1931-03-19

LIBRARY OF PARLIAMENT

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that the following message has been received from the Senate informing this house:
That the Honourable the Speaker, the Honourable Senators Aylesworth, Sir Allen, Beaubien, Chapais, Gillis, Gordon, Griesbach, Hatfield, Laird, Lemieux, Lewis, Logan, McDougald, McLennan, Poirier, Taylor and Wilson (Rockliffe), have been appointed a committee to assist the Honourable the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of the Senate are concerned, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the said library.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that the following message has been received from the Senate informing this house:
That the Honourable Senators Aylesworth, Sir Allen. Buchanan, Chapais, Donnelly, Farrell, Green. Hatfield, Horsey, Legris Lewis, McDonald, McLean, McLennan, Pope, Raymond, Robertson, Sharpe, Taylor, Todd, White (Inkerman), and White (Pembroke), have been appointed a committee to superintend the printing of the Senate during the

present session, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament.



PARLIAMENTARY RESTAURANT

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the bouse that the following message has been received from the Senate informing this house:
That the Honourable the Speaker, the Honourable Senators Hardy, Logan, McMeans, Sharpe, Tanner, and Taylor, have been appointed a committee to assist the Honourable the Speaker in the direction of the restaui-ant of parliament, so far as the interests of the Senate are concerned, and to act on behalf of the Senate as members of a joint committee of both houses on the said restaurant.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 9, to ratify and confirm certain agreements respecting the joint use by Canadian National Railways of certain tracks and premises of Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Regina.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. MANION:: There is very little explanation. The title of the bill really indicates its purpose. It is to ratify and confirm certain agreements between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways for the joint use of terminals and premises of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Regina.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH CUBA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, in view of the interest manifested by some hon. members, particularly from the maritime provinces, in the matter of our trade relations with Cuba, I think it well to advise that the Hon. J. A. Macdonald, member of the administration without portfolio, has been asked to go to Cuba to discuss with officials there such trade relations, especially with respect to the entry of potatoes into that market.


Mr. DUFF:: Has the right hon. gentleman considered the question of the duty on fish?

The Address-Mr. Spencer


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that will also be
considered.



THE MINISTER OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether it is the intention of the government to have a Minister of Labour sitting in this house?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The intentions of the government, will be made manifest by its actions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not hear the answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, the intentions of the government will be made manifest by its actions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: They are not very manifest at the present time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Max D. Cormier for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
trust the hon. member who preceded me in the debate will not consider me discourteous if I do not refer to the very able address he gave us yesterday. The time limit on speeches in this house has its disadvantages as well as its advantages, and as I shall not have any more time in the forty minutes allowed me than to put forward what I wish, particularly in regard to the condition of western Canada at the present time, it will not be possible for me to engage in those courtesies I should like to in referring to the hon. gentleman who has immediately preceded me.
When I arrived in Ottawa a short time ago someone said to me, "I trust that when the House of Commons does open we shall not have a lot of speeches with regard to blue ruin in different parts of Canada." I replied: "If the poor condition of any part of Canada or of any particular industry is well known to the Whole of Canada and therefore understood by the House of Commons, it is certainly not necessary to lay stress on those individual
cases. But where any particular industry is in distress, where parts of Canada, very' regretfully, at least so far as I am concerned, do not understand and probably wish to understand the conditions prevailing in other parts, then I think it is very important that the facts should be laid perfectly bare regarding the conditions in those parts of the country which are suffering distress."
I am not by any means a pessimist, Mr. Speaker. I believe that Canada has a great future, and particularly do I think so if we take every possible advantage of science and invention to produce the goods we need. But at the same time we must bring about a sane, safe and just .economic system which will make it possible for the people of this country to buy the goods that are produced.
It is not a pleasant duty to come into this House of Commons and lay before it conditions which, certainly, to many members, will not be very welcome. At the same time I do not think I should be doing my duty to my constituency or to that part of Canada from which I have the honour to come, if I did not lay perfectly bare the conditions as I left them. Knowing the conditions as I do, knowing the privations rvhich people are enduring, knowing the dark future which is before them, I certainly was much disappointed in reading the slight reference to agriculture in the speech from the throne. The first reference I see reads:
My ministers have had under anxious consideration the means by which an orderly marketing of the wheat crop of western Canada may be assured, and have already taken such effective action towards that end as the circumstances appear to justify.
When one considers the bankrupt condition of western Canada-I say bankrupt because the only reason it is not actually so, is that creditors are not pressing-and the fact that stock and crops have been sold below cost of production; the suffering, privation and hardships that have to be endured; and the infinitesimally small amount of help that has been given by the Dominion government, the above seems to me to be neither more nor less than a hollow mockery. And continuing from the speech from the throne, I read:
My ministers are aware that changing conditions in the world's markets may necessitate further intervention by my government, which is prepared to render whatever additional assistance may be deemed advisable in the national interests. The present situation has emphasized the necessity of effecting a reduction in the costs of production and marketing
The Address-Mr. Spencer

of the wheat crop, and of providing more stable markets, as the welfare of all parts of Canada is involved in satisfactory returns being received by the grain growers.
I am pleased to see that the government of the day recognizes that the welfare of Canada as a whole is wrapped up in the prosperity of the three prairie provinces.
I listened yesterday with a great deal of interest to the speech of the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), but after hearing his remarks I came to the conclusion that it was possibly such members as he that the government of the day had called into consultation before preparing the speech from the throne. Although this hon. member is a western man and should know the conditions existing in that part of the country, he said "they were bad only in spots." I have lived in western Canada for twenty-three years and have gone through some very serious times, particularly during periods of deflation, but I have never seen anything like the conditions existing at the present time. The hon. member would have been closer to the truth if he had stated that conditions were good in spots. Then he said that conditions were not as bad as they might be. If they were any worse than they are, then God help western Canada. He concluded his remarks by stating that a feeling of hopefulness was coming over the people. Perhaps the hon. member has the advantage, or it may be the disadvantage of living in the city of Regina. That spirit of hopefulness may be coming over those in his own particular legal calling, but that feeling certainly does not exist in the hearts of those following the great industry of agriculture.
If I did not know the conditions existing in Saskatchewan I would not have attempted to reply to the statements made by the hon. gentleman, but I had the opportunity and pleasure of attending the convention of the United Farmers of Canada held in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. This is the most representative body of agriculturists in that great province, and after attending that convention for three days, I came to the conclusion that if conditions in Alberta were bad, they were as bad if not worse in Saskatchewan.
The government has known for six months of the tremendous drop in the market value of grain and other products of the farm. The members in this comer of the house wish every success to the government of the day, whatever that government may be, in solving the problems of this country. We do not claim for one moment the position of opposition because we know that the govem-
Mr Spencer.]
ment has the responsibility and we give them our best wishes in solving their problems. If they are sucessful they will have our praise, but if they are not, then they will have our criticism. Six months have passed since those in power first knew of the market conditions, but what has been done? From the speech from the throne it would appear that it is another case of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.
In putting on record the facts which I propose to present, some people may think that I am pulling a long bow, but it is very difficult indeed to get the facts across to those who do not understand the true conditions. However, in fairness to the part of the country which I have the honour to represent I am going to place myself before this House of Commons as clearly as possible.
I have in my hand a sample of No. 3 wheat, so-called tough because it has a small amount of moisture in it. This wheat makes a very good brand of flour, but it may be a surprise to some hon. members in this house to know that when this sample was taken to an elevator in my locality in central Alberta, the price offered was 20 cents per bushel- pool payment-if sold by the carload, or 174 cents per bushel in smaller lots. I have known the pool first payment to be within one cent of the open market price. The next grade, No. 4, went down to the low price of 13| cents per bushel, whieh is the price the farmer has to pay at that particular point to get his grain to Fort William.
Let us consider the man who obtained 20 cents per bushel because he was fortunate enough to be able to sell in carload lots. What use does he have to make of that money? It costs him an average of five cents per bushel to haul his grain to the railway; then it costs him 10 cents per bushel for threshing, and about five cents per bushel for harvesting. His total proceeds are gone and he has nothing left to cover the expenses of capital investment, seeding, cultivation, rent, taxes and other expenses. That is the situation in which the western farmer finds himself at the present time.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What does it cost
the farmer in western Canada to produce a bushel of wheat?


Henry Elvins Spencer: That varies greatly.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: What has been the hon. member's experience? What does it cost him, as a farmer in western Canada, to produce a bushel of wheat?

The Address-Mr. Spencer


Henry Elvins Spencer: It varies greatly, but I
do not suppose the average farmer can produce a bushel of wheat under 70 or 75 cents per bushel, taking it year in and year out.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Take your own
case, does it cost you that much?


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member will
have forty minutes of the time of this house in which to present his side of the case.
I know of cases in western Canada where the price of oats and rye has been so low that the farmers have not considered it worth while to cut. These crops will be eliminated in the spring by the easy method of applying a match to them. Conditions are bad when such things as this must be done. I know of one man within a mile and a half of town, which means a low hauling cost, who had a splendid crop of rye, but on account of the very low price which had been offered at the elevators, and which was four cents a bushel at that time, he could not see his way to harvest it. I know pf another man who this year took off some 25,000 bushels of grain in wheat, oats and rye. After taking off that crop, which was one of the best he had ever had in western Canada, and after deducting the expenses of selling the crop, he found that he was $2,000 in the hole.
We hear a great deal about mixed farming. The hon. member across the floor who attempted to interrupt a few minutes ago would be one of those who would suggest that the western farmers go into mixed farming. This is a very interesting piece of advice, because it is always given by those whom we term "arm-chair farmers." I wonder how the arm-chair farmer who offers the advice would like to go into mixed farming at these prices. Last year sheep were bringing in western Canada the enormous sum of from $1 to $3 a head. Cattle are down to six cents a pound. Hogs are down to from four to five cents a pound and we expect a severe drop next year because the farmers, on account of the quantity of rough feed they have, are going largely into the raising of hogs to get rid of it. In February of this year butter was selling on the prairies at as low as fifteen cents a pound, and eggs are selling at as low as from eight to fifteen cents a dozen. Wool has been the lowest for years. What is the result? Debts have been accruing; mortgage interest goes on; many bank loans cannot be wiped off; taxes cannot be met, and the people generally are wondering not only how they are going to carry on, but how they are going to live. Through all this trouble the one business institution in Canada that might have given some help-I refer to the private banking 22110-9
system-has been more or less of an irritant
than anything else to the whole situation. I shall say a few words about that later.
What has been the action of the federal government through all this? Can we say that outside of the very lavish promises made last July they have done anything except one or two things that I shall mention in a moment.
I want to pay a compliment, however, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), a man who had the pluck to come out openly and criticize what all the people wanted to criticize, that is, the banking system of this country. Although the price of farm products has dropped, we find that interest charges are being maintained to the limit, eight or nine per cent being charged for bank loans. We find also that we are being charged exactly the same freight rates to haul our grain to Fort William when wheat is worth only ten cents or 20 cents a bushel as when it was worth SI.50 a bushel. Why should the farmer have to take all the loss? We find Mr. Beatty of the Canadian Pacific railway coming forward with a recommendation that a loan company be formed to enable farmers to go into debt for mixed farming. We appreciate Mr. Beatty's offer in this respect, but we would have thought a great deal more of him had he come forward, knowing the condition of the western farmer, and how he had been stranded, and offered to cut freight rates on our grain and stock. I believe Mr. Beatty is the same gentleman who only a very short time ago was spending money to bring more people into this country to go on the land, to break up more sod, grow more grain and, incidentally, create more freight, to pay more dividends to the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific.
I shall now give a few comparisons of prices between industry and agriculture. If, a year ago, the farmer had bought a twenty-four-row seeder, this year, taking average grade, not taking the highest or the lowest by any means but a good average, when he sold his grain in the fall, he would have to sell no less than 2,000 bushels of grain to pay for the seeder. If he wanted to buy a pair of boots, he would have the choice of three things: he could sell thirty bushels of wheat or sixty bushels of oats, or if his rye had any ergot in it he would have to sell 150 bushels of rye. If he wanted to have a good hearty meal on the diner of either of the Canadian railways he would have to take a sheep to market and sell it before he would get enough to pay for that meal. Actually this winter if the farmer were taking his butter to the store he would be fortunate if with the proceeds he obtained for each pound of butter, he got enough to buy
j

The Address-Mr. Spencer

in each ease a pound of axle-grease. But if he wanted a ton of bran he would then have to turn around and hunt all over the country to find some man who had No. 1 northern, the best grade of wheat in the world, and turn over a ton of No. 1 northern hard wheat for a ton of bran. These are a few of the extraordinary cases I could mention.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) last year in Winnipeg. Two items stay in my memory. On the one hand he promised that he would make the tariff fight for the farmer, and the second was that he would find a market for Canadian grain. Later on we had the special session. Whether it was necessary or not I am not going to say, but during that special session the most we did was to vote $20,000,000 out of the public purse for unemployment and raise the tariffs on a large number of articles that enter Canada. Neither of those things helped agriculture. If you take the price of agricultural implements and compare it with the price of the grain we produce, the disparity in prices is far greater now than it was then. It is now eight months since the election. What has been done? What has happened? We find grain is very much lower and cattle are half the price now than they were a year ago. Butter is at [DOT] an unprofitable figure. Barley, oats and rye are all being produced at a loss, rye as I said before, being as low as four cents a bushel.
The Prime Minister went to the Imperial conference. I am not going to comment on that as I have not the time, and it has been very ably dealt with by others. We all looked forward to his return to Canada. We knew he had been kept in contact with conditions as they existed in this country, and therefore when he returned and decided to speak in Saskatchewan, the centre of the grain growing area, we were all interested to hear his Regina speech. What were we told in that speech? First of all, he turned down the request made by the premiers of the three prairie provinces and pool organizations to peg the price of wheat at seventy cents a bushel. Seventy cents a bushel would not have met the needs of the farming industry; it would not have encouraged people to go into raising wheat, but it would have helped to tide over the most difficult situation that we have ever faced. That was turned down. The banks, however, were given a guarantee against any loss in the handling of pool wheat. I admit that this was probably of some assistance to the farmer, but while it helped the farmer a little, it guaranteed the banks 100 per cent against taking any loss at all. This year, I

think I am quite safe in saying the financial interests of Canada have been able to announce their usual fat dividends in their respective businesses, while the industries, particularly the farming industry, from which they derive their profits have never been at a lower ebb.
There was one thing which the Prime Minister did offer. I do not think he could have looked very closely into the matter when he made the offer that the farmers should have seed grain. As a matter of fact, we never have had so much seed grain, and such cheap seed grain, as we have to-day in the western provinces. The few spots that the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) mentioned in his address could easily obtain seed grain at no very great distance.
We were also promised a market in China by credits being established for that purpose. That proposal has not developed. We were also told that a large order for wheat had been promised by France, but on looking into the matter we find that it is just about the usual quantity that France takes from us.
There was one statement which the Prime Minister made which I prefer to think was more or less of a slip, because I believe he really knows better. According to the press, he is reported to have said:
The banks have no money to help move the grain crop except that left with them by savings bank depositors.
The Prime Minister must know that the handling of credit forms by far the larger part of the banking business. I shall take only a short time to quote one or two confirmations of that statement. Under the heading, "How can the supply of money be increased?" I find that the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna says:
The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing or diminishing deposits. We know how this is effected. Every bank loan creates a deposit, and every repayment of a bank loan destroys one.
Here is a quotation from H. D. McLeod, who, in his book, "Elements of Banking," says:
The essential and distinctive feature of a "bank" and of "a banker" is to issue credit payable on demand, and this credit may be put into circulation and serve as money.
From the same author I quote:
When it is said that a great London joint stock bank has perhaps twenty-five million pounds of deposits, it is almost universally believed that it has twenty-five million pounds

The Address-Mr. Spencer
of actual money to lend out, as it is erroneously called. It is a complete and entire delusion. These deposits are not deposits in cash at all. They are no tiling but an enormous superstructure of credit.
Lastly I wish to quote from J. M. Keynes, the well-known economist, who in "A Tract on Monetary Reform" says:
It is not easy, it seems, for men to apprehend that their money is a mere intermediary without significance in itself, and disappears when its work is done from the sum of a nation's wealth.
I wish to refer for a few moments to the service, or lack of service, that the private banking interests of Canada have been giving to agriculture. I find that the banks are still breaking the law by charging more than the legal rate of interest. The rate is nearly always from eight to nine per cent in the west. An hon. member behin4 me says that they are the government, and probably there is more truth than fiction in that. Secondly, we find that although in an industry like agriculture, credit is needed for at least from one to three years; the agriculturists are forced to renew their notes every three of four months at compound interest. That is an unnecessary hardship. For some months during this crisis I have been receiving a great number of. letters from farmers who claim that the banks have only too readily promised to reloan money to the farmer, so that he may pay up his local debts, if only he will first of all pay off his present indebtedness to the bank. This promise unfortunately has not always been kept.
When the second snow fell in October last year, we had only a small proportion of the threshing done in certain parts of the west, particularly in Alberta. The men who have been in that country from twenty to thirty-years, good stable men who have helped to build up the country, have raised their families there, built schools, made roads, bought land and equipment, and who had no wish at all to leave the country, surely were worth a small amount being advanced to them to help them tide over the winter. In most cases they had no cash, and they needed money for food and clothing during the winter months. But they were abruptly turned down by the banks in nearly every case. Of the numerous letters that I have received, I shall quote only one, because I do not wish to take up the time of the house. One man writes me that although he had not had to borrow from any bank in years past, he had to go to them this year for ready cash. He listed his assets with the bank, which the banker admitted were about SI7,000, and his liabilities 22110-9J
were considered about $400. After a good deal of talking, the banker grudgingly loaned this man $150, and when advancing the money he said, "Do not tell anybody in your vicinity about it, because my instructions are not to loan."
These conditions, Mr. Speaker, have forced many farmers to get their necessities from the local stores on credit, and that naturally has had a bad effect on business, because the storekeepers should not be asked to carry the country. In the province of Alberta, conditions became so bad that a delegation of retailers waited on the premier of the province in January last and informed him that they were carrying such a load that they thought they could not go on; that they themselves were fearing pressure from those who supplied them with goods. They informed the premier that on their books alone they were carrying no less a sum than $40,000,000. When we consider that volume of indebtedness in a province with a population of not many more than 680,000, you can see how serious the situation is.
We are face to face with one of the most-serious deflations that have been brought about from time to time. I want to quote a few words from the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, who, speaking in 1923 with regard to forced deflation, said:
Very little argument is needed to show that a policy of driving or keeping down prices by a restriction of purchasing power must depress trade. . . . What is the consequence? Men and women are thrown out of employment, less is paid in wages, and the amount spent upon consumption is reduced.
If the Prime Minister of this country would pay a little more attention to the subject of finance and a little less attention to tariff barriers, in the long run the country would be better off. Realizing the difficulties with which we are faced in selling the crop either now or in future years the convention of the United Farmers of Alberta held in January last passed the following resolution:
Whereas, the present price of wheat is far below the cost of production, and
Whereas, a continuation of such a condition will inevitably mean a lower standard of living for agriculture, and
Whereas, no benefit of the low price is being passed on to the consumer in the way of cheaper bread:
Therefore be it resolved, that an international conference be called representative of all wheat exporting countries, with the aim of stabilizing the producing of, and the export price for wheat, to enable the grower to meet the cost of production and obtain a reasonable profit, and
The Address-Mr. Spencer

Further be it resolved that Canada, through her Prime Minister be the convener of such conference, which should be called at the earliest possible date.
What has been the answer? Within the last few weeks We have been cut off almost completely from one great exporting country. The effect to-day is indeed very, very serious. By cooperating with those who are competing with us in world trade we may gain something; but by antagonizing those competitors we can do a great deal of harm. In my opinion the sale of Canada's wheat is the most important problem with which we are faced. Had time permitted I would like to have said a few words in support of the suggestion made by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) that Canada should go off the gold basis, which would give us a fair rhance to compete with Australia, Argentine tnd Russia.
In conclusion may I state that we find agriculture struggling to exist. Mr. Brownlee, the premier of Alberta, went so far as to say that we cannot allow agriculture to be destroyed, realizing that it was likely to be destroyed. Other industries depend on agriculture because it is basic to our industrial life. If something is not done I see only two courses open: Either people will leave the farms in great numbers or if they remain and attempt to compete they will have to accept a reduced standard of living. Either alternative would be very regrettable indeed. I appeal with ample cause therefore to the government of the day to aid agriculture before it is too late.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, as, under the rule, I am limited to a period of forty minutes, I shall merely offer congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address without entering upon an extended discussion of their remarks. I will say a word or two however with reference to the mover of the address. The hon. gentleman is of my own race. I congratulate him upon the manner in which he performed the task entrusted to him but while doing so I cannot congratulate him upon the arguments he used on behalf of the government. My hon. friend quite properly thanked the government for conferring upon the Acadian race through him the honour of moving the address. With his statements in that regard I am in hearty accord and I feel that I too should thank the government for recognizing the Acadian people in the maritime provinces. If however one were to listen to and accept all that the honourable gentleman said one would be inclined to believe that this was the first time justice had been done by any government to the

Acadian people. My hon. friends opposite should not forget that the greatest act of justice to those people must be credited to a Liberal government. In 1926 for the first time t'he government recognized that justice should be done in Acadia and with that in mind one of our people was called to preside over one of the most important government departments. If however the government of to-day has not seen fit to repeat that act of justice then with the mover of the address I say, "Thank them, and at the same time thank the Lord for small gifts received."
My hon. friend referred to the bonne entente which existed between the English and French speaking people of the province of New Brunswick. With him I am in accord on that point. There is a bonne entente between those two races which compose the population of the province. I hope that condition will long continue but I fear Mr. Speaker that, through the actions of certain members of the Conservative party in the last Dominion election in the province of New Brunswick as well as in the province of Prince Edward Island, the entente in a very short time may cease to exist. When one reviews the election campaign of last July he discovers that certain persons acting on behalf of or in the interest of the Conservative party sent through the mails thousands of circulars calling upon the people of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to vote against the Liberal government because it had dealt too justly with the Acadian people. It is high time such actions were frowned upon and exposed in this house. The sooner they are exposed the sooner will this method of warfare disappear. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to place on Hansard to-day, not for the sake of arousing prejudice or making political capital, evidence of the sordid tactics employed during the heat of the recent political battle. In my hand I hold a circular which was sent broadcast through the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I cannot speak for Nova Scotia because I have no evidence in connection with that province, but I have evidence concerning the two former provinces. I wish to place the contents of this circular on Hansard to show the tactics adopted during the last federal election in at least two provinces with the purpose of leading the people astray. This circular begins:
Are we a British dominion?
Then follows:
List of Roman Catholic cabinet ministers and chairmen of important committees in the House of Commons, 1930. The Minister of

The Address-Mr. Veniot
Justice, Hon. Ernest Lapointe, French; the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Hon. P. J. A. Cardin, French; the Solicitor General, Hon. L. Cannon, French; Postmaster General, P. J. Veniot, French;
And proud of it too.
The Secretary of State, Hon. F. Rinfret, French; the Minister of Labour, Hon. Peter Heenan, Roman Catholic-
They do not give his nationality. Not satisfied with that they take up the officials of the House of Commons and the chairman of the several committees of the house and in that connection we have the following;
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Hon. R. Lemieux, French.
He had that distinction by virtue of an unwritten law of the House of Commons that French and English alternately shall fill the position which you occupy to-day, Mr. Speaker.
The Clerk of the House of Commons, A. Beauchesne, French; Deputy Clerk, T. M. Fraser, Roman Catholic.
Coming as he does from good old Presbyterian stock in the county of Pictou I am sure his ancestors would turn in their graves if they could see this publication.
Chief Liberal whip, Pierre Casgrain, French. Everybody knows he is French.
Chairmen of standing committees, 1930- Railways. F. S. Cahill, Roman Catholic. Private Bills. G. Parent. French.
Standing Orders. L. S. R. Morin, French. Printing. Hon. C. M-arcil, French.
Mines, Forests and Waters, E. A. Lapierre, French.
Canadian National Railways, Sir E. Fiset, French.
Listen to this:
Soldiers' Pensions, et cetera, C. G. Power,
half French and Irish.
And then the statement winds up as follows ;
With compliments of Roy N. Stapleford, field secretary of the Loyal Orange Association of New Brunswick.
I am not holding the Conservative party responsible for this, but the gentleman who issued the circular. He was not fair enough to state that of the sixteen or seventeen ministers in the late government, five were of French and one of Irish Catholic origin. He was not fair enough to state that out of seventeen committees of this house only six or seven had French or Irish Catholics at their head. The evident intention was to arouse a feeling of prejudice in the people of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island against the Liberal party.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having exposed those tactics, let me come back to some of the
arguments used by the hon. gentleman who moved the address (Mr. Cormier). He spoke of the great improvement brought about in New Brunswick since the present government came into power. He forgot, though, to tell the house that since the special session at which the customs tariff was increased, out of four cotton mills that we had in the province one has been closed down and dismantled. He forgot to tell the house that the money expended through the co-operation of the federal and provincial governments has resulted in the operators of the lumber camps of New Brunswick reducing the wages of their emplo3'ees almost to the vanishing point-to a point where they are almost as bad as the scale of wages purported to be paid to a similar class of labour in Russia. He forgot to tell the house that while the provincial government reduced the stumpage on lumber in order to aid and encourage the lumbermen to develop their industry to a greater extent, the federal treasury, paid every dollar of that reduced stumpage to the tune of $60,000, and yet the lumbermen forced down the wages of their workmen to $18 to $28 a month. Notwithstanding this wage-reduction the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) never took any steps to see that the fair wage clause was enforced to protect those men. And I ask the hon. gentleman what reply did he get from the Minister of Labour when in his capacity as the representative of Mada-waska-Restigouche he appealed to the minister to see that the proper wages were paid to those men. The hon. gentleman has forgotten to tell the bouse that since that time the chief industry in his home town, one of the largest pulp and newsprint industries in the Dominion, has been going steadily behind until to-day it is running only to about 60 per cent of its capacity; and that he as mayor of the city of EdmundSton should know that the civic authorities have been called upon to maintain no less than one hundred families whose breadwinners could not get employment. Those are things that the hon. gentleman has forgotten to tell the house.
He has forgotten further to inform this house that not one cent from the Dominion treasury has reached in direct aid the unemployed of New Brunswick and especially his own county. He forgot to tell the house that the Minister of Public Works of the province who has the determination of the policy to be adopted for the expenditure of money in cooperation with the federal authorities in aid of unemployment, has publicly
The Address-Mr. Veniot

1JM
stated that he would recommend that no aid be given to the municipal authorities in the province, but that any federal grant for unemployment should be expended on the construction of roads and bridges, in winter time in the province, where there are four or five feet of snow at that season of the year.


Mr. HANSON (York-iSunbury):: Would the hon. member be good enough to tell the house when Mr. Stewart said anything of the sort, giving the time and place.


Mr. YENIOT:: Yes. He said it at a conference at Bathurst in reply to a question I put to him myself, and there were fifty people present who heard him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I referred a moment ago to the closing down of industries in New Brunswick. If I am not mistaken the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Shaver) mentioned the great benefit Cornwall was deriving from the increased labour in the cotton mills of his home town, brought about by the increased tariff passed at the special session last September. What may have been a blessing for his riding has turned out to be a disaster for New Brunswick. Let me relate a circumstance connected with the closing down of the cotton mill in the city of St. John. A rumour got abroad that the mill was to close its doors in the month of December. The city of St. John, through its mayor, appealed to the premier of New Brunswick, and he in turn appealed to the Canadian Cottons Limited not to close the mill. As a result of agitation a public meeting was called in the city of St. John, to which Mr. Dawson, the president of the Canadian Cottons Limited, was invited. Mr. Dawson met the premier of the province, the mayor of the city and the aldermen, as well as members of the board of trade and a large number of the leading business men. He met also my friend the hon. member for York-Sun-bury (Mr. Hanson). He was appealed to not to close the mill, but that appeal was in vain. He told them distinctly that that mill was closed and would remain closed. They were dismantling the mill and they would finish dismantling it. Apparently the appeal of the Premier of New Brunswick to the federal government had no effect on Mr. Dawson. What do we find? During the progress of the discussion at that conference there was also present the hon. the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), the representative of the province of New Brunswick in the present government. And if one is to judge from the newspaper reports the meeting was almost 
a Donnybrook fair. But Mr. Dawson stood firmly by his guns; he took no backwater whatever. The St. John Telegraph-Journal, reporting the occasion, has this to say:
Mr. Dawson issued an ultimatum that he would not only not reopen the Cornwall cotton mill but that he would also close the York mill (the second mill in St. John) if its operation proved unprofitable. Mr. Dawson went further and said if the financial standing of the Canadian Cottons Limited did not improve he would also close the Milltown and Marysville mills.
The Marysville mills are situated in the county of York-Sunbury. In an editorial based on the result of the meeting the Telegraph-Journal has this further to say:
In other words, Mr. Dawson, speaking on behalf of his own company, has made a clear-cut statement that in his opinion, backed by his directors, the Canadian tariff is designed-
Now let hon. members from the province of New Brunswick listen to this.
-to benefit the central provinces, and should not concern itself with the maritime provinces, when the interests of the company are prejudiced. That is to say, he places the interests of his concern above the national interests of Canada, unmindful of the fact that all Canadians are taxed to create employment and not to benefit industrialists. If Mr. Dawson is sincere in his convictions, he has made one of the finest contributions to a free trade campaign in this country that has been offered by any manufacturer for a good many years. As a group who has long sought protection, the president of the Canadian Cottons Limited and his directors have taken a position which may react on them in a manner which may prove their undoing.
Premier Baxter obtained from Mr. Dawson the information, that in sixteen years the mills had broken even. He then demanded to know why they were closing this mill. According to the report in the press, and according to Mr. Baxter, Mr. Dawson had tried to place the blame on the federal Prime Minister. Premier Baxter contended that:
It was not for the government to run cotton mills, but it was for the people to see that no group shall have the benefit of tariff and at the same time pick and choose what parts of the country were to benefit. It would be better to bring cotton in from Lancashire free of duty.
That phrase comes from one of the strongest protectionists and high tariff men in the Dominion of Canada. The Telegraph-Journal then comes back in another editorial and says:
Mr. Dawson for the third time expressed the opinion that the closing of the St. John mills must be laid on the doorstep of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett. He told his listeners that Mr. Bennett's policy provided that efficiency and the consequent maintaining of present price levels was the essential of the recently adopted tariff.

The Telegraph-Journal then goes on and argues that Mr. Dawson completely ignores the principle laid down by the Prime Minister during the debate on this tariff item at the special session of parliament when he said that he would expect the cotton interests to keep their promises made to him that the unemployed in idle cotton mills would again be provided with work. The way the cotton magnates are keeping that pledge to the Prime Minister is that they are closing down the Cornwall mill. They closed it down and reduced the number of employees in the York cotton mill at St. John, and that mill is working only four days a week now.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Does the
hon. member mean to suggest that the closing of the Cornwall mill was due to the increase in the tariff? Does he not know the reason is entirely different?


Peter John Veniot: I am not saying anything
of the kind; I will come to that in a moment.
I did not say that the increase in the tariff caused the closing of the Cornwall mill. The Prime Minister told us last September that the increase would keep that mill going, and it has not done so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They
transferred the business to Marysville.


Peter John Veniot: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Surely not.
Mr. YENI'OT: If those words had fallen from the lips of a Liberal he would have been condemned for all time to come and paraded as the most disloyal man in Canada.
My time is limited but I have another subject upon which I desire to touch. During the last campaign the Liberal party were
The Address-Mr. Veniot


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: 
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues who have spoken, I should like to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address, as well as to some of the younger members who have also spoken in the house for the first time. Not being acquainted with the French language, I was unable to understand what the mover of the address said, and I have not yet had the privilege of reading a translation. I listened, however, to the address of the seconder and also to the sneech last night by the hon. member
for Stormont (Mr. Shaver), and I should like to congratulate those young men on the facility with which they were able to express themselves. I make the confession that although this is my tenth session I have never been able to feel completely at home on the floor of the House of Commons.
I was interested particularly in the address of the hon. member for Brome-Mississquoi (Mr. Pickel), who is no longer a young man, since I see in the Parliamentary Records that he has contested a good many elections in his district, but I could not help thinking of the contrast between the views expressed by him and those expressed by former representatives of that old constituency of Brome, the Hon. Sidney Fisher and the Hon. Andrew Mc-Master. I see also by the Parliamentary Guide that the hon. member for Brome-Mississquoi is a physician. I was not able to determine whether he was a homeopathist or not. Some things led me to believe he might be, while others made me think he was not. Proceeding on the theory that a cure is effected by taking a hair of the dog that bit you, I thought he must be a homeopathist, but by the magnitude of the doses he prescribed I could not help thinking otherwise, for his cry is for more and more tariff, on the assumption, apparently, that if much is good more is better.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) called the attention of the Prime Minister to the fact that there was not in the House of Commons a minister of labour. It had already been brought to our notice that there is also not a minister serving in the capacity only of minister of finance. It seems strange that such a situation should prevail in view of the large numbers of members opposite, and I have frequently had called to my mind a story that, I think, illustrates the situation. The principal of a theological college, when giving his students lectures on pastoral theology, used to talk to them somewhat in this strain. He reminded them with what circumspection they should treat the women of their congregation, treating the old women as mothers and the young women as sisters. He would conclude his remarks in this way: "For you know there are always lots of women in the congregation who think they would make good ministers' wives." I am sure there are plenty of members opposite who think they would make good cabinet ministers. Indeed, I have in mind two or three hon. gentlemen sitting down towards the other end of the chamber who, I think, would look much happier than they have been able to do since they have been in the house if they had been honoured
The Address-Mr. Brown

with cabinet positions. The Prime Minister also seemed to resent the imputation that this was a one-man government. I have no doubt be believes he has been consulting his colleagues and that he is not the autocrat that the public think him to be, but while he was making that statement it was very interesting to look across the floor and see the stolid countenance of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the sickly smile that passed over the face of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman).
The Prime Minister expressed indignation at being asked to fulfil his promises and pleaded for more time. If the Prime Minister had been more modest in his promises we might have been more modest in our demands, and it is because of the lavishness with which he made those promises, in a spirit almost of irresponsibility, that the country is now demanding that his promises be fulfilled. In illustration of the attitude of the Prime Minister during the whole campaign, I want to read an extract from one of his speeches. Although this has already been placed on Hansard, it is well that the attention of the house should be drawn to it again as indicating the temperament-I will put it in that way-of the Prime Minister. Speaking at Vancouver on January the 8th, he said:
If Mr. Mackenzie King thinks I will not so build up our agricultural and industrial life that its strength will drive our products into the markets of the world, then he is wrong. For that I will do. If he thinks I will not establish new markets for these products, strive with all my heart to retain them, drive our products with all my power into new markets, into old markets, into reluctant markets, he is wrong. For that I will do.
There were other promises made. The hon. Minister of Justice when we met in the short September session, repudiated the statement attributed to him in the Manitoba Free Press, that the Bennett government would cure unemployment in three days, and explained that he did not say that, but what he did say was that in three days the House of Commons could pass legislation which would cure unemployment. Well, even if we accept his revised version, I think we are entitled to ask:	Are conditions any better
to-day than they were eight months ago? Has the government done anything to fulfil their promise?
Listening to those promises that were made so lavishly by hon. gentlemen opposite in the late campaign, I could not help recalling a very interesting story of an old stage coach driver, who owned a female dog that he valued very highly, and as he travelled

along the road he promised one man after another a pup. Finally a passenger remonstrated and asked him how he could expect to carry out his promise. " Oh well," he answered, " it is a pretty mean man who would not promise a fellow a pup." When men go through the country claiming to be miracle-men, when they claim to be able to do something that no reasonable men expect them to do, something that every reasonable man knows they cannot do, they cannot wonder very much if we demand the fulfilment of their promises. The fact is that the country is now demanding the pups, and we have seen no sign of them as yet.


Mr. SPENCE:: Give them time to grow.


John Livingstone Brown: It is contended in some
quarters that the difficulty in the west is purely a matter of psychology. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) yesterday undertook to tell us that things were not as bad as they might be, that they might be worse; but, of course, he admitted that they might be better. I am sure that the people of the western provinces will not thank him for placing the situation in the west before the people of the country in that light. There is no question that things are bad. It is all nonsense to say that we have just turned the corner, and that the present conditions are just a matter of psychology. Nothing of the kind. The farmers realize very keenly that they are up against the greatest depression that has ever struck them. The hon. member for Regina is somewhat like the man of the peculiar religious persuasion that holds that disease is all of the mind, and who asked a boy one day how his father was. " He is very sick," the boy replied. " Oh no," replied the man, "he only thinks he is sick." A week later this man asked the boy again how his father was. "Well," the boy replied, " he thinks he is dead." The undertaker thought so too, for he took him away and buried him. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that some of the farmers will be dead financially before the hon. member for Regina wakes up to the fact that distress does exist in the west.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the chief difficulty lies in the fact of that wide disparity between the prices we receive for the things that we sell and the prices we have to pay for the things that we buy. Already many illustrations of that disparity have been given to the house. We have passed through a period of low prices before. Those of us who have been in the west now for almost half a century know that in the early days prices were low. I can remember when wheat

The Address-Mr. Brown
was 40 cents and oats nine and ten cents a bushel. I have driven wheat and oats twenty miles for those prices myself. I drew dressed pork a distance of twenty miles for a price of four cents a pound. Yes, we have seen these low prices before, but our produce at that time had a greater purchasing power than it has to-day. The difficulty lies in the fact that the prices of the goods we produce have gone down enormously while there has been comparatively little decrease in the prices of things that we buy. Let me give another illustration of that disparity. We members who come from the farms feel that we have to get spruced up a little before coming to Ottawa. So I went to get a shave and a haircut, and I found that it cost me about ten bushels of barley to get a shave and a haircut. That is too big a price to pay, even if the trimming is good enough to win the congratulations of the Prime Minister.
The speech from the throne is only one of the many disappointments which the country has had to experience recently. The first disappointment, of course, was the barrenness of the Prime Minister's trip to England, which has already been referred to at sufficient length. Perhaps I should explain what I mean by disappointment. Of course, all patriotic Canadians regret that the Prime Minister was not able to do more in England to bring us out of the depression from which we are suffering. Doubtless many of his most ardent supporters were also disappointed for the reason that they did expect him to do something. One of the most ardent supporters of the Prime Minister said: "Mr. Bennett believes that he is divinely commissioned to lead Canada out of the wilderness, and I believe it too." Naturally a man like that would be disappointed. Some of us had no such illusions. We did not believe that the course which the Prime Minister intended to pursue in England would be productive of results, and so in that sense we were not disappointed. We had simply the satisfaction of the tenth beatitude "Blessed are they who expect little for they shall not be disappointed."
Another great disappointment to the west was the Regina speech of the Prime Minister. He came west, and the stage had been very carefully set for his coming. The meeting had been announced some weeks beforehand, and the whole country was kept on the edge of expectation, hoping that great things were to come from that Regina speech. Well, the Prime Minister came, and spoke. I listened to his speech over the radio, and even over the radio you could sense the
feeling of disappointment that passed through that audience. "The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse." That speech was received with intense disappointment throughout the west. It was then that the people of the prairie provinces realized how completely they had been humbugged, just as the people of England weTe humbugged-at least they thought they were.
There is, of course, in the speech from the throne a recognition of the importance of the marketing of wheat. I am glad that the government does recognize its importance, for I know that some of the members of the government have refused to recognize the importance in our national economy of the marketing of wheat. In this connection I should like to refer to the statement that was made by the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), which has been commented upon. When a statement is made and criticized one must always consider the circumstances prevailing at the time it was made. May I say that until the first of February of last year there was very little indication that the wheat markets were in a serious condition. I think I may say that up to that time if there had been any move on the part of the government to interfere with the marketing of wheat it would have been very keenly resented by the farmers.


Mr. CAHAN:: Is that February of 1931?


John Livingstone Brown: No, 1930, because it was
then we began to recognize that wheat was piling up in vast quantities. As I say, up to that time the farmers, who had been led to believe both by the pool and by the regular grain trade that prices were going to be high and continue to be hiigh, would have resented any move on the part of the government to interfere with the marketing of wheat. I think there is no question about that. About the time this house met in session last year conditions were beginning to assume a different aspect, and then it was that the party in opposition began to criticize the government for its negligence in the matter of the wheat trade. Hon. members on this side of the house regret the absence of the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). I hope the government will convey to him our best wishes for a speedy recovery, because while we may differ with the hon. minister we recognize in him a fair fighter. I refer to the hon. gentleman because he paid a visit to my constituency substituting for the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), Iho present Minister of Railways and Canals. For certain reasons that hon. gentleman was not allowed to speak in my constituency.
The Address-Mr. Brown


An hon. MEMBER:: Always suppositions.


John Livingstone Brown: However the present Minister of Trade and Commerce came into my constituency and spoke very indignantly about the laxity of the government in dealing with the wheat crop and he recalled to the minds of the electors the action taken on behalf of the farmers by Mr. Arthur Meighen from the years 1918 to 1922. He said that Mr. Meighen had instituted a wheat board and had sold the Canadian wheat, that he had made a permanent board and then the people had turned him out of office. When speaking to my electors I said that only one statement really was true, that the electors had swept Mr. Meighen from office. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce is quoted as follows:
Would it have not been effective if the men who went to England last year to endeavour to find a market for Canadian wheat had behind them the support of a strong, virile government, whose opinions and pronouncements had to be listened to by the other nations of the world?
It is very interesting to note that while the Minister of Trade and Commerce was speaking to the people of the west an that tone the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) was adopting an entirely different tone in the province of Quebec. Speaking at Buckingham Mr. Cahan used these words, as they are quoted in the Ottawa press:
The real aim of the budget is to open markets for the wheat produced by the western provinces, but wheat is not the only industry in Canada. The man who gives $10 of labour, in manufactures, is doing as much in Canada as the man who produces 10 bushels of wheat in the west. We have made sacrifices. . . .
I wiant you working men to get this point.
We have made sacrifices for these western provinces. . . .
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the east has made no sacrifices; they have given nothing to the west for which we have not paid many many times over.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: No man will be more willing to endorse that statement than the present Prime Minister. Then Mr. Cahan goes on to say, as reported in the Montreal Star of July 12:
Mr. Dunning always thinks in terms of wheat. He has never had much else to think about. The entire wheat crop of Canada has never yet reached $500,000,000 in total value in any year, yet the gross annual value of the products of the factories of the island of Montreal alone is approximately $575,000,000.
Mr. Dunning proposes that these Montreal factories shall be crippled and destroyed by

the free admission of the products of British factories, in the hope that Great Britain may hereafter show good-will by buying more Canadian wheat.
Canadians cannot live by wheat alone.
The point I make is that the Secretary of State seemed to see a conflict between the wheat growers on the prairies and the workers in the Montreal factories. I hope by this time he has realized that the interests of the workingman in Montreal are absolutely dependent upon the purchasing power of the farmers of the west and his people can succeed only in the proportion we succeed.
During this period of depression many western farmers have been advised to adopt mixed farming. It is somewhat amusing to come east and listen to the advice given. People who know nothing about farming take the liberty of advocating mixed farming and state emphatically that the west will have to adopt it. May I say Mr. Speaker, that so far as my district is concerned we have always had that type of farming. Our district is a mixed farming district although we grow great quantities of wheat. Our land however is suitable for the mixed variety of agriculture and we have always been engaged in it. Indeed I question if there are as many cattle and pigs being shipped from that district as there were thirty years ago. I remember that I came from the west about forty years ago with a train load of Gordon and Ironsides cattle and those cattle were gathered within a very short radius. We have always been engaged in mixed farming. I wish heartily to endorse the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that there are Targe areas of the western provinces not suitable for mixed farming. The lack of a good water supply in itself is sufficient to prevent the raising of cattle or hogs to a greater extent than is being done at the present time. Supposing we do engage in mixed farming to a greater extent, where will we get our markets? Supposing we do, from where will the markets come? There is nothing to encourage mixed farming on an extensive scale either in respect of cattle, hogs, eggs, honey or any of the other commodities. True, everybody recognizes the value of diversified farming. We believe it is better where possible not to have all our eggs in one basket. The people in the east fail to recognize however at the present time we are producing large quantities of different farm products. I wish to give these figures:
In 1930 Manitoba produced 10.000,000 pounds of honey; Saskatchewan and Alberta 2,000,000

The Address-Mr. Brown
pounds. Manitoba produced 8,000,000 pounds of dairy butter and 15,000,000 pounds of creamery butter; Saskatchewan produced 30 million pounds of creamery butter and Alberta, 35 million pounds. Manitoba farmers sold 200 million gallons of milk and 4 million gallons of cream. The three prairie provinces produced a million pounds of cheese. The western Canada stock yards handled nearly 800,000 hogs, 330,000 cattle, 73,000 calves and 184,000 lambs. The Wool Pool handled 3 million pounds of wool.


Mr. GOTT:: Was that last year?


John Livingstone Brown: 1930.
Mr. GOTT; It would be interesting to have the figures for 1927. Has the hon. member got those handy?
Mr. BROWN; I am sorry, but I must hurry along. With regard to Mr. Beatty's proposal, naturally cheap money will be welcomed by the farmers of western Canada. But there is no need of Mr. Beatty's money to induce the farmers there to go more fully into live stock. Without a cent from Mr. Beatty Manitoba is likely next fall to be overrun with pigs. I know the farmers themselves are undertaking to increase the supply of hogs. This being so, what will become of those who borrow money from Mr. Beatty to go into the raising of hogs? With the greatly increased supply then available the condition will be infinitely worse than it is now.
If Mr. Beatty wants to do anything to help us. I think I can give him some advice. For instance, a reduction of freight rates would help, but of course that would interfere with those sacred dividends of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, they must be guaranteed for all time, no matter whether the farmers are getting their production costs or not. Mr. Beatty might also give some attention to the marketing problem in regard to our live stock products. What is the situation that confronts us? The men whom we sent to England to investigate the possibilities of marketing live stock products there tell us that there is an unlimited market for Canadian bacon, but the difficulty is lack of a continuous supply. Well, why is not that continuous supply available? Just because, whenever there is an extra carload of hogs on the market, down goes the price. If Mr. Beatty can do anything to stabilize the market for pork at something like a reasonable figure, there will be no doubt about ensuring a continuous supply of bacon. The loss in our export trade of course is attributable to other reasons than those advanced by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). He forgot to say anything about the immensely increasing consumption among ourselves. But we can furnish large amounts of pork for export if we can be assured of something like stability in our market. It is true our fanners will have to recognize that from time to time they may have to take a little lower price, but at present we are compelled to shoulder the whole burden. Three weeks ago in Winnipeg there was a large supply of cattle and hogs in the stock yards, and the buyers simply sat in their offices, they would not buy, with the result that the price of hogs went down to 5J cents a pound. Swift's buyer came out in our district and said that they ought to be buying at 5 cents. It is true the market has gone back again, so conditions now are not quite so bad as they were at that time.
Then there is talk about lessening the costs of production-I think we have the phrase in the speech from the throne-yet every action taken by the government tends to increase the cost of production. Last September our friends opposite were very fond of telling us that if the tariff duties were raised there would be no increase in the prices of the goods that we buy. Of course it is a little hard for us at present to prove that we have not received the full benefit from the reduction of prices that we are entitled to. That point was urged very strongly upon the government. As I say, at present, it is not particularly easy le* us to get the actual results of the tariff amendments made at the special session, but I have one case in point. The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) has been ridiculed because of the socks that he produced in the Estevan election campaign. I am going to produce a pair. Those socks that I am now holding in my hand are pretty good-looking socks. I do not suppose the Prime Minister would wear them, but the constituents of the hon. members for Regina and Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) and of the other members from Saskatchewan would be glad to wear them- if they are able to buy socks at all this coming summer. Those socks used to be sold in Pilot Mound at 10 cents a pair.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with them?


John Livingstone Brown: There is nothing wrong with them. When the customs tariff was amended last fall, besides the increase in the ad valorem duty, a duty of $1.35 a dozen was imposed on socks that were then retailing at 10 cents a pair. The local merchant told me that he had been making a nice little profit at that price but as a result of the tariff legislation last September he cannot now buy ,the socks at
The Address-Mr. Brown

all. As I say, there are many poor farmers in Saskatchewan who would be willing to wear these 10 cent socks. Indeed, I should be glad to get some myself. These socks that, as I say, were selling for 10 cents a pair cannot now be handled by the local merchants because of the increase in price due to the tariff legislation last fall. The onus rests upon hon. gentlemen opposite to show me where to-day I can get socks at a similar price.
We are being advised on the one hand to go into the production of live stock and in the speech from the throne it is said that we must reduce the cost of production. I want to remind the house that just at the time we are being urged to go into the production of live stock and our friends opposite are talking about decreasing the costs of production, the Minister of National Revenue has taken a course that simply amounts to a slap in the face. I refer to barbed wire. Barbed wire has been on the free list since the early days of the first Laurier administration. I remember in 1898 buying barbed wire to fence in a half section and I got the benefit of the wiping out of the tariff duty. Imagine the absurdity of telling us on the one hand to go into the production of live stock, and then on the other hand putting up the price of one of our prime essentials for the caring of live stock! If we could get not only barbed wire but woven wire at half the price we are getting it to-day, there would be no question about farmers going into live stock. The time has come when sheep will be a very valuable asset on the farm. But what is the chief handicap in handling sheep? The cost of fencing. In this connection I am going to read an extract from a despatch by the correspondent of the Manitoba Free Press:
About $250,000 of barbed wire is imported annually. It comes from several countries, including Great Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and the United States.
Here is what I want the house to note particularly:
Since last summer, the price of wire has been falling rapidly. Exact prices are not available, but Hardware and Metal, of Toronto, states that recent declines aggregate 25 cents per 80-rod spools. These declines have made it difficult for Canadian wire manufacturers to compete. Hence, the request for dump duties.
The government has fixed an arbitrary value, but has not yet announced what it is. The intention is to place the figure sufficiently high to offset recent reductions in price, and to enable Canadian manufacturers to make a profit. If foreign firms attempt to undersell this fixed price they will encounter dump duties of 50 per cent.
I do not wish, Mr. Speaker, to be forced into the position of having to demand fixed 
prices for our products, for I regard it as not economically sound. But what are we going to do if the Minister of National Revenue insists that every manufacturer in Canada must have a price that shall secure him the home market at a certain profit? I put that question to the house. I should regret to be forced into the position of demanding a fixed price on wheat, but there is a situation that confronts us. This government takes the position that every man engaged in manufacturing must be secured a certain price for his products. What are we going to do?
Now what is necessary in the west? I admit, Mr. Speaker, that any measure that can be proposed at the present time other than direct financial assistance, will not be very effective. It will be difficult to give relief. Nothing but a straight money grant to every individual farmer on the prairies would really give him relief. But we know the difficulty in that regard. The hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) said that the people are not starving. No; that may be true. But they are simply hanging on and wondering what they are going to do. What is necessary is that means should be taken to restore the confidence and morale of the farmer. If that confidence can be restored then the farmers will go forward with some hope. But if they are going to be met by such impositions as this duty on barbed wire, I do not know what they are going to do. Of course, the price has not been raised, nor is that likely. But the point is, there has not been a reduction; that is what we want to emphasize. And unless steps are taken to restore the confidence of the farmers of the west the situation presents a grave danger to the commercial life of Canada.


Mr. MORAND:: Would the hon. gentleman be prepared to have a factory closed and many men put out of employment in order to get wire a little cheaper?


John Livingstone Brown: I do not know that the
question requires an answer. Surely we have as much right to be guaranteed a price on our products as have the manufacturers of barbed wire.


Mr. MULLINS:: Is not barbed wire
cheaper on the prairies than it used to be?


John Livingstone Brown: Of course, but we are not
buying it as cheap as I bought it in 1898. It is not a matter of buying barbed wire cheaper than we used to buy it; it is a question of the Minister of National Revenue preventing us from getting the benefit of the reduction to which we are entitled.

The Address-Mr. Reid


Mr. WILSON:: Had we a tariff on barbed wire in 1898?


John Livingstone Brown: No.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: As one of the newly-elected members I am diffident about rising at this time to speak on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. There are, however, some matters to which I should like to direct the attention of the government, matters to which I think they ought to give some heed. One of them, which I believe is about to be mentioned for the first time on the floor of this house, is the question of hospital treatment for those ex-soldiers who are not in receipt of a pension from the government. Personally I should like to have seen some mention made in the address of state health insurance, believing that the time has now come in Canada when some form of state health insurance should be considered, if not inaugurated, on behalf of the great masses of people throughout the country who have not the means with which to meet hospital or doctors' accounts which they or their families must incur in connection with such necessary service, and who in many cases would rather suffer than incur debts they are unable to pay.
Regarding the ex-service men I believe I am safe in saying that in British Columbia to-day, owing to her mild climate, far greater numbers of ex-soldiers are domiciled than were enlisted from the province for war purposes. Many of these ex-service men are to-day suffering from various complaints engendered by way of service, and owing to the fact that their disability did not develop until after the close of the war they are not entitled to free treatment at military hospitals. This situation is adding a considerable burden bo the cities and municipalities for hospitalization purposes, which burden will no doubt increase as the age of the ex-service man advances. The greatest hardship of all is placed on the ex-service man who frequently finds himself in need of hospital attention the cost of which he is unable to meet.
I would urge upon the government to take steps bo provide free hospital treatment for all ex-soldiers who owing to war service have developed some complaint or disability requiring hospital treatment. On account of the lack of free hospital service many of these men have suffered inconvenience and hardship.
In the speech from the throne I note that mention has been made of some change with regard to old age pensions. While agreeing with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that
the federal government should assume a greater proportion of the cost of old age pensions, if not the whole of it, I personally should like to see the Dominion government not only assume the whole cost of old age pensions but also reduce the age from seventy years to at least sixty-five. Anyone who is conversant with conditions in the industrial field well knows that under our exacting social and industrial conditions to-day it is well-nigh impossible for the average person to put by a reserve for his old age, and with the labour markets glutted with thousands of young men ready and willing to work if given the opportunity, what chance has the man of even sixty of holding on to his job, let alone procuring one?
I note that the government has introduced a bill amending the Naturalization Act. 1 should like to have seen, if it were possible, some changes made along such lines as would more clearly designate who are Canadians as distinct from British; and I believe that some changes should be made to enable Canadians to register their children born in Canada as Canadians. It seems to me there is something wrong in this country when Canadians are warned, upon registering the birth of a child born in the country, that "Canadian" is no nationality.
Another matter I wish to speak about has reference to the paragraph of the speech which reads:
Pursuant to the fixed policy of my government to combat all influences which are inimical to the social and economic welfare of this Dominion, an order in council has been passed prohibiting the importation of certain commodities into Canada from the Union of Soviet Socialist republics.
I wonder if in regard to the fixed policy of the government to condemn all influences which are inimical to the social and economic welfare of the Dominion, British Columbia is too far away to be regarded as part of the Dominion. In that province, particularly in the lower mainland, we have a social and economic problem almost entirely confined within our own boundary and as to which I should be pleased to see the so-called fixed policy of the government put into effect. I refer to the Asiatic question. If ever there were influences inimical to the economic welfare of any part of Canada it is the enormous growth and influence of the orientals in British Columbia. No race can assimilate except by intermarriage, and intermarriage between whites and Asiatics is usually repugnant to both races. The seriousness of this increase of orientals in the lower Fraser valley can be best described by stating that
The Address-Mr. Reid.

in Richmond, in my constituency, over 40 per cent of the pupils attending the schools are Japanese. In the town of Steveston, where there is a fourteen-room school, ten rooms are used exclusively for Japanese, three rooms are mixed and one room only is all white. Some criticism is due to the government for permitting the immigration of orientals at a time when the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) was taking steps to close the doors against immigrants from other countries. Surely if any people were to be debarred from Canada it should have been those who will not assimilate and who are accustomed to a much lower standard of living. Even Russians and their children could become good citizens of this country. Personally I should like to see the government close the gates against orientals, say for a period of ten years or until such time as we in British Columbia would no longer have any fear of domination by the Asiatic, as we do at the present time.
Pursuing its fixed policy of combating all influences inimical to the social and economic welfare of this Dominion, the government decided to prohibit the importation of certain commodities from the Union of Soviet Socialistic republics. I am at a loss to know why Russia should be singled out, unless it is that at a distance it seems to be a country where government is by the people and for the people. This seemed to be repugnant to Sir Herbert Holt, whose opinion was made known to Canada before the order in council was passed. It may have been merely a coincidence; the government may have acted without knowing of that opinion, but it seems to me that if they really desired to help the coal industry a tax should have been put upon fuel oil. That action would have been more beneficial to Canada than the prohibition of trade with Russia.
I should like to invite the attention of the government to another matter affecting Canada generally and British Columbia in particular, namely the poultry industry. At the present time there is no shortage of eggs in Canada, nor has there been for some considerable time, in fact fresh eggs are cheaper and have been offered in greater volume during the past year than at any time for some years past. So great has been the production of eggs during the last five or six months that at times there was a glut and it was impossible to find a market. The climate of British Columbia is admirably adapted to the production of eggs, more especially during the winter months. The British Columbia egg is the best in Canada, if not in the whole

world, and last year the constituency which I have the honour to represent produced the world's record white Leghorn, a hen which laid 357 eggs in 365 days. This hen does honour not only to her owners, Mr. and Mi's. W. Whiting of Port Kells, but to Canada as well. During a period of three weeks 70,000 hens were sacrificed in the Fraser valley because eggs were a glut on the market and were selling for as low as 12 cents per dozen, and as a result a number of the poultry owners were forced to get rid of their stock in am endeavour to meet their accounts; in fact many of them were compelled to go out of business.
Considerable help would be afforded to the dairymen and poultrymen of British Columbia if the domestic freight rates were reduced to the export rate. The difference of some $4.20 per ton would be an average saving to the poultryman in British Columbia of $100 to $500 per year, which in many instances would mean the difference between staying on the ranch and leaving it and thus swelling the number of job-seekers in the cities. The great problem facing Canada to-day is to find a market for her surplus products, and how that can be accomplished under the policy of the present government I have yet to learn.
Before closing I should like to make some criticism as to the inquiry conducted by the hon. Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) into the price of bread. While the minister seems to have secured a lot of data in the way of prices of wheat and so on, apparently no notice has been taken of a most vital point, namely, the high cost of flour in its relation to the price of wheat. A very casual reading of the minister's report would indicate that he has taken great pains to tell us about the price of labour, distribution, cost of ingredients, overhead and so on, but he has given no information as to any inquiry into the question why flour prices should be as high as they are. Judging from the report, one might think that flour was a mere detail in the making of bread, simply one of the minor ingredients such as salt or sugar. The following appears on page 30 of the report:
In the making of bread, flour costs represent only 36 per cent and that flour is becoming less and less important in the modern loaf.
Page 41 of the report reads:
Our records show that in 1929, the mill-controlled bakeries purchased in all well over one million barrels: Moreover, this million-barrel market was held by only four milling companies and represented an eighth of the entire consumption of flour in Canada in 1929.

The Address-Mr. Young
These milling companies are thus provided with an assured outlet for a large portion of their products and consequently should be able to reduce considerably their sales cost. Here is a paragraph I would like to direct to the serious attention of the government. It reads:
One decided advantage to the mills is that there is no competition for this business, price competition, or any other kind.
This gives to these companies a virtual monopoly of flour, the gravest kind of monopoly, affecting as it does the very life of the masses.
I should like to make a comparison between the prices of wheat and flour in Canada and in Australia. I quote the Australian prices because that country has a fairly high standard of living. The ruling selling price of wheat f.o.b. steamer at principal Australian ports was 61 cents for the month of December, 1930; the price of flour f.o.b. steamer at Australian ports per 2,000 pounds was S27.37, which is equivalent to about 1.4 cents per pound of flour. Canadian prices for the same period were: December wheat, fifty-six cents per bushel; December flour, $4.76 per ninety-pound sack, or 2.4 cents per pound of flour. Not only was Australian wheat quoted for sale at five cents a bushel more, but the price of flour offered at Australian ports was sixty-four cents for a forty-nine pound sack as against $1.19 wholesale price in Canada. It is high time that the government should investigate the price of flour in this country and, if necessary, should break up this combine of millers who, I claim, are exploiting the people of Canada to-day in one of the most essential items of our food, namely, flour. To paraphrase the words of Thomas Hood who many years ago wrote a poem entitled The Song of the Shirt:
0 God! that bread should be so dear,
And men and wheat so cheap.
On behalf of the lower mainland of British Columbia an investigation was asked of the Minister of Labour into the prices of all wheat products. The price of bread was secondary. One of the objects in view was the giving of some protection to the independent bakeries and to all other purchasers of flour. The situation is such as to warrant continued government action, the more so in view of a statement I noticed in the Vancouver Province of the tenth of March last to the effect that the four milling companies are about to amalgamate into one large concern.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is not in his seat, because recently he made Some remarks which were directed to me personally, and I wish he were present so that I might direct my observations to him personally. The other day, speaking from his place in the house, he said that I had been going around the Estevan district with a pair of white stockings in my packet. I know he obtained the information from his bosom friend, Doctor Anderson, Premier of Saskatchewan, but the information is not, strictly speaking, accurate. I was not carrying stockings, but for the information of the house and in order to set people's minds right, I will tell the house exactly what happened. It will be recalled that at the special session last fall, the government of which the right hon. gentleman is the head enormously increased duties on many commodities, amongst which were socks, and they did this in such a way that the heaviest burden would fall upon the poor man. Before leaving Ottawa I secured three pairs of socks which I took out to the west to illustrate to the people exactly what the government had done. I had a pair of workingmen's cheap cotton socks, the cheapest I could buy, such a sock as the unemployed would wear-and remember, Mr. Speaker, that this special session was called for the relief of unemployment. I have those socks yet.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Produce them.


Edward James Young: I have them in my hand. 1 showed these socks to the people of the Estevan district and I explained that under Liberal rule the duty on these socks was 30 per cent, but that under the present Prime Minister the duty was increased at one stroke to 165 per cent of the value of the article. I had also a pair of cheap children's socks, such as the poor man would buy for his child. I have them in my hand. I showed these socks to the people and I explained that under Liberal rule the duty on these socks was 30 per cent, but that under the present administration the duity was increased at one stroke to 185 per cent of the value of the socks. I had still another pair of socks; they were not cheap socks, they were beautiful socks.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are they?


Edward James Young: They are in my pocket. They are socles such as the Prime Minister himself or his wealthy Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) would wear, that

The Address-Mr. Young

anyone would be glad to wear. I have them in my hand. I showed these socks to the people and I explained to them that the duty on these under Liberal rule was 35 per cent, because the Liberals believed that the rich man should pay more than the poor man, but that under the present administration the duty on these socks had been increased to 51 per cent. At a special session of parliament, called to relieve distress, to relieve unemployment, my right hon. friend increases the duty on the sock of the poor man or the unemployed to 165 and 185 per cent, but on his own sock he is satisfied with 51 per cent. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) a little while ago pointed out that certain socks were off the market because of that duty. A friend of mine, belonging to the wool producers of Saskatchewan, went into their office in Regina the other day and asked for a price on four-point Hudson Bay blankets, which are the best blanket you can get. The dealer said: "I can give you at a reasonable price some four-point Hudson Bay blankets that have been carried over from last year." My friend said that he wanted new blankets. The dealer replied: "There is no new stock; we are not handling them any more; with the present tariff we cannot handle them any more." The man said: "Do you mean to tell me I can no longer buy four-point Hudson Bay blankets?" The dealer replied: "On account of the present duties imposed by the present government it is impossible to sell those blankets any more in this country." Because of that duty the people of Canada are to-day compelled to adopt a lower standard of living by buying inferior blankets.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does the hon. member not know that most of these Hudson Bay blankets are made in Canada, some in my own town?


Edward James Young: I am not speaking of where they are made.


Peter McGibbon: If they are made in Canada, how can there be any duty on them?


Edward James Young: There is the answer to the government's contention. The blankets are made in Canada and the price has gone up
The Prime Minister also said that he would not listen to any such speeches as I made during the short session. That is very much like a statement he made the other day when Mr. R. J. Deachman, representative of the consumers' league, appeared before a committee of the cabinet at the request of the

Canadian Council of Agriculture to represent the cause of the farmers of this country when the cabinet was considering increasing tariffa What did the Prime Minister say to him? "We do not want any arguments from you." That is what the Prime Minister said to our representative before the cabinet. That is what he is saying to us in the west, and that is what he said in his speech on Tuesday- "We do not want any arguments from you." What was the matter with the speeches 1 made last session? Just let us review for a moment what I said then.
One of the first measures, if not the first measure brought in at that session, was a bill authorizing the government to spend $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment. As was my duty I arose in my place on that occasion and told the Prime Minister what I thought of his bill. I told him that in my opinion it would not relieve the smallest fraction of unemployment. I tried to explain that the cause of unemployment was that the people had no purchasing power. I tried to explain that before he could spend $20,000,000 or $20 on unemployment, he must first take that money out of the pockets of the people. I tried to explain that if he spent $20,000,000 in one part of the country, creating employment, he would create $20,000,000 worth of unemployment in other parts of the country where he collected that money; for he would by that very act still further reduce their purchasing power. Was I not right?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward James Young: Let us see. The minister's own officers told us at that time that there were two hundred thousand unemployed in Canada. To-day there are three hundred thousand. Has that relieved unemployment? Was I not right?
Further than that, the Prime Minister brought down other measures increasing the tariff enormously, to give employment to Canadian labour and encourage Canadian industry, as he said. Again I tried to explain to him that the cause of the trouble was the lack of purchasing power on the part of the people. I tried to explain to him that in no possible way could he legislate through his tariff to bring about higher prices for the commodities that we had to sell abroad. I tried to explain that the purchasing power of the people could not be restored until a parity was restored, between the prices of the goods we had to sell and the prices of the goods we had to buy, and that the only way in which the purchasing power of the people of this country could be increased was by bringing

The Address-Mr. Young
down the cost of the commodities we had to buy. I pointed out to him that the measures he was then taking to relieve unemployment would have just the opposite effect, that they would keep prices up, and that as a consequence we would have less purchasing power and more unemployment. Was I not right? What has been the result? Let us see what the Prime Minister himself said the other day in regard to the work of the special session:
Where would this country have been had it not been for the session last fall which gave employment to upwards of two hundred thousand people? Study if you will for a moment the figures of industry. In eight months new factories cannot be equipped and built, but they can be commenced, and the numbers that have been commenced in this country during those eight months are more than those during any other similar period in recent years.
I want to deal with that statement. The Montreal Star sent out a man to look over the industrial districts of this country, to find out just what had been effected by these tariff increases, and his observations were published in a series of articles in the Montreal Star, a copy of which has been sent to every member of the house. What did he find? He reported that new industries had been established in this country, because of this tariff, with a capital investment of some S14,000,000. Incidentally he included in that $14,000,000 some $6,000,000 invested in a fertilizer plant at Trail. British Columbia, which plant he forgot to tell us had been established four years ago under the Liberal regime. But we will allow him that $6,000,000. Including that, the most he could find was $14,000,000 of new capital invested in industry, all of which he attributed to the increased tariff. We will be generous; we will double his estimate and make it $28,000,000. Let us say that there was new capital invested to the amount of $28,000,000. Now $28,000,000 in four months is at the rate of $,84,000,000 a year; and the average investment of new capital in Canadian industry during the last seven years of Liberal government was $227,000,000 a year. The Prime Minister said that no such amount of capital as had been invested in this country in industry since the new tariff came into effect had been invested in any other eight months' period in recent years. I dare aver, Mr. Speaker, that we never had in the history of Canada an eight months' period when there was so little new capital invested as during the last eight months.
This same writer in the Montreal Star, Mr. MacLeod, writing of the benefits of this new policy, tells us that it has given employment to two thousand hands. We know from the government's own figures that last fall there were two hundred thousand unemployed, and 22110-101
to-day there are three hundred thousand. Let us strike the balance:	Two thousand men
given employment, and one hundred thousand more men thrown out of employment. Was I not right? What does all the benefit of this tariff policy amount to as compared with what it has cost Canada? It is but "A wrecker's handful of coin gleaned from the beach to which he has beguiled an argosy."
The government also told us at tne special session that they had assurances from the manufacturers that if the tariff increases proposed were granted, the manufacturers would not increase their prices. I directed a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) at the time, and asked him if any manufacturer had refused to give such an assurance. I did not ask that question just to tease the minister, or to wear out his patience, as the Prime Minister suggested, but because at the time I had information in my possession that certain manufacturers had flatly refused to give any such assurance. Here is an article from the Toronto Mail and Empire, a good Conservative paper. Speaking of the new customs regulation in regard to the valuation of automobiles, in its issue of February 20, 1931, it says:
General Motors, Durant, Willys-Overland Company, Chrysler and other Canadian manufacturers, it is understood, have been urging the change upon the Dominion government ever since the special session of parliament last year, when it was indicated that the government at that time contemplated increasing motor car duties by some 20 per cent. A promise was then sought that the domestic prices would not be increased, but it is understood, Mr. Bennett and his ministers were told flatly and frankly that to raise the rate of duty would be automatically to increase domestic prices to the consumer and cut down consumption, with consequent increase in unemployment.
That put the minister in a quandary. Ho wanted to raise the duties on automobiles. Hti had promised the house and the country that he would first get assurances from the manufacturers that prices would not be increased. When they refused to give any such assurance, the problem that confronted him was: how can I do this thing without it being necessary to extract a promise from the manufacturers? The ingenuity of the customs department came to his rescue. They found a way. Those gentlemen in that feudal castle on the banks of the canal can always find a way. I think the man who designed that castle must have had a rare sense of humour. There it stands on the banks of the canal, on the highway of traffic with its bastions, and battlements, with its
The Address-Mr. Young

towers, its turrets and its portholes with guns at the door and no doubt a dungeon or an oubliette underneath. It reminds one of the robbers' castles on the Rhine that we used to read about as boys, to which all passers by were compelled to draw near and pay toll. Here is bulletin No. 3684, signed by R. W. Breadner:
Order in council P.C. 297, dated the 19th February, 1931, fixes and determines "a rate of discount of 20 per cent W'hich may be applied to the prices of automobiles or other motor vehicles, excepting motorcycles, so published or listed by manufacturers or producers thereof; such published or listed prices, subject to deduction of a discount of 20 per cent, to be deemed and taken to be the fair market vajue of such goods on importation into Canada under the general tariff, and to be the value for duty thereof on such importation into Canada by others than consumers, provided. however, that such fair market value be not less than the price actually paid by the importer to the exporter for the goods, and that for duty purposes on importation of such goods into Canada where the discount allowed in the home market is less than 20 per cent, no greater discount shall be allowed from such published or listed prices than is allowed on sales of such goods in the home market to the consumers thereof."
What does that mean? Perhaps I can best explain it by giving a concrete case. Take a car that retails in the United States for SI ,000. and is not manufactured in Canada. The wholesale price of that car in the United States would be $700. The wholesale price of that car to the importer in Canada would be the same, $700. The duty on that car would be 20 per cent of $700, or S140. The duty-paid value of that car would be $840. Add to that 5 per cent excise tax and one per cent sales tax, which are based on the duty paid value of the car, and which amount to $50.40, and we have on that car a total revenue to the government of $190.40. That brings the price of the car, duty paid at our border, up to $890.40. On top of that the dealer has to pay freight and has to add his commission. Under these new regulations the Department of Customs says the value for duty on that car shall be $800 and not $700. What happens? The value for duty is $800; the rate is 20 per cent. Twenty per cent of $800 is $160. The duty paid value then is $960. I wish the Minister of Customs and National Revenue would listen to my remarks, because I think if he understood what he has done he might be willing to correct his mistake. The duty paid value of that car is $960. Add to that the 5 per cent excise tax, and one per cent sales tax and you have a total revenue to the government on that car of $217.60.
M. LaVERGNE: Why not?


Edward James Young: There is $217.60. That is
the revenue bo the government on that oar. The Customs department, however, does not dtop there. They say to the man, "What did you pay for this car in the United States?" He replies, "$700." They say, "You should not have paid $700 for that car; you should have paid $800 and because you have dared to buy the car in the United States for $700 when you should have paid $800 we will fine you another $100 in the form of a dumping duty, and that is exactly what is done. My hon. friend may laugh, but that is what his department has done and I have proof of it over the signature of his own commissioner of customs.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the effect of it?


Edward James Young: The effect is this: Before
this regulation became operative the car of which I am speaking was selling at retail in Canada for $1,187. To-day in order to give the dealer the same commission as he got before, the car would have to sell in Canada for $1,347.
Mr. LaVERGNE: What is the commission the dealer receives?


Edward James Young: You are depriving the dealer of his commission. This regulation was deliberately passed to put both the dealer and the importer of American made oars out of business.
Let us suppose the purpose of this action is accomplished. The dealer is put out of business. In what position then is the citizen of this country who wants to buy that particular car? What will he do? He^will have to go over to the United States and buy that car at the retail price of $1,000. He will have to pay a 20 per cent duty on the $1,000 valuation and on top of that the sales tax and the excise tax which brings the price of the car up to $1,272.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Why not buy a Canadian car?


Edward James Young: I will refer to the Canadian
car in a moment.


John Livingstone Brown: Surely a man ought to have the right to buy the car he wants.


Edward James Young: As I said, the object of this regulation is to stop the importation of these cars into Canada and to have them manufactured in Canada. Let us suppose for a moment, as suggested by my hon. friend from Windsor (Mr. Morand) that importations are stopped and the cars have to be made in Canada. Of cars valued at less than SI,200 we import some

The Address-Mr. Young
30,000 in a year. The revenue derived by the government through duties, excise and sales tax on these 30,000 cars amounts to about four and a half million dollars a year. Now my hon. friend says, "Buy Canadian cars." Supposing we accept his advice, the first cost to the country is a loss of four and a half million dollars in revenue.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That is high financing;
I would suggest that the Minister of National Revenue pay very close attention.


Edward James Young: Yes, it is high financing and the automobile makers know how to "put it over." The first cost to the country is four and a half million dollars which will be lost to the revenue of the country and paid to the manufacturers.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: It will increase the purchasing power?


Mr. VALLANCE:: The hon. member who
has just spoken ought to be given the floor so that he may talk.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Edward James Young: Four and a half million dollars lost to the revenue because the cars are not brought in. Then the Canadians who buy those made in Canada cars will have to pay an additional price for them. It is estimated that the average increase in price, if the dealers absorb as much of the discount as they can will be about $85 each on the cheaper cars. However I am not going to insist on $S5, I will place it at $70, because $70 is the actual increase which has already taken place in connection with one of those cars.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: On American cars?


Edward James Young: Yes, on American cars. An increase of $70 each on 30,000 cars amounts to about $2,100,000 to be taken out of the pockets of the people. Taking the contribution from the revenue of this country of about four and one half million dollars and adding to that the additional cost to the consumers of $2,100,000 makes the total of $6,615,000 to be taken from the Canadian people, in order to establish an industry which will manufacture 30,000 cars a year. We know that in connection with the manufacture of automobiles in Canada the average production per annum per man engaged in the industry is about 18 cars. From that we learn that the production of 30,000 cars will give employment to about 1,660 men. That number of men would be employed, and we know from the government returns that the average wage paid to each of these men is about $1,600 a
year. We find then that we have established an industry which, when worked out, pays in wages $2,656,000 per year and would cost the people of Canada $6,615,000 in the same period. With those figures we would have a net loss on the industry of $3,959,000 per year. That amount goes to the manufacturers of Canadian automobiles.
Oh, how much has the automobile manufacturing industry cost this country? I well remember when in 1926 we were going to reduce the duty on automobiles representatives of the industry came here with tears in their eyes and we were told that Mr. McLaughlin would have to close his factory if the duties were reduced. Mr. Robb called his bluff and did he close his factories? Yes, for three days.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: That difficulty was afterwards overcome.


Edward James Young: Now they come again to
the present government and they say, "unless you give us this additional protection we will have to close our factories." The government "fell for it" and gave them what they asked.
I ask hon. members this question:	How
much are Canadian producers of automobiles interested in Canadian labour and Canadian workmen? How much are they interested in employment in this country? I will tell you. The importer of a certain American automobile adopted the practice of bringing his cars in without tires and equipping them with Canadian tires. The Canadian automobile producers went to the Canadian tire manufacturers, and persuaded them to blacklist that firm and refuse to sell them tires for their cars. That shows how much interest they have in Canadian labour.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Why did they do that?


Edward James Young: That is an instance to show how much they care for Canadian labour. Let us translate the situation I have outlined into bushels of wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: Why not socks?


Edward James Young: When the Prime Minister asked the other day why we could not get a better price for our wheat, and I told him "tariffs" he replied in a most irrelevant fashion. The $70 increase in the price of a car translated into bushels of wheat which is selling in the west at 40 cents per bushel amounts to 175 bushels. We know that imports are paid for by exports and that exports are paid for by imports. When we export our wheat we must take goods in exchange. Very well, we export wheat and we want to import a car.
The Address-Mr. Young

The Minister of National Revenue says, "I will not let you buy that car for the number of bushels of wheat which the Americans are willing to take for it; I insist that you pay an additional 175 bushels for it." Then the hon. gentleman wonders why we cannot get a satisfactory price for wheat. We must take imports in exchange for our wheat. Every obstacle which is placed in the way of goods entering this country represents another millstone around the neck of the western farmer. Every obstacle so placed means to them that they cannot accept the world price for their wheat but must take a lesser price.
My hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Turnbull) stated the other day that the people of the west are not starving. No, of course they are not starving; we have too much food. Why should we starve?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: You are lucky.


Edward James Young: On the other hand we are short of clothing, of machinery, of furniture, of buildings.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The hon. gentleman is not short of socks?


Edward James Young: We are short of many of the necessities of life. We want to exchange our surplus food products for the surplus products that other people have to sell, but the government says we must not do so. As the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) explained yesterday in quoting the language of Sir George Paish, the whole trouble of the world to-day is that there is an abundance of foodstuffs in some parts of the world and an abundance of manufactured products in other parts of the world, and governments step in and say, We will not allow you people to make the ex-jhange. That is the whole trouble.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while its intentions may have been good, the government by its every act since it came into office has only aggravated the unemployment situation, it has only aggravated the distress in the western provinces and in all other parts of the country. Never since I have been in the west-and I have lived there all my life- never until this winter have I seen in the stores of the west signs reading: " Butter not wanted." Why is that?


An hon. MEMBER:: Too much New Zealand butter.


Edward James Young: No, that is not the cause. In a certain town in my constituency there is a creamery locally owned and operated by the farmers. Last December I had a talk with the operator and he told me: "I supply all the butter that is used in this town. In other years it has taken from 300 to 400 
pounds a week to meet the demand, but this year it takes only 50 pounds a week. The people are not using butter." You have reduced the standard of living further and further, until, as was predicted last fall by members on this side of the house, you have ruined the market that you were trying to create.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the hon. Minister of National Revenue to study this matter of automobiles. He laughs and says that it did not amount to anything, but I tell him that what I have stated is correct, and his commissioner of customs will tell him so too if he is only capable of understanding it. I say we should demand an investigation into the whole automobile industry, for that industry has cost this country many, many times what it is worth.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe):: My first words will be to extend my regards to the Speaker of this house. At the special session in September last as well as, so far, during this session, it has been my impression that the Speaker has given a fair deal to both sides of the house. So far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for most of my colleagues on this side, I can say that you, Mr. Speaker, may expect from us the most cordial cooperation. And now, sir, my constituency being composed, in large majority, of French-speaking people, and even though a great proportion of the members of this house are not familiar with the French language, I shall continue my remarks in my mother tongue. -
(Translation):	Mr. Speaker, my first wish is
to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address. They delivered their speeches with much zest, and it is all to their credit. I state that it was all to their credit because it was a difficult task to vindicate the acts of the present government. I could add, sir, that this government, although it has been in power for eight months only, has to its record the harnessing of the country with one of the most unpopular administrations in existence since confederation. In the course of the last election, through public addresses, the radio and every possible Conservative medium of propaganda, we heard sung the praises and exploits of the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett).

The Address-Mr. Brasset
From one end of the country to the other pledges abound: the ceasing of unemployment, the lowering of the cost of living, work for everybody, high wages, etc., etc. Briefly, it was the golden age returning to earth, and we were told: Elect Mr. Bennett; elect the leader of the Conservative opposition and you will have in this country all that you desire. Everybody will have work, and factories will open their doors again. Well, for eight months the Canadian people have been waiting and what is the result? The people have been waiting eight months without hearing the roar of the guns, without any blasting of foreign markets. The people have waited eight months without seeing the promised millennium; instead what is happening? Let us examinu the balance sheet of the Conservative party since they are in power and compare it with that of the Liberal regime. I quote from an extract of L'Avenir du Nord:
Under the Conseratives, the unemployment crisis which they were to relieve immediately on assuming power, is more acute than under the Liberal regime.
Under the Conservative rule that national unity, that harmony between all the provinces brought about by the Liberals, threaten to he inevitably torn asunder.
And if we had many speeches like the one delivered yesterday, in the house, by the member for Regina, I would have to unfortunately admit that the harmony between the various provinces would not last long.
Under the Conservatives, Canada's trade is collapsing, under the Liberals it had reached the highest summit of our history.
Canada lost the fifth rank among the exporting countries, to make way for India. Dominion Bureau of Sstatistics.
Under the Conservatives, the cost of living increases, under the Liberals, it was decreasing.
Under the Conservatives, the taxes increase; under the Liberals they were decreasing.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): They are rapidly climbing.


Maurice Brasset: Yes, unfortunately they are climbing and rapidly.
Under the Conservatives, expenditures exceed the revenues; under the Liberals we had surpluses.
Under the Conservatives, the national debt is increasing; under the Liberals, it was decreasing.
Under the Conservatives, the revenues of the country are decreasing; under the Liberals, they were on the increase.
These are the Conservative balance-sheets and the balance-sheets of the Liberal administration. The Conservatives proclaim everywhere that the Prime Minister has redeemed his pledges. The people of Canada
would be easily pleased if they were satisfied with the deeds of this government.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment question has been broached, it is very much in evidence, and what I would have to say -would not alter the situation. However, in listening to the speakers who preceded me these last days, I thought that the government's endeavours to relieve unemployment did not produce the result which the Conservative themselves expected. The then leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister of to-day, had solemnly pledged his word-that everybody heard, members on the right as well as those on the left-not to try to merely relieve unemployment, but to completely eradicate it. What result has the Prime Minister had since his advent to power. Is there less unemployment? Has unemployment ceased? I shall state that not only it has not ceased, but that it has spread more than ever. The calls for help which reach members from all parts of Canada are a sufficient answer.
It is often queried, sir, how the government would fare should elections take place now. We wonder what would be the verdict of the people if after eight months in power our friends on your right, sir, were to face another general election. The almost unanimous views expressed by the people of Canada, is that were we to have elections today the Conservative party would be swept from power. What the Canadian people expected, so as to relieve unemployment, is not a few million dollars given out as charity. The Canadian people have more pride than that. It is not charity we expected, we had hoped, on the present Prime Minister assuming power, that a constructive policy would give works to the people; and not doles. And this charity of $20,000,000 how was it given? It was given with the disdainful gesture of the wealthy man who drops a few cents to the beggar on the street in order to get rid of him. Poor municipalities were forced to bleed themselves white in order to contribute their share and thus assure a few days of work to the unemployed. What happened in my own riding? The unemployed worked eight, ten, fifteen days, and now they are poorer than ever.
It unfortunately happened, in my county, that many poor parishes and municipalities were forced to borrow in order to meet the requirements of the government and thereby help the latter to relieve the distress existing. These municipalities were already relieving much distress and in no way did they need to be forced by the government to help their poor, which they had begun to do long before the government had their measure of $20,000,000 voted.
The Address-Mr. Brasset


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Gaspe will allow me, I would like to ask him a question.


Maurice Brasset: You will have your turn later.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Whether the hon. member for Gaspe is agreeable or not, I shall ask him to tell us how the money intended to relieve unemployment was distributed in the province of Quebec and in what way the provincial government-[DOT]


Mr.   S@: The provincial government is in no way interested.


Maurice Brasset: Well, I shall say to the hon. member for Lake St. John that the money to relieve unemployment was well spent in Quebec, perhaps better under the liberal rule of that province than it would have been distributed under the Conservative government at Ottawa.
At the emergency session, in September last, I had personally asked the government and the Prime Minister to take the necessary steps to have the right of way of a projected railway surveyed in the county of Gaspe. This would have given work to the unemployed of Gaspe and the money would not have been spent uselessly to draw gravel over the snow in order to relieve unemployment; the money would have been expended in a practical and efficient way and this undertaking would have had as a result the relief of unemployment, during the winter. However, the Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) did not even think it worthwhile to answer my query, and brushed aside my suggestion.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed the other day that when the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) commented on the deplorable state of the people of this country, the features of the right hon. Prime Minister took an expression of self complacency. It is said that the Prime Minister is a man with large personal means-and I have no criticism to offer-I fear however that the hon. Prime Minister is unaware of what is going on; because, considering his responsibilities, if he could only realize the distress of the people, we would not see him smile disdainfully whenever the distress of the people is referred to.
In the course of this session, sir, many references will be made to the government's deficit, and the latter will try to place the blame on world conditions, and they will be partly right; they will also tell us that the customs and excise revenues show a decrease of about $50,000,000 since. July last and that

is the principal cause of the government's deficit.
Then, sir, I can point out that the government is inconsequent since the Prime Minister himself stated, in the course of the special session, that by raising the tariff his aim was precisely to decrease imports and, thereby, restrict the operations of that department. Since it is the. government which has restricted the business of the Customs and Excise department, why should they impute this deficit to these branches of the service? It is stultifying itself, moreover that is a poor argument to invoke.
We shall also hear of the Liberal regime and tariff. During the last election, the Conservatives proclaimed everywhere that the Liberal tariff was the cause of unemployment, of economic depression and of all the suffering which existed in our country. But the moment the Conservatives assumed power, their tactics changed, so did their tone. A very few days after the election of July 28, the hon. Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) stated in Ottawa: "that the economic unrest cannot be attributed to any government, that it was world-wide." At the special session the Prime Minister made almost the same statement and almost in the same words as the Hon. Mr. Robertson. Finally, on November 8 last, Sir George Perley speaking in Ottawa, stated:
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. The testing-time, however, lias only served to prove that strength and solidity of the Canadian economic structure. Few countries have been as fortunate.
This is entirely different from what our friends the Conservatives proclaimed during the electoral campaign, when they asserted that Canada was doomed to ruin and that, thanks to the liberal rule, Canada had perhaps become one of the last countries of the world. Circumstances alter cases.
We have had, sir, for nine years a Liberal administration. What has that administration given us? First, it has given us seven consecutive years of surpluses, which has never been done by any Canadian administration since confederation, not even by Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government so highly praised by our friends the Conservatives.
During that Liberal administration, taxes decreased year after year, the debts resulting from the war began to decrease and disappear. In a word the people were prosperous. That means, sir, that we had an excellent government.
Last spring, relying upon the results obtained, the right hon. Prime Minister of the

The Address-Mr. Mullins
day (Mr. Mackenzie King) submitted his administration to the electorate. At the outset of the campaign everybody was certain that the Liberal party would be returned to power. I could name many of my hon. friends now sitting on your right, sir, who at the outset of the campaign stated themselves that they would be defeated. I, myself, quoted extracts from conservative newspapers which asserted the the Liberal government would be returned to power. However, by degree, in the course of the campaign, rumours reached us of a super-man who was covering the country from one end to the other, promising marvels. He made pledges right and left, somewhat like one American millionaire, whose name is on every lip, throws handfuls of dimes. The pledges of the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) were strewn from one end of the country to the other and there seemed, to be never enough. By degree, the people were caught by those beautiful promises. Mr. 3ennett stated that with the advent to power of the Conservative party, there would be no more suffering the world over, that there would be bridges, roads and railways every where. The Canadian western wheat growers would sell their products with considerable profit; Ontario and Quebec would see their factories increase and the output would be at its maximum; the Gaspe and Maritime provinces' fishermen, under the magic word of the leader of the opposition, would have miraculous catches, like of old, twenty centuries ago, the apostles at the word of the Master.
Now, all has changed, and brutal reality has established the truth of facts. The people of Canada are discovering that they have been deceived. They abide their time, and it will some. They will then ask the Conservatives -and I quote here an extract from a newspaper which everybody is familiar with:
They will ask why, after having pledged their word to put an end to unemployment in the very first months of their taking office the government did nothing to relieve efficiently the unemployed; they will ask why the Prime Minister, after having pledged his word to sell the Canadian wheat, enacted measures which closed the British market to us and increased the agricultural crisis in the Canadian west; they will inquire why Confederation exists; they will inquire wherefor the fiasco of all the meetings of this nature since Confederation; they will inquire why the country must face a deficit of more than $100,000,000, when, under the Liberal administration, there wras always surpluses. from 1922 to 1930 inclusively; they will ask why they increased the national debt, when the Liberals had decreased it by $300,000,000 since 1924

An hon. MEMBER (Translation); Are you quoting from the Soleil?


Maurice Brasset: It is a newspaper that tells the truth.
-they will ask why our export trade shows a deficit on all British markets where, previous to July 28 last, we regularly had a favourable
balance.
They will ask why, after having gained rural ridings by promising to increase the price of butter by cutting out the New Zealand imports, they only succeeded in lowering these prices by 2 cents below the prices of 1929;
They will ask why, in the midst of the crisis, while thousands of Canadians are unemployed, they disorganized the import trade of automobiles and threw on the street about 10,000 workers.
They will be made to answer for all their pledges and all their blunders. The people abide their hour and that hour will come.
Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette); Mr. Speaker, before I take up the subjects I intend to discuss to-night, allow me to extend to you my congratulations upon your appointment. I wish also to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
It is some years since I was last in this chamber and there have been many changes in the personnel, but I see a few of the old faces here and that gives me delight and encouragement.
I have listened to the attacks by hon. gentlemen opposite upon my hon. leader, and f confess that while they were being made I found it very hard to keep my seat. I would not be speaking this evening if it were not for the statements made from the other side of the house that this is a onenman government.


Miss MAOPHAIL:: Isn't it?


Henry Alfred Mullins: I represent the constituency of Marquette and I stand here as free a man as any hon. member in this house. Marquette, a purely agricultural constituency, sent me here to represent them, but at the same time I do not forget that I represent Canada as a whole.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is right.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Marquette, in which reside many intelligent voters, is one of the most picturesque constituencies in western Canada. We are engaged largely in the production of live stock, we believe in diversified farming. I cannot sit here and listen to attacks being made upon my leader, whom I have known as long as, if not longer than, any man in this house. I remember when he first came to Calgary and put out his sign, as a member of the legal profession. I have watched his
The Address-Mr. Mullins

career and am satisfied that the affairs of Canada are in very good hands irrespective of what the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) may say. I have every confidence in the right hon. gentleman who leads this government.
I was elected in 1025; in 1926 I was defeated by a Liberal-Progressive or a Progressive-Liberal-God knows what.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was a good man.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Yes, but he had a hyphenated name. This time, instead of suffering defeat by a majority of 1,000, I came back with a majority of nearly 2,700.
I agree that conditions in the west are not good. They are not good for the man on the land, but they are all right for the man who has live stock. I stated before on the floor of this house that the sowless, chickenless farmer is not good for the west. You must have diversified farming; you cannot have one crop only, consisting of wheat. I hear wailings from those men south of the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway from Swift Current to the mountains who are settled on land which should never have been taken away from the rancher. We gave way to the men who came in with the prairie schooners thinking they were going to better conditions, but what happened? The hon. member opposite, the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) brought in professors from the United States to find out if grass could be sown in order to bring back the land which had been taken from us. We left that land fertile and rich but they exploited the soil with the usual result. That district should never have been ploughed and certainly should never have been taken away from the rancher.
I have a letter here which I received from one of my constituents enclosing two photographs, which delighted me very much, showing what he is doing in regard to the feeding and raising of cattle. He says:
_ Every day as I gain experience I am gaining confidence in you. I think I can see from the little bit of experience I have had through North America that we can produce cattle in this western country cheaper than in any other part of the Dominion and also in the largest part of the United States, and you know the condition of producing cattle in Europe.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who signed it?


Henry Alfred Mullins: Edward Dupont, of Bins-carth.	.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put the letter on record.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go on.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I am glad the benches
are not empty; I am glad hon. members are here so that I can talk to them.
I watched the career of the government which was in power from 1922 up until the time it was defeated in July, 1930. They were always promising to do certain things. The ex-Minister of Agriculture told us that we were going to get a reduction in freight rates from the $20 rate down. What happened? During the whole term of office they never obtained a reduced freight rate or a reduction in any manner, shape or form.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: It went down to


Henry Alfred Mullins: We were in office not
more than sixty days when we had a $15 rate. I was brought from Winnipeg to Ottawa-and I came irrespective of my party leanings-to give evidence before what the former Liberal government called the Petersen commission, the greatest fiasco that ever was perpetrated on the Canadian people. I came here expecting that I would be of some assistance in getting reduced freight rates for the people of western Canada. My hon. friends opposite placed the matter in the hands of a man by the name of Preston. I came all the way from Winnipeg without any remuneration, and I found a man named Symington sitting there as counsel, drawing $20 a day expenses, in addition to a -charge of so much per diem. He was the man who broadcast over the radio in western Canada a talk which contained statements which were absolutely untrue but which helped to defeat us. I wondered what was behind the scenery of that Petersen commission, and I commenced to look around. There was in England a large shipping company that was standing behind Petersen, and Petersen was not in the picture. He was not putting on any boats, but he was making a deal with a large shipping company called the Thompson line to supply ships. That was what we were receiving from my hon. friends opposite. Now hon. gentlemen opposite are asking for action, -asking why we did not do anything; but what do we find? As I said before, we were not elected more than sixty days before the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) got for western Canada a $15 rate on cattle, and before long we shall have a much lower rate than that-we shall have a $10 rate.
The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the opposition, took the credit for the lifting of the Canadian cattle embargo. I may say for the benefit of the house, and especially the younger members who are not conversant

The Address-Mr. Mullins
with the matter, that for thirty years I fought the embargo. I was in Dundee when, the Huronia arrived on the other side and they took a cow away, stating that she was diseased, a statement which was absolutely unfair to Canada. They tested her lungs, and they placed a stigma against Canadian cattle. Edward Watson, president of the association for the free importation of Canadian cattle into the British isles, said to me. "Mullins, that is unfair to Canada." I said: "Watson, I will fight that issue as long as Providence permits me to remain here." He said: "I will too." We fought together for the removal of the embargo. I crossed over several times on that issue. In 1917 the question came before the war conference as to what they should do for Canada. The question was raised by Sir Walter Long, and the answer came back from the present hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers): "Remove the embargo and the stigma from Canadian cattle." That is what made it possible for Canadian cattle to get into the British isles. The records are available, and no matter what the leader of the opposition may say, the facts cannot be denied because the official returns and documents are available. The answer came back that a resolution had been passed that they would remove the embargo upon the declaration of peace. Having given this promise, having given their word which to a Britisher was as good as his bond, they let the matter drag along, Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, who was then the British Minister of Agriculture, was antagonistic to it. He contested a seat in Dudley and with a Labour candidate against him was defeated by 10,000 votes on the question of admission of Canadian cattle into the British isles. That made him antagonistic, and when Lloyd George asked him to contest Taunton, the Federal Meat Traders of England kept their hands off Taunton to let Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen into the House of Commons. He came back as Minister of Agriculture, but he was antagonistic and he would not do anything towards removing that stigma from Canadian cattle.
The matter dragged along from 1917 to 1922. In the fall of 1922, as a private citizen, I felt it my duty to go overseas, and I went. I discussed with Lord Beaverbrook the justification for removing the embargo from Canadian cattle. The matter came before the British House of Commons and a measure was passed lifting the embargo. I ask the right hon. gentleman: who made it possible for the removal of that embargo? Why does
he take to Mr. Larkin and himself the credit for the removal? I cannot see what justification they can find for doing that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend give the date at which the embargo was finally removed?


Henry Alfred Mullins: The embargo was re- moved on December 15, 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Liberal
administration came into office in December, 1921.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Yes, but they did nothing towards having the embargo removed. While I was in England I did not see that Mr. Larkin had anything to do with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While my hon. friend was there nothing was done in the way of finally removing it. I admit my hon. friend tried to get it removed, but he did not succeed. All efforts had been in vain until within a year after the Liberal government came into office.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I did not see any evidence of any work except some that was done by Duncan Marshall who went overseas to receive the first shipment of Canadian cattle and who put a red tape across the gang plank of the first ship which arrived in Glasgow. The steer that he was leading out, the first one that left the ship, took a look at the red tape and nearly put Duncan Marshall into the Clyde. We got into that market, and it was a wonderful market. I do not know what Canada would have done with all the cattle we had out west on feed but for the British market. I can see no reason whatever for hon. gentlemen opposite taking any credit for our getting into the British market or for any reduction in freight rates whatever.
For the benefit of the house I wish .to read a telegram, dated March 17, 1923, just after the bill had passed the house, which I received from a gentleman who was coming out to this country:
Arriving on the ss. Paris the 25th. Address the Mount Royal Hotel, Montreal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: This is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. Conditions in western Canada are much too serious to be laughed at. I have never laughed at hon. gentlemen across the floor or heckled them, nor will I do so in the future. I feel my responsibility as a member of parliament from the west too much to treat this matter, which is of vital import-
1.56
The Address-Mr. Mullins

anee to western Canada, as a jest. The telegram continues:
Intend purchasing one thousand choice feeders immediately. Reply. Put me in touch with the best markets. Immediate purchase and despatch. Confirm wireless to ss. Paris.
That man came out to this country and I helped him to get five hundred steers, which he took over to England and met a wonderful market there. Then we got thousands of cattle going over there at the very time that the trade was dormant. There was nothing doing until the stigma was taken off our cattle and the British market was opened up to us.
While the embargo was on we met with a lot of opposition from Ireland. I am sorry that the former Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) is not in his seat, because he is a good Irishman. I say, Mr. Speaker, that Ireland could not stand the competition of the Canadian steer. They had that market to themselves over there.
I object, and did object strenuously in western Canada, to our young steers going out of Canada to the United States. The former Minister of Agriculture should have taken steps to stop our young steers from leaving Canada to be fattened in the United States, and then shipped back to Canada as beef. Imagine thousands of our cattle, in a country such as this, leaving Winnipeg, where the cattle could have been fattened, because there is so much coarse feed in that country, and going to the United States to be fattened, and then the beef being shipped back to the leading hotels in Canada. That was another instance of our raw products being exported. I urge the present Minister of Agriculture and this government to do something to stop our young steers going out to the United States. Let us get them back on the land where feed is cheap. There is no country in the world like Canada for feeding cattle out of doors. No country has such wonderful possibilities as western Canada in that respect. What a chance we have to raise these steers cheap, with thousands of tons of hay in stack outside Winnipeg right now; and yet there is not an animal on feed. Think of it! Your beautiful little farms in Ontario could be utilized in finishing off these cattle, and then they could go forward to England. There is one chance for us out west, and that is to ship our cattle over the Hudson Bay route. The road will be finished pretty soon, and it will be a wonderful route. It is a cool route, and the cattle will stand the trip to the old country better.
The Scotch people want our cattle. We have a market over there for hundreds of thousands of our cattle. They want a one

thousand pound steer, three parts finished, so they can finish them off. Ireland sent a representative out to this country to make a survey, and he found that there was nothing doing because the former Minister of Agriculture had abolished the policy of putting out pure-bred sires. It was suicidal to abolish that policy of scattering pure-bred sires over the western plains. It was unfair to the cattle trade of western Canada for the former Minister of Agriculture to abrogate that policy, and that is largely responsible for the condition in which we find ourselves to-day in western Canada. We would not be in such a position to-day were it not for the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite.
I do not wish to take up much of the time of the house, but I know the actual circumstances; I tried in years past to lend a hand to hon. gentlemen opposite, who turned a deaf ear to my plea, and I cannot now remain silent in my seat. I expect to see the present Minister of Agriculture bring down a policy which will stop our young steers going out of Winnipeg, and secure a cheap freight rate to the farms where these cattle can be fed on the coarse feed that we have out west. I expect to see a trade develop that has been ignored in the past while hon. gentlemen opposite were in office.
I wish to say a few words on the subject of marketing. I believe in cooperation, but not the kind of cooperation that was applied by the gentleman who held the portfolio of Minister of Railways, Mr. Crerar, in the late government. He put his nose into my constituency, Mr. Speaker, but he did not get recognized. Wherever he spoke I received the biggest majority I ever had. I could not figure out how the leader of the late government ever took a man like that into his cabinet. Mr. Crerar tried to deal with that little group across the floor to my right. He tried to bargain with them, but he did not get them. I have every confidence in that group over there; I know where they stand. Mr. Crerar tried to bargain with them in Saskatoon and said:	If you will come into
the Liberal fold, we can get three or four portfolios for you. But he did not get them in at all. The people got tired of his bargaining.
What else did Mr. Crerar do? He was president of the United Grain Growers, and he put in a system of this kind-the farmers had some confidence in him as president of the United Grain Growers, and they thought that he would treat them right. They brought in their cattle, and then Mr. Crerar brought

The Address-Mr. Mullins
in a man from the United States to sell those cattle, and he did not know a steer from a heifer. Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I talk western language, but I am bringing a message from the west. I do not want to break the rules of the house; I simply want to speak plainly, and I will not break the rules of the house by reading my speeches as do some of my hon. friends on the other side. Every time my hon. friends read their speeches they are breaking the rules of the house as laid down in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.
The former Minister of Railways Mr. Crerar, put in a system and said, "Go on, ship in your cattle." The farmers were instructed to ship their cattle into a pool. They were told "Put your cattle in a pool." I saw cattle going to the pool valued at 2| to 3 cents per pound which on the open market in the stock yard would bring about 4 cents per pound. Then they got a division of about thirty cents per hundredweight. What did they do then? They had a little pen near the weigh-scale in connection with which they built a high pinnacle on which the farmer was to sit so that he would not be in the road and could not hear what was going on. That is the gentleman hon. members opposite were pleased to make Minister of Railways. That is the gentleman who was brought down from the west and given a portfolio in the government Farmers' cattle were purchased at ridiculously low prices. I stood one day watching what was taking place in connection with this system and I must say that my blood ran cold as I saw the death of that industry approaching. I would not be in the house if it were not to defend that industry and to point out what is happening in the west.
At the present time there is another pool out west operated by some men whose names I do not know. I did watch the progress of the other pool, however. I watched Mr. Crerar who was at the head of the United Grain Growers, and after the farmers had been pumped about as dry as possible that movement was dropped. The United Grain Growers took nearly all the farmers had and as a result the farmers took the attitude that there was no money in cattle. No, there was no money in cattle. What further did the exMinister of Railways do? He induced them to export their cattle, and for the benefit of hon. gentlemen opposite may I say that I never could understand why the ex-Minister of Agriculture did not stop it. An exporter received one dollar per head for cattle shipped to England. They shipped about 100,000 cattle and half of them would not make corks for castor oil bottles.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Do you wonder that the cattle trade was ruined? I stood on the Glasgow market and I saw those cattle there. Scotchmen are shrewd buyers; they know good oattle when they see them. They would not buy the rubbish and it was left there, the returns went home to the western farmers. They did not know what was the matter with the cattle business; they received scarcely any returns and the result was that they went out of the trade. They dropped the raising of cattle because they said it was not profitable. The ex-minister was responsible for the poor condition of the oattle trade, and that condition was brought about by shipping such poor rubbish to the old country markets. In order to make profits the better type of cattle must be shipped. In the past year some development has taken place in the matter of export trade and it has been due to the proper selection of export cattle. The proper men must be obtained to select the right type of market cattle for the various markets. As I stated before, rubbish must not be shipped; the best cattle should be shipped to the proper market.
There is another matter to which I wish to draw the attention of hon. members in this house. I see the farmers selling their barley for 20 or 25 cents a hundredweight. In the constituency of Marquette the farmers are receiving 10 or 11 cents per bushel for their barley, a ridiculously low figure. Then the farmers ship their cattle to the stockyards at Winnipeg and they have to pay $1.50 a hundredweight for it. Is it possible to have a successful cattle trade under conditions of that sort? The farmer must pay $1.40 a bale for hay for which he should only pay from 35 to 40 cents. A channel has to be opened up and something has to be done for this industry by bringing about lower costs.
I prefer the cattle to exclusive wheat growing any time. It is not nearly so laborious; western farms may be commercialized when the cattle trade is properly handled. The farmers say, "If we all go into that trade what will happen bo it?" In reply I say that there is an unlimited market across the water; the foreign countries will take all we have if we produce the right type of cattle. I see sitting on the other side of the house the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). He stood shoulder to shoulder with the late Robert Bickerdike who for many years was the desk mate of the hon. member for Labelle.


Mr. BOURASSA:: Quite so.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Mr. Bickerdike was a good friend of the live stock industry, although he
15S
The Address-Mr. Mullins

had the idea that capital punishment should be eliminated. However he was friendly towards the cattle trade. This matter may be treated lightly in the house, Mr. Speaker, but I say it must be taken seriously because conditions out in the west are not good. My work as a member of this house is to try to bring back better conditions on the land and make western Canada more prosperous. Not only do I wish to see the constituency of Marquette prosperous but I want to see the western prairies in better circumstances. We have in the west the richest land which lies out doors; God has given us a heritage of six inches of the richest top soil in the world.
The constituency from which I come is the most picturesque in western Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Alfred Mullins: Next summer it is expected that in the constituency of Marquette a national park will be opened. It will be the most picturesque park in Canada and I may say that it does not take second place to Prince Albert. It is situated on Clear lake. The district I represent is absolutely adapted for the raising and production of live stock and diversified farming. When we get the pure-bred sires out on the land and prevent our steers from going to the United States I think the cattle trade will be in a more profitable condition and our western people will be more prosperous. The farmer with one crop of wheat is in the same position as the man with one crop of cotton; he cannot live by wheat alone. The farmers in Arkansas are in trouble at the present time with their cotton crop because that is the only crop upon which they have to depend.
I wish to see greater success for the live stock industry and I have every confidence in the hon. gentleman who occupies the seat of Prime Minister on this side of the house. If I had not confidence in him I would movs over to the other side and give my hon. friends over there a hand. This is not a one-man government; I do not want hon. members to think that for a moment, and it is unfair for hon. members to point their fingers and make that insinuation. Our hon. leader has left us free. He has not coerced me; he has never said to me that I must do this or I must do that. He has left me my freedom, and that is why I have spoken to you in this manner to-night,
I am not inclined to take up any more time because I may have something more to say later on. I am not going to dangle a pair of socks in front of you. Having heard the remarks of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. 
Brown) I priced socks in the stores of this oity of Ottawa but I did not find any priced as low' as ten cents. I do not know where he got his 10 cent socles; probably they are of foreign origin. I cannot understand the hon. member; I want something bigger, something more convincing. Western Canada does not ask for that cheap stuff, certainly not the people in the northwestern part of Manitoba. They are not sending me here to dangle a pair of 10 cent socles before this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about the old hen?


Henry Alfred Mullins: The old hen is all right, I am not responsible for the low price of eggs. I heard an hon. member from British Columbia say that the hens out there had laid 340 or 350 eggs a year. It should be borne in mind that we have had an open winter in western Canada, and if the hens are busy it is not my fault. We have had periods of depression before and Canada has come back; she will come back again. While on my last campaign I saw an old gentleman 84 years of age summer-fallowung his land in readiness for next year's crop. That is the spirit that will bring western Canada back to normal. We in the west beyond the great lakes say to the east: Let us be Canadians, let us have the Canadian spirit, and so hasten the economic recovery of the Dominion as a whole.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) and I have many times discussed the subject that he has been dealing with. I agree with him in many respects especially in his statement that much of southwestern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta should never have been brought -under the plough. I think that is probably one of the wisest statements he has made to-night.
Now that we are not so hurried as we were in the special session, I should like the opportunity of congratulating the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) on his selecting as Minister of Agriculture a member from the province of Saskatchewan. I notice that he is not in his place. I have had the pleasure and privilege of knowing the Hon. Robert Weir, as Harry Lauder says, "for a very considerable period." I knew him first of all as a school inspector in my own school section, and he was first class in that capacity. My wish to Bob W'eir, as we affectionately call him out there, is that he makes as great a success as Minister of Agriculture as he did as school inspector.

The Address-Mr. Vallance
I was surprised at some of the Statements made yesterday by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), in the course of which he mentioned my name. I propose very briefly to deal with those statements. At page 125 of Hansard the hon. gentleman, referring to my leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) is reported as follows:
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, instead of trying to promote unity and harmony in this country, he was trying to build up a bloc, preaching the doctrine of a solid Saskatchewan and a solid Quebec to govern Canada.
Now, as I-


Mr. TURNBULL:: Will the right hon.
gentleman permit me to make a correction?


John Vallance: I thank the hon. gentleman for the compliment. I must ask him to wait a minute.


Franklin White Turnbull: Mr. Speaker, may I
speak to a question of privilege?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Yes, if it is a question of privilege.


Franklin White Turnbull: The reference I made.
Mr. Speaker, to the right hon. gentleman who was preaching the doctrine of a solid bloc in Saskatchewan was to the right hon. leader of the opposition in Ottawa (Mr. Mackenzie King), and not to Mr. Gardiner. I know in unrevised Hansard my remarks are in the form in which my hon. friend is now quoting them, but in sending back the proof I made the necessary correction. I think hon. members will agree with me that my reference was to the right hon. leader of the opposition in Ottawa.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, you mentioned
his name.


John Vallance: I do not happen yet to be in possession of the revised Hansard containing the hon. gentleman's corrected statement, so I merely quoted what he stated on the floor of the house, and on that occasion I attempted to ask him a question, but he was not as courteous to me as I have been to him. However, I would point out to him, as I attempted to do at the time, that with Quebec returning 65 members and Saskatchewan 21, it is utterly impossible for those 86
members to control this house. I want also to point out to the hon. gentleman that at all times it has been our policy in Saskatchewan, especially when we elected 17 members in the 1925 general election, to urge that the delegation coming from west of the great lakes, whether you call them Conservatives, Liberals, Independents, Progressives, or by any other name, must always be in a position where they will and can cooperate with any groups from the other provinces. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that the 17 Liberal members from Saskatchewan did demonstrate that that was possible. True, on many occasions we had, as I pointed out, the cooperation of other groups from western Canada. So that that statement is hardly accurate. However, he says he has corrected it in the revised Hansard.
The hon. gentleman made this further attack on my leader when he addressed the house yesterday. He said:
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.
What he did say was said by my leader later on. Now the hon. gentleman says that there is no secessionist movement in western Canada. He goes a little further. He says:
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). And the only person who knows about secession in western Canada is the hon. gentleman who represents that constituency.
Now, I have the honour to represent that constituency and I am going to be quite frank with my hon. friend from Regina. I tell him he does not know the condition that prevails in South Battleford or he would not make such a statement. I tell him right now, not because I am a secessionist but because I know the facts, that there were no six gentlemen in the town of Wilkie who held the meeting where he suggests the secessionist movement originated.
I hold in my hand the official document known as the farmers' charter of liberty, and I want to tell the house that at no time during the twenty-five years that I have been privileged to live in that constituency have I seen the people driven to the extremes that they are on this occasion. When I received this official document it was at a public meeting at which there were some four or five hundred people. The organizer or speaker of the evening was dealing with
The Address-Mr. Vallance

the charter of liberty. He made certain statements-or read them from the charter -with which I disagreed. I pointed out to him that it was impossible for me to discuss with him intelligently the farmers' charter of liberty as I had not had the privilege of reading it. I asked him if he would be kind enough to give me a copy. He was quite courteous and handed me this copy. I do not propose to read it; I do not think it would do any good. I merely use it as an illustration to direct to the attention of this government, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) has said, to the fact that conditions are as bad as most of the preceding speakers have indicated.
This pamphlet is addressed to the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister of Canada. I asked the speaker that evening whether they had yet presented it to the Prime Minister and he told me they had not; it was quite possible that the right hon. gentleman would not receive it for probably another year. However, they make five demands of this government, and I do not think I am amiss when I say that when the right hon. gentleman was in Regina they made the same five demands in the memorandum which was presented to him by the President of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section.
We all know the result of the Regina meeting. I was not privileged to attend that meeting, but like my hon. friend from Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) I listened over the radio. I had gathered around me that night a politically mixed group of farmers. We were all there in anticipation. I was one of those federal members who had participated in the by-election in Estevan, and I can well remember the day during that Estevan byelection when every paper in western Canada came out in glaring headlines with the statement that on the 30th of December the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett would address a meeting in Regina at which he would tell the farmers just what this government proposed to do for them. I want you to mark that a by-election was on, and this by-election meant a great deal not only to the provincial government but also to this federal government. It was, I believe, the first byelection in any province since this government had taken office, and they were very much exercised as to what the public would register. I had the privilege of addressing a good many meetings during that campaign, and the evening on which that announcement came out I took the paper to the meeting with me and pointed out to that audience just what the promise was. I pointed out

to them, as I pointed out to this house, that all that the western farmers particularly had been offered-I do not know so much about what has been done in eastern Canada-all that this government had offered to the farmers of the west up to date, had been promises.
I notice that my neighbour across the line, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) suggested that this government was guaranteeing the pools. I have never seen any definite statement made just as to the relationship between this federal government and the pools. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his seat, because I should like him to tell me or the house or the country just what attitude this government has taken towards the pool. However, I pointed out to those people that this government had offered them up to the present nothing but promises, and I believe it is nothing more than a promise still. Had the right hon. gentleman had anything to give the people of western Canada, considering the by-election was on, I said, now is the time he would give it to you to influence your vote in the by-election. But all he did give was a promise and I watched in anticipation the approach of December 30th. On December 30th he addressed that huge audience in Regina. Thousands flocked to the meeting. They flocked in a spirit of expectation, in a spirit, if you like, to give praise to the right hon. gentleman for the deliverance he was going to bring to that huge audience that night. But I listened and watched the faces of those farmers sitting around; I saw their expressions change as their hope seemed to vanish, and when the right hon. gentleman was through the audience did not rise to give him the praise which they had come to offer for an expected deliverance. Rather they went home to pray, and they are praying to this government still.
We had the privilege in the last federal election of having in Saskatchewan two or three farmers I know who were in the then opposition. One of them, perhaps, did not go as far as Saskatchewan, but we had the member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn) and the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), two particular friends of mine. I do not see either of them in his seat. I remember the member for Dufferin-Simcoe spoke in the city of Moose Jaw, and I remember also the wail he put up there, pleading for the poor farmers and for the live stock industry. My hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins) has nothing on him. He pointed out to the people that the great industry of agriculture had been ruined by the policies of the gov-

The Address-Mr. Vallance
ernment then in power, and showed what the government we now have would do if it could only get hold of the reins of office. I am one of those farmers. I have been watching the policy which this government proposes to adopt for agriculture. Some time ago the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) decided that he would frame a policy, and he called to the city of Ottawa all the provincial ministers of agriculture. There was some controversy in the west as to why he should call merely for the provincial ministers of agriculture. None of the organized farmers were represented at this conference and they thought-and I believe the feeling was justified-that they should have some representation. The omission was called to the attention of the minister but still they got no representation. The matter got to the knowledge of the United Farmers that the wives of ministers were also going to Ottawa and they drew the minister's attention to the fact. The minister denied it and I do not think the wives ever came. However, this joint meeting formulated what is known, or was known at that time, as the agricultural policy of this government.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: Do I understand
the hon. gentleman to imply that I invited the ministers of agriculture from the various provinces to meet here for the purpose of formulating an agricultural policy?


John Vallance: As I pointed out, I
want to be fair to the Minister of Agriculture. All the knowledge I have is what I gained from the press. I hold in my hand a copy of a Canadian press despatch. It says here-


An hon. MEMBER:: The Saskatoon Star?


John Vallance: No, this is the Ottawa
Journal. I quote:
Major the Hon. Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture, has called a conference of all the provincial ministers of agriculture in Ottawa November 17 and 18 to formulate a national agriculture policy for Canada.
I do not wish to do the hon. gentleman any injury or accuse him of doing anything that has not been done. If he says it was not done I accept the hon. gentleman's denial. But does he deny it?


Robert Weir: I had hoped that I made *it very clear that the conference was called entirely for the purposes of administration. I thought I had informed the United Farmers of the west to that effect; I certainly did inform the United Fanners of Ontario.


John Vallance: This conference was called for November 17 and 18 and when I read a Canadian Press despatch dated the 19th I thought it covered the business which had been done. This despatch reads:
A Dominion agricultural policy was to-night proclaimed by Hon. Robert Weir, Dominion Minister of Agriculture. On the occasion of the opening of the Royal Winter Fair, the minister enunciated important policies, adopted after three days' deliberation of the provincial ministers of agriculture and to be known as the national agricultural policy.


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. minister must receive the permission of the hon. member to ask a question.


John Vallance: I have no objection provided I am allowed time.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. member consents it will be all right.


Robert Weir: I think the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) desires the truth and nothing but the truth in connection with our conference. As I said before, the conference was called for the sole purpose of administration, and a policy was not discussed. The announcement I made at the Royal Winter Fair had no connection with it, neither had any report to that effect been issued by myself.


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker-


James Houston Spence: Throw the paper away and say something yourself.
Mr. VA1LLANCE: Who is talking now? Again this government has been misquoted or at least misunderstood.


An hon. MEMBER:: Blame it on the press.
Mr. VAiLLANOE: I want to be fair to the Minister of Agriculture, because he was not in his seat when I started to speak. I have every confidence in his sincerity, because I know he is out in the interests of agriculture. I intend to give him every possible assistance when he does bring down a policy; if I can agree with that policy I will be the first to rise and tell him so. He knows me well enough to know that I will do that. But the farmers of Canada want to know what the agricultural policy of this government is to be. The hon. gentleman denies it, and I accept his denial, but I would point out to the house and to the country that so much of this, shall I mil it propaganda, has been appearing in the press about this government and its personnel that one has a right to know whether or not it is true. A number

The Address-Mr. Valla-nce

of the members of the government are new men who are not known to the country, and when I read in the press that these gentlemen are doing certain things I have to base my argument upon those statements. I have other clippings but if the minister denies this one I will not go any further. This despatch states the policy under four headings as follows:
1.	The introduction of better blood in herds.
2.	The scientific use of home-grown products for herd feeding purposes.
3.	Careful study of the science of marketing.
4.	The prevention of implantation and spread of poultry diseases.
Here is another one containing twelve headings.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it.


John Vallance: From November until
March it has grown from four to twelve; where will it be by the next election'


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


John Vallance: I have the floor.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon.
member is right, but the hon. minister is rising to a point of order.


Robert Weir: I think the hon.
member for South Battleford as well as other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the house know that it has been the custom in the past, as it is at present, that when any new policy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Vallance: I know the hon. minister is new to the house and I am willing to give him a lot of latitude, but I want to know his point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. minister should state his point of order, but should not attempt to make a speech.


Robert Weir: The only statement I wish to make is this, that any policy formulated


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order


John Vallance: Mr. Speaker-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon.
minister desires to ask a question he should first obtain the permission of the hon. member for South Battleford.


Robert Weir: I wish to correct a statement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think the hon. minister can do that.
[Mr. VailanceJ


John Vallance: I have discussed this
matter with my fellow farmers and they say to me: What is the policy? I hope that before this debate is completed the minister will announce to the country his agricultural policy. I do not intend to read this other clipping, as I believe the house will accept my statement. However, it can be found in MacLean's Magazine for March 15.
A perusal of Hansard for the special session shows that during any discussion on agriculture there was continual hedging upon the part of the government. During that se$ion I attempted to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as to the interest his government had in agriculture. I inquired of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and he replied that at some other time we would discuss this matter. The farmers are getting tired of "some other time"; they want to know now. During that special session we voted $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment. No objection was raised to that, but we did want to know how it was to be spent. The tariffs were increased to give more work to the labouring man. It was contended that if the goods heretofore imported into this country were manufactured here that would give more employment. I had no objection provided the desired results could be obtained, but I did doubt the veracity of that statement. And, Mr. Speaker, you can search the revised Hansard of that special session of parliament, and you will find not one statement that they made regarding relief for agriculture. Seventy per cent of the people whom I represent are engaged in that great industry, and when I returned to my constituency, they said to me, "Well, Jack, what did you do for us? We saw you voted $20,000,000 for unemployment. You raised the tariff to help the industries and the manufacturers. What did you do for us?" What did I tell them? The day before the house rose I asked the Prime Minister that very question. I said: When the farmers ask me what we have done for them during the special session, what shall I tell them? He never answered me; he could not answer me, because the government did nothing. I want to know now from the government: What do they propose to do for agriculture at this session of parliament?


Mr. SMITH (Victoria-Carieton):: Does the hon. member realize that there are farmers in eastern Canada as well as in western Canada? The remarks of my hon. friend have been directed entirely towards western Canada.

The Address-Mr. Vallance


John Vallance: I realize fully there are farmers in eastern Canada. I am speaking for the farmers that I represent; I am speaking for the organized farmers of Saskatchewan, and the questions which they have been asking me I am asking this government, because the farmers want to know. I hope that before this debate closes the Minister of Agriculture will rise in the house and announce his policy.
When the Prime Minister was in Regina a memorandum was presented to him from the United Farmers. There has been no action; he has done nothing regarding the request contained in that memorandum. But some time ago I picked up a newspaper in which appeared the following item:
Montreal, Quebec, February 6.-The Gazette to-day published the following despatch from Ottawa.
The Prime Minister spoke in Regina on January 30, so that this is some thirty-seven days later.
The Gazette to-day published the following despatch from Ottawa.
So perhaps my hon. friend will not deny it.
While the previous intention of the federal government was to avoid any further revision of the tariff at the coming session of parliament, in view of the fact that an Imperial economic conference is to be held here next August, it is understood that the pressure of tire Canadian manufacturers has been so strong and so persistent for more protective measures at an early date that the Prime Minister has decided to accede to their position.
You can realize, Mr. Speaker, how the farmers' charter of liberty is being peddled in western Canada when they send a memorandum to the head' of the government while he is in Regina, but it is ignored and then they pick up this item. The hon. member for Marquette was talking about the red tape and the bull. This is just so much red tape in the eyes of the farmers in the west. At the special session of parliament we gave to those same manufacturers increases in the tariff and now, according to this despatch, unless it is denied, the government's proposal is to give them further protection, because their demands have been so persistent. There is only one thing the farmers have to do and that is to be a little more persistent. If the statistics that are given to me are accurate, just a little less than fifty per cent of the population, including my hon. friend who asked me a question a few minutes ago, are farmers, and they have been making demands. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with me that the other fifty per cent are not all. manufacturers. The Prime Minister listens to a percentage of the people, but does he listen to the great populace in the west? I 22110-Hi
ask: What is the government doing? We do not read in the press that he proposes to do anything of this kind for agriculture.
I read in the press the other day that a certain gentleman representing the Russian government suggested to this government a deal with Russia, involving about $10,000,000 for this country. It was turned down. I suppose the government will give the reasons why this action was taken; but whether we believe in Russia or a system of government education or anything else, Russia is still on the map and Russia to-day, as we all know, is attempting to put over a five-year plan. I am not arguing the question whether we may be in sympathy with it or not. She is going to put it through. Russia must have credits and she has only four commodities- lumber, pulp, coal and wheat-with which she can establish those credits. What we are looking for to-day is markets for our wheat. Russia suggests to this government that we take certain quantities of coal from her. This government says, no. Russia, simply because of the fact that our government refuses to have any dealings with her, will make a deal with some other government, to which she may not be able to sell coal but to which she may be able to sell wheat, and every bushel of Russian wheat that finds a place in any of . our export markets makes it just that much harder for Canada to sell a like number of bushels on the markets of the world. If we were, shall I say, digging out of the bowels of our own portion of the earth the kind of coal that Russia produces I could see some logic in the government's argument, but we are importing large quantities of coal, and not all from Wales and Scotland. A large quantity is coming from Pennsylvania. I think it would be to our advantage to import a little more coal from Russia than from Pennsylvania because we might at least be able to place some wheat on a market to which Russia might otherwise sell wheat in order to establish credit. Russia w'ants machinery. For what reason? To develop that great trade of hers. But simply because this country refuses to buy $10,000,000 worth of coal does not mean that Russia is not going to get the machinery, for she will get it and some other country will get $10,000,000 of Russian money or its equivalent in coal or wheat. I might argue at length regarding the employment that would have been afforded, but time is passing and I wish to take up two or three other matters.
A suggestion was made by the three premiers of the prairie provinces that the federal government peg the price of wheat. There
The Address-Mr. Vallance

has been some discussion with regard to the matter, and most people agree that this is not sound economics, but as has been pointed out, everything the farmer has to buy is pegged. I do not propose to adduce that argument, but I will state that the price of wheat has been pegged before in Canada and not to the advantage, but to the detriment, of the growers-not in order that they might give the grower more, but that they might keep the grower from getting that to which he was entitled. I think the request now made by the farmers is a very fair one.
I have on the order paper to-day two questions asking for information. I hold in my hand a letter written by a Mr. Whiteside, from Birsay, Saskatchewan. It is rather lengthy, and while I should like to read it all, to do so would take up too much time. During the special session of parliament this gentleman wrote me pointing out that there are certain amounts of money that belong to the farmers of western Canada through the sales agency created by the government in the 1917 and 1918 disposals of their crops. We were under the impression that the wheat for which we got $2.21 the first year and $2.24, I think it was, the second year, was being delivered to the allies at those prices. According to my friend Whiteside, Sir George Foster told him that the wheat was not sold at $2.21 per bushel, but at world prices, and we, the farmers of Saskatchewan, therefore naturally believe and it can be shown by the records, which must be on the government files somewhere, that we were fleeced out of some seventy odd millions of dollars, which money was put into the treasury of Canada. This, of course, may not be true, and it is for that reason that I have a motion on the order paper for the production of papers, that we may know just what the facts are, because I think now is the time to have this matter cleared up one way or the other. Mr. Whiteside says:
Now I come to the important part of this question and state this statement was put out by our Union government that this wheat was turned over to the British food commisison at $2.21 per bushel, plus handling charges. Desiring to get the facts I wrote the Department of Trade and Commerce at Ottawa, of which Sir George Foster was in charge, and got this amazing statement in reply, that our wheat was sold in the open markets of the world at the prevailing prices from time to time, and after deducting the operating expenses the balance of the money was turned into the funds of the Dominion treasury.
I wrote Mr. Whiteside, asking if he could produce the letter which Sir George Foster

wrote to him, but he is not in that happy position, and therefore I am asking for the production of the papers.
Before I sit down, let me say that I have been twenty-five years in South Battleford. I have seen that great country grow up out of the wilderness. For the first two years we were 110 miles away from a railroad, then 72 miles; to-day there are within eleven miles of my own farm seven towns, villages or hamlets-seven shipping points. I have seen highways built, and telegraph and telephone lines, towns and villages and hamlets spring up, and all that goes to make a great civilization. I have seen millions and millions of wealth created in that great country. I have seen trainload after trainload of our produce going out daily. One would naturally expect, seeing that the people of that part of the country have created all that wealth, that they would be in a comfortable position to-day. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that after twenty-five years in that country during which they have been attempting to build it up, these people, if their farms were sold for the mortgage indebtedness against them, could not pay that mortgage indebtedness. Where has the money gone? Talk about your charters of liberty! That is the condition of western Canada to-day, and whether the hon. member for Regina believes it or not, the Minister of Agriculture knows that that is the position.
Mr. ELIE-O. BERTRAND (Prescott) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, In rising for the
first time in the house, where it is saidl one labours under difficulty in delivering a speech, I crave, sir, both your indulgence and that of hon. members.
Before broaching the various political aspects, may I be permitted to say a few words with reference to the beautiful riding which I represent, as well as to its people. The history of Prescott county extends quite away back in Canadian history, that is to the French regime, and our county has the honour of being the only one in Ontario which has had a seigniory under the former regime. In fact, about 1755, the present township of Longueuil was, at that time, the seigniory of the Baron de Longueuil.
A little later, about 1798, Prescott county had the honour of selling to Philemon Wright the latter giving his name to the county of Wright. The first wheat sown in the vicinity of Ottawa was sold by Josiah P. Cass of 1'Orignal, and his descendants are still excellent farmers of my riding and

The Address-Mr. Bertrand
village. In 1801, Prescott was represented in the Parliament of Upper-Canada by Alexander McDonnell, a man of rare ability wdio, at the age of 24, was elected Speaker of that Parliament. While Aide-de-Camp to General Brock, he was killed, in 1812, by an American bullet, at the battle of Queenston Heights.
Our people, descendants of these two great races of pioneers, of settlers under the French regime and later of settlers under British rule, lived together peacefully and progressed in an extraordinary way. If our people are not wealthy, they are however healthy and laborious. The experience of their history explains why they can discern between our political parties, and it is not astonishing that we registered a great liberal victory at the last general elections.
The county of Prescott is almost essentially a farming community, the greater portion of which is clay and endowed with very rich soil well adapted to grain, cereal and hay. However, we have some high sandy soil, also land which is better suited to dairy industry. Moreover, we have the small town of Hawkes-bury, our only industrial centre, which rapidly developed, thanks to the lumber and pulp industries. Unfortunately, in recent times the lumber and pulp trade having dwindled the working population of Hawkesbury is not any more prosperous than our farmers.
Before proceeding to discuss the political questions, I am somewhat grieved, sir, for having to allude to it, but, I think, as a French Canadian of Ontario, I must necessarily refer to the unfortunate speech of the member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) which he delivered yesterday. We, from Ontario, are astonished that a Conservative from Saskatchewan endeavours to teach a lesson of unity, accord and harmony to any part of Canada, especially when we read in the newspapers which have helped French culture in the province of Ontario in its most bitter struggles, articles as published by the "Droit", on March 5, 1931:
"The iniquity is consummated-Mr. Anderson, Prime Minister of Saskatchewan deprives the school rights of our people.-French disappears as a language of intercourse.-A new- school question.-The conditions of national unity.
The Prime Minister of Saskatchewan has lost no time since his victory at the polls on June 6, 1929. He has outlawed the crucifix m the public schools of his province, and the uniform of the teaching nuns; he has por-bidden that religious instruction be given in any other language than English; forced school commissioners to use the English tongue, under pain of imprisonment or line; dismissed the French Canadian representative from the Provincial Council of Public Instruction; abolished the exchange of teaching diplomas between Quebec and Saskatchewan.
On February 18 last, at the Congress of the Saskatchewan School Trustees Association he proclaimed that the school act would be amended in order to abolish French teaching during the first year of the primary course. Yesterday, that amendment was read a second time and adopted in the Saskatchewan legislature.
Will you contend, sir, that this is done with a view of favouring national harmony and unity throughout our country? _
I appeal to the hon. members of this house, of the province of Quebec, and to those who form part of the cabinet-the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) is at his seat, and I ask him, as I ask the others, whether they approve of this stand and believe it likely to promote union and good understanding in our country.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Mr. Speaker might I ask a question?
Mr. BERTRAND (Translation); I have asked the Speaker to show some indulgence because it is the first time I address the house and I would prefer not to be interrupted to-day. In future debates we shall have the opportunity of broaching other questions; I shall then feel more at ease and shall answer hon. members.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Translation); One may put questions only with the consent of the member who is addressing the house.
Mr. BERTRAND (Translation); At the special session held in September, the Conservative party increased the tariff, gave extensive powers to the Minister of National Revenue and had $20,000,000 voted for the unemployed. However, this did not help the farmers, the tariff did not prevent the falling off in the price of their products and they do not even obtain the pre-war prices-that of 1913-for the products they are forced to sell, while the price of articles they are forced to purchase, such as farm implements and other commodities of life which they do not produce, are much higher.
With your consent, sir, I wish to have placed in Hansard a comparative schedule, based upon the statistics of 1930, with reference to prices of a few products sold by the Canadian farmers and also prices that they are forced to pay for certain farm implements.
In 1913, the Canadian farmer paid for a six-foot mowing machine, $43.50; in 1930, $96.50; a six-foot binding machine, $102 in 1913; in 1930, $225.50; a six-foot hay loader $60, in 1913; in 1930, $122; 15 discs seed drill, $6S in 1913; in 1930, $166.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: According to the rules of the House, the hon. members has not that right. The Minister of Finance only has that privilege, on certain occasions.


Mr. BERTRAND (Translation):: Then,
I shall read it. I am pleased, sir, that you put me on the right path which will help me in strictly Observing the rules of the House.
Cost of production for an acre of oats:
Rent of land	 $8 00
Ploughing	
3	852	bushels of seed oats at $1	
3 00
Because these oats were registered " good oats."
Harrowing, drainage, etc.:
5 hours, men at 25 cents	per	hr..	$1 255 men and horses at 30 cents per	hr.	1 50
Sowing:
2	hours, men and horses	
$0	60Rent of machinery	
0	50
Gathering of crop:
3	hours, men at 25 cents per hr.. ..	$0 75
1J horse, 30 cents	 45

Moving of crop:
4	hrs., men at 25 cents	
$1	002 hrs. horses, 30 cents	
0	60



$1 60 1.68 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Bertrand
Threshing:
79 bushels at 5 cents.. [DOT]>
$3 95
,TT. .	$25 45
Winnowing of fine grains, free:
Good grain: 72 J bushels at 25 cents. $18 13
Operating deficit per acre	 $7 32
1931 will certainly be the worst year of our history and our farmers are disheartened. They can rely on nothing to get returns; on the contrary everything is done at less than cost of production. Their purchasing power is destroyed; and what will our manufacturers do? I again state, if they have no Clients able to purchase their products in our own country, if foreign markets are closed to them owing to the government adopting a trade policy hostile to other countries by erecting a tariff wall which prevents a free exchange of our products. If the government wishes to limit the number of unemployed it must necessarily come to the relief of the farming class. The farmer will remain on the land providing he is able to get reasonable returns. We can keep on the farm those who are already settled there, because they do not wish to lose the fruits of the labours of their whole lives. But we shall not succeed in settling the growing generation on the land under present conditions. The farm must provide for his man and to help him, I submit a few suggestions to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Conservative party, and I hope that they will bring down measures which may help in the solution of these farming problems and be beneficial to the whole country. First-and this we must absolutely have-substantial reductions of the tariff and an increase in British preference. Second, taxes levied on those who can most afford to pay. Third, increase in ;he income tax. Fourth, a decreasce in the sales or business tax. Fifth, reduced transport rates in the interest of agriculture. Sixth, establishment of cooperative principles for the sale of farming products and the purchase of the necessary farm implements. Seventh, direct financial asistance to help in improving sowing, cattle and the farm. Eighth, farm loans at 3 or 3i per cent so as to assist the farmers in meeting their obligations in cases of absolute necessity.
I think that I have clearly shown what, for the present, is our farming situation. I would not like to close my remarks, sir, without saying a few words with reference to our labour conditions. We know that in September, the right hon. Prime Minister had
820,000,000 voted to relieve unemployment in Canada. I do not intend to criticize this measure. However, the workers hoped, relying on the pledges made in the electoral cam-[Air. Bertrand.]
paign, that all and each of them would obtain work. The right hon. Prime Minister had made this pledge here and there throughout the country and his candidate in the r.'dmg of Prescott carried on his campaign on this question by proclaiming that the prices of agricultural products were to increase in the district and that everybody would be employed in the small industrial town of Hawkesbury. But such was not the case in my riding. Work did not increase. This town subscribed 810,000 of its money against $5,000 of the federal government's money, and $5,000 of the provincial government's, yet, notwithstanding all this the unemployed had to solicit in order to obtain work. They will later on have to pay up that amount by taxes on their property. I shall even state that the unemployed had to beg for work and could but work each in turn and this during a few days only. While these things were happening, it is extraordinary, a road contract was being executed in the vicinity of Hawkedbury, by steam shovel instead of by hand labour. This contract could have given work to about fifty men during the entire winter; but they were replaced by machinery. In time of crisis, do you not think, sir, that it would be proper in this country where we overproduce, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson) should take the necessary measures -which would not be more arbitrary than numerous other measures of protection-to put an end to this state of affairs. If protection is worth something to our industrial people, to our manufacturers, surely it is worth something to the unemployed. Would it not be better in time of crisis to exclude this progress or so-called progress of machinery which deprives our workers of what they are entitled to.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Forward this message to the Quebec government.
Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Before resuming my seat I appeal to. the government to take under its care the worker and the farmer of this country and to give less favours to the large interests whose appetites will never deem their profits large enough.


Mr. J. K. BLAIR (North Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish for a few moments to speak in the interests of the locality from which I come. We have some industries which are not in a very healthy condition and certainly we will have to find ways and means to stimulate the progress of our towns and villages. Our stores are filled with goods and our farmers who are unable to buy are looking in the windows, their credit having reached its limit. The towns to which I refer depend

The Address-Mr. Blair
largely upon the farming industry, and if the government could help in some way we would be delighted. Farming is the basic industry of our district, and therefore when the farmers are prosperous everybody is prosperous. May I remind the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that his photograph was placed in every convenient corner of my constituency and underneath it were placards giving promises to the farmers. At this time I ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to read some of the messages delivered to the farmers by the Prime Minister:
We pledge ourselves to foster and develop agriculture and the live stock and dairy industries now so sadly neglected.
The Prime Minister is quoted as having made the following statement:
This group of mercenaries holding office by sham and subterfuge, look upon them as treacherous to you, and self-confessed, deserving of your passionate condemnation.
At Woodstock the Prime Minister is quoted as follows:
Our dairy business has been lost. We have 140,000 fewer milch cows to-day than in 1925, and there has been a corresponding depletion of our swine.
At Calgary the Prime Minister said:
In my opinion the basic industry is agriculture. Agriculture has been the basis of this country's prosperity. The success of the wheat grower, of the wheat farmer, is reflected in the power of the people.
Then comes the problem that is more important, the problem of marketing and of selling wheat. There it seems to me is a fertile field for the endeavour of a government.
France, Germany and Italy have raised tariffs against Canadian wheat. We will look over the top of the hill and beyond the horizon to make provision for the Canadian agriculturist and secure for him markets. That is a question which will have to be solved. I told my audience at Winnipeg and I tell you here and now that condition I will not permit to continue in this country.
Then at Victoria he is quoted as follows:
It is true we must have foreign markets and as I said the other evening we will blast a way to those markets on a world-wide basis with many exportable surpluses. We do not have to worry about that.
The Ottawa Journal reported a speech delivered at Woodstock, New Brunswick, as follows:
It gave him great regret, Mr. Bennett continued, to have seen the deserted farm lands of New Brunswick, Quebec and other provinces. "Well," he stated, "I am going to say right here that I shall regard it as my great responsibility if elected on July 28 to see that the collective weight and power of the Dominion of Canada is placed behind agriculture. I would be lacking in qualifications entitling me to head a government if I failed to do so."
The Ottawa Morning Citizen reported a speech delivered at Ormstown as follows:
The Conservative leader gave strong expression to his party's policy for assistance to agricultural schools, cheaper transportation, distribution and marketing. It was necessary, he continued, that farmers should receive just compensation for their efforts "and rewards equal to the professions" to keep Canadian boys and girls on the farm.
Hon. gentlemen know how those promises were fulfilled. After making such promises the Prime Minister called a short session and did everything in his power to cripple the farmers. Not understanding their critical condition he destroyed their last vestige of hope by his action at the Imperial conference. The farmers of Canada had hoped that the Prime Minister through his deliberations at the Imperial conference would make arrangements for the sale of their wheat. However in that regard they were badly fooled. When the Prime Minister visited the city of Calgary the papers proclaimed that he had a message which would greatly benefit the farmers of that district. They looked forward to his visit. We listened over our radios to this wonderful message, but in the minds of most of us there was extreme disappointment-it seemed just like a flat tire. In my district we had splendid crops and plenty of help to harvest them. Out storehouses are filled with an abundance of grain. In short, we have everything the soul of man can wish for, and yet there is distress throughout the Dominion. This distress is due to several causes. Undoubtedly the freight rates are too high, and there is no statesmanlike guidance of our national affairs. The heavens truly were kind, but the foolishness of the rulers had made the kindness of the heavens of no avail. We have abundance of food and yet our people are starving; a superfluity of clothing on our shelves and yet our people perishing for lack of it. I must insist that hon. gentlemen opposite do something for the farmers. I have repeated their promises to refresh their memories. I do not care how empirical their methods may be, so long as they get results. We are satisfied that their methods-those they have advocated and applied so far-are entirely wrong. We know that high tariffs are no cure for the present troubles of the body politic. To impose a high tariff is to drive a wedge between the rich and poor-making the rich richer and the poor poorer. It lowers the price of what the farmer has to sell and raises the price of what he has to buy.
The Address-Mr. Blair

The Prime Minister said he would guarantee to the manufacturer interest on his investment, a certain percentage on his turnover, and a sufficient balance to pay fair wages. This in my view was simply a declaration against the farmer and the consumer. If he is going to guarantee the economic safety of one class he should similarly guarantee all other classes in the community. What I have referred to was his minimum guarantee; I do not know how far bis maximum might go. This is purely and simply class legislation, and if the farmer imagines for a moment that he can thrive under such a law he is making a sad mistake. In other words, he is simply being placed at the mercy of the manufacturer. About 2,000 years ago Plato said that every political party was destroyed by the excess of its basic principle. Now, the basic principle of the Conservative party is high tariff, and that principle developed to excess will not only destroy the party responsible for it, but also, unhappily, the nation whose affairs are entrusted to its administration.
The Prime Minister spoke of his diagnosis. Now, when a doctor sees a patient he makes a diagnosis of the trouble and then a prognosis in order to form an idea of the approximate duration of the patient's sickness and the correct treatment to apply. The right hon. gentleman declares: We do not say we will cure unemployment, we will end unemployment in three days. I think he was correct in his diagnosis, but his prognosis was undoubtedly too short. I think also that the dose of high protection he has administered to his patient is far too heavy. The country- his patient-is ^pretty well exhausted, and unless another doctor be substituted I am afraid the treatment will kill the patient. Canada to-day is suffering from too high a tariff. I need not quote figures to prove my contention; they have been given to the house so often that I do not think it necessary to repeat them now.
On various occasions the Prime Minister has said that he does not believe in the dole system. I do not think any of us approve of that system. Unfortunately he is so hard-pressed that apparently he is trying to find a way of escape, and to do so he seems prepared to apply the dole system, a system which has been so ruinous to the morale of the working classes in the old land. True, we cannot allow our indigent people to starve, but surely the Prime Minister is capable of evolving some constructive policy whereby employment may be provided for all those who are willing to work. It is a well known law that if people do something for their country

they will love their country, whereas if they become parasites their patriotism languishes. Victor Hugo said that men always hate those they have wronged. And if a man wrongs his country he will hate it. Those who rely on the dole will not love their country; only those who have done something for their country will be ready to die in its defence.
May I quote Victor Hugo again? He says that an infallible barometer of hard times is the expense of collecting taxes. Unhappily that has been only too well borne out recently, for a great many of our people have not been able to pay their taxes. This condition of affairs to a considerable extent is due to the policy of the present government. We feel that the farmers of Canada were badly treated by the legislation enacted last September. To make matters worse, when the Prime Minister went to the Imperial economic conference he made no effort to help them. His attitude, puts me in mind of the motorist who saw a man walking home. He stopped and said, "Why, John, are you walking? I will bring my car here in a minute and give you a lift." He came round with his car, drove towards the man smiling, and just as he got close to him flipped the wheel round and ran over the poor fellow. He. jumped out of his car, rushed over, picked the man up and told him it was all a pure accident. He added, "Wait until I turn the car round, and I will give you a lift home." But the same thing happened again; just as he got alongside the man he gave the wheel a flip and ran over him the second time. He jumped out of his car, expressed his regret for the misadventure and said, "Stand there until I turn round; I will give give you a lift and then everything will be all right." About this time a friend of the unfortunate man came within earshot and he said to him, "You fool! come out of there; he is going to ride over you a third time." My opinion is that the Prime Minister ran over the fanners at the special session, he ran over them again at the Imperial economic conference, and I believe he is turning his car round to run over them a third time. And unless we can find some rescue on the other side I do not think there is anyone on this side who can pull that man out of the rut. The wheel looks all right, and the man's language is pleasant enough, but it means nothing. The language the Prime Minister used in the old country was splendid; its phraseology was attractive. But when it was analyzed, particularly the last clause or two, it did not take the Englishman long to see what was behind it. In other words, the right hon. gentleman did not suit his actions to his words.

The Address-Mr. Blair
One frequently hears about the depression that prevailed in the last year of the government led by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Our friends opposite are constantly telling us about that time of depression. May I point out that when the present leader of the opposition was captain of the ship of state we were sailing along and making progress to the extent of fifty million dollars a year towards the liquidation of our debt. I wish the Conservative government would usher- in a few years of that sort of depression. But while my right hon. leader's government was making that headway, what were hon. gentlemen opposite doing? They were doing their best to rock the ship of state. Every time the then captain attempted to ride a wave hon. gentlemen opposite endeavoured to rock the boat. They succeeded in frightening the public and the consequence was that there was a change of captains. But the country will be fortunate if the future brings the sort of depression we had under the previous government.
The Prime Minister has made great statements about opening new channels of commerce. Why open up new avenues of commerce when the government has thrown sandbags into the ones, that we have? They are cutting off in every way possible the present avenues to commercial enterprise, and still they are talking about opening up new waterways and so forth. The government are closing up our ocean ports so that our ships will have little to do. I do not know why the ship of state could not have been left under the old captain, when she was sailing peacefully and, as I have said, to the tunc of fifty million dollars annually towards the payment of our national debt. The career of this government so far reminds me of the Greek myth of Phoebus. Phoebus was a very proud star, and while the other bodies were going on their celestial way, suddenly with great confusion she would throw forth great balls of fire; and while she disturbed the harmony of the heavens, yet she satisfied her vainglory by making herself conspicuous for a time.
The conspicuous place which the right hon. gentleman has won for himself he has won at the cost of the country.
I think of Canada as a vast factory, and the travellers who are working in its interests at the present time are the Prime Minister and his coL eagues. We sent them to the old country to attend the Imperial conference in the hope that they would come to some business arrangement that would be advantageous
to the commerce of Canada. But the attitude of the right hon. gentleman over there was not that of a salesman; it was more that of a dictator. If any of us had commercial travellers of that type coming into our offices they would not stay very long. The Prime Minister did not show that amiable spirit which is likely to promote business. He disregarded the warning of the Delphic oracle which every Greek was supposed to learn before starting out iin life-[DOT]" Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad." It seems to me that anyone going into public life should memorize that saying. It would have been well if the Prime Minister had thought of it when he was in the old land.
I wish now to say something with regard to the granting of relief to the poor. Conservative governments have always had the habit, when giving grants of this sort, of officiously doing the business of the powers beneath them. In our district many people rushed forward in the hope of getting some relief from the grant that was being made by this government. But it was not for them. If you were too poor you could not get it; you had to subscribe a certain amount before you could receive anything. It was for those who were financially in a position to secure it. It seems to be a characteristic of Conservative governments, not only Dominion but provincial as well, to knife back, if I may say so, the municipalities, very much to the cost of the latter.
Let me now discuss for a moment what is at present transpiring in the Argentine. What is the meaning of all this celebration that is talcing place there, with the heir to the throne participating? Why could not such a pleasant relationship be manifested in Canada? I regret to say that I am afraid our birthright has been partly disposed of. All these grandstand performances in the Argentine are, it appears to me, an open declaration of the weakness of our Prime Minister, indicating his failure to direct trade and traffic to this country. We cannot see it in any other way, and we must regard it as a great loss to Canada.
There is one thing further to which I wish to make reference. It seems to me that the Conservative party has a tendency to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. I have here a letter from Imperial Oil, Limited, to the Independent Oil and Gas Company, Limited, of Montreal, and I wish to quote from it in order that hon. members may see what is taking place. The letter reads as follows:
The Address-Mr. Blair

Your inquiry of November 3rd, relative to gasoline for 1931 delivery, has been received and is appreciated.
At the present time we are not in a position to quote you for 1931 shipment but may be able to do so towards the end of the year and will communicate with you at that time. Just at the present time we are running somewhat behind schedule on our shipments, and, while we believe we should be able to take care of your requirements, we prefer to hold the matter over until a little later in the year.
In the meantime, again thanking you for your inquiry, we are,
The increased duty was put on in order that the gasoline should be purchased from Canadian companies, such as the Imperial Oil Company, but from this letter it would seem as though those companies are refusing to sell it. Apparently they are trying to put the independent companies out of business. On October 18 a tank car of gasoline cost $821.95 while by November 5 the price of a similar tank car of gasoline had risen to $949.16, an increase of over $120. Hon. gentlemen opposite will probably reply that although this tank car of gasoline cost $128 more the consumer was not obliged to pay any more for his gasoline. That is quite right, because the consumer has been paying a little less, but it gives an opportunity to the larger oil companies to decrease the margin between the wholesale and retail prices in order to eliminate the small independent dealer. The statement has been made that an increase of duty was granted in order that these companies might be assisted financially. This statement would not seem to be borne out by the following analysis dated March 18, 1930, issued by Financial Counsel:
Dealing with an item of $874,000 set aside for depreciation, he said that $174,000 or $700,000 less than amount set aside, would have been sufficient. The larger amount w-as written off because 9 per cent of the net revenue is payable to the Dominion government for taxes. With respect to such, a nominal write-off would have substantially increased earnings per share as indicated in the figures presented in the foregoing.
That statement would show that the amount set aside for depreciation was placed at $700,000 too much in order to avoid paying the Dominion government. These are the companies for whom the duty was raised in order to allow them to exist.
On motion of Mr. LaVergne the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Friday, March 20, 1931