1931-03-20

CANADA EVIDENCE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10 to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
An hon. MEMBER:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This bill provides for an amendment to one of the sections of the act covering the proof of the non-issue of certificates. At the present time the issue of certificates or licences can be proved merely by the production of an affidavit sworn by the proper officer in Ottawa and the amendment proposes to allow the same procedure to be followed where no licence has been issued. The proper officer will be entitled to swear an affidavit of the non-issuance of the licence and that shall be prima facie evidence that the same was not issued.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TICKET OF LEAVE ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 11 to amend the Ticket of Leave Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: The object of this bill is to legalize a practice which has grown up during the last fifteen or twenty years. The present act provides that the Minister of Justice shall advise His Excellency the Governor General in respect to all applications under the act, and this work has been carried on by the Solicitor General's branch of the Department of Justice. There has been no statutory authority for this practice and the proposed amendment is for the purpose of legalization and to provide that the Minister of Justice or sueh other member of the government as may be designated by the Governor in Council may advise His Excellency in respect to all applications under the Ticket of Leave Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) a question relating to the matter brought up a few days ago by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). I

Deputy Speaker taking part in Debate
would like to know if the Crysdale joint report made by the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways and the province of British Columbia dealing with the Pacific Great Eastern railway and Peace River railway route has been tabled?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon, gentleman told me this morning that he intended to ask me this question. I have made inquiry and find that the report to which he refers, and probably the one to which the hon. member for Peace River referred, has not been received. This report covers an investigation which was instituted by the province and the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways. I understand that nearly $500,000 has been spent in investigating these resources, but a report has not been made to the provincial government nor has it reached my department. I am making inquiry of the Premier of British Columbia and as soon as we receive the report I shall be glad to table it.



DEPORTATION OF UKRAINIANS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) a question based upon a telegram which I have received advising that over 800 girls are on strike in Toronto and that a Ukrainian girl who had been sentenced to thirty days in gaol for throwing snowballs had been recommended for deportation. I would like to know if the minister has received this recommendation to deport this girl.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker,
the matter to which the hon. member refers has not been drawn to my attention. If he will supply me with the name of the girl in question I shall be pleased to answer the question at the proper time.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Sjjeaker, I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Labour whether the government has under contemplation any special measures to cope with the immediate seriousness of the unemployment situation.


An hon. MEMBER:: No. answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are we to
assume that there is no answer from the government to that question?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, it might be well to advise the house that the government proposes to adopt the practice which the right hon. gentleman himself suggested was the correct one, to decline to answer questions asked as to contemplated action of the government. Upon the occasion to which I refer, the right hon. gentleman in my judgment correctly stated the rule, and to that rule we propose to adhere.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Am I to assume from the answer given to my question that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is the Acting Minister of Labour?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) can assume anything he chooses; the Prime Minister is quite within his rights in declining to answer.



THE DEPUTY SPEAKER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I
wish to raise a question which immediately affects the rights and privileges of this house. Before the adjournment of the house Last night the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), who occupies the important position of deputy speaker, moved the adjournment of the debate. I take it that he did so with the intention of proceeding this afternoon to participate in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I rise at this moment because I would not like to interrupt the hon. member during the course of his speech. If that were his intention it is, I think, important that the house should consider carefully just what is involved in the deputy speaker of the house participating in political discussions.
May I say to my hon. friend that the last thought in my mind at the moment is in any way to embarrass or discourage him in the matter of participation in debates. I confess I was somewhat surprised when I saw that he had accepted the position of deputy speaker because I knew not only of his ability as a public speaker but also of his great liking for public speaking and debate. I assumed that whoever accepted the position of deputy speaker would follow the practice which has been followed, I believe con-
174	COMMONS
Deputy Speaker taking part in Debate
tinuously in this house, of the deputy speaker not participating in debate. I was surprised therefore that my hon. friend had accepted a position which I felt would limit him in the matter of discussion on the floor of the house.
The question which I raise is wholly apart from any individual or the particular occupant of any position, it relates exclusively to the position of deputy speaker, and as such I invite the attention of both sides of the house to the necessity of a non-partisan consideration of this matter which vitally affects the rights and privileges of every hon. member. The position of speaker is the most important of the positions in the House of Commons, with the possible exception of that of the prime minister, if indeed it is not the first position in the land. The position of deputy speaker, while not equally important, is a very important position, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to participation in political discussions it should be a rule, if it is not already a rule as well as the custom, that whoever occupies the position of deputy speaker should thereby be precluded from participating in debates in the House of Commons. I submit that the position of deputy speaker, with respect to the practices to be followed, should be identical with that of the position of His Honour, the Speaker. There have been times in the past when the speaker did leave the chair and participate in debate, even in a very partisan way, but that was over a century ago in Great Britain, and such practice has not been followed in -this, country for a very considerable time. Although there may not be a formal rule covering this matter, I think all hon. members will agree that it has been a custom or tradition that the speaker is not expected to participate in political discussions in the House of Commons and that this has also been the practice. My submission, Mr. Speaker, is that whoever occupies the position of deputy to Your Honour should follow the same rule and the same practice as Your Honour with respect to parliamentary discussions.
May I point out that the position of deputy speaker has been made somewhat different from that of other hon. members of the house in order to give the occupant of that position more in the way of independence during his tenure of office. Like the speaker, his position is a salaried one. The emolument is not as considerable but the salary is voted by the house in order to secure the absolute independence of the occupant of the chair; it is 
a guarantee of independence. It is quite clear that, there is a reason why the deputy speaker receives that special recognition and I submit that one of the grounds on which it is voted by parliament is that whoever occupies the position is expected to give his time and thought to the many important matters which come up under his presidency and that he may not be tempted to take a party point of view of any question which comes before the house for discussion. As hon. members know, the deputy speaker occupies the position of chairman of committees, and the house will agree that about two-thirds of the time of the house is taken up with the work of the committees. He is chairman of the committee of the whole, chairman of the important committee of supply, chairman of the important committee of ways and means, and as chairman of those committees he is in the position of the presiding officer in this house for practically three-quarters of the time that is spent in discussing matters here. Everyone, I think, wishes to have, and I am sure the hon. member himself wishes others to have, a feeling of complete confidence in his impartiality. I submit to my hon. friend that if he were now to participate actively in the present debate and take a party view in regard to many matters that may come up in the course of this discussion, we on this side could hardly be expected to have the confidence in his impartiality that we should like to have, and that we have reason to believe we shall have if he will follow the practice that has been common in the past.
These are some of the reasons. I might add the further one which is of importance in proceedings of the house, namely, the part which practice and tradition play in these matters. It would be unfortunate if we were to depart from a practice that has been, as I say, generally followed since the creation of the position of deputy speaker. I do not say that at no time has there been any participation in debate by the deputy speaker, but I believe I am right when I say that generally speaking, whoever has held the position of deputy speaker has felt that his obligation was to follow, in the exercise of the duties of that position, the same practice that would be followed by his Honour the Speaker.
May I point out to my hon. friend in this very regard that if His Honour the Speaker should not be in the chair at the moment, in all probability, my hon. friend would be the one who would be occupying it and he would then find himself placed at this moment, in view of the representations that I am making to Your Honour, in the position of having to decide a very important point, whether the

Deputy Speaker taking part in Debate
deputy speaker should or should not participate in political discussions. If he participates, clearly he is hardly in a position to give a ruling on this matter that affects the privileges of the house as a whole.
Mr. LaVERGNE: Why so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
says: "Why so?" Because, no matter how sincere he might be in his view, were he to decide that the deputy speaker should have the right to participate in debate, I am inclined to think that the public generally, to say nothing of hon. members, might entertain the idea that in arriving at the decision, my hon. friend had been influenced by his own personal views concerning the office, and what should be permitted its occupant, rather than that he was giving a decision, unbiased altogether by any personal feelings which he might entertain in the matter. In saying this, I am not reflecting on my hon. friend; I am seeking to state the matter in the way which I believe the public would view it. It is as important that those who occupy high offices of state should, in the mind of the public, be above suspicion, if that is possible, as it is that in their own minds their conduct should be above question.
I fee! a little more secure in raising this point at this time owing to the fact that it has been brought up in parliament before, and that it has been very fully and ably discussed by two right hon. gentlemen who have each held over a considerable period of time, the position of prime minister of Canada. I imagine there are few names that by opposing parties will be held in higher honour, regard and respect, certainly in connection with matters pertaining to the rights of the House of Commons and its privileges and the privileges of its members, than those respectively of the Right Hon. Sir W7ilfrid Laurier and the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden. Some years ago both of those gentlemen discussed very frankly on the floor of the house the position of deputy speaker. The question came up in a resolution which Sir Wilfrid Laurier had introduced, in which the position was taken that the deputy speaker should not participate in political discussion outside of the house; that his position as deputy speaker made it such that his attitude as respects participation in by-elections and in political campaigns, while parliament was still in existence, should be precisely that of His Honour the Speaker. I am not going to go into that question; I think it was pretty generally accepted at that time that the view expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier had been concurred in by Sir Robert Borden, and that
it wras unnecessary to lay down any rule; but I submit if any such attitude can be rightly taken with respect to participation in political discussion by the deputy speaker outside of the house, there is even stronger reason why a similar rule should apply to participation in debates within the house. I will give to the house in a few words what was said at that time. The debate took place on March 5, 1914. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had introduced the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this house, in the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the deputy speaker towards this house, he is bound by and subject to the same rules as apply to Mr. Speaker, and that, therefore, he is debarred from taking part in electoral contests.
Your Honour will notice that the assertion is that in the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the deputy speaker towards this house, he is bound by and subject to the same rules as apply to Mr. Speaker. That is the position laid down. From that it follows that the deputy speaker is debarred from taking part in electoral contests. It equally follows from it according to the resolution that he would be debarred from participating in political discussions in the house. Sir Wilfrid Laurier went at some length into the reasons for this. He outlined the position of the speaker in the old country, the position as it had become in this parliament and passed on, after giving different authorities in support of his contention, to discuss the position of the deputy speaker. I will not do more than read one paragraph of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's remarks at that time in support of what he then said, but it bears immediately upon the point that I have just raised. Referring to the British practice, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:	[DOT]
I must again refer to the fact that in my consultation of the authorities I have not found any discussion as to the possible breaking of that rule by deputy speaker. I have not found in any of the books which I have consulted that at any moment the chairman of the committees departed from this rule and took part in any political discussion. Whether or not Mr. Speaker, or the deputy speaker or chairman of committees, is allowed to take part in any political discussion in Great Britain, I say again I have not been able to satisfy myself; but from the very fact that the books are silent upon this point, I conclude that the rule has been observed, and I believe I am correct in stating that, on the floor of the house itself, neither the deputy, the deputy speaker. I have not found in the assistant chairman of committees takes any part in the discussion.
The text here is evidently not correct. What is meant is that neither the Speaker nor the
176	COMMONS
Deputy Speaker taking part in Debate
deputy speaker nor any presiding assistant chairman of the committee has taken part in the discussion. Sir Wilfrid continues:
If I am wrong in this I would be glad to be corrected; but after what examination I have been able to give to the subject my conclusion is-
And this is the important point-
-that the same rules which apply to Mr. Speaker apply also to the deputy speaker and to the assistant chairman; and, quite apart from any precedents, discussing the question simply as a matter of reason, it seems to me that the conclusion is not only obvious but irresistible, that the deputy speaker should be bound by the same rules which bind Mr. Speaker: that, having to discharge practically the same duties he should be subject to the same regulations and the same exceptions. The deputy speaker presides over the committee of the whole house, over the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means, and I need not tell hon. members that three-quarters of the business coming before this house is discharged in one of these committees. The experience of parliament has forced the conclusion that the Speaker of the house should not be allowed to take part in politics, and that the same rule should bind also the member of the house who has to discharge the important duty of chairman of committees of the whole, of ways and means and of supply-that is to say, the presiding officer in that portion of the time of the house in which the house is occupied in discharging the major part of all its duties. As an abstract principle, therefore, I submit to the house that the deputy speaker is bound by the same rules that apply to Mr. Speaker.
Sir Robert Borden, speaking on the resolution, is reported a little further on as follows- I quote from page 1368 of Hansard of March 5, 1914:
I do not at all minimize the importance of having the deputy speaker of this house placed outside the pale of party politics so far as that can reasonably be carried out.
Sir Robert goes on to state his position in a very concise way. He says a little further on:
The best course, it seems to me, is to surround the deputy speakership, so far as it can be surrounded, with the same tradition of custom and of usage that is applied to the speakership in this country.
Those quotations will be sufficient, Mr. Speaker, to indicate entire agreement on the part of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden in the matter of participation in party discussion in the house by the occupant of the position of deputy speaker.
Sir Robert Borden did say, however, further on:
The only question is whether we had better evolve the status of the deputy speaker in the same way as that of the speaker has been evolved, or whether we had better lay down 
formal rules. I shall be quite satisfied to have the matter considered at the convenience of the right hon. gentleman.
May I conclude what I have to say by informing the house that the reason I have brought the matter up as I have is that I think it can best be proceeded with in accordance with the suggestion of Sir Robert Borden which was accepted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not press his resolution. He said he thought that the discussion which had been -had of the principle would be all that would be necessary to cause the occupant of the position of deputy speaker to abide by what was evidently the general view of both sides of the house as to his position in matters of political discussion. I would not wish to embarrass either Your Honour or the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) in asking that the chair rule this afternoon on a matter concerning which rules are not already laid down, but I would hope that my hon. friend from Montmagny, the present deputy speaker, would view the matter as one which should be the subject of a conference hetween His Honour the Speaker, the Prime Minister, and possibly the leader of the Opposition as well, with a view to seeing if an agreement cannot be reached which will cause the practice which is to be followed in the future to be the one which I believe will most accord not only with what has been best in the traditions of this parliament, but best in the traditions of the parliament at Westminster as well.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Mr. Speaker,-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No general debate can
take place on this occasion. It is usual on the order of the day to allow a statement by an hon. member on a matter affecting him personally, but there can be no general debate unless there is a motion before the house.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny):
I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, if I am in order. I think that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition is starting from the position that I am going to make a partisan speech. I gave no intimation at all so far as that is concerned, and I think I should have trusted any member of this house to have been more interested in the wellbeing of Canada than in any party declaration of principle. If that is not the case on the side of the house which my right hon. friend leads, I can assure him that there is

Deputy Speaker taking part in Debate
no partisan speech on this side of the house so far as I know. We speak in the interests of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I aim speaking for myself. I go further. My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition is an old parliamentarian. He knows that the position of deputy speaker does not exist. It does not appear in the rules of the house; it does not appear in any of the comments of either Beauchesne, Bourinot or May. I am only the chairman of the committee of the whole house. There have been many of the committees of the house presided over adequately by members chosen by my right hon. friend, the leader of the opposition or his party, and I do not think it has ever been the case that any such hon. member was denied the privilege of speaking as an ordinary member of this house. The presiding member of any committee of this house has the right to speak on any question before the house.
The debate from which my right hon. friend quoted is, I must say, not very apropos because it concerned the deputy speaker taking part in a particular discussion outside of this house. The Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier never pressed his motion, and if my right hon. friend had read a little bit further he would have found that the leader of the opposition at that time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, gave up the position for which he had been contending and recognized, as was correct, that the deputy speaker was only an ordinary member of this house.
I would go further to satisfy my hon. friends to the left of Mr. Speaker. I have tried by all the means at my disposal to be as fair as I could. I have presumed that when you are in the chair, Mr. Speaker, I am only an ordinary member of this house, and that when I am in the chair I occupy your place for the time being. I have always tried to be as fair as I could, but if it means that the position of deputy speaker, which does not exist, if it means that the chairman of the committee of the whole, who presides over a committee of this house just as hon. members to your left, Mr. Speaker, presided over committees when the right hon. leader of the opposition was prime minister of this country, has not the right to express the views of his riding and say what he sincerely thinks about the welfare and prosperity of this country, if it means that the deputy speaker or chairman of the committee of the whole has to become a slave 22110-12
of the party or is to be so much suspected that his voice has no right to be heard in this parliament, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave, with the permission of the right honourable leader of the house and the right hon. leader of the opposition and with your permission to resign my position. I accepted the position of deputy speaker to promote the business of the house but I do not think it was ever meant that the hon. member for Mont-magny should not have the right to express his views concerning those things he thought necessary for the welfare of his country I think that is the action feared by hon. members on the opposite side of the house. I do not think it was ever intended that the hon. member for Montmagny should not be allowed to denounce the campaigns of prejudice which have been raised in the name of one party or another. Mr. Speaker I beg permission to resign immediately the position I have the honour to occupy. I have been appointed by this house to the position of deputy speaker; it is not a government position. The position was given me by this house and if hon. members see fit to ask for my resignation the matter is entirely in their hands. However as long as I have at heart the interests of the constituency of Montmagny I must speak in the interests of that constituency, in the name of the province of Quebec, in the name of my party and of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise in regard to what I understood to be a ruling of Your Honour. As I understood it Your Honour took the view that this matter was one of personal privilege. It is a matter which affects the privileges of the house and as such every hon. member is entitled to discuss the question. The imaitter being of such importance I think the house should have the benefit of the views of the right hon. the Prime Minister on the matter, and that all hon. members of the house should feel perfectly free to speak. As the matter under discussion is one which affects the privileges of the house as a whole it should as a consequence be open for discussion by all hon. members.
Mr. LaVERGNE: May I retire while the discussion ensues?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I suggest that the hon. member remain in the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, stay here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think that the observations of the right hon. leader of the opposi-

178	COMMONS
Deputy Speaker taking part in Debate
tion might have been delayed until such time as the speech delivered by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) could be said in any sense to be controversial. As to the right of the hon. member to speak on any subject in this house I think there can be no doubt. That is my view. As to whether or not he should enter into controversial discussions is a matter of his own choice and is a matter that might be left to his own discretion. There is no rule however, which circumscribes or limits his rights is a member because he holds the position of deputy speaker.
A similar point was raised concerning the Speaker of the house, Mr. Lemieux, in the year 1927. The then Speaker of the house in committee of the whole participated in the debate. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who was then leading the opposition said he thought the house should take notice of that innovation, whereupon the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) participated in the debate and intimated that in his judgment the Speaker should not participate in discussions in the house. He went so far as to say he had doubt as to whether or not he should participate in discussions in committee of the whole house. In exceptional cases, however, he thought the Speaker was warranted in taking the action he did. Thereupon the Speaker referred to precedents and quoted them at length. The last case in England in which the Speaker has participated in the debate was in the year 1870 when Mr. Speaker Denison participated in the discussion in the committee of ways and means. There is a very long list of cases in which speakers have participated in discussions in committee, but not of course when the house was sitting. Obviously the Speaker cannot take part in the debate and preside at the same time. Therefore, as a matter of common sense, of reason, as well as by precedent and rule, he is prevented from discussing or debating any question while he is in the chair. As I have said the right of the Speaker to enter into the discussion when the house is in committee has been conceded. One case was a discussion with respect to inland revenue; another was a question concerning a point of order, and public measures at various times have been discussed by the Speaker when the house has been in committee.
Now we come to the position of deputy speaker. In England the position of deputy speaker as we understand it here does not exist. You perhaps will recall, sir, that when the present Speaker of the English House of

Commons, Captain Fitzroy, was chairman of committees there was much discussion and a considerable amount of antagonism in connection with some of his rulings and at one time it was thought that when he was proposed for the chair he might be vigorously opposed. However, sounder counsels prevailed and he was elected to the speakership. There being no such office as deputy speaker in the English House of Commons we have to examine the matter as one of principle. If the ruling laid down by my right hon. friend is to be observed the corollary of it must bs observed, namely, that if the deputy speaker is not to participate in debate obviously he should not be attacked. That is fair. How but by participation in debate would he be able to answer attacks made upon him? That, Mr. Speaker, seems to be the crux of the whole matter and it will be found that Sir Robert Borden in discussing the matter of a resolution of the then leader of the opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, directed the attention of the house to that particular point. Is it right merely because one of our hon. members has been elected chairman of committees and chairman of the committee of the whole house that he should be deprived of the right to speak to the house?


Mr. POWERS:: There is a deputy speaker in our scheme of government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I say that.


James Augustine Power: I understood the right
hon. gentleman to say there was not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I said that no such
condition prevailed in England.


James Augustine Power: The hon. member for
Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) said that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. I
am familiar with the fact that we have provided for a deputy speaker by a rule of the house. I am sorry if my hon. friend misunderstood me; I stated that in Great Britain there is no such official comparable to our deputy speaker. Let us further examine the subject before us as a matter of principle. One of our hon. members is elected deputy speaker and chairman of committees. Has he therefore abrogated his right as a member of the house? He is in the chair only during the time that the Speaker is not in the chair and while he is not said to be the permanent committee chairman he is nevertheless chairman of the committee of the whole, the committee of ways and means and of supply. He exercises a very great power, subject to the general rules of procedure which govern this

Deputy Speaker taking -/xirt in Debate
house. Let us, however, consider what happened the other day when he was attacked in this house. As a member he takes his seat and as one of the deputies of this chamber is he to be silent? May he make reply? Is it right that he should be silent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By whom was he attacked? Any hon. member including the deputy speaker has the right at any time to raise a question of privilege and to defend himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the hon. member for
Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). Surely hon. members opposite heard what wTas said.
Mr. CASGR.AIN:	I do not recall it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, an insinuating question was put to the hon. member for Mont-magny. Is he to remain silent? Has his acceptance of the position of deputy speaker placed him in a position where he can no longer reply to the attacks which are made upon him? Sir Robert Borden clearly appreciated that point when he put it to the house at that time. I have not read the debate recently, but, as I sajr, he had a clear appreciation of the point.
You attack a member in his capacity as member. You say he should be silent because he occupies the position of deputy speaker. I think this is the answer. The deputy speaker of this house has no restrictions placed upon him by rule, by tradition or by practice, because deputy speakers have participated in debates in this house. On one occasion, it is true the leader of the house at the time, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, objected, if I remember correctly, to one of his own supporters, entering into a controversial discussion, and thereupon the hon. gentleman discontinued his speech and said what he had to say upon another item.
My conception of the situation would be this. The deputy speaker is subject, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, to the restrictions that are imposed upon the Speaker with respect to his impartiality, in his conduct of the business of the house. His own good taste and judgment must determine whether or not he shall enter into controversial discussion. And I think you can always trust the common sense and discretion and soundness of judgment of any hon. member who is chosen as deputy speaker of this house not to contravene that general principle. In other words, so far as it is necessary to explain his own position, he is free to do so. As to participating in any debate in which highly controversial or-shall I say?
22110- 12J
-highly political differences manifest themselves, his own judgment, his own good sense, must be the determining factors with respect to the extent to which he does so participate. Because the punishment is clear; he forfeits the esteem and regard of the house, and if he becomes a violent partisan his usefulness as deputy speaker will be regarded as ended. If, on the other hand, he discharges the onerous duties which we have asked him to accept according to the traditions of this house-because there is no deputy speaker at Westminster at the moment-then he will merit the commendation and approval of this chamber. That seems to me to be the rule which should govern in a matter of this kind.
In my view it is premature for the right hon. gentleman to raise the question under discussion until something has happened to indicate that the deputy speaker has in any sense contravened the principle which should govern. I still claim for the deputy speaker, as I would claim for any other member of the house, the right to make any response he thinks adequate to any attack that may be made upon him. In other words, you should not make him a judge unless you treat him as such; and if you enter into controversy with him you must afford him an opportunity to answer the observations directed to him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No one denies that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will continue to discharge his duties with that high appreciation of what is required of him as he has in the past. I trust he will reconsider the resignation he has presented to the house, because those of us who have followed his course of conduct in the chair will recognize that, a rigorous adherence to the rules makes for effectiveness in the conduct of our business. I think it is a salutary lesson to have the rules strictly observed where too often they have been violated. I believe the house will agree with me that a thorough knowledge of the rules on the part of the deputy speaker and his enforcement of them against every member, regardless of whom he may be, is conducive to the well being and seemly conduct of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not know that the occasion calls for a ruling by the chair. The incident referred to by the right hon. leader of the opposition was not exactly on all fours with the incident of to-day. By universal consent the house on that occasion refrained from dealing with the matter and left it to be considered at the next general revision of
The Address-Mr. LaVergne

the rules. Since that time the rules have been generally revised, but the matter was not dealt with.
In my opinion the hon. member for Mont-magny (Mr. LaVergne) occupying the position of deputy speaker, is perfectly at liberty to take part in the debates of this house. If the house wishes it otherwise it must take action by amending the rules or by an appropriate resolution.
I did not understand the deputy speaker today to tender his resignation, but merely to say that if he was to be so restricted he would tender it.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 19, 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. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I fully realize that, under the present circumstances, I must make use of the English language. I beg of my French-Canadian speaking colleagues to kindly allow me to do so because the few remarks I intend to make will be addressed to the English-speaking members.
Mr. Speaker, as the few remarks which I shall offer to the house are mostly for the benefit of my English-speaking compatriots, I deem it my duty to express myself in the English language. In doing so I beg the indulgence of hon. members, and I trust that any mistakes I may make they will attribute to my poor education in English. I think the best way to understand one another is to speak frankly, so that knowing what we think we may come to a quicker and better understanding of our respective points of view.
May I, without transgressing the rules of the house, refer to the remark made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Let me assure him that he need be under no uncertainty as to where I stand. I speak to-day as a Conservative by conviction, not by education or birth.
Speaking as a Conservative and not as a partisan, I believe the day of Liberalism has passed. Liberalism, as a great French philosopher has said, is the doctrine that thinks good alone is dangerous and that it has to be mixed with a bit of evil to render it acceptable to the people. It is almost

twenty-five years since I had the honour to raise my voice in this house, but I have lived long enough to realize that we must choose between materialism, the spirit of today, or Conservatism, the spirit of tradition. That is the conclusion I have come to.
My hon. friend from Yorkton (Mr. Mc-Pliee) and other hon. members have spoken of attempts to arouse religious and sectional prejudices throughout the country during election campaigns. I am willing to accept this as true of both sides, but surely my hon. friends on your left, Mr. Speaker, must admit that if ever such prejudices have been appealed to in this country they themselves were conspicuously successful in such appeals in the general elections of 1917, 1921, 1925 and 1926. For instance, it was not the Conservative party that raised the war issue. I admit at once that I was one of those who opposed participation by this country in the Great war, but I defy any hon. gentleman opposite to prove that in the last twenty-five years I have ever appealed to prejudice. Hon. members to your left, Mr. Speaker, were in favour of participation in the war. How is it that in the last four campaigns, nay in the last campaign, on the very eve of the campaign, they had the press publish rumours of a new war in which Canada would become entangled-just for the sake of partisanship, or for the sake of getting back into office? Those are facts which my hon. friends cannot deny. Were they in the interests of Canada? Were they in the interests of the prosperity of this country? I leave it to them. My opinion is this, that whether prejudices are aroused on one side or the other, the fact remains that we are all Canadians. There is no use talking of-one language or the other as being spoken in different provinces. We are here to stay, both races; both languages are here for good; and that will be the best and happiest moment for Canada when we forget that we are French or Scotch or Irish and become Canadians.
I listened the other day with much interest to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). He said he could not become a good Tory, and as a matter of fact, in his opinion, good Tories do not exist. I do not know whether he was right or not. I claim that, being perfectly independent of partisan politics, I have become a good Tory, because I have become a good Canadian.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh oh.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I had hoped that my
hon. friends opposite would applaud that senti-

The Address-Mr. LaVergne
nient. I know there are good Canadians on the other side of the house; undoubtedly there are, and I will come to that later on. So far as I can be impartial, Mr. Speaker, and stating truth as far as I see it, my hon. friends may rely upon me to indicate the faults or errors on both sides. God knows my hon. friend from Labelle had no more loyal supporter than the hon. member for Montmagny. But can we go on nursing old sores and past wounds without realizing, as I do at least, that protection is necessary for our country? Why should we keep on nursing those old wounds and forgetting the duty of the moment? Since the last election I have followed the leader of this party (Mr. Bennett). The first action of this government was to stop immigration. I can go back over the years when my hon. friend from Labelle, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) and, unfortunately, myself were members of this house, the only ones now left of those days. If you look at Hansard of 1806, when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, you will find that when the Liberal member for Montmagny first began to speak of the danger of immigration, I stated to the house that, in the very words of the then Deputy Minister of Immigration, immigration directed to this country was intended to drown the French-speaking people of Canada. And when I see the leader of this government stopping immigration by order in council I must say, as a Canadian of French descent, and a Conservative by education, I had to support that policy.
To-day in this very parliament we hear our hon. friends on the extreme left bringing before the house doctrines which we cannot accept, talking of secession. My hon. friend from South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) said yesterday that there were more than six hundred present at a secession meeting.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. VALLANCE:: What I said, was this,
that I merely mentioned the fact by way of illustration to show that not six persons as, the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) had said, were paying attention to secession, but that many hundreds throughout the west had been attending secession meetings trying to glean some information on the subject.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I do not think my hon. friend had need to contradict me. I said six hundred; probably there were more. Let me say this:	With respect to that talk about
secession, in spite of persecution, in spite of
being denied rights, the first protestation against secession was put forward by the French-Canadian habitants of the far west. That is the point I wanted to make in this regard, and no other. My hon. friend from South Battleford and many others have spoken of the sorrows of the farmers out west. We understand this. We believe, as he does, in reducing freight rates; we believe as he does that the farmer in the west is not as well off as he might be. But let the hon. member come to the province of Quebec. In our province the love of the soil, the love of Canadianism is such that we do not complain and kick or talk of secession, but accept our duty as due to Canada. And we are willing to undergo many hardships for the sake of Canada. I would go further. Speaking to relieve the mind of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), speaking as a Conservative but not a partisan-


An hon. MEMBER:: How can you be
otherwise?	.
Mr. LaVERGNE: How can I be otherwise? By not being a Liberal, very easily. The leader of the opposition spoke of the attitude taken at the Imperial conference by the leader of the government. He spoke of blasting ways. Why not? The Liberal party has not been blasting since 1897. They attended the conferences with vaseline and glycerine, not nitro-glycerine. Has the right hon. leader of this government taken a position different from that of Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier? Has he not the right to speak for Canada first when Great Britain has been speaking for Great Britain first since 1897? If I were as much an Englishman as I am a Canadian I would say that Great Britain was perfectly right. This is a question of business and one which has to be discussed from a business point of view. Ireland acquired her liberty simply by talking of herself first, and speaking for myself, I say: Canada first, ourselves first. Of course the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) did not come from Quebec, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is not in his seat. The attitude has been taken that the Prime Minister of this country has been acting in a disloyal manner. That question has been raised before in Quebec, I head it when I was fighting against the hon. members on the other side of the house. Is it disloyal to claim that the interests of Canada are superior to those of Great Britain? If the interests of Great Britain come into conflict with those

The Address-Mr. LaVergne
of Canada, I stand with my native land, and that was the attitude taken by the hon. leader of this government. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a speech the other day in this house, and he seems to think alike with the hon. member for Quebec East and Quebec South (Mr. Power). It is considered to be disloyal because this country is trying to make a bargain with the government of Great Britain. We waited since 1897 for what the leader of the opposition calls a generous conciliation, and we did not get a thing. Does the hon. leader of the opposition say that we have no right to maintain our position as the Canadian government? We belong to the commonwealth of British nations and the only way to speak is to speak frankly. Unfortunately, since 1902, that course has not been followed by the Liberal party.
If at any time I felt proud of being a citizen of Canada or felt proud of being a Christian it was when the Prime Minister of this countiy, speaking not only in the name of the Dominion of Canada, but in the name of civilization said: We shall have nothing to do with Russia. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) says that the case against Russia has not been proven, but I say that it has been proven to the hilt. Here is the nation that murdered its emperor, murdered three young royal princesses in a dark cellar, and put the czarevitch, a young boy, to death. This country has denied civilization, it has denied the teachings of Almighty God, it has denied the sacrament of marriage and it has denied the right of the individual to hold property. I say the case against Russia has been proven. The statement is made that we will lose money, but a man does not live by bread alone.


An hon. MEMBER:: You need bread to
live.
Mr. LaVERGNE: That may apply to the animals, but the human being possesses a spirit and does not live by bread alone. Above material prosperity there is something far superior, a mental and spiritual prosperity, and when the leader of this government said that he would not trade with Russia he spoke in the name of those who believe in something higher and more spiritual than the utterances of the leader of the opposition. If I am wrong I am willing to take the blame upon my own shoulders because I am speaking in my own name. When the leader of the government stopped all trade with Russia he gave not only to our country but to the

world at large the greatest example of the teachings of the Bible. I speak for myself and as a man who believes in Canada and who lives not by bread alone but by support of a light which cannot be extinguished and which was left to us by our forefathers and the missionaries.
In conclusion may I say that this country -and this is where we owe a debt to the present government for its action-has been divided racially by the introduction of foreign elements, of the bolshevist doctrine which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) disguises well, but which we can see piercing through his speeches. Is this working for the good of this country? I believe not, and I say to my hon. friends of the west: If you had had in your western country Canadians of French descent, of French tradition, or, speaking plainly, habitants of Quebec, instead of the foreign element which you brought in, do you think bolshevist speeches along the lines of those of Lenin in Russia would be possible in Canada? The fault is due to the past leaders of the party of which the leader of the opposition is now the head, who for the sake of speculation, brought into this country people of foreign origin. To my hon. friends from the west I say: probably this is your punishment; chickens are coming home to roost.
We must build up this nation on the two great races that Providence has given us as an inheritance. My hon. friends will, I suppose, expect me to speak plainly and I must speak plainly. A moment ago I spoke of appeals to prejudice in Quebec. My hon. friends did not reply because they have not been entirely frank. In regard to appeals to prejudice in Saskatchewan and Alberta, I will not use my own language because it might not have much weight. I will use a language that is more authoritative. I believe all campaigns against the French language in this country are, in the words of Sir John Macdonald:	"Absolument sans fondement," or
absolutely without foundation. This applies to the Premier of Saskatchewan as well as to anybody else. If the French language is not recognized in this country or in any province, as far as I am concerned, I accept the challenge. If we look back in history we shall find that under every regime in every province except Quebec the minority has been persecuted and its rights curtailed. But let us go forward; let us get to the bottom of the truth in this affair. If Mr. Anderson is allowed to do to-day what he intends to do out west in Saskatchewan, where does the fault lie? It lies on the other side of the house.
1S3

The Address-Mr. LaVergne


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	My hon. friends laugh.
Will they laugh when I mention 1898? Will they laugh when I say that the Conservative party went down to defeat for the protection of the constitutional rights of minorities in Manitoba, when Mr. Yeo was allied with Joe Martin and Dalton McCarthy? Who went down to defeat then if it was not the Conservative party? Who betrayed the province of Quebec if it was not the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame!
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Who says "shame"?


Mr. DUPUIS:: I do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: We all do.


Mr. BRADETTE:: He was a much bigger
man than my hon. friend will ever be.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	Yes, and a bigger man
than my hon. friend will be even with all the liberal press at his back. But is it not true that in 1896 the Conservative party stood for the Remedial bill? I will go further; in 1905 I was a Liberal member in this house, and if Mr. Anderson is allowed to do what he is doing to-day, where did he get the right and the power? The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and I were the only Liberals who stood up for the rights of the minority. Now is the time to say "shame," but shame on you and shame on your party.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is
no time to be partisan.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I thought the hon.
gentleman was putting a question. If he wants to do so, he is quite welcome. But the hon. member knows what I say is true.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Not at all, I deeply
resent that.
Mr. LaVERGNE: The hon. member was not in the house at that time, but I was excommunicated from the Liberal party on account of the stand I took.


An hon. MEMBER:: The mask was taken
off.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Yes, it is time to take
off the mask. You cannot go back to Quebec as you did before. That is why you did not want us to be elected. You did not want us to tell the truth, but now your appeals to prejudice are at an end. Your efforts to set one race against the other are finished, and you are quite well aware of the fact. I was in the house in 1905 and if Mr. Anderson does what he does to-day, it is due to the
then hon. member for Quebec East who at that time denounced the hon. member for Labelle. The Liberal party stood on the rock of the constitution on the 21st of February, 1905, but it was down at the bottom of the rock of constitution on the 21st of March, 1905. That is the truth, and my hon. friends know it. Now is the time to laugh, but if my hon. friends laugh, they laugh at themselves.
Hon. members know where I stand. I believe the action of Mr. Anderson in the western province is wrong. I think it is detrimental to the province, detrimental to Canada. We are here in Canada to stay together whether hon. members like it or not. As far as I am concerned, having learned in my infancy the language of the province of Quebec, having learned to love and cherish it,
I think Providence has given us a wonderful asset in Quebec. We are here to stay. Why not stop fighting about these questions? If we want this country to remain as it is, if we want confederation to endure, we must admit the necessity, the legality, of the two languages. I read the other day that there was some objection to the proposed bilingual stamp. I take it that every publication of this government should be in the two languages, and I will tell you why. I wish I were an English-speaking Canadian for one moment, but only for one moment, because I am proud of my French blood, proud of my Acadian tradition on my mother's side, proud of the language I speak as my mother tongue, proud of my respect for authority, not believing that Jack is as good as his master, and believing in our sovereign the king as the anointed representative of the Almighty, believing that there is one danger in this country far greater than the one that I denounced before-I have never been backward in denouncing the dangers of imperialism, but speaking to-day as a Canadian of French language and French descent, I say that I believe that the salvation of this country is in the British Empire; and I have paid dear enough to be entitled to say that. I am not a French-Canadian; I am a Canadian, speaking French, but if this country is to live and confederation is to survive, whether we be Scotch, Irish or French Canadians, I think that we will all admit that our only salvation is in the building up of something different from the United States civilization. We have in this country a dual civilization, a dual language. We have the glorious public laws of Great Britain; we have the clarity of the civil law of France; we have also, which is our greatest asset, the great French thought of charity for human misery, charity and love in the name of Christ our

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
Saviour. In the name of that dual civilization that we enjoy in this country I say that if we want our country to survive, we must build it on the spirit of our forefathers, on the doctrine of Cartier and Macdonald, Lafontaine and Baldwin, and build up a nation where there are neither vanquished nor conquerors, but two races enjoying the same rights and privileges.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: I should like first of all, Mr. Speaker, to refer to an incident that happened in this house yesterday and again to-day when the Prime Minister was answering certain questions that had been asked by my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). In reply, the Prime Minister stated that the intentions of the government would be manifest by their actions. We all remember that last June the Prime Minister was not quite so reticent in his replies. He was, on the contrary, very profuse and very emphatic in stating what the intentions of the government would be if he were at its head. Are we to assume that now he is in power we are not to have that frankness which he indulged in when he was in opposition?
I should not have taken up the time of the house at this stage to refer to Russia had it not been for certain remarks made by the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. LaVergne) with respect to our relations with Russia. He said that chickens had a habit of coming home to roost. That is exactly what happened in connection with Russia. The chickens did come home to roost so far as the ruling class in Russia was concerned. I should like in this connection to refer to what Lord Macaulay said with reference to the civil war in Great Britain during the seventeenth century when King Charles lost his head.
I think his words are worthy of being quoted at this particular time. He said:
If it were possible that a people brought up under an intolerant and arbitrary system could subvert that system without acts of cruelty and foil}', half the objections to despotic power would be removed. We should, in that case, be compelled to acknowledge that it at least produces no pernicious effects on the intellectual and moral character of a nation. We deplore the outrages which accompany revolutions. But the more violent the outrages, the more assured we feel that a revolution was necessary. The violence of those outrages will always be proportioned to the ferocity and ignorance of the people; and the ferocity and ignorance of the people will be proportioned to the oppression and degradation under which they had been accustomed to live.
Is that not the case in Russia? If the Russian people were ferocious when they rose

in rebellion, it was because they had a ferocious ruling class in the first place. The same thing happened in the civil war in Great Britain. It was, as Lord Macaulay
says:
Thus it was in our civil war. The heads of the church and state reaped only that which they had sown.
I would like my hon. friend from Mont-magny to take particular notice of that. Macaulay goes on:
The government had prohibited free discussion; it had done its best to keep the people unacquainted with their duties and their rights. The retribution was just and natural. If our rulers suffered from popular ignorance, it was because they had themselves taken away the key of knowledge. If they were assailed with blind fury, it was because they had exacted an equally blind submission.
If those remarks applied to Great Britain during that particular period, I am sure they applied equally well to Russia in the years prior to 1917. He refers to the enormity of the offence where four or five, six or seven or a dozen people were murdered and says not a word about the millions of workers who were murdered by the Czarist rulers? These were workers, and were not worthy of my right hon. friend's notice. They may kill all the working people they wish but if one of the ruling class is taken it becomes a criminal offence. In the view of the group around me the blood of the manual worker is just as precious as that of the greatest ruler in the land. He referred to the fact that we should have no dealings with Russia. As a matter of fact only a few commodities have been debarred from this country. We have not yet debarred caviare which the wealthy must have at their banquets. That commodity is allowed to enter the country fiee. At least it is allowed to come in without restrictions. We have not debarred gold. The Russian people can buy anything in this country with gold. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) believes that the morals of the people of Canada would be corrupted if we were allowed to exchange machinery for coal, but if the same commodity is exchanged for gold our morals will not be harmed. What wonderful consistency. What wonderful logic the leading people of this government use.
Let me at this time refer to an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province quite recently. That is a Conservative paper, at least it gives support to the Conservative candidates. It did all within its power to defeat your humble servant at the last election. I assure you it did it's work very

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
nicely and very subtly. I will quote briefly from this editorial as follows:
Canada has declared an economic war on Russia. That is what the order in council passed at Ottawa on Friday amounts to.
This is not the first time that Canada has made war on Russia without the courtesy of declaring war.
Several reasons are given for the passing of this remarkable order. It is stated that the government is convinced that forced labour is being used in the cutting of timber and the mining of coal. It is held that the standard of living in Russia is far below that in Canada. It is charged that the Soviet government seeks to impose its will on the world, and the statement is made that, since Canada, as a country, is opposed to communism, it must refuse to support it by interchange of trade.
Foreign trade is an entirely selfish thing.
We will all agree with that. Not only is foreign trade selfish but so is domestic trade; all trade as a matter of fact is selfish.
No country goes into it (foreign trade) with any other object than to benefit itself. Canada, as one of the half dozen or so leading trading nations of the world, should know this and should have learned by this time the recognized methods of caring for her own interests-and orders in council of the kind passed at Ottawa are not among them.
That is a quotation from a very respectable Conservative paper, but possibly it came very near the truth as to why these orders in council were passed. I have heard rumours that religious institutions in this country have brought pressure to bear on the government; those rumours may be true or may not be true. If the history of the past is any criterion I would say that it might be true. However that is not the point which is discussed by the Province:
It has been suggested that Russian timber and pulp being produced by forced labour would compete unfairly with Canadian timber and pulp. Very well. Keep them out. There are tariffs for that purpose. It has been suggested that Russian coal would take the market from Nova Scotia coal or from Welsh coal. That is a very good reason for not admitting it. But the coal Russia proposed to ship is anthracite and Canada buys from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 worth of anthracite from the United States every year. What interest have we in protecting the Pennsylvania mine owners? Has the Smoot-Hawley tariff been so kind to us that we must rebuff a possible customer in the interests of Uncle Sam? He hasn't rebuffed Russia. Last year, while Canada's exports to Russia were falling off 50 per cent or so, American exports were growing. In fact, of the thirty-eight principal countries doing business with the United States in 1930, Russia was the only one that increased both its exports and imports.
The government may answer or they may not but is it not a fact that the reason for the embargo on Russian coal is that it may
be made possible for the American coal owners to ship their coal in here and the Canadian pulp manufacturers to ship their pulp wood to the United States. We have heard of conditions existing in the coal mines in the United States and if conditions in the mines of Russia are any worse they must be very bad indeed.
I regret that I have had to touch upon that particular subject at the moment because I believe there are other questions of more importance. It is in pursuance of that belief that I now add something to the discussion which has taken place in this house, something which has not been touched upon up to the present time. With a super-abundance of wealth such as the world has never known we find the greatest poverty that this country has experienced, and those two conditions exist side by side. That is the question we have to solve and it is one which has barely been touched upon up to the present time. Before coming to that point however there is another matter of consequence which I would like to mention. I spoke of it to certain of my colleagues in this corner; it is a matter which might occur to every new member of parliament. I refer to the seeming ineffectiveness and unbusinesslike way in which the affairs of this country are handled. They told me that in time, I would become used to this way of doing business. As a matter of fact they realize the ineffectiveness of our parliamentary methods and have become cynical. It seems to me Mr. Speaker, that if what has happened here during this week is any criterion of the expedition with which our economic ills are going to be remedied then the betterment of our conditions is indeed in the dim, distant future. Six hours and a half were taken by a vendetta between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. I think we are all agreed that the speech of the leader of the opposition which lasted about four hours and a half was a wonderful effort and I am satisfied that if the speech of the Prime Minister was not quite as effective in achieving its purpose it was because he is a very busy man and he does not have unlimited time at his disposal for preparation. What does it all mean? Can the problems of the country be solved by such means? Here we have two gentlemen endowed with intelligence above the average-at least we would wish to believe so-who in 95 per cent of the things they would be called upon to deal with in their ordinary business relations would not have the slightest difficulty in
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

coming to an understanding; indeed, as a matter of fact an understanding would have been arrived at before they met formally. On the directorate of the great business organizations of this country we find Conservatives and Liberals sitting side by side, and certainly they have no difficulty in the world in so directing the policies of their corporations as to fleece the rest of the community. In the other 5 per cent where there might be any differences of opinion it is safe to presume that those gentlemen of conflicting political views would quickly come to a mutually satisfactory compromise. But when we come to deal with questions of national importance the whole situation is changed, and these same Conservatives and Liberals cannot agree on any single item of business that comes before this house; what those on one side propose the others on general principles must oppose. May I say for the benefit of those whom it may interest that the faith of the people in the efficacy of parliamentary institutions to solve our national problems is on the wane. And surely if the exhibition of futility that we have witnessed since the opening of this session is appreciated by the electorate, they certainly will have need of that faith expressed in our hymn-books:
Faith that will not shrink.
Though pressed by every foe:
That will not tremble on the brink
Of any earthly woe.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I like to be appreciative; it gives one a pleasant feeling. I have perused very carefully the speech from the throne to see if it conveys anything to call for my appreciation. I tried to find in it some promise of legislation that would improve the standard of living for the poor. I did not find very much, but for the little I did find I express my appreciation to the government. True, there are vague references to old age pensions and to continued aid for technical education, but even this is predicated on the satisfactory condition of the national exchequer. Well, if the treasury is not in a prosperous condition, let me remind the Prime Minister that there is an enormous amount of wealth in this country-not potential wealth, but wealth in commodities, in usable form, which is the only wealth there Is, that is if you exclude labour, which as a matter of fact is the foundation of all wealth. In the speech from the throne I find these words and they appeal to me very much because of their terseness, and at first I thought they might mean business:

The problems which stand between us and ultimate prosperity-
"Ultimate prosperity" has not been defined, but in case the Prime Minister may forget to define it for us I am going to give him the definition now: Ultimate prosperity, as far as I am concerned, is the highest standard of living for the masses of this country that the national wealth and their own willingness to produce will provide.
The problems which stand between us and ultimate prosperity are manifold and great. To be effectually met, they must first be understood. Confusion between cause and effect will but delay their solution.
I quite agree with that. But I am fearful there is considerable confusion in this house at the moment between cause and effect. It seems to me that must be the case because I have not heard anyone trying to explain the relation between a superabundance of wealth and extreme poverty. There must be a relation between these two conditions, and unless we find that relation we might as well go home and let somebody else make the attempt.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: We have
to discover the missing link.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, we have to discover the missing link. About a year ago my hon. friend from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) raised in this house the question of unemployment. The debate continued for about a week. One of the sad features of that debate, it seems to me, was the failure of the then leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) to appreciate the economic condition of the country. I have not yet been able to understand his lack of appreciation of the gravity of the situation. I am surprised that a man of his political sagacity failed to see what was apparent to the public generally. The then leader of the opposition, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) was fully alive to the fact, and he made unemployment the major issue in the campaign. Thus for the first time in the history of this Dominion, after the most prosperous period on record, from 1925 to 1929, unemployment

the poverty of the people-became the issue in a federal election campaign. After the change of government the right hon. Prime Minister in fulfilment of the promise be had made, called a special session to end unemployment. Certain measures were enacted at that special session to take care of the immediate situation. That was in September. I wish to point out that the unemployment situation to-day is worse than it was in March, 1930, it is worse than it was

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis
in September, 1930, and yet there is not a word in the speech from the throne of what measures the government propose to take to deal with the situation after the appropriation made at the special session shall have been expended.


Mr. COOTE:: At the end of this month.


Angus MacInnis: That will be very
shortly.


George Gibson Coote: The election is over.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, we have a right to
know the intentions of the government in this respect, because the people are feeling the pinch of poverty. In this connection may I be permitted to read a despatch that appeared in the Vancouver Province of March 12. It is as follows:
Calgary.-Forced out of Vancouver when civic authorities cut off relief measures on Monday, scores of single unemployed are making the long trek from the coast city to Calgary, and no less than sixty men dropped off two freight trains on Wednesday evening, according to those who saw the men disembark west of Mewata park.
Officials of the Salvation Army hostel said on Thursday that the men are visiting the hostel in droves. They stated that the majority of the 1,500 men cut off relief in Vancouver will eventually find their way to Calgary.
The men are dirty, some of them are verminous, and all of them tell the same story. They were obliged to leave Vancouver when relief was cut off, and decided to stop off at Calgary in the hope of getting food and clothing.
The mayor of Calgary, Andy Davison, said:
I want to say emphatically right now that no relief will be extended to these men by the city of Calgary under any consideration. We have more than enough to do to look after our own unemployed. Begging on the streets will not be tolerated, and every effort will be made to keep these men moving.
But men without food cannot keep moving very long; it requires a certain amount of food anyway to enable them to do that.
There is nothing we can do to prevent them coming to Calgary, but no assistance of any kind will be granted to them by the city.
That is the situation in Calgary at this particular time, and what is the Prime Minister doing about it? He promised less than a year ago that no man in this country would be allowed to go hungry; yet here are men going hungry and in want while there is not a word in the speech from the throne as to what is going to be done with them.
This morning I received through the mail from Vancouver the following figures showing conditions on February 28, 1931. Unemployment at peak registered showed married men,
5,994; single men, 5,399; and women, 155. For various reasons very many more women than are registered are unemployed in Vancouver. But here you have 10,548 unemployed in Vancouver registered; and many more, who have been living on what little they could save since last they were employed, are in very dire circumstances indeed. All the funds for unemployment amount to just enough to keep 2,000 men working until the end of April. I was a member of the Vancouver city council last year and I know the situation is very much worse at the present time than it was then. We are told that in Russia there is forced labour. In this country we have forced idleness. Which is worse? Many of these men would be glad to have the opportunity of being forced to work but they cannot get it. Before we throw stones at other people let us clean up the mess on our own doorstep.
I have further figures showing the trend of conditions and they certainly do not suggest that we may look forward to any improvement in the near future. These figures are taken from the Labour Gazette and are supplied 'by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. From January 1, 1928, to February 1, 1928, with 6,358 firms reporting, there was increased employment to the extent of 11,993. In 1929, from January 1 to February 1, with 6,391 firms reporting, there was an increase of 12,539 In 1930-and this was the year when we had a serious unemployment condition which the present Prime Minister admits existed and which the present leader of the opposition denies-there was an increase for the same month of 4,234. In the present year, from January 1 to February 1, with 74 more employers reporting, there is a decrease in employment of 8,085.
Does this show that there is any hope in the future of improvement? Is there any hope of a return to prosperity in the very near future? In the meantime what is to be done with these people? I think we are entitled to know, not only when action is to be taken, if it is taken at all, but when it will be contemplated.
If the leader of the government intends to put an end to unemployment I would suggest certain things for his consideration. I am quite sure that the leader of the opposition had nothing to do with bringing it about, and I am equally sure that the leader of the government will have just as little to do with putting an end to it. However, if he wishes to do something to relieve the situation there are certain things he can do. I wish I had time to attempt an explanation of the cause of unemployment, why it is we have distress
1S8
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis

in view of the enormous wealth we possess. But let me put it briefly in this way. Under our present social system production is carried on for profit. The worker must produce more than he gets in wages, and he can buy back only a certain amount of what he has produced; while the employers, the owners of the machinery, are limited by the amount that they can consume, as all human capacity is limited. There is a surplus over and above that, and that surplus is continually growing; and with areas where new development can take place becoming gradually more restricted, the amount of invested capital at the same time continually increasing, there is bound to be unemployment until that condition is remedied. There is only one way to remedy that condition at the present time, and that is by reducing the hours of work and increasing wages, so that more of the total product may go to the people as consumable goods and less be available for capital investment. That need not cause any particular trouble, inasmuch as what is available now cannot be invested because there is no place in which to put it.
That is the first suggestion I would make to the Prime Minister. The next is this, that he should find new fields of exploitation for capital awaiting investment. That is rather a hard thing for him to do, but he can take it into consideration. Then there is the possibility of the invention of some new utility which will do for the next decade what the automobile has done for the past.
There is one other alternative, and that is a world war. If we study the depressions that have prevailed in the past we shall- recall that we had a business depression in 1913, 1914 and 1915. That depression was dissipated by a world war. We had a business depression from 1921 to 1924, and that was dissipated by an enormous amount of money loaned by the United States to Europe, with the understanding that goods would be bought in the United States, following the reconstruction that took place in Europe after the devastations of the war. The change was also brought about by the enormous development of motor transportation and the amount of capital and labour that went into building that particular industry. It was also brought about to some extent by what we are pleased to call the deferred payment plan in purchasing. All these have reached their limit; the unemployment problem situation is becoming more acute and will continue to be so, and no amount of palaver in this house will solve it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker, I consider it my duty
to take part in this debate because of the many problems to be faced in the riding which I have the honour to represent. Although I have been a member of this house for the last five years it is still a difficult- thing for me to rise and express myself as I would like to, and that is why I offer sincere congratulations to the hon. member for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier), the mover of the address in reply. It was a fine address, well delivered, and as a Franco-Ontarian, I certainly enjoyed the delightful Acadian accent of my hon. friend. I would like to repeat a few words which impressed me very much. They are:
This harmonious working together of different races and different religions is most worthy of commendation.
This sentiment is appreciated greatly by every section of the house. However, the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) does not seem to hold this view. I would like to repeat some of the statements which he made at a Conservative meeting held in Regina. He was present at that convention and he gave warning to the effect that the English in Saskatchewan were losing their rights. He said that the French-Canadians of Saskatchewan had had the audacity to hold French debates in their schools and were distributing as prizes books which came from the province of Quebec. He is quoted as having said:
Here are the proofs. It is only evident that the struggle to deliver the province of Saskatchewan of Quebec domination is only beginning.
The hon. member congratulated the hon. leader-of the-opposition upon the recovery of his belief in the principle of unity. He should have said the Conservative party instead of the Liberal party, but apparently he expressed it as he did in order to have the advantage of being able to work side by side with his fellow members from the province of Quebec. I am sure that they will broaden his vision in these matters.
Speaking to a large Conservative convention held in Toronto in 1928, the hon. and genial member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) is reported as having used these words:
Quebec should be clubbed on the head, for it will never agree with the policy of Conservatism. There should be no more pandering to Quebec. The St. Lawrence waterway should be developed and Canadian wheat should be shipped to the old country from the maritime provinces all the year round-not from Quebec and Montreal in the summer.


Mr. SPENCE:: From what paper did the hon. member get that?
1S9

. The Address-Mr. Bradette


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: From (the Ottawa Journal.


James Houston Spence: I thought he had taken it from a Quebec paper.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: This shows the care which should be taken in making statements of this kind. The hon. member for Regina was afraid of Quebec domination, but I believe he is mistaken. The hon. gentleman, who is a very prosperous lawyer, a capable speaker and a man of ability, should make a point of visiting the province of Quebec and certain sections of northern Ontario. Such a visit would not prove harmful to him. It would broaden his vision and make him realize that the French Canadian has a natural right to work shoulder to shoulder *with his fellow Canadians, for the development and prosperity of our beloved country.
As the Deputy Speaker (Mr. EaVergne) said a few moments ago, we can live and work shoulder to shoulder. We are all Canadians and it ill behooves the hon. member from Regina to take the stand he does.
Canadian polities should be clean, but what a spectacle was offered to the country during the last general election when in Ontario a man who has recently left our shores to fill a high office, said that he was not in the campaign against the Liberals as a party but was taking part in it because he hated one man. When a minister from Ontario spoke in Port Arthur last June he called the attention of the country to the fact that he was in the federal election not because he hated the Liberals, in fact he stated he liked them, but simply because he hated the then Prime Minister. Is that being fair? And some members on the other side have the audacity to raise these questions in this house. It is our duty to answer them as briefly as we can, but we must set this matter right before the people of this country.
Then we had the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) casting an aspersion upon the good name of the right hon. leader of the opposition /(Mr. Mackenzie. King). He accused him of disloyalty to Canada on the ground that the present leader of the opposition was a pro-American. He stated that he was not. fit to govern this country and that he should be sent to Australia or to New Zealand. It is the duty of every member of this house to put a stop to such practices as occurred during the last general elections.
I made allusion to my genial friend from Toronto. There was not much in what he said, but I suppose when he said it he did not think that at some time therd would be
French Conservatives in the house-and they all get along together very nicely. We should have unity at all times. The present situation in Saskatchewan is, I believe, merely a matter of ignorance rather than a matter of belief.
I believe that after the hon. member for Regina has had the opportunity of being in this house a little longer his vision will be widened and he will think more from a national point of view. I would like to read a very short article which was published in the United States, and in doing so I hope I will not be criticized by hon. members on the other side, because there is quite a moral and a philosophy in that brief statement. This article is right to the point, and reads:
The theory has long been held in some quarters that two nations sprung from the same stock, and rising the same language, were more likely to have sympathies, tastes and viewpoints in common than those that are alien in blood and speech; that they were less likely to come to misunderstanding, quarrels and war. But the new Lord Mayor of London is of a different mind; he thinks that the fact that the English and Americans clearly understand one another is a liability rather than an asset and to a certain extent acts as an obstacle to true friendly relations. A Frenchman or a German might call you all the bloodcurdling names in his vocabulary and leave you unmoved, but lot an Englishman greet you with some of his favorite, high-flavoured expletives, and ringside seats at once bring a premium. So, too, every contemptuous innuendo, every rhetorical pinprick that an American or an Englishman employs in a newspaper to belittle or irritate his cousin across the water goes straight to the mark with undiluted venom.
That was the spectacle offered recently at the Imperial conference, when representatives speaking the same language used words which had a repercussion throughout every section of the British Empire.
I wish to commend the seconder of the address (Mr. Porteous). He said that it was with diffidence that he arose to address this body, but he did not need to be because he certainly made a good speech, and a very eloquent one. One gesture that I want to compliment him on is his giving precedence to the mover of the address. If the Speaker were in the chair, I would also compliment him on the knowledge he has acquired of the French language in the short period of six or seven months. This is appreciated by every French-speaking Canadian, in fact every Canadian throughout the length and breadth of the country. It makes people realize that we are all working together for the advancement and prosperity of Canada as a whole.
Only a few days ago I saw a statement issued by the Minister of Labour to the effect that during last winter and through the provi-
The Address-Mr. Bradette

sion made at the special session 220,000 people had been given employment. After perusing these figures quite carefully I asked myself where the information was obtained. I have on my desk several letters containing dozens if not hundreds of names, complaining of the fact that in my riding very few people can find employment. Of course I quite understand it is impossible to distribute all that money in a way that will satisfy everybody, nevertheless the fact remains that in my riding many people cannot find employment, under the unemployment relief funds while their neighbours are working all the time. There are some who have received under the Dominion government grant the magnificent sum of S2.40 for an eight-hour day, and could work only one day. Just a few minutes ago you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were talking about the spirit of the people. We possess that quality, particularly in northern Ontario. We believe in the wonderful spirit of Canada; and we believe in the spirit of those pioneers who made out .of a wilderness one of the finest sections of Ontario, but coupled with the right spirit there must be something solid; the spirit must be translated into proper action. Hon. members I am sure will agree with me on that score. How are you to build up a vigorous people on spirit and promises alone? How are the people going to get, on $2.40 a day, enough bread to enable them to live? It is absolutely beyond my comprehension. We also wonder, in our section of the country, why, under the unemployment relief scheme, we received only $2.40 for an eight-hour day while in southern Ontario- and this statement was made by one of the Ontario cabinet ministers in Hamilton during the last election-they received $2.80? Why the difference between the two sections of Ontario? Everyone knows that not a single soul in this country could live on $2.40 a day and some getting work for only three days a week. It must be remembered that in many cases the men working under the unemployment relief program worked only three days a week. This meant that they were receiving $7.20 for a whole week, or something like $30 per month without board. A driver with a span of horses received the ridiculously small sum of $5.20 a day. During the last election the present government was saying to every section of the country that what the Canadian people wanted was not charity, but work. Is this real work and proper remuneration? Let me give some quotations from papers which are absolutely independent in politics. This is from the Northern Tribune of Kapuskasing:

We have not yet seen in the Ontario press even an attempt on anybody's part to explain discrepancies in pay on northern development payrolls in the Cochrane and Kenora districts.
Why this difference? The Prime Minister is not in the chamber at present; I do not know who is leading the house, so that, if this is a so-called one-man government, I am going to be out of luck so far as getting an answer is concerned. Why should there be a difference of fifty cents a day between southern and northern Ontario in the wages paid to these workers? The only conclusion that one can come to is that political partisanship has been played in some sections of the country. Is it due to the fact that the northern district is represented by a Liberal? I do not want to believe that this is so, but I can draw my own conclusions. That was not playing fair with the money which was voted unanimously during the emergency session last fall. The statement continues:
When relief work started in the north under the emergency federal scheme, with its compulsory eight-hour day, the rates became $2.80 at Kenora and $2.40 here, respectively. Hon. Peter Heenan, ex-minister of labour, has been at pains to point out that $2.80 per day as disgracefully insufficient pay for any settler to draw and try to sustain a family; so accordiiag to that, $2.40 per day is even worse. But why any disparity at all?
I know I shall not receive any answer. The following is a quotation from a good Conservative paper, the Porcupine Advance, under date of December 11, 1930:
Men working on the relief work program undertaken by the Ontario government in this north land are being paid at the low rate of two dollars and forty cents per day. They lose any holidays and also days on which the weather may prove unsuitable for work to be carried on. At the best they can hope to make no more than six hundred dollars a year. Hon. Win. Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests and in charge of northern development, pretends to believe that the l'ate of pay given the men in question is all right. Hon. Mr. Finlayson himself has an income well over ten thousand dollars a year. On this account he may be able to estimate that another man may be able to live decently and bring up a family on six hundred dollars a year, but in friendly fashion The Advance would point out to Hon. Mr. Finlayson that people in general have little but bitter sneers for men in comfort who endorse wage rates for others below the standard of decent living. The Advance will be much disappointed in Hon. Wm. Finlayson if he does not rouse himself and see that in all lines of work in his department decent rates of pay are establish el. Relief work at the rate of $2.40 per day is an irritation and offence. It means that the man with a family has to spend his strength in the work and then must seek further relief if he would live and maintain his family.

The Address-Mr. Bradette
That is the situation which the people in our section of the country have to endure; that is where the bread is coming from, but under the promises made by this government, in certain sections of my part of the country they are finding it impossible to get sufficient bread.
Only a few days ago the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) delivered a speech in Fort William to the effect that the Canadian National had kept practically all their staff working on their lines. He has been more fortunate than I have been. I do not want to criticize the administration of the Canadian National, but I am firmly convinced that while the local administration in our section is playing the game, the central administration is not doing its part in keeping up the work in our section. In the district from Fitzpatrick, Quebec, to Nakina on the Ontario side, a distance of a thousand miles, they have laid off 250 employees. The Minister of Railways and Canals may broadcast throughout Canada that no men have been laid off by the Canadian National, but that statement is not true so far as my riding is concerned, and the railway system in our section of the country has not been maintained to as high a standard as it has been in other sections. During the special session I informed the house that the line between Quebec and Winnipeg is not getting sufficient funds for capital expenditure let alone for improvements. The system should at least be maintained at a uniform standard. In this respect I do not blame the local administration but rather the central one.
I wish to comment briefly on the matter of the tariff. Only a few weeks ago the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man), after a five weeks' trip to British Columbia and the western prairies, came back to Ottawa and had a wonderful message to deliver to the Canadian people. Here is the message as I read it in the Toronto Globe of November 10, 1930:
Hon. E. B. Ryckman, Minister of National Revenue, has returned from a five weeks' tour to the Pacific coast, and he finds much to be cheerful about. The people of British Columbia won't even admit hard times. True, there were complaints from coal miners and operators, and Alberta farmers asked that wheat be pegged at $1.15, irrespective of low market prices, but in many places the minister was surprised to find that a protective tariff was actually favoured as a panacea for many agrarian ills.
I wish the Minister of National Revenue was in his seat. It is unfortunate that when a humble member of parliament speaks and wishes to address a question to a minister of
the crown he rarely finds him in his seat. If the minister had visited my section of northern Ontario and asked the people there if they were satisfied with the increase in the tariff, he would soon have found that they were very much dissatisfied with it. I wonder if the people of British Columbia and the prairie provinces are really satisfied with the high tariff. Judging by the tenor of the speeches that I have heard in this house by members from the west and British Columbia speaking in this debate, I gather that the western provinces are certainly not satisfied with the tariff increases. The speaker who has just preceded me (Mr. Maclnnis) has told us that the tariff is no solution of the problem of unemployment in British Columbia. The same thing applies to northern Ontario. Raising the tariff will simply increase the cost of production and increase the cost of living, either directly or indirectly. It will simply block the extension of the Canadian frontier that we are pushing northward in northern Ontario. Settlement in northern Ontario is very different from settlement in the southern section of Canada or along the shores of the St. Lawrence. We have a very different climatic situation to face, and so far as our part of the country is concerned, to increase the tariff is simply to choke the life out of the greatest section of Ontario.
The settlers in northern Ontario are seeking a market for their pulpwood. Pulpwood buyers came to me during the last election and told me that they were withdrawing from the American market. On account of the policy of the Conservative party, our good friends the Americans, who in the past had usually bought four hundred thousand cords of pulpwood in northern Ontario, found it possible to get their supplies from Russia, and they withdrew from our market because the Conservative party had threatened tc impose an export tax on pulpwood leaving this country. Here is one of the main planks of the platform of the Conservative party during the last election:
A policy that will prohibit the free export of pulpwood instead of allowing it to be shipped out to keep American paper mills operating, while Canadian mills are working part time.
That shows how little the Conservative party knows of what is going on in our part of the country. In the riding of Timiskaming there are three large pulp mills, one at Kapus-kasing, one at Iroquois Falls, and one at Smooth Rock Falls. They are buying as much pulpwood as they can use from the settlers within a radius of 30 to GO miles from their mills, and the settler who is too far distant
it)2
The Address-Mr. Bradette

from the mills must necessarily find a market for his surplus pulpwood elsewhere. If he has not a domestic market, it must be an outside market, and the only other market that we ever had for our pulpwood in northern Ontario is the American market. Mr. Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests in the Ontario government, and also the hon. member for East Algoma, during the last election urged that there should be an export tax on pulpwood going to the United States. So we had the spectacle last fall of this government calling an emergency session to deal with unemployment by increasing the tariff, which had the effect of increasing the cost of production and the cost of living in our part of the country, and taking away from the settlers the only market they had for their surplus pulpwood.
The settler in northern Ontario is in exactly the same position with regard to his product as an automobile manufacturer1. Once an automobile is manufactured, it must be sold. Similarly the settler must find a market for his pulpwood, and unfortunately he is not in as good a position as the farmer of the west who, if he cannot sell his wheat, can at least turn it into flour. Without an export market for that pulpwood our settlers must simply starve.
Again I ask the leader of the government if he is going to drop that plank from the platform of the Conservative party. I repeat, the only market our settlers have for their surplus pulpwood is the United States market, and to carry out this plank of the Conservative party platform would simply be depriving them of their market. I say that to cany out such a "policy would not be playing fair with my section of the province or with Canada as a whole. The only part of northern Ontario that might have benefited by the increase in the tariff last session was Sault Ste. Marie, where they have a steel industry. The rest of northern Ontario is paying tribute to the big industrial centres by reason of the tariff increases that were put into effect.
I am not like the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I do not believe in an east and a west; I believe that we are all one solid unit in this country. As was well said by one hon. gentleman, the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George tried to create the impression in this country that the west had been getting more than its share from the east. I wish to say to him that the development of such industrial centres as Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor is largely due to the growth and settlement of

northern Ontario, and the western provinces, and the best market these centres have for their products is northern Ontario and the provinces just named.
How is a high tariff going to help us in the agricultural sections of northern Ontario? How is it going to help the newsprint industry or the mining industry? The gold mines are the most prosperous mines at the present time, and some of them are working on ore as low grade as seven dollars per ton. The slightest increase in the cost of their machinery of production means that they will have to shut down, and thousands of men will be thrown out of employment. That is true also of the newsprint industry. In my riding three trainloads of newsprint are produced every day. We can produce enough newsprint to supply the requirements of all the newspapers in Canada. Necessarily we must find an outside market. I have listened with amazement to the present Prime Minister urging us time and again not to export, but to consume at home. I repeat, in my own riding we produce enough newsprint to supply all the requirements of all the Canadian newspapers. What would the other Canadian mills do with their production if we supplied the whole requirements of the Canadian market? My point is that we must necessarily find an outside market, and the only market we have is the American market. This government finds it possible to help some sections of the country, while paying no attention to the requirements of the settlers of northern Ontario and to the situation of the newsprint and mining industries.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: How does my
hon. friend account for the fact that five out of eight constituencies in northern Ontario supported the policies of this government?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: They were caught with humbug. They would have voted almost solidly for the Dunning budget, but the issues were camouflaged. The Dunning budget was never mentioned to them by the Conservative party in the last campaign. The campaign the Conservative party waged was a campaign of hatred and personalities. I know what I am talking about, and I say that never would the Conservative party have won those constituencies on the straight issue of a higher tariff. It has never done so in the past because it did not have such a policy at that time. Hon. members opposite say that northern Ontario wants a high tariff. This is a deliberate falsehood. My friend opposite-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.

The Address-Mr. Bradette


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I shall retract the word, but I will say something of a similar nature. My hon. friend wishes to imply that the industries were .not receiving protection under the Liberal regime. Is that what you wish to say?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I would ask tire hon. member to go ahead and make his speech.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I want you to answer
it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Thomas Edward Simpson: This is not a
witness box.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I wish it was. Some
hon. members would have to answer more directly if it was. They ask about high tariff; I am going to read part of an article appearing in the Ottawa Journal in the issue of January 24, 1930. Listen to it:
Mr. Bennett protested against the "malicious representations'' of the tariff policy of the Conservative party. It was not, the opposition leader stated, a policy of high tariff, but a policy to give fair treatment, equal opportunity in competition with the peoples of the world, for the protection of agriculture, labour, industry and the consumer.
Those are the words of the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman talking about high tariffs now? He certainly was not talking high tariff at that time. To quote further from the Ottawa Journal:
There are some in the Conservative party to-day who boast that it stands where "Sir John Macdonald stood in 1878." It is not a boast of wisdom. The problems that confronted Sir John Macdonald in 1878 are not the things that challenge statesmanship in 1930. Sir John Macdonald's fiscal policies encompassed but central and western Canada.
That is what the party of the right hon gentleman is doing at the present time. They have to-day the same policy they had twenty-five or thirty years ago.
Sir John Macdonald's fiscal policies encompassed but central and eastern Canada, and did not visualize the mighty changes of the past quarter of a century. It is morally certain, indeed, that if Sir John Macdonald were alive to-day he would not stand rigidly where he implanted himself in 1878. His was a different kind of statesmanship.
Now, my hon. friend was not elected by his high tariff plea in northern Ontario. I am going to explain how you and others in your section were elected.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: You were elected on
the building of the trans-Canada highway.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I am sorry; I do not
wish to break the rules of the house. You were elected-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member was
elected on the construction of the trans-Canada highway. Do you deny that statement?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will the hon. member deny that statement?


Thomas Edward Simpson: Did the hon.
member support the proposal for a grant towards the building of the trans-Canada highway when he had the opportunity?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: When was there such a motion asking for the trans-Canada highway?


Thomas Edward Simpson: There was one.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. gentleman
does not know the history of his own part of the province because in 1919 there was money voted from the public treasury for the construction of highways in the province of Ontario. And, listen to this, not a cent of it was spent north of the Severn river in northern Ontario. Is my hon. friend aware of that? Not one cent of that money which was granted in 1919 was spent in my constituency.


Thomas Edward Simpson: It was spent
when the Liberal government was in power.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No, it was under a
Tory government in Toronto. I would ask my hon. friend not to get away from that fact. The local legislature had control of the distribution of that money. Of the money granted in 1919 for unemployment relief not a cent was spent in northern Ontario. Why not? During the last session the Prime Minister said that the routing of the trans-Canada highway would be accomplished and the money taken from the federal treasury. Is the hon. member ready to tell me that the route in northern Ontario has been decided upon?


Thomas Edward Simpson: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No, because this government and other governments want to wash their hands of their responsibilities. That is why I have placed a motion on the order paper to discuss the routing of the trans-Canada highway. We in northern Ontario contend that the northern route is the best route between the Atlantic and the



The Address-Mr. Bradelte
Pacific. During the last session after reading an article from the Toronto Mail and Empire I put a direct question to the Prime Minister and instead of answering directly he said that I was making reference to the words of a distinguished statesman. We do not know, but we hope that he will live up to these words and become a great statesman. I have never heard an answer from the Prime Minister. I now quote the words of Mr. Ferguson as they are contained in last Saturday's issue of the Toronto Mail and Empire:
As soon as the federal government makes a start for the construction of the trans-Canada highway money for which is included in the $20,000,000 asked for by premier R. B. Bennett for unemployment relief the Ontario government will offer every assistance towards constructing the Ontario section of the highway.
This was the statement made by the Hon. Mr. Ferguson when he was asked what steps would be taken by the province in the matters of route, cost and other phases, of the construction of the national highway. Premier Ferguson further stated:
It is a federal matter and no doubt the question of route will be decided. Ontario will offer every assistance to the Dominion authorities.
The most important question so far as my riding is concerned as affecting the construction of the trans-Canada highway has to do with the routing. The hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Gordon) was in favour of the northerly route; I was in favour of it. Everbody in northern Ontario was in favour of it and we still feel the same way. We must come to some understanding, some compromise and a policy of routing must be pronounced. In northern Ontario we must have an alternate route. You in the southerly section will have a route and we in the northern section of the province have a primary right to that road from North Bay, Cochrane and Winnipeg. This government must realize its responsibility, the responsibility for the routing of the trans-Canada highway. A few weeks ago speaking at Fort William the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) said that during last winter money was spent for the construction of the trans-Canada highway and that the money had been taken from the $20,000,000 voted at the last srpecial session. If that is so may I say that not one single dollar was spent in my constituency on the construction of the trans-Canada highway. In addition to that the Prime Minister of this country speaking at Winnipeg is reported as follows:
Premier predicts all of trans-Canada way will be paved in decade. Two announcements of outstanding importance to Canada from the

standpoint of national development, prosperity and integration, both of especial interest to the motorists of this country, were made at the recent annual meeting in Winnipeg, of the Canadian Association of Tourist and Convention Bureaux.	'
Premier R. B. Bennett, His Worship Mayor Ralph H. Webb, stated in the course of his address, had declared during his conference with the western mayors, that within a decade the trans-Canada highway would be paved from its Atlantic to its Pacific terminus and that federal aid would be provided for the completion and improvement of the "Nation's Main Street" on a "fifty-fifty" basis with the provinces.
Now that the Prime Minister is in his seat I would like him to answer my question, if it is possible to have it answered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Has the routing of the trans-Canada highway in northern Ontario been decided upon?


An hon. MEMBER:: The right hon. gentleman has not answered.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It shows, Mr. Speaker,
that to-day we have no responsible government. We have had the spectacle of members of this government during the last election campaign saying that they were going to build the trans-Canada highway on a fifty-fifty basis, and to-day they are denying their responsibility. The highway was a plank in their platform during the last election. They said that their intention was to build a national highway across Canada so that tourists would not be forced' to use the American roads to get past the great lakes. The result would be that instead of leaving money in the United States supplies would be purchased in Canada and this country would benefit. The High Commissioner for Canada in London, the Hon. Howard Ferguson, made the definite statement last fall before he went to the economic conference that the responsibility for the routing of the trans-Canada highway rested entirely upon the federal authorities. Was this statement true? I ask the question of the right hon. Prime Minister and await an answer. His silence shows that no satisfaction is to be hoped for. The section of country that I represent has a right to have its view heard on the floor of the house. We want our problems discussed in a national way. I maintain that this is not a political matter. It should not be, for northern Ontario is willing to accept a reasonable compromise, but we want to know where we stand. Some of the ridings in northern Ontario were won at the last general election on the definite promise

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
of the present government to build a transcontinental highway. To-day we have the spectacle of the government not willing to answer the question that I have put to it, although every section of the country awaits an answer.
On motion of Mr. Casgrain the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
Monday, March 23, 1931