibility that that butter would come into this country.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Will the hon. member tell the house when the agreement to which he has referred was entered into with New Zealand, or whether there is such an agreement?


An hon. MEMBER:: An order in council.


Franklin White Turnbull: By order in council of December, 1925, the advantages of the Australian treaty were extended to New Zealand, which is another instance of the Liberal lack of intelligence as to trade conditions.
No one regrets more than I do that conditions are not as they should be in western Canada, but these conditions did not arise from anything which has happened since July 2S, 1930; they are the result of an economic policy which has existed for years. What would you think of a man who started a loaded toboggan down a hill and then blamed the fellow who came upon the scene when the toboggan had almost reached the bottom because he could not stop it before he hit the bottom? That is exactly the position of hon. gentlemen opposite with reference to the decrease in the price of our products.

The Address-Mr. Turnbull
The west is turning to the production of butter and dairy products. The production for January and February of 1931 has increased by 80 per cent over the production for January and February of 1930. I agree with hon, gentlemen that the price of butter is not what it should be, but they must remember that there is a considerable amount of New Zealand butter still in storage. This butter came in before the order in council was revoked on October 12. The suggestion has been offered that the people of western Canada should go into mixed farming, but I believe that to do that on a large scale would be disastrous until such time as markets for our products can be developed, which must be done by orderly marketing in the consuming countries of the world. We are not getting our fair share of the markets, and we must have a steady supply of quality goods to offer. When that happens, then mixed farming in western Canada will follow.
I think there should be some decrease in the western domestic freight rate. If the domestic rate to the coast on wheat and wheat products were reduced to somewhere near the export rate it would provide an outlet for considerable feed from the province of Alberta and that would be of inestimable benefit to the farmers of the Fraser River valley and to the poultry raisers of Vancouver and other parts of British Columbia. Some of those things might be done. We might get out and try to sell our wheat on quality for a little while instead of letting it find its own market. We have experiments conducted in Winnipeg to show the difference between a loaf made with European flour and a loaf made with Canadian flour, with varying quantities of Canadian flour in the mix. An expression of the difference between those loaves would, I think, go a long way towards bringing back to Canada the place it once had in the markets of the world, because no other wheat has the same qualities for bread-making as Canadian wheat has. We have a quality product; let us sell on quality, working back into our markets by negotiation and business merchandising.
I hope the Hudson Bay railway will assist us in the export of live stock, and I trust with respect to wheat we shall take advantage of the grain congress which is to be held in Regina in 1932 to invite the international experts of the world to meet us there and discuss the wheat marketing situation of the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Including Russia.


Franklin White Turnbull: If we can get Russia
to carry out her agreement, yes.
This is no time for talking about party politics in particular or for talking about desperate situations or for getting into any panic. Canada is one of the finest countries in the world. It is true it has been bedeviled for nine years by a government that paid little or no attention to its needs, being more devoted to stirring up sectional jealousies in their desire to gain power than endeavouring to attain their objective by a business presentation of the facts. We have in this country huge supplies of raw products, depleted to some extent, it is true, by a wasteful method of handling them. We have abundant and cheap water power, also allowed, in places, to be over-capitalized. We have transportation facilities by land and water unequalled by any other country in the world. We have abundant supplies of capital. Canadian money to the amount of $2,000,000,000 is invested abroad because the people who had it placed more confidence in the governments of foreign countries than they did in the government of Canada. We have an industrious and intelligent population. We have all that to draw upon, and with a government of action in power, a government that the people can trust, the future is one of hope. If we do our part in trying to guide Canada along business lines, Canada will again take her place as the most prosperous nation of the world and her people will have reaped a reward of welfare and prosperity that should have been theirs during the nine years that have gone by.
One of the most impressive features of campaign literature that I had during the last election was a booklet entitled From Gloom and Depression to Unparalleled Prosperity, and all you had to do was to take the book up, read the title page, tell the people who the authors of it were and ask them if they felt the unparalleled prosperity that this book so glowingly depicted. There has been a change in Canada; there is a feeling of prosperity coming over the people. I want to congratulate my friends of the manufacturing interests-and when I say my friends of the manufacturing interests, I mean the labourers who work in those factories-who have obtained employment as a result of what we did at the last session of parliament. We in western Canada are big and broad enough to extend to those labourers our congratulations that they have been able to find work. We expect in return that we shall have the sympathy and assistance of our friends in eastern Canada

The Address-Mr. McPhee
in an attempt to improve conditions in western Canada; and when the east pulls with the west instead of being divided against the west, when we have cooperation between the manufacturer and the farmer instead of the dissension that has been too much preached in this country, then we shall solve the difficulties of this Canada of ours and place her once again on the pedestal where she belongs.


Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate so far, and the gesture of the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous) to the French Canadian people of Canada in foregoing his right to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne, as he had been asked to do in favour of the member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier) is something that will commend itself to every fair-minded citizen of this country. I was wondering-and I make this statement in view of the remarks to which I have just listened from the member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) in connection with sectional appeals-what the Conservative representatives from Saskatchewan think of that gesture. One of the appeals, and the strongest appeal, made to the voters of Saskatchewan in the last three or four years by both the Conservative party and the Conservative press, was that under Liberal administration there was French domination m Canada. Of course there was nothing to it. Thanks to wise administration in the past, the two races, the Anglo-Saxon and the French, have lived side by side in perfect peace and harmony. The monument in Quebec to Wolfe and Montcalm, the victor and the vanquished, the conqueror and the conquered, is the best evidence of unity to be found in any country in the world. The major credit for that is due to that grand old French Canadian who, for over thirty years, led the Liberal party in this country. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's faith in Canada and in British institutions is nowhere better expressed than in his address ddivered during the celebration of three hundred years of French life in Canada. This is what he said:
As I advance in years I appreciate the more the wisdom of that British Constitution under which I was born and brought up, and under which 1 have grown old, which has given to the various positions of the empire their separate free governments. It is our proud boast that Canada is the freest country in the world. It is our proud boast that in this country liberty of all kinds-civil and religious liberty-flourish to the highest degree.
The hon. member for North Grey is therefore to be complimented on his recognition

of the rights of the French people in this country. What about his colleagues from the province of Saskatchewan? The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) has introduced this matter, and he will pardon me if I follow him. One of the cries raised by the Conservative party and the Conservative press in western Canada, as I said before, has been French domination of Canada under Liberal government. I have in my hand a news item that appeared in the Orange Sentinel, and I do not think the hon. member for Regina will dispute it. It reads:
Strongly protest bilingual stamps. Regina brethren call on M.P.'g to raise matter at Ottawa.
The new bilingual special delivery postage stamp issued by Hon. Arthur Sauve, Postmaster-General in the Bennett government, came to the front as an issue at the annual dinner of Sam Hughes Orange lodge in the Champlain hotel here on October 30.
The attack was launched in the course of a speech by R.W. Bro. R. J. Gibson, Saskatchewan, Past Grand Master, who called upon F. W. Turnbull, M.P. for Regina, and Dr. W. D. Cowan, M.P. for Long Lake, who were sitting at the head table, to fight the bilingual stamp policy of the new government, and to stand true to the principles "for which we believe they have been standing."


Mr. GOTT:: What paper is that from?


George Washington McPhee: The Orange Sentinel. I
have here also the editorial page of the Regina Star, a Conservative paper in Saskatchewan, which in its issue of November 1, 1930, just a little more than four months ago, dealing with the issue of bilingual stamps and the publication of government pamphlets in French, says:
There is not a tittle of authorization of the French language for postal forms, postage and revenue stamps, radio applications, government reports and departmental forms. These are all without legal authorization. It is an abuse of the processes of thought and an insult to the intelligence of the English-speaking people of Canada, for Hon. Mr. Veniot to suggest that his illegal bilingual issue of stamps, and his other various efforts to force the French language illegally down the throats of the nonFrench people of Canada will "tend to bind more closely together the two races."
Then listen to this:
The mandate which Premier Bennett got from the west was for the cessation of these unconstitutional and offensive efforts at bilingual propaganda through the machinery of the federal government, equally with his mandate on the economic issue. On this matter of bilingualism the people of the west expect to see their wishes respected.
Now will my hon. friend say that it is the
Liberal party that makes sectional appeals? What has my hon. friend from Regina to say; what have other members from Saskatchewan

The Address-Mr. McPhee
sitting on the Conservative side of the house, who were elected as a result of that very racial cry, who have subscribed to that very doctrine, to say with regard to this highly to be commended gesture of the hon. member for North Grey to the French-speaking people of Canada?
I wish to address myself now more particularly to the problems that afflict the people of western Canada as a result of the actions of the present government. The thought that is uppermost in the mind of every farmer in western Canada and of everyone dependent upon the farmer is, what can be done to improve conditions? What can be done to get the farmer out of the slough of despond in which he finds himself placed at the present time? Before one suggests a remedy, one must diagnose the disease. One must examine all the circumstances which have led to the farmer finding himself in the position in which he finds himself to-day. I say, Mr. Speaker, that first and last the trouble is due to a false fiscal policy. The countries of the world, with the exception of Great Britain, since the war more particularly, have gone in for a drunken orgy of protection. Great Britain of all countries in the world has refused to listen to the protectionist cry, and what has been the result? During the past three years Great Britain sold $10,000,000,000 of her own products to protectionist countries, overcoming the disadvantage of high tariff walls by the cheapness and superiority of her goods. The exports of the cotton industry of Lancashire exceeded the combined exports of cotton of the United States, Germany, France, Japan and Czechoslovakia. Great Britain to-day is building over one-half of all the ships constructed in the world. During the first nine months of this year 34 per cent of Great Britain's trade was with Europe, 21 per cent with Asia and 18 per cent with Africa. These facts are the more enlightening when considered in relation to the action of the Prime Minister of Canada both before and at the Imperial conference-before, when he increased the duties against British manufactured goods, and at the conference, when he demanded that the British people impose a tax on foodstuffs in order to give Canada a preference in the British market.
Sir George Paish, the eminent British economist., three years ago wrote an article which exemplifies what I have said with regard to Great Britain and protection. I think it is worth while to put it on Hansard. He says:
Nations dependent upon world markets for the sale of their products are in almost as much danger as nations which must buy foreign products in order to support their peoples.
The agricultural industries of all nations, and more particularly of what are known as the young countries, are heavily in debt, and if they cannot sell their products in anything like the present quantity, and can sell the reduced quantity only at a much lower level of prices, their distress will indeed be great.
But if these agricultural countries will not buy manufactured or other goods in sufficient quantity to enable the manufacturing nations to buy their foodstuffs, raw materials, and tobacco, how can they sell their products?
And if the agriculturists of the world cannot sell their products in sufficient quantity at reasonable prices, how can they buy anything like the quantity of goods they have bought in recent years from the manufacturers of their own countries? They cannot, and in turn, the manufacturers and merchants of all nations will be in difficulties.
Thus, with all the world in debt as never before, the present policy of the nations, of high tariffs and trade restrictions, means a complete breakdown of the great machine of credit and of trade.
But such a policy, and such a situation, cannot be permitted to continue. Its consequences will be so disastrous that not only will the business machine be wrecked, but the political machine as well.
The remedy, and the only effective remedy, for the present dangerous situation is to remove all the artificial tariff and other barriers to trade and to permit the products of the world to be bought and sold without hindrances of any kind.
Experience proves conclusively that a policy of unhampered trade will bring about so great an expansion of income in all countries that the present credit difficulties of nations and individuals will be successfully and permanently surmounted.
Only by ' reversing the present universal policy of high tariffs, and pursuing without further delay the policy of tariff reduction, so strongly urged by the International Chamber of Commerce and by the great bankers and industrialists of Europe. America and this country, as well as by the Brussels financial conference and by the world economic conference convened by the League of Nations, can the nations overcome the grave danger which now confronts them.
Then we have this statement by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Snowden, in a speech which he delivered at the time of the Imperial economic conference:
Introduction of a tariff system into this country would strike at the purity of the [DOT]political life of this nation. Parliament would become a sink of corruption. Members of parliament would go there not to represent national interests but pledged to support the selfish interest of particular industries. Once begin a policy of protection and you are on a slippery slope that leads to a bottomless pit.
Following up my argument against the policy of my right hon. friend opposite, I was very much impressed by an 'article written by a well-known industrialist and published in a businessman's magazine. Undoubtedly the author of this article is intimately known

The Address-Mr. McPhee
to my right hon. friend as he is the head of the great Swedish Match Company which operates in Poland Peru, Greece, Ecuador, Esthonia and many other countries of the world. That gentleman is reported as follows:
I do not know how to commence an expression of my business philosophy in any simpler fashion than to say that the world is swiftly easting off its provincial habit of mind. Nations will remain nations, of course, but the minds of men are broadening to an international horizon. In this machine age we produce so enormously, so rapidly, that home markets-national markets-are not enough. We must go abroad to sell a large part of our production. Tell me, to what nation this does not apply? To all, we know.
Well then, how is business gained? Do we win customers by blows and abuse or by smiles and little acts of friendship and service? The question is absurd, of course. Yet nations must act precisely as individuals act if they are to achieve proportionate results.
I may be pardoned, I trust, for referring to your tariff. I doubt if America has done anything in the past twenty years to stir up more ill feeling and resentment abroad-all over the world-than she has done by putting up this high tariff wall over which European business can hardly climb. From my viewpoint, seeing the business world as a whole, knowing the feeling abroad and informed of the reprisals that are in the making, I say that your tariff is a very dangerous piece of legislation for the good of your business. You are inviting costly trade wars.
Upon that occasion he was addressing himself to the American people.
Now I come to the Canadian agricultural situation. Last July and previous to the election the right hon. gentleman who leads the Conservative party stated that if that party were put into power he immediately would put into effect a high protective tariff by which the farmers of this country would be benefited by increased prices for their wheat and for their dairy produce. He was going to blast his way into the markets of the world. In order to keep the records straight perhaps I had better read his exact words:
Listen, you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada, you have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
What has been the result of this blasting? As a result of the iniquitous tariff legislation enacted last September, whereby the ordinary flow of trade has been hampered, the western farmer of to-day is selling his wheat for one-half the price he received last July. He sells his

eggs at the rate of two dozens for twenty-five cents, butter fat is sold at ten to twelve cents per pound less than it was last July. The price of wheat is below the cost of production and the farmer in western Canada cannot exist under the present protective tariff. The farmer is a primary producer and his products by any stretch of the imagination cannot be consumed in Canada. He must depend upon the markets of the world. If those markets are closed to him because of high protection there must be stagnation such as we in western Canada are experiencing. Reading an Associated Press despatch after the visit of my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman), I was amused to find he had stated that in western Canada he had found a strong turning toward the principle of protection. With whom did my hon. friend consult?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: The best people out
there.
Mr. VALLANCE; The gophers.


George Washington McPhee: My hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) says it must have been the gophers. Well, for the benefit of those hon. gentlemen from the east who might not be particularly acquainted with the little animal, I may say that in many respects there is similarity between a gopher and a good Tory. The gopher is a sleek little animal and he pilfers the farmers' grain. In the day of his greatest pilfering he develops a paunch and I would say that gopherism and Toryism might be synonymous terms. They are synonymous because both are pests and humbugs. As a matter of fact if I were asked to choose between the gopher and the Tory I believe I would prefer the gopher because its depredations would be by instinct and not by design.
Having turned down the trade with Great Britain, the European countries and the United States, my right hon. friend the leader of the government endeavoured to negotiate with China a sale of Canadian wheat. I remember very well his address delivered in the city of Regina on December 30 last. Two weeks previously the speech had been heralded by the Tory newspapers of western Canada. We were told that he would deliver this great message of deliverance. It happened that around that time there was a by-election in the district of Estevan in the province of Saskatchewan, and the heralded visit of the right hon. gentleman to western Canada was most timely. The present leader of the government made his speech and I happened to

The Address-Mr. McPhee
be one of several in the neighbourhood who listened over the radio. Here was the message: "My fellow Canadians who are now within sound of my voice, just at this moment the Canadian ambassador to Tokyo, Mr. Marler, is on his way to China to negotiate the sale of your wheat with that great nation." When I heard the right hon. gentleman make that statement over the radio I thought how convenient for him it was that Mr. Marler happened to be in Japan, because I remember an occasion in this house two or three years ago when an estimate was brought down for the establishment of a Japanese legation, and I remember particularly that the measure was opposed by my right hon. friend in a vigorous speech. It was opposed also by one of his colleagues who moved that the item be reduced from $50,000 to $10,000. If my right hon. friend had had his wish on that occasion there would have been no legation in Japan; Mr. Marler would not have been there to go to China on this mission of selling Canadian wheat. What happened after Mr. Marler's visit to China? How much wheat was sold as a result of that visit? Here was a man who was going to enter into a treaty with a great nation to sell Canadian wheat, and after his return we read his statement as published in the press:
At present China is purchasing large quantities of wheat from Australia which owing to the decline in exchange rates, Australians will be able to sell as much as four dollars a short ton under Canadian prices.
This fact, Mr. Marler added, eliminates every possibility of Canada and the United States competing with Australia in the Chinese market during the current season.
Then we have a Mr. Lockhart, the adviser of the Chinese government in railway matters, giving an interview in the month of January last, which is reported in a Victoria newspaper as follows:
Primarily an agricultural country, China's vast areas will produce more than enough wheat for its own people, and you must look at her as a competitor when she brings the fertile plains of Manchuria to the state of full production.	.
In this connection the silver loan which is now suggested might be used to excellent advantage, provided it could be applied honestly and straightforwardly to put the country on a productive basis. However, that is not likely to happen. If all the contributory nations would consent to place the fund's administration in the hands of a select committee of the league of nations, the difficulty might be solved to a great extent, hut such a suggestion will probably not be accepted.
At any rate, 1 cannot believe it will be good business to extend this loan unless it can be preguarded. Ho question of sentimentality should enter into this negotiation.
Touching on Canada's proposal to participate in this suggested credit of several million dollars in silver, Mr. Lockhart stated:
If Canada's portion was advanced contingent upon wheat sales alone, it could not achieve its object.
Later on we have the Chinese Minister of Finance informing my right hon. friend and the world at large that China has all the silver she wants, that her banks are full of silver, and to pour more silver into them would not in any way improve the purchasing power of her people. He said:
China owes so much that she does not wish for any further loan either of gold or of silver.
And so this great message of deliverance, like the pre-election promises, amounts to nothing. But the farmer's wheat is selling in western Canada at the lowest price in our history, away below the cost of production. Truly my right hon. friend and his associates are on the slippery slope that leads to the bottomless pit. And yet he is still blasting his way to trade. At this point I might put on record for his benefit a poem composed by a former Conservative colleague of his in the territorial council in the early days, but who is now one of his most uncompromising opponents. Entitled "The Blaster Blasted," it is in the following words:
There once was a blaster who blasted;
From blasting he could not refrain; Opportunity came and he passed it,
And all of his blasting was vain.
Friends and foes were alike flabbergasted By this "builder of castles in Spain";
He nailed the wrong flag to the masthead, His blast was no boon, 'twas a bane.
Let us pray that the blasts of this blaster, Like hail on a field of ripe grain,
Portentous of loss and disaster May bring nothing worse in its train.
High tariffs impede trade. Under the Dunning budget the purchasing power of this country would have been improved because we would have had free of duty a large number of imports from Great Britain. Reference was made the other day to the good-will offering of preference to the mother country. I think the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) questioned my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition with regard to it. I remember during the election campaign reading an article from an old country newspaper which illustrates the fact that lower tariffs mean increased trade and increased good-will between Canada and the motherland. Right after the Dunning budget was brought down last May the city of Bristol put on a Canada Week campaign-

The Address-Mr. McPhee
For the benefit of my hon. friends opposite who doubt the wisdom of lower tariffs and freer trade, let me point out what that gesture on the part of Canada meant to our trade in Great Britain at that time. This is the article to which I refer:
"Canada Week" designed as part of the publicity campaign that is bringing to the notice of British people the immense variety of Canada's products has just been successfully held in Bristol, England.
Five hundred leading stores gave up their windows to attractive displays of Canadian goods and tens of thousands of the public entered for a competition based on the varying popularity of what they saw or purchased.
Importers and wholesalers report a marked increase in demand and it may be said that Canada is definitely on the map so far as the west of England is concerned. u The lord mayor and city council gave the "Canada Week" the fullest civic support. Premises were taken in the heart of the city for the headquarters of the campaign to "boost" Canadian products and here thousands of samples were sold every day.
Canada must abandon her protective tariff. Wider markets and freer trade are the only solution for the western Canadian farmer. If the present protective policy is persisted in western Canada will demand a free port of entry at Churchill. I propose to have more to say on that before the close of the session. Not secession, not sovietism, not communism, not bolshevism, will be the solution of western Canada's difficulties. We have no place in Canada for that sort, of thing. We are a British country with a love for law and order, and nothing can be gained by resistance to law and order. The remedy is an immediate abandonment of the policy of protection in favour of a policy of wider markets and freer trade. Under such a policy this country will take its place among the nations of the world, a place which Providence intended it should take by virtue of the almost illimitable natural resources which have been placed at our disposal.
^ Mr. F. T. SHAVER (Stormont):	Mr. Speaker, as one of the new members of the house I shall endeavour as briefly as possible to discuss a few of .the problems that have engaged our attention so far in this debate. But before attempting to do that I should like to congratulate the two hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. In this corner of the house we are pleased to have a young man with the ability and power of expression of my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Porteous). As the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in congratulating him on his speech, he has youth 
on his side, in addition to his capacity for making a good speech, and I predict for him a successful future in this house.
I am also very glad to have an opportunity of congratulating the hon. -member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier). I was particularly pleased with his remarks because he represents a constituency that in many respects is similar to my own-a bilingua' constituency. I was very glad to hear of the amity and good-will that obtain among all classes of people in the county which he represents, and it is a pleasure to me to bear testimony to the fact that that is exactly the condition obtaining in the county of Stormont.
At this juncture I should like to invite hon. members and particularly those who live in remote portions of Canada, when the roads are good in the spring, to come out over the Prescott highway or the highway to Morris-burg some Saturday or Sunday, after they have been to church in the morning, and visit the county of Stormont, an old historic county which was described by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), -when he visited it for the first time as leader of the opposition, as being a cross-section of the economic and national life of Canada. It is a cross-section of the national life of Canada, because it contains the various elements that make up the population of our country. We have a large number of those citizens who first came up the St. Lawrence-and it shows how time is passing, for it will soon be four centuries since they first came-and founded the civilization of Christianity in this northern part of the North American continent. We have also in the front townships a large number of those heroic souls, some of them of German extraction, others of Scottish, Irish and English descent, who nearly a century and a half ago left comfortable homes and came up into this wilderness in the north that they might remain under the British flag. We have too in the county of Stormont a great many people who came from various parts of the British Isles, or are descendants of people who came from the British Isles and from practically every country in Europe.
I am glad to say that in the town of Cornwall, a large industrial town with a population, including the suburbs, of about 17,000, we have at the present time serving his second term as mayor a gentleman of the Jewish faith. We have in that council members who are both French and English speaking, and there is in the town of Cornwall and the county of Stormont the greatest spirit of harmony and good will among all classes. That is the spirit we need in Can-

The Address-Mr. Shaver
ada, and I do deplore the fact that the hon. gentleman who preceded me attempted to raise any sectional feeling among the various classes of opinion in the country in which we live.
I shall endeavour to deal just for a few moments with some of the problems that have been raised. I was very much interested, as a new member naturally would be, in hearing the discusison during this debate as well as in the debate which took place in the short session, and in hearing members from various sections of Canada explain the difficulties that afflict their particular localities and the problems in which they are especially interested. I was particularly interested in the debate which took place between the right hon. the Prime Minister and the right hon. the leader of the opposition. The leader of the opposition made a very long speech. I am sure many of us envy him his remarkable fluency of expression, his ability to take a shopworn or commonplace expression and surround it with such a multiplicity of words as to make it look fairly passable. I should like to contrast with that the clear and incisive reasoning of the Prime Minister, who in one third the time answered completely every argument that was presented by the leader of the opposition. I noticed one statement made by the leader of the opposition near the beginning of his address regarding the spirit of harmony. He said that during the time he was Prime Minister:
There was a steady decrease of taxation, and all was accompanied by a spirit of harmony, unity and good-will between the governments of the provinces and the government of the Dominion, a spirit such as had not prevailed for many years previously.
It seemed very strange to me that he should make a statement of that kind. I remember that in the months just preceding the election there was not that particular spirit of harmony and good will between the government which he headed and the governments of some of the provinces which happened to be under Conservative administration, and which could not expect even a plugged nickle from the Prime Minister of that day for the relief of unemployment. I cannot see how that spirit of harmony and good will was promoted to the extent which he claims. In addition to that, the leader of the opposition at the beginning of his speech gave long strings of statistics, long columns, to prove that Canada was in a prosperous condition when he handed over the reins of office. It reminds me of an incident that occurred in the town of Cornwall. The leader of the opposition spoke there on the Friday immediately preceding the election and I heard his speech over the radio. He gave the statistics which he quoted in different places throughout Canada, attempting to prove by a set of figures that the people of this country were prosperous. I met a working man on the street the next day and asked him how he liked Mr. King's speech. Let me say by the way that he was not a Conservative. He replied, "I was disappointed. Mr. King came to the town of Cornwall. I have been out of work for six months and I expected that he would have something to offer, but instead of bread he handed us a stone." And the people of Cornwall showed their appreciation of the arguments used by the then Prime Minister on that occasion by the vote which they polled on the following Monday.
There is one thing which the leader of the opposition omitted from his speech and which I expected him to mention. I remember he dealt at considerable length in his address at Cornwall, on that Friday preceding the election, with the great danger that confronted Canada then if a Conservative government were returned to power in the Dominion, with Conservative administrations extending over Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We were going to be robbed of that great heritage which had been handed down to us by our ancestors, that heritage of freedom for which they had sacrificed themselves and given their lives. An oligarchy would be formed, consisting of the Conservative Prime Minister of the Dominion and the Conservative premiers of the provinces, which would in some mysterious way rob us of our freedom. But the unexpected to the Prime Minister of that day has happened, and I do not think that at this time any of us are suffering from any of the ills which he predicted. On the other hand, the right hon. gentleman has given up the role of champion of the freedom of the people of Canada which he assumed prior to the election and has now come forward in the present debate in the role of champion of the freedom of the people of Great Britain from the oppression of the present Prime Minister of Canada.
The leader of the opposition condemned bargaining; he called it economic coercion. He said he would rather adopt the method which he had followed during his administration, the method of conciliatory approach. How can you do business on such a basis? Can private individuals do business by the method of conciliatory approach, leaving bargaining out of the question? To my mind business between nations is on exactly the
The Address-Mr. Shaver

same plane as business 'between two private individuals. Suppose Farmer Brown said to one of his boys: "That brown horse of ours doesn't match very well with the black; he doesn't get up fast enough. Neighbour Jones has a horse *which I think would make a splendid mate for our black horse. You had better go over and trade horses with him but, my boy, I do not want you to do any bargaining-assume a conciliatory approach. Take this horse over to neighbour Brown, put it in his stable and say ' Neighbour Brown, I have brought you this horse and if you choose to send us a horse in return, well and good.' " The boy thinks that is a funny way of doing business, but he takes the horse over and he puts it in the stable and tells neighbour Brown that he has brought him the horse. Neighbour Brown begins to think that old man Jones has gone out of his mind and decides there must be something wrong with the horse he sent over, so he sends in return the old gray mare with the two spavins. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) thinks that business between nations should be carried on in a like manner.
During his address the leader of the opposition mentioned the fact that he had attended economic conferences in Great Britain in 1923 and 1926. If that conciliatory attitude had been adopted in 1923 and then continued with increased momentum until 1926, it should have been strong enough by the time 1929 was reached to have enabled Great Britain to take all the surplus Canadian wheat. I am sure the right hon. gentleman had plenty of opportunities during the nine years he was in office to put into effect that spirit of conciliatory approach. I say that the people of Canada were wise last July in selecting as a leader a gentleman who believes in the plain business method of bargaining.
The right hon. leader of the opposition said that conditions are becoming worse. That statement has been made by many other hon. gentlemen who have addressed the house from the opposite side. They state that conditions have been getting worse ever since the present government came into office. Speaking for the county in which I live, I desire to say distinctly that conditions decidedly are not getting worse, neither in the rural part of the county nor in the industrial sections of the town of Cornwall. I was told the other day by a farmer, not of Conservative persuasion, that at last a ray of hope was given to the farmers of eastern Canada by having as Minister of Agriculture a gentleman who is alive to their interests. A program was laid down by this minister and published in a recent issue of MacLean's Magazine, which

program will be far-reaching in its effect. It is the program of a man of vision and, as we all know, a man of energy. This farmer advised me that he was getting about the same price for butter fat as a year ago, but he *wondered what would have happened if butter had been coming into Canada during the past winter in the same volume as during the winter of 1930, at the rate of 50,000,000 pounds per year.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Mr. SHAVER:: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the hon. gentleman
say that no New Zealand or Australian butter came into Canada since October 12, 1930?


Frank Thomas Shaver: No New Zealand butter.


Jean-François Pouliot: No Australian butter?


Frank Thomas Shaver: A very small quantity
came in on the basis of 32 cents a pound.
Before I left home on Saturday I took the trouble to inquire into the average grade price of eggs, and I found that it is two cents less than it was a year ago. What would have happened if our market had been flooded with the tremendous quantity of eggs which came in last year? A considerable deflation has taken place in the price of various products, but if American eggs had been permitted to come into this country in the volume they did last year the farmers of eastern Ontario would be getting only about half the price they are getting at the present time. In January, 1930, there were imported into Canada from the United States 529,048 dozens of eggs having a value of $215,067, and from other countries, 7,800 dozens with a value of $1,852. In February of last year our imports from the United States amounted to 1,060,922 dozens having a value of $373,032, and from other countries, 6,454 dozens with a value of $1,479. In March our imports from the United States amounted to 1,168,073 dozens with a value of $322,830, and from other countries, 9,440 dozens valued at $2,408. I will give a comparison between January and February of this year with January and February of last year, because those are the only figures we have for the present year. In January and February last year we imported a total quantity of 1,604,224 dozens of eggs, valued at $591,430, while for the same period this year when a protective tariff was in force we imported 15,557 dozens valued at $5,754. Is that not good business for the egg producers of Canada?	.

The Address-Mr. Shaver


Mr. BERTRAND:: When it was impossible to sell eggs in British Columbia during those two months, why was there any importation?


Frank Thomas Shaver: You mean during the
present year?


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Yes.


Frank Thomas Shaver: The total value of the
importations during this period was only 85,754, and no doubt many of these eggs were for hatching purposes. Last year, under the previous administration, which I presume the hon. member supported, we imported to the value of $591,430.
A very vital matter to the farmers of eastern Ontario is the finding of a market for their bacon. I do not intend to go into this at any great length, but we do know that the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), who for many years held the position of Minister of Agriculture, is reported in Hansard as having made a tour of Great Britain in an automobile, and one would have expected to have seen an increase in the sale of bacon products. I remember he sent out a questionnaire a couple of years ago to the farmers almost pleading with them to increase their production, and we are very fortunate in having today at the head of this department a gentleman who has a real live policy in this respect. He is trying to encourage the farmers of Canada to raise bacon hogs for the British market.
Just in passing, I should like to pay a tribute to the tact and good judgment of the Minister of Agriculture, in dealing with the various perplexing questions which arise. The county of Stormont is part of an area that is being tested for freedom from tuberculosis. This was rather a delicate matter but through tact and methods of conciliation, everyone is satisfied, the cattle are tested and the people of the county of Stormont are highly pleased with the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir).
I believe one of the things that will help to solve the problems of western Canada is a suggestion I heard made by a Conservative member from the west during the short session of parliament. He said that instead of using Argentine and United States corn in eastern Canada we should use western barley and wheat. I think that would be a good thing, and I know in our own feed business in the village of Aultsville, in the county of Stormont and in various other sections of the county, to a very large extent we have displaced Argentine and United States com with western barley and wheat. We have been urging the farmers to use these and they have
seen the necessity for doing so. They are finding ways of utilizing this feed and it has proved a better feed in many respects than the corn they had formerly been using. Those are ways in which the east can help the west.
I should like to say that the farmers in the east have a great deal of sympathy for the farmers in the west. The western farmers know that we in the east have problems to face. We in the east know that the western farmers have problems that may be entirely different, but we want them to succeed as I am sure they want us to succeed in the east.
With regard to the revival of industry which has taken place since the present government came into power, nearly every speaker of the opposition side has said that industry has not revived or that the revival is a fictitious one, and so forth. Since last September, twenty branch factories have been located in Canada involving a capital expenditure of $5,000,000 and the employment of 2,000 Canadians; there has been a plant extension program by nine Canadian industries entailing an expenditure of $7,000,000 and the employment, when this program is completed, of 3,500 more workers, and there has been the establishment of five new Canadian industries with an expenditure totalling $1,600,000 and the employment of 600 people. Those are just a few of the things that have taken place in various industrial sections throughout Canada, but I should like to speak particularly of industrial conditions in the constituency which I represent. In the town of Cornwall, we have a large textile industry consisting of three cotton mills. The cotton industry of Canada was in a very bad way prior to the last general election. The government, headed by ithe present leader of the opposition, reduced the tariff at different times. It will be remembered that just a couple of years ago ithere was a 10 per cent increase in the British preference, the most-favoured nation clause applied to various countries which export cotton, and the result was, as far as the cotton industry in Cornwall was concerned, that whereas their normal production working at full capacity was about $10,000,000, it dropped in 1929 to $8,000,000. During the whole of 1929 and 1930 up to last September, most of itheir employees were working three or four days a week. What is the result to-day? When hon. gentlemen tell us that conditions have not improved, I can give a concrete illustration of the manner in which they have improved. The 1,300 employees of these
The Address-Mr. Shaver

icotton mills in Cornwall are at present working full-time, and in one mill they have been working overtime for two or three weeks. An hon. gentleman suggests that they inmy be storing up the manufactured cloth. I do not think they are so foolish as to make itheir men work overtime in order that they imay store up cotton goods; they are not so altruistic as that. The men are working fulltime and in the town of Cornwall there is being paid to the cotton mill workers as wages $6,000 a week or at the rate of $300,000 a year more than was paid to them prior ito the last general election. In the town of Cornwall a certain doctor who supported me during the last campaign-and this is a very pertinent illustration-said to me that a lady came into his office last January and said: "I want to thank you, doctor, for the advice you gave me last summer." He did not remember what advice he had given her, and he said: "What is that?" She replied: "You told me before the election to vote for Shaver and better times"-that was our slogan in the county of Stormont-"I want to tell you I thank God for our family; the better times have come."


Jean-François Pouliot: Have they been changed
since?


Frank Thomas Shaver: 

a
a q
(to
17%
15%
This denim is used in making the ordinary' heavy-weight overalls for workingmen.
Price List
Article
gto

v ai 5- t-
(-1 O
9%
This 28-inch galatea medium weight is used for making children's dresses and other things of a similar nature. The average reduction in these items, going all through the price list, is 14 or 15 per cent.


James Layton Ralston: Has my hon. friend the
percentage reductions in the United States for the same period?


Frank Thomas Shaver: I am not talking about
the United States at the present. I am dealing with the argument that was used by the former Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). He used the argument that if you put up the tariff, up go prices.


James Layton Ralston: I used the argument that where there would be a decided falling in prices in view of world conditions, prices in Canada would not fall in the same proportion in view of this tariff; and I adhere to that position.


Frank Thomas Shaver: Prices have fallen in very
large proportion.



IS, 1931

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Shaver
James Layton Ralston: Not in the same proportion as in the United States. I am simply asking my hon. friend to give the figures for the United States to show if the reductions here have been equal to the reductions in the United States.


Frank Thomas Shaver: I will tell you what happened in the United States in one mill.


James Layton Ralston: Tell us about the prices.


Frank Thomas Shaver: They reduced their wages in the United States, but this mill I am speaking of did not. The argument that was used by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) in this debate was that the tariff prevented a natural falling in prices.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: You are
quoting me correctly.


Frank Thomas Shaver: If hon. gentlemen opposite wear overalls, and I presume that the hon. member for West Edmonton wore them some time ago at least-


Charles A. Stewart: I certainly
did.


Frank Thomas Shaver: Well, they can buy a
pair of overalls to-day at a reduction of all
the way up to 25 per cent from prices last spring, and that applies to all kinds of workingmen's clothes. We were told at the September session that that could not possibly happen. I know, of course, that the hon. member for West Edmonton is the gentleman who sounded the deathknell of protection. Judging by the remarks made by the hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee), he is an ardent believer in free trade, one of those gentlemen who regard the words of Richard Cobden almost as the voice of Allah himself, and perhaps look upon R. J. Deachman as the chief Canadian prophet.
The rayon industry is a very important one in the town of Cornwall. It has been operating there for five and a half years, and has had to face unfair foreign competition. The conditions in that industry have been similar to the conditions I mentioned in regard to the cotton industry. As an example of the competition which some of these industries have had to face from foreign manufacturers in Europe, let me give the scale of wages paid in different countries of the world in the rayon industry, and these figures will apply as well to the cotton industry and many others:
Wages Per Week
Mechanics	
$9	24	$7	54	$12	65	$15	20	$31	20Spinners (male)	
8	51	7	30	8	76	13	13	21	60Heelgrg (female)	
3	89	3	89	4	8b	6	85	12	to	$12	96
Those wages paid in foreign countries are one of the reasons why Canadian industries need protection.
An hon. gentleman a few moments ago pictured the condition of Great Britain as ideal, from the labour standpoint, I suppose, and every other, because Great Britain was pledged to the principle of free trade. Let me point out that in Cornwall, in the rayon industry, the spinners work on one shift from eight in the morning until four in the afternoon, and then go for a week on a night shift. They get $21.60 per week. In England men working at the same kind of work earn 54 shillings a week, working four shifts every other week, and on the alternate week they are on the dole. Those are the conditions in England in exactly the same type of industry.
Within two weeks after the tariff increases made during the special session came into effect, Courtauld's commenced building a
82,000,000 addition to their plant at Cornwall.
They are paying a weekly wage bill on construction of $17,000, and are at present employing one thousand people working full time. When the addition to the plant is completed about the 1st of September next, the number employed will be increased to fourteen hundred. Is that good for the people of Canada or is it bad?
With regard to the paper industry, tariff item 1060 was wiped out at the special session. That tariff item allowed book paper to come into Canada with an 80 per cent rebate, which brought the tariff on American paper down to 5 per cent, a totally inadequate tariff. The industry might as well have had free trade as 5 per cent protection. That item was wiped out at the special session, and as a result the paper mills in Stormont are now shipping out carloads of book paper to different magazine publishers in Canada who last year got their supplies from the United States.

The Address-Mr. Shaver
We have been told during the course o{ this debate that our leader is autocratic. As one of the new members, with not very much experience in political affairs outside my own county, I want to pay a very sincere tribute to the kindness and helpfulness of the present Prime Minister and to his readiness to receive suggestions from even the humblest of his followers. I am sure that that has been the experience of every hon. member on this side of the house, and I believe the people of Canada recognize that we have as Prime Minister at the present time one of the ablest statesmen who has ever conducted the affairs of Canada since the beginning of its history. With the loyal support of his party, which he is sure to receive during this and succeeding sessions, I am sure that he will be able to solve the great problems confronting the Canadian people at the present time.
On motion of Mr. Spencer the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Thursday, March 19, 1931