1931-04-13

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that during the Easter adjournment I sent the following telegram to the widow of the late Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States:
Ottawa, April 10, 1931. Mrs. Nicholas Longworth,
Washington, D.C.
On behalf of the House of (.'ominous of Canada I tender you sincere sympathy on the passing of your husband whose record in the public life of his country merited the admiration of all.
George Black,
Speaker.

Privilege-Mr. Power



VANCOUVER HARBOUR POLICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to ask the Minister of Marine whether he is aware that on the very day the house adjourned for the Easter recess many returned soldiers were dismissed from the Vancouver harbour board police force. If this is so, will he consider the reinstatement of these men?


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I have no official knowledge of the fact referred to by my hon. friend. I will inquire and report.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: May I ask the Acting Minister of Labour a question based on two statements that appear in the Ottawa Journal this morning? On page two of the Ottawa Journal of April 13, I find this:
Montreal, April 12-Canadian Press dispatch. About one million people found employment under the joint federal, provincial, municipal relief fund last winter, declared Hon. Alfred Duranleau, K.C., Minister of Marine, addressing electors of Chambly-Vercheres county at a large sugaring party to-day.
Then I turn to page five of the same newspaper, and I read this:
The passing by parliament of the twenty million dollar unemployment relief fund in September last has resulted in employment being given to 248,274 persons, according to a statement issued by the Department of Labour covering the period to the end of March.
May I ask the Acting Minister of Labour which of the two statements is correct?


Hon. W. A. GORDON:: I trust I am not responsible for what appears in the press.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Does the Minister of Marine deny the statement or is it true?



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I should like to make this inquiry of the ministry through the Minister of the Interior:
First, is the newspaper report of Saturday true that there have been approximately one hundred positions of the Department of the Interior abolished?
Second, if so, is it the intention of the government to keep on the eligible list the civil
servants formerly occupying these positions and at the first opportunity to transfer them to positions in other departments for which they can qualify?


Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. As to the second question, I can only say that the department are working in cooperation with the Civil Service Commission, who are cognizant of what is being done. As to what will be done in the future, that of course will depend upon a further conference with the Civil Service Commission.



PRIVILEGE-MR. POWER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: I
desire to draw the attention of Your Honour and of the house to a question of privilege. In an edition of a newspaper called Le Journal, published in Quebec city on the 4th April, there appears the following:
Le doeteur Duguay se signale par ses paroles opportunes.
That is to say:
Doctor Duguay, the member for Lake St. John, makes very opportune observations.
It goes further and says that the Benjamin of the house paints a soul-stirring picture of the history of Canadian politics, and so on through four columns of what purports to be a report of the speech by the hon. member for Lake St. John.
In Le Petit Journal, published in Montreal on the 5th of April, 1931, the following appears under the title of the Hon. Mr. Dupre, Solicitor General:
The speaker of the day on Thursday was the Hon. Maurice Dupre, minister of the district of Quebec. It was his parliamentary debut. He did very well. An eloquent speaker, a delicate litterateur, he examined the political situation and corrected the mistakes of the opposition.
He was loudly applauded by the right.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Go on with the question of privilege.


Charles Gavan Power: I would suggest that my
hon. friend do not talk too much or they will make a minister of him and keep him even quieter.
Referring to May's Parliamentary Practice, twelfth edition, page 75, I read:
The publication of the debates of either house has been repeatedly declared to be a breach of privilege, and especially false and perverted reports of them; and no doubt can exist that if either house desires to withhold
Privilege-Mr. Power

the proceedings from the public, it is within the strictest limits of their jurisdiction to do so, and to punish any violation of their orders.
Going back as far as 1641, it was ordered by the commons of England:
That no member shall either give a copy or publish in print anything that he shall speak here, without leave of the house; and that all the members of the house are enjoined to deliver out no copy or notes of anything that is brought into the house or that is propounded or agitated in the house.
This question of the publication of the debates has been discussed at great length, and through succeeding parliaments since parliaments have begun in Great Britain. At page 75 of May I find that the commons have permitted the publication of debates:
So long as the debates are correctly and faithfully reported the privilege which prohibits their publication is waived: but when they are reported mala fide,, the publishers of newspapers are liable to censure.
The point to which I wish to direct the attention of the house is this: I do not desire to make any reflection on the members who were inadvertently falsely reported, but I submit that the Speaker of the house, and particularly the Prime Minister in whose custody are the privileges of the house, should in some way call to the attention of these newspapers the breach of privilege which they have committed. I put the matter to the Prime Minister first because, as I have said, he is the guardian of the privileges of the House of Commons, and, secondly, because I suspect that he has perhaps given his blessing on more than one occasion to some of the newspapers. I also suggest very humbly that if the right hon. gentleman permitted his members to talk more often in the house they might not require to have recourse to publications in the newspapers. If it were the sense of the house I could make a motion that these articles be regarded as breaches of privilege.
I am satisfied however, if the house has no objection, to leave the matter in your hands, sir, and in those of the right hon. the Prime Minister.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid times have changed considerably since the year 1600 and to my knowledge within the past hundred years there have been thousands of such breaches of privilege. I do not condone them, but in this case I do not see that any particular harm has been done. I think the hon. member is wise to leave the matter as it is.


Charles Gavan Power: I am complaining not of
the publication of speeches but of a false report made of the proceedings of this house. I consider that a very serious matter. No speech was made; the hon. member (Mr. Duguay) made no speech, and neither did the hon. the Solicitor General.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member
suggest any harm has been done?


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that to say something transpired in this house which as a matter of fact did not transpire constitutes a breach of privilege.



WORLD WHEAT CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: In view of the fact that the date has
now been fixed for the wheat conference at London I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Is the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson to be the only Canadian representative at that conference and if not is the right hon. Prime Minister in a position to state what the representation will be?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, no report other than a
cabled report has yet been received. The chief statistician of the Dominion who has been absent in Rome is returning to Canada. When he arrives and when we receive by mail a despatch from the High Commissioner at London I will be in a better position to inform the hon. member.



AUSTRALIAN TRADE TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister who is acting for the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) whether a statement which appeared in this morning's paper is true. I have not the article before me but the effect of it was that shortly there would be introduced into this house a trade treaty with Australia. This is a very important matter and a rather unusual way to announce a government policy. No mention of such a treaty was made in the speech from the throne and such action by the government would greatly affect the province of British Columbia. I would like to ask if the statement as reported in the paper is true?

St. Lawrence Waterway


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more perhaps the house realizes
that statements of intended policies of happenings frequently appear in newspapers. The newspapers using their best judgment have conjectured that many things may happen. The hon. gentleman will have to attach to such a statement such weight as he thinks proper. At the present time the government has no intention of discussing the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: I wanted to know what
weight the government attached to it:


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will appear in
season.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY VISIT TO WASHINGTON OF THE MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I have in my
hand a statement not of an intended happening but of an actual happening. It refers to a policy which may be intended but which up to the present is not an actual policy. Perhaps the Prime Minister would give the house some information with respect to the facts. The Ottawa Journal of this morning prints a despatch from Washington by Ken Clark, a Canadian Press staff writer. It is as follows:
The United States government expects it will very soon receive a note from Ottawa favourably replying to the suggestion contained in Washington's note of last September that now is the time to go ahead with the St. Lawrence
Hon It. J. Manion, Canadian Minister ol Railways and Canals, told Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, Saturday, that it is understood that while he could not speak for the Ottawa government, it was his impression that a reply might be expected in the near future. Dr Manion pointed out, it is said, that Premier Bennett had favourably mentioned the bt. Lawrence in his campaign speeches.
I need not quote the remainder of the despatch, but I would like to learn from the Prime Minister whether or not the Minister of Railways and Canals was authorized in the absence of a minister plenipotentiary at Washington to call upon the hon. the Secretary of State of the United States and to discuss with him matters pertaining to this country. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister himself will give the house any assurance as to the hope expressed in this despatch that the St. Lawrence waterway project will be proceeded with very shortly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I, too, saw the despatch to which the right hon. gentleman has referred. I was aware that my colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals had accepted an invitation of the Gridiron club to attend a dinner at Washington.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But he never
attended it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that;
there was no dinner. The Minister of Railways and Canals travelled to Washington with the American minister to Canada. However, owing to the death of Mr. Speaker Long-worth of the House of Representatives, the dinner was postponed. My colleague assures me that he was asked as a matter of courtesy to call upon the President of the United States and several of the public officers. In accordance with that invitation he called but no matters of public business were discussed. There is no doubt that the hon. gentleman had no authority to discuss these matters or any matters of public concern on his visit to Washington. It was purely a social and personal visit to attend a dinner which did not materialize. However the minister was enabled to enjoy a very pleasant ride to Washington by air and thus to realize the advances made in scientific travel during the last few years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
the Prime Minister if, when the dinner is held, the Minister of Railways and Canals will be permitted to fly over again?


Richard Bedford Bennett: While I know my right
hon. friend does not intend me to take that question seriously, I have no doubt that if an invitation were courteously extended to him bv the American minister who accompanied him to Washington by air flight, the Minister of Railways and Canals with his usual courtesy would feel honoured to accept such an invitation.


Mr. POULIOT:: There were contrary winds at the beginning of the flight.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 27, 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.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Dupre
Hon. MAURICE DUPRE (Solicitor General) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, with your
kind permission, my first words spoken within these walls, filled with memories of the deeds of our great parliamentarians, will be in the French language. My first wish is to convey, in peace and harmony, to you, Mr. Speaker, to my distinguished leader (the right hon. Mr. Bennett), to the distinguished leader of the opposition (the right hon. Mr. Mackenzie King) and to all my colleagues on both sides of the house, the cordial and fraternal greetings of the province of Quebec. However, I wished to make my bow in the house, in the language of my forebears who have been, so to speak, rooted to this soil for more than ten generations, in the language of my father and mother, in the tongue spoken from childhood by my better-half and our children, before any other language. We cherish that language because it is part of our heritage, part of ourselves, and never shall we permit it to be threatened by whomsoever it may be, whether he be a constituent, a member or even a prime minister of a province.
May I here address a few words of thanks and gratitude to my constituents of Quebec West, who, after fifty-two years of allegiance to the Liberal party, have returned to the Conservative policy.
I equally extend my congratulations to my hon. friends from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), Regina (Mr. Turnbull), Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Cormier) and North Grey (Mr. Porteous) whose debut in the house this year and last year have been most promising.
May I at this time be permitted to continue in the other official language because the ideas I wish to express I have already dealt with in my own province. My first remarks apply to maiden speeches. Worse than the torture of the dark ages is the torture of the maiden speech. I submit such a practice should be abolished and that we should all make our debut with a second speech.
In passing may I congratulate all those who before me have gone through such a/i ordeal. Every one of them on both sides of the house has come out with flying colours; although at times some of the colours were a little too red for those sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to congratulate my distinguished friend the honourable ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on his recovery. We are very happy to see him back in the house with his old fighting spirit. He likes to fight; so do we. And since my hon. friend told us in a very stem and tragical voice that he was going to continue his speech some time, some-
where, may I reply to him that we shall be very glad to answer him any time, anywhere. In his eloquent address he said:
The government is the by-product of financial depression. My hon. friends opposite are its offspring.
These are nothing but witty remarks. If I wanted to follow my hon. friend on this ground I would recall the nine years of the Liberal regime, and, imitating him, I would say: Here are the idle talkers of Canada, here are the apostles of power at any price. And if I wanted to recall the prejudices and cries of war raised against the Conservatives in the elections of 1921, 1925, 1926 and the roorback of Friday 25th of July, 1930, I would say, always imitating my hon. friend; here are the by-products of war; here are the political and electoral war babies.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Will my hon. friend tell me if he was defeated on that account in 1925?


Maurice Dupré: I am afraid so, and by the hon. gentleman himself. I could recall his story about the Germans and the Conservative party, which story was repeated in every address he delivered in the constituency of Kamouraska over a period of thirty days.
May I be permitted also, Mr. Speaker, to tell this honourable house of my first impression when I took charge of my department. I was amazed by the increasing number of prisoners in our penitentiaries and gaols This is not the proper time to decide oa whose shoulders the responsibility lies, but I submit that the practice of importing a certain class of immigrants without proper and severe selection should be corrected. The restriction on immigration imposed last August must be welcomed not only because it relieves unemployment, but also because it will tend to curtail the importation of a few undesirable elements. But in making these remarks I want it very clearly understood that I realize the important contribution made to our Canadian life and culture by the great majority of those who have come from other countries to establish their homes here.
Now, I pass to the Imperial conference. May I congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on his recent speech in this debate. I am sure the right hon. gentleman will long remain at the head of the opposition. He is not a constructive, but quite a literary critic. He is still working on lines of approach. He ought to write more books; and more books should be dedicated to him.
In his remarkable speech my right hon. friend sought at length to demonstrate that

The Address-Mr. Dupre
the attitude of the right hon. Prime Minister at the Imperial conference was not well received in Great Britain, that the relations between our country and Great Britain are not of the most harmonious character; that the policy submitted by the Prime Minister was wrong, and that his methods were wrong. May I say to the right hon. leader of the opposition that while I believe he is quite sincere'in his criticism, I am afraid that his contentions are a little at variance with reality. May I quote to the house a few expressions of opinion on the attitude of our Prime Minister at the Imperial conference.
The London Times, one of the world's great newspapers, said, and I think this will interest my right hon. friend:
The country will insist that the proposals now made by Canada shall be thoroughly examined. It is tired of empty rhetoric about mutual help and understanding and is determined to give sympathetic consideration to a concrete plan for practical cooperation now that such a plan has been definitely put before it.
The Scotsman had this to say, very likely answering, in anticipation, the remarks of the hon. the ex-Minister of Justice:
An offer was made to the mother country by representatives of the dominions, which, if accepted, would go far towards knitting the Empire together as an economic unity and so assuring its permanence and prosperity.
Xow may I draw the attention of my hon. friend the brilliant ex-Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) to my next quotation; I am afraid my hon. friend was not very happy in referring us to the Manchester Guardian. This is important because I have been told that he had been designated as the probable successor to the right hon. leader of the opposition in case any political accident should happen to the latter. Of course, I hasten to add that I sincerely hope no such accident will ever occur. But my hon. friend in a moment of absent-mindedness seems to have forgotten the following statements which appeared in the Manchester Guardian. Harold Cox in the Manchester Guardian of October 10th recalled Sir Wilfrid Laurier's proposal in 1902 and commented:
This is exactly what Mr. Bennett proposes to-day. and he states his attitude with commendable frankness.
The same issue of the Manchester Guardian contains a statement by the National Council of Industry and Commerce from which I quote the following passages:
The dominions have given the mother country a great and a courageous lead by putting forth constructive proposals in clear and unmistakable terms. We are convinced that the great majority of the British people are with them.
The dominions have made a frank offer in clear and business-like terms. The policy suggested spells union and prosperity for all parts of the empire. Have we the sane business sense to accept the offer or must we permit the real wishes of our nation to be smothered with the obsolete dogmas which for successive years have proved their utter uselessness to all except the unpractical theorist and doctrinaires.
Not only the newspapers of the largest centres commented favourably, but the Bristol Evening World of October 9 in its its leading article, which might well be read by those two friends of the Liberal party, Orestes and Pylades-the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset)-says: Business men will appreciate the practicality of Mr. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister of Canada, who, at the Imperial conference, got down to brass tacks and made a definite proposition to Britain and the dominions.
Theories that in the atmosphere of debate appear desirable may be exploded by such methods. The great value of Mr. Bennett's definiteness is that theorizing must now end, and action take its place.
Mr. Bennett's problem is not a sentimental one. He wants to sell Canadian wheat in the British and empire markets. He wants to do this not for the good of Britain or the empire but for the good of Canada. He admits he places Canada first and he expects a similar attitude tow'ard their own country on the part of other delegates.
The Bath Chronicle and Herald of October 9 states:
Mr. Bennett, the Canadian Premier, has put to the conference a proposal which does indicate a way to the solution of the big empire problem.
The Evening Sentinel of Hanley, in its leading article of October 13, says:
No truer phrase has been uttered than that of R. 15. Bennett, the Prime Minister of Canada. The time for action has come.
The Nottingham Guardian, in its comment of October 9, says:
It is to be hoped that the government will give their fullest attention to Mr. Bennett's remarkable proposal, for, in the earnest words with which he closed his speech, the time is now at hand when the doctrine of closer empire economic association must be embraced if we w'ould not have it slip forever beyond our powers of recall.
The Bristol Times and Mirror, in its issue of October 10, 1930, says:
Mr. Bennett, however, has cut into the extreme of compliments and vague aspirations with a practical proposition which he desires to be examined thoroughly by experts.
The Brixton Free Press comments in its issue of October 10, which might be interesting to my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), as follows:
The Address-Mr. Dupre

The dominions know what the empire needs, and now they have made a definite proposal to show how an all round betterment can be secured. There is no excuse for them now. The lead has been given by the Canadian Premier.
Just to please my hon. friends opposite perhaps I might quote one of the greatest journalists of the empire, Mr. J. L. Garvin, whose comment appears in the Observer of October 12, 1930. I might direct the attention of one of the great journalists and orators of the province of Quebec, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), to this quotation:
On Wednesday the conference assembled at the Foreign Office to get down to business. The overseas statesmen spoke with the unprecedented frankness required at this juncture. One and all, they explained the only policy that oan be useful to them and us-extended preference for British manufactures in their markets and broad reciprocal preference for Dominion staples in ours. Other methods may be supplementary, but they must be subsidiary. Nothing but preference all round can establish a foundation for the closer economic cooperation of the empire. Mr. R. B. Bennett, for Canada, led the line. The vital thing now is acceptance or rejection of the principle. Mr. Scullin, for Australia, spoke with thoroughness and decision for the principle. Mr. Forbes, for New Zealand, Mr. Havenga, for South Africa. Mr. McGilligan, for the Irish Free State, and Sir Richard Squires, for Newfoundland, followed in the same sense. India is more reserved. But why? Because India means to be more and more protectionist. There is absolute unanimity outside the Mother Country that nothing can be done on free trade lines.
Now I should like to refer the house to a remarkable article appearing in the National Review for October, 1930, written by Right Hon. Mr. Amery, former Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who says:
Great, however, as was the individual and cumulative effect of the other speeches, Mr. Bennett's speech was undoubtedly the outstanding feature of the discussion in its directness and in its insistence on a decision. If he had been dealing with some new proposal his attitude might have been open to criticism as too peremptory, but on a Subject discussed at imperial conferences for over forty years, and
isille in British politics for nearly thirty, Mr. Bennett was fully justified in insisting that this country must now make up its mind one way or another without further delay.
During the last election campaign, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentlemen opposite were saying sometimes, somewhere, "Why vote for the Conservative party on the eve of the Imperial conference? If elected to power, who would the Conservatives send to the Imperial conference?"


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to ask a short question of the hon. gentleman. I should like him to be good enough to answer the article published by that good Tory paper, the

Montreal Gazette, on November 12 1930, in which it is said that the members of the Imperial conference have succeeded in doing nothing in particular and in doing it very well.


Maurice Dupré: I admit, sir, that I was the weak member of the delegation, but I will say this: The Liberal party was very fortunate in having such a great statesman and high personality as Sir Wilfrid Laurier to represent Canada at several imperial conferences. However, while Canadians have every reason to be proud of all past Canadian delegations, whether Liberal or Conservative, the general opinion in London was that never did Canada send a stronger and more competent delegation than the one composed of the right hon. Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Trade and Commerce. All Canadians abroad were very proud of the enthusiastic and hearty reception given our Prime Minister either at 10 Downing Street, the Foreign Office, the Guildhall or any other public meeting. This hearty and enthusiastic reception extended not only to the individual personality of our Prime Minister but also to the doctrines by him propounded. The point I wish to emphasize, however, is that public opinion in London favoured our chief doctrines, as did the industrial, financial and commercial institutions throughout the country.
Now would you like to know the explanation of the Liberal press as to this unanimity of opinion among the dominions? Here is a translation of an extract from Le Soleil, the paper of my hon. friend from Temiscouata, Mr. Pouliot) under date of Wednesday March 18: '
To these definite charges Mr. Bennett replies by two childish arguments. To begin with, he says that all the representatives of the other dominions approved of his attitude. Could they do otherwise? For the sake of solidarity, through ordinary courtesy, they could not raise any objections to the imperious, even dictatorial proposition which Mr. Bennett offered to England. T^e Prime Minister of Canada had taken the lead. He had charged bullheaded upon the English section of the conference. The others had to follow through esprit de corps.
The representatives of our sister dominions will surely be flattered at Le Soleil's conception of the motives which inspired their representations on behalf of their respective countries. The leading statesmen of the great British commonwealth of nations, or British Empire, call it whatever you like, are pictured as a bunch of cowering school boys, ready to do or say anything in order to cover a break made by the head boy.

The Address-Mr. Dupre
I wish now to refer to a very unpleasant matter. Questions of race and religion must be debated with the greatest care, and I realize that I am treading on very delicate ground. But since this is my first appearance on this great scene of our parliamentary life, I feel it is my duty to say how much I regret the attitude taken recently, and even during the last eighteen months, by a coalition government in one of the western provinces. The laws enacted against the French language- one of the two official languages-by the government of Saskatchewan are an insult to the true Canadians established here for fourteen or fifteen generations. It was in the name of God, but in the French language, that the first cross was consecrated on Canadian soil. Against these laws I must protest, and I hope they will be repealed.
May I remind public men generally that in the long run the only school which will always triumph is the school of justice, fair play, tolerance and broadmindedness.
The Canadian of French descent is the most thorough Canadian of the land; his only home is Canada. In Canada he was born, and in Canada he desires to die, faithful to his king and proud of British institutions: "Pro rege, lege, grege." But he cannot stand being molested.
Just one word now about the Russian embargo. Let us assume that thereby Canada may lose a few dollars. I submit, sir, that this question should be envisaged from the point of view of Christian morality and civilization, and may I say that I am very much surprised at the attitude taken by such important and well-written Liberal papers as the Ottawa Citizen, the Manitoba Free Press and a few others.
I see also that the Liberal party, through one of its outstanding lieutenants, my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), has taken a stand in this matter. In his most able address my hon. friend said this:
I wish to say a word or two in regard to the Russian situation which has been mentioned so frequently during the debate. Frankly I may say to the administration that possibly I appreciate very fully the motives which underlie the adoption of this policy. On the other hand, sir, in view of statements we have heard during the debate I think it is the most fatuous policy ever adopted by a supposedly sane and sensible administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Dupré: I notice the applause which greets this quotation from my hon. friend's speech.
But you see, on the other hand, the provincial Liberal party in Quebec declaring itself in favour of our policy. It means this: It is the old game of the Liberal party-for the embargo in Quebec, against it in Ottawa; free traders in the west, protectionists in the east; for and against conscription at the same time. On the contrary, sir, the Conservative party is unanimous in proclaiming the Russian embargo, at the present time and under the present circumstances, and on that question we are ready to stand or fall. Now we know where we are. Now you see, sitting at your left, Mr. Speaker, not the prophets, major or minor; they could not even see the unemployment crisis when it was under their very eyes. But there, at your left, sir, you see the protagonists of Russia's policy and the unconscious or conscious agents of soviet propaganda.
As already said, this is a business government for business men, for the working man and the farmer. At your right, Mr. Speaker, you see a party ready to act, to master problems, not to avoid them-a party who preaich and practise one doctrine in which they believe. On the other hand, to your left, is another party which belongs to the old school of laissez faire-avoid issues.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, we do not practise
"laissez faire."


Maurice Dupré: I think my hon. friend has
talked enough since the 'beginning of the session. I contend'-and the eleictors with us- that our policy is the best one. Time will tell.
May I thank both sides of the house for the patient and cordial hearing given me. My desire is to do something for this land, my country. To this task I shall consecrate my heart and soul. But to succeed I need, and I respectfully beg for, the cooperation of my hon. friends on both sides of the house.
The Quebec solid bloc, engendered by appeals to prejudice and-
Mr. ST-PERE:	Is my hon. friend making
a sweeping statement?


Maurice Dupré: -maintained by-
Mr. ST-PERE: Is my hon. friend making a sweeping statement? If he is, he is wrong. I never appealed to prejudice in order to be elected in my riding.


Jean-François Pouliot: Neither did I.


Maurice Dupré: I am glad that there are
at least two at your left, Mr. Speaker, who did not do so. I say, however, thank God,
The Address-Mr. Dupre

that that bloc, engendered by appeals to prejudices and maintained and strengthened by detestable manoeuvres, is a thing of the past. And I say that a solid bloc, whether in Quebec or in Ontario, whether Conservative or Liberal, is a danger to unity and bonne entente in Canada. To my distinguished chief we now come, for the first time since 1917, a loyal Conservative contingent from French-speaking Quebec, and we come here to work with the great successor to Macdonald. Cartier, Thompson, Tapper, Borden and Meighen and. with him and my hon. colleagues of the cabinet, to serve the cause of prosperity.
The home has to be built. The materials are ready and the builder has been chosen by the electors. Let us work and build. If we start to discuss the rights and wrongs- and the country knows how much we, the Conservatives from Quebec, could say on the question of prejudices and cries of war raised against us-if we try to discover who have made more appeals to prejudices during the last campaign, or during the campaigns before, there will be no end to the discussion; and during such a harmful controversy the working men will be waiting for more work and the poor will be eager for additional relief.
Let us have less discussion and more action. The burden is heavy and the task formidable; but French-speaking Quebec which has known hardship and even persecutions will not shirk its duty.
Now that Their Excellencies Lord and Lady Bessborough are here, representing as they do the union of France and England, those two great nations which have played such an important part in the history of the world, let us join hands in a friendly clasp and try to solve the tremendous problems that confront us, solutions for which must be found.
Let us, the offspring of worthy sires from both sides of the channel, recall and apply to our own beloved Canada the words which Shakespeare, in Henry V, puts in the mouth of the King of France as he grants the hand of his daughter to the King of England:
Take her, fair son; and from her blood raise up
Issue to me; that the contending kingdoms Of France and England, whose very shores look pale
With envy of each other's happiness,
May cease their hatred; and this dear conjuction
Plant neighbourhood and Christian-like accord In their sweet bosoms, that never war advance
His bleeding sword 'twixt England and fair France.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, this would seem to be an opportune time to give a short resume of the general characteristics and high lights of this interesting debate. I think I am within the facts in saying that the general tenor and character of the debate have been on a par with the average of similar debates during the last ten years, and have been characterized by such moderation as is consistent with the bringing out of the facts.
Hon. members supporting the government, especially the colleagues of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), have seemed to be in difficulty in defending their leader. During the first two weeks of the debate not one colleague of the Prime Minister rose in his place to defend either his leader's policies at home or his remarkable performance abroad. The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) made a very nice speech which we all liked, but he offered no defence of his leader. The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) made a very excellent speech, but he quoted from newspapers which were many months old. If he would peruse the press of to-day he would find that the view taken is entirely different.
Another outstanding feature of the debate is the suddenness with which the Prime Minister makes a buck dart for the curtains and lobby the moment the debate commences. In these exits he is usually accompanied by the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and it is anything but inspiring to have to speak to these two empty seats.
Only recently the ministerial press has been complaining that the opposition has offered no alternatives to the program presented by the government.. I think that is the greatest tribute which could be made, in having the government appeal to us for an alternative policy. It is a striking admission, however, of shortcoming on the part of the government when they are forced to throw up their hands and admit a breakdown in their defences.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friends laugh, but that is as I see it. No defence has been offered by any colleague of the Prime Minister while abroad, up to this, the fifth week of this debate.
In replying to the complaint which has been made that no alternative suggestions have been offered, I would refer to the most excellent, comprehensive, telling and impelling 3peech made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). The right hon. gen-

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
tleman offered the suggestion that possibly the wheat exporting countries would get together to discuss the disposition of their surplus wheat, and pointed out that at such a conference we would be at a disadvantage because of the embargo which has been placed upon Russian goods; and now a conference has been called.
The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) made some valuable suggestions. He asked for the production of the papers in connection with the disposition of our wheat surplus during 1917 and 1918. A large surplus was disposed of at that time, and the production of the correspondence between Mr. Whiteside and the then Minister of Trade and Commerce would show that some $80,000,000 went into the treasury of the Dominion of Canada. We want to know what became of that money. We want to know also what action is being taken in connection with the representations made by hon. members from the west and by the provincial premiers with regard to the pegging of wheat for the purpose of stabilizing prices. In 1917 and 1918 the government had no hesitation in pegging wheat prices in order to prevent their going too high, but this government seems to hesitate to peg prices when they would seem to be going too low. However, they have no hesitation in pegging the prices of eastern commodities. Scarcely a week passes but the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) pegs the prices of such commodities as gasoline, coal, and so on. This government has no hesitation in pegging prices for the eastern industries but will not take any action which would benefit the farmers of the west. What is sauce for the eastern goose should be sauce for the western gander, and the gander needs it pretty badly just now.
A number of other recommendations were made. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) made a suggestion with respect to the establishment of an experimental packing plant in the west and another one in the *east. This matter has been considered on many occasions, the last being last year when a conference was held in the department over which I presided at that time. The general feeling was that before any permanent policy was laid down there should be an investigation into the whole live stock industry. In the last supplementary estimates' an item of $25,000 was included for the purpose of prosecuting such an inquiry, but the net result is that we have three different policies, a federal, a provincial and a Canadian Credit Association policy. Three different policies cannot be carried out concurrently without considerable conflict.
I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture give more consideration to the establishment throughout Canada of additional cold storage plants. The producers of fruit and other perishable commodities, especially in British Columbia, all will testify to the value of these cold storage facilities.
In the various manifestos issued by my good friend, my successor in office, I see no reference to cooperative marketing. He should not be discouraged because there is at this time a great world wide depression adversly affecting all methods of marketing. This type of marketing will eventually offer one of the greatest hopes to the farmers of Canada. I have made a few suggestions and I hope some of them and also some of those made by other members will be found worthy of consideration. If need be, further suggestions may be made as regards desirable policies to follow.
If the Prime Minister were in his seat I should like to address some remarks to him. He has launched into the field of international affairs and diplomacy and his first experience has been quite a hectic one. Somebody has defined a diplomat to be one who could bring home the bacon without spilling the beans. If that were the correct definition I am afraid my right hon. friend would not qualify, because no other Canadian coming back from any conference has brought back less bacon and spilled more beans than my right hon. friend as he blundered abroad. I think my hon. friends opposite, by their silence, indicate their assent to that. As was pointed out by my leader in his excellent address, the mission for which they went overseas was foredoomed to failure because of the large increases in the British preferential rate. This conference, as they said, was to be a good will affair; it was to promote inter-empire trade by putting up a tariff wall. With their voice the government professed to be strongly attached to the principle of inter-empire trade, and then by their actions they banged up the tariff door against British goods as a starter. Having done that and foredoomed their case, they proceeded debonairly across the water to engage in a conference with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations.
We thought this was to be a conference, but apparently it was a speech-making proposition. One week after his arrival the leader of the government made a pronouncement, not to the conference only, but to the gallery of the entire world. I remember when this speech went over the wires and the radio to the west. We had never before heard anybody speak like this at a conference. This was, as the New York Times indicated, like an ultimatum. We wondered whether anything had gone

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
wrong with the Prime Minister, whether there was such a thing as political rabies, and whether he had contracted it while crossing the waters. We were astounded and then someone feeling a little charitable said that perhaps the newspaper was wrong and we had better wait until to-morrow. The newspapers seem to be always getting my right hon. friend wrong, and we accordingly waited until the following day When the following day arrived the confusion was still worse; nobody knew what this ten per cent was. But the clouds soon rolled away and Mr. Thomas was apparently right in describing the whole proposition as humbug. Let me quote the way in which the Prime Minister of Canada put his offer to the conference. The Solicitor General did not refer to.this; he did not defend it; he quoted merely one or two of the least objectionable paragraphs of the flamboyant statement of the Prime Minister. This is what the Prime Minister said:
First, we must approve or reject the principle.
The principle has been approved and enforced for a long time by the British government in regard to some of our products and those of other dominions. He continued:
I put the question definitely to you, and definitely it should be answered. There is here no room for compromise and there is no possibility of avoiding the issue. This is a time for plain speaking, and I speak plainly when I say that the day is now at hand when the peoples of the empire must decide, once and for all-
One would think that was the last opportunity on earth. Something terrible was going to happen unless this was immediately considered and accepted.

whether our welfare lies in closer economic union or whether it does not. Delay is hazardous, further discussion of the principle is surely unnecessary. The time for action has come.
I wonder whether this sounds the same to my right hon. friend's ears as it does to mine.
I do not hear very well, but I hear this well enough to know that it is entirely out of place in a conference among kinsmen. It is flamboyant, belligerent, bellicose and pugnacious, and in fact, worse, if I could think of anything further to add. As bad as that is, it is not as bad as the next paragraph:
Projects other than the one I propose have been placed before you. They have been carefully canvassed by our delegation, and, while we would avoid anything which might savour of premature condemnation, we are constrained to state that none of them can be accepted by Canada as alternatives at all likely to achieve the purpose we have in mind.
The proposition was off then. They might as well have quit right there. Nothing but 
tariff proposals would suit the Prime Minister and all else he dismissed with an imperious wave of his lordly hand. According to him there was nothing doing, while everybody knows that the very essence, the soul of a conference, is compromise. The moment one participant takes a mulish stand like that, the proposition is off, because of the absence of give and take.
Just a word as to what will have to be done if anything is to come out of the adjourned conference to be held in Ottawa. Of course the adjournment came in handy to save the face of the government; it enabled them to go along for a little while longer. But if the Prime Minister will take a little different attitude from that which he took at the conference last September, there is no reason why some progress cannot be made. The British government and their friends are talking about the quota that my right hon. friend arbitrarily dismissed. If anything is to be done, he must back down. I know how hard it is for a man in the Prime Minister's position, when he makes a mistake, to admit it; but if he wants to obtain results he will have to assume a different tone and also be prepared to discuss other proposals that are laid before him. A quota will be better than nothing. There is no reason why we should not have a quota with the proper proportions to the dominions. It will need to be a good quota to come up to what we are now selling to the old country. For the last five years on the average we have been selling to Great Britain 170,000,000 bushels per annum. That is as much as the rest of the world buys from us, so that any quota that is adopted will need to be at least as good as that. If it is-greater, so much the better, but there will need to be a tremendous transformation in the Prime Minister before he can get any-w'here. There is no reason in the world why we cannot through the quota system make some progress towards solving the problem which is facing the dominions in regard to their wheat. As things stand now there is a cloud on the horizon in connection with the competition of Russian wheat and our embargo against Russia. What is going to happen in the west if the Russians decide to throw more wheat into British ports next fall at the same time that ours is ready to enter also? If they choose to do that in retaliation against our embargo, the com* petition that we bad last fall will be as nothing, and it is high time that we got on to a safer road than the one on which we are travelling at the present time.
With regard to the conference, there were many interesting incidents at it and after it.

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
I recall that the first trip the Prime Minister took afterwards was to Paris. How often have we heard his voice ring in this chamber with statements as to how he was going to renounce the French treaty the first time he got his hands on it, and what an excellent salesman he was going to be! Having been chaperoned by the Solicitor General he got away from Paris without any casualties, but he did not sell as much wheat by half-9 millions to 19-to France as was sold the previous year. The Prime Minister got a promise that 9,000,000 bushels of wheat would be sold to France in the following year. The records showed however that in the previous year Canada had sold 19,000,000 bushels to France. There we have an actual sale of 19,000,000 as against a promise of 9,000,000 bushels. If the hon. gentleman continues in that way he will soon sell our wheat won't he? In the meantime Hon. Mr. Thomas had been acting up. The Labour government was under criticism by the opposition and Hon. Mr. Thomas was defending the government. An hon. member asked why he did not accept the offer of the Prime Minister of Canada and in reply he stated that such an offer was the greatest conceivable humbug. His statement set the whole newspaper world agog. My hon. friends have read many newspaper clippings but I think I will have to beg the indulgence of the house to read one or two newspaper observations. I have before me an extract from the Morning Express:
Very Simply Constituted
Mr. Bennett must be very simply constituted

I do not think it means however that the right hon. gentleman is simple minded.
Mr. Bennett must be very simply constituted (says the News-Chronicle) if he imagines that any intelligent Englishman would be deluded by the proposal that we should tax our food in return for Canada's generosity in putting another tiny brick on her tariff wall against foreign imports and keeping the wall at the same effective height against British goods.
If that proposal is not humbug what is it? The Dominion premiers like to claim the right to "speak plainly" and like to exercise it. They should be able to keep a stiff upper lip when an English statesman for once in a way speaks plainly, too.
What kind of a stiff upper lip did my right hon. friend the leader of the government keep? I understand he got in touch by phone with the acting Prime Minister; if he did not he should have done so. It was his intention to learn what was to be done about the Thomas incident. If he did not get such advice he should have got it. Instead of stiffening his upper lip and taking a mild little swat like
that, the Prime Minister squealed like a stuck porcine and was heard all over the realm. That is the kind of stiff upper lip kept by my right hon. friend when he was away from home. I will not follow this incident any further as my time is limited, but in that connection I would add that Hon. Mr. Thomas might have gone much further and been quite within the truth. This offer, so-called, was the finest exhibition of doubled dyed, twice distilled hypocrisy and humbug of which I have ever heard. No wonder they were disgusted with it overseas; no wonder the Prime Minister of Great Britain said that it could not be done. No wonder these newspapers which I might quote for an hour referred unfavourably to his proposal. In the meantime his colleagues had fled to Canada. At all events the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) returned. In connection with the Minister of Trade and Commerce I am pleased to note that he is returning to the house. Apparently they wanted as quickly as possible to place the Atlantic ocean between themselves and their rampaging Prime Minister.
Consequently when the right hon. gentleman journeyed to Belfast he was alone, with the exception of his personal retinue. He was invited to the city of Belfast, that great city of education and industry, where he was to receive a degree. The degree was well bestowed quite properly, I think, on a very distinguished gentleman. My remarks however will be confined to statements made by my right hon. friend after he had received the degree. In this country we have made a practice of tendering banquets or luncheons and the government of Northern Ireland followed that custom by giving a luncheon. The visit of the Prime Minister of Canada seemed to well warrant such procedure on their part. In the publication which I have in my hand there is the picture of the right hon. Prime Minister wearing his university robe. This picture and several comments which I intend to read are contained in the Northern Whig and Belfast Post. There are not now many whigs in Northern Ireland nor have there been for some time past. It is a Conservative paper; certainly it is not Liberal. Apparently it hates the Labour government like poison so that it must be Conservative. Its editorials clearly indicate the political leaning of the newspaper. On the front page I find our Canadian Prime Minister's reported words "Empire ties must be economic." The next paragraph in the newspaper to which I shall refer is as follows:
"I am satisfied," he said, speaking at the luncheon, "that if we do not avail ourselves of
The Address-Mr. Motherwell

the matchless opportunity that we have by reason of our far-flung empire, our fate will be the fate of other great empires of the past."
Here the Prime Minister seems to be speaking in the role of a prophet, and a most dismal one at that. Apparently it was the opinion of the right hon. gentleman that everything would be lost unless he had his way in economic and tariff matters as they affect the other units of the British commonwealth of nations. And to rub it in good and plenty the right hon. gentleman reminded his hearers at the banquet of the ill-fated Boston tea party which every British historian knows was not brought about by the fault of the American colonies but by just such that-day Toryism as my right hon. friend still represents. What excellent taste the right hon. gentleman showed when he so spoke to the people in Northern Ireland! I quote again the following from this paper:
When you are spoken to in terms of sentiment it is always well to remember that the greatest break that ever took place in our empire commenced not over sentiment-most of you will recall the tea that found lodgment in Boston harbour. It was more than sentiment -it was economies, it was business. It was the question of the entry of products and the taxation of products that went from these islands to the land now known as the United States.
While sentiment, he asserted, must always blaze a pathway, the ties that bound peoples to one another at the present day must be ties of material strands of economic strength.
Everything in the mind of the right hon. gentleman seems to be reduced to mercenary and monetary terms; all the old ideals we were taught since childhood were discarded. Why did we send so many men to the war? Was it to sell wheat or was it because of kinship with other nations embroiled in that terrible struggle?
Probably I should not take the time of the house to read further from the paper, but for fear I might be accused of putting a wrong interpretation on the remarks of the right hon. gentleman I shall read from the editorial page. These observations appeared in the Northern Whig on the occasion of the visit to Northern Ireland by the Hon. Mr. Scallin and the Hon. Mr. Forbes, following Mr. Bennett. The remarks by my right hon. friend were delivered on November 19. It took the people in Northern Ireland apparently quite a while to recover from the shock they received following the visit of the Prime Minister of Canada. However after the visit of Mr. Scullin they became greatly heartened. I quote the following from the Northern Whig of December 3, 1930:
Mr. Bennett, who led the way, perhaps unconsciously interposed a discouraging note in

suggesting that the old bonds of blood and kindship are broken, and that unless commercial ties are substituted the empire will be in danger. In all probability, however, the Canadian premier would confess to-day that in his anxiety to impress the vital importance of closer commercial ties he rather over-stated the case.
That observation of course is quite mild. Later on the editorial is as follows:
Mr. Scullin, who followed Mr. Bennett as a visitor made it abundantly evident that Australia does not support the idea of broken or even weakened bonds of blood and kinship. He declared that these bonds are the real strength of the empire, and that without them the most powerful commercial ties might prove powerless to hold its members together. Mr. Scullin's assurances dispelled the temporary cloud which Mr. Bennett's suggestion had brought up on our horizon.
Should not the two honourable ministers who struck for Canada have remained with their honourable leader? Apparently this malady of political rabies is not quarantinable. The hon. gentlemen returned to Canada leaving their leader behind. On November 28 I find the following in an editorial of the Northern Whig.
After the cold and didactic speeches in Belfast a few days ago of Mr. Bennett, the Canadian premier, who asserted that the old ties of blood and kinship between motherland and dominiohs were broken, and that if not replaced by commercial ties "the empire would share the fate of the great empires of the past,"-
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that that means the Roman empire, the Persian empire and the other empires of the past that dwindled and decayed. The right hon. gentleman conceived the British empire as dwindling and decaying if something did not happen along the lines that he was proposing at the conference. No wonder he spoke of the sands of time running out and was terrified at the prospect of even six months delay. Then the editor goes on:
-it was heartening to hear Mr. Scullin speak of those old ties as still existent and still strong. "The unity of the commonwealth of nations," he declared, "lies in the blood ties that exist between the various parts."
Then the paper said:
We would much rather take that hopeful view than the gloomy one of Mr. Bennett.
It is not surprising that our leader was wondering who the Tories were going to send to this conference. We are still wondering why they sent the ones they did send.
Well, how is the situation to be retrieved? The trip to Paris did not help any. The Belfast experience made things even worse. Now the Prime Minister had to come home. In the meantime the great and faithful of

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
the Conservative party in Toronto and Ottawa were preparing banquets to welcome the returning hero bedecked with laurels- or at least they thought so. But evidently wiser counsel prevailed-I do not know whether from here or from Toronto-because it was realized that if they banqueted their leader he would have to make a speech. And if he made a speech what was he going to tell them? Well, a bright idea occurred to somebody. Last summer the west had been pretty well stuffed with these bedtime and fairy stories of what the government was going to do to help the farmers out there. The bright idea occurred that the Prime Minister would pour down a second dose of promises and that the west would probably gulp it as some had gulped the first dose. The Prime Minister accordingly boarded the train for the west and at every divisional point a telegram would go forward to tell them that the great emancipator was on his way to the west to bring them hope and courage to hold on. We had no snow there and cars were run all the winter. Every farmer who could scrape together a dozen of eggs-I don't think a dozen would be sufficient-or a pound of butter, and buy a gallon of gasoline, cranked up his old Lizzie and headed for Regina. All roads led to Regina because a second Abraham Lincoln, a great deliverer, had come. They had a magnificent meeting, there is no question about that, and those who could not be present heard the address over the radio. The address was so well given that you could not tell it was read. My right hon. friend claims that the reporters sometimes do not get him right, and he took the precaution on this occasion to read his address. As I say, it was well read. It differed vastly from his speech of the previous summer; I suppose that was natural. The meeting was packed to suffocation; people were sitting on their toes rather than on the chairs, with expectancy. The meeting was opened by the premier of Saskatchewan and the address of welcome was seconded by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull)-I notice he is not listening with any great pleasure now- and everything was fine-everything but the goods; that was the trouble. Well, I will not attempt to tell you, sir, what a lot of the farmers said about the speech, but I will tell you what the farmers' union said about it. Here is the heading, "Premier Bennett Speeding West.". The train could not move fast enough to get him there. Now, for fear I might not summarize the speech correctly, I had my Ottawa Journal forwarded to me.
Here is the summary which appeared in its issue of January 1, 1931. No doubt the paper was supplied with a copy of the speech before the Prime Minister went west. The speech is divided under seven headings. The first three deal with emergency measures, one of them being to supply seed grain for needy farmers -something that has been done for the last forty years. The other four deal with Mr. Bennett's hopes for the west. Let me quote:
So far as the future is concerned, Mr. Bennett's hope for the west was summed up in the following:
These are hopes held out to the farmers of the west:
4.	He has succeeded in securing better wheat marketing arrangements with France.
I have just told the house what those arrangements developed into-assuming his hope is fulfilled the promised market there will not be half as good as it was the year before. Now the next heading:
5.	He has opened negotiations with the Chinese government for the marketing of wheat in China.
Oh, I remember that night. Right then the Prime Minister proudly said that the Hon. Herbert Marler was on his way to China to negotiate a tremendous transaction with the Chinese government for the sale of Canadian wheat. It was a wonderful story. It is not surprising that he had hope of the Hon Herbert Marler doing something when wt recall how anxious the right hon. gentleman was to have him established there in the first place. How these rafters rang when the appointment was made! His faith was well-placed, but unfortunately something went astray and we are not likely to see any immediate transaction for the exportation of Canadian wheat to China. Then the next heading is No. 6:
6.	He has several trade treaties under review with the object of securing better wheat markets with the countries concerned.
The Prime Minister did not say where these countries were, but when your back is up against the wall you will catch at anything. That was not very heartening for the farmers out west. But the best is kept for the last:
7.	He promises that when grain rates are fixed on the Hudson Bay railway they will be on the basis of the Crowsnest pass rates.
That must be balm to the soul of those waiting farmers. Why, no other rates but the Crowsnest pass rates could apply. Think of any government daring to put up any other rates on their own railway after the decision of the Hon. Mr. McKeown and the Hon.

The Address-Mr. Motherwell
Frank Oliver in the Vancouver rate case, when [DOT] they decided it would be unjust discrimination to Vancouver if the Crowsnest pass rates were not applied. And undoubtedly it would be rank discrimination against Churchill if the Crowsnest pass rates were not applied. That assurance of the Prime Minister is just so much more humbug and piffle, Mr. Speaker, take it from me. I wish parliamentary procedure would allow me to say what I feel with respect to this subject. Then think how ardently the Tory party all through the years worked for the reestablishment of Crowsnest pass rates! They the Conservatives suspended those rates in 1919, and when the King government restored them in 1922 hon. gentlemen opposite fought like wildcats against the restoration. Now they have the gall to talk about that as something they did themselves. And what of Churchill itself? The Hudson Bay Railway would terminate to-day at Nelson if hon. gentlemen opposite had had their way, and it would have been a blind alley and no good to any one. There is an untold story about that Nelson business, and I hope I shall live long enough to see it revealed. We all know that Churchill would not have been selected as the terminus for the railway if my hon. friends opposite had had their way. And yet my right hon. friend and his supporters talk about Crowsnest rates being applied on the Hudson Bay railway to Churchill and expect the farmers of the west to swallow that down without a wink!
Well, the United Farmers must have sat jp nearly all night, because the meeting did not close until about ten o'clock and after that they drafted a reply which appeared in the morning issue of the Leader, together with the report of the Prime Minister's speech. Here is what it says:
"Stunned and amazed" was the description which George H. Williams [DOT]
Who I understand was a former Conservative but then was president of the farmers' union.
-president of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, applied to the audience which listened to the address delivered by Premier R. B. Bennett at the armouries, Tuesday night. Mr. Williams declared that the show of enthusiasm which had marked the opening of the meeting dwindled away towards the close to perfunctory applause.
Further on in the same article I find the following:
Disappointing Pronouncement
"Mr. Bennett's address was to my mind the most disappointing pronouncement that any prime minister has ever made in a time of crisis in western Canada, and this in the face
[Mr. Motherwell.}
of press forerunners which led people to believe that Mr. Bennett would offer some solid and substantial policy," Mr. Williams declared.
This is the statement of the head of the United Farmers of Saskatchewan, who recently was in Rome, presumably helping our High Commissioner to stir things up, We hope, however, this proposed new London conference eventually will turn out all right.
That was the Regina frost. You would think there could not be anything worse, but the Prime Minister returned to Ottawa and shortly afterwards we heard of the Russian embargo. I must admit that my first reaction to the Russian situation was a shrinking away. I do not like their form of government; I do not like their attitude towards religion, or at least I do not like what that attitude is said to be. I have, however, no evidence before me upon which I can intelligently consider Russia, either as to the form of government, the attitude towards their schools or the attitude towards religion. Let me appeal to your, Mr. Speaker; you feel keenly on this matter, as I do. You cannot, however, base business transactions on prejudice, and I will admit that my first feeling was prejudice. One must let his judgment have sway, if one has any, and my judgment told me that by Canada so acting we were simply cutting off our nose to spite our face and incurring a great risk. Surely if there is any use in having a British Empire, and I claim there is much use in it, we should have consulted the other parts of the empire before taking action ourselves. Surely this is a question big enough even to go before the League of Nations; but instead of following some such course of action, we madly slap Russia in the face and put on the embargo. If he is correctly reported, the Minister of National Revenue takes the ground that Canada would not stand for that kind of government. I have the report of his remarks here, but it is not worth reading. It is an offence to a great nation with which we have to live as neighbours.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon.
gentleman's time has expired.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you, sir.
Like my colleague to my right I will continue this in my next speech, possibly on the budget.


Alan Webster Neill: Avoiding the morass of political partisan controversy, Mr. Speaker, which has already engulfed too much valuable time this session, I propose to lay before the government and the house a plain, businesslike statement, so far as I am capable, of the condition of the leading

The Address-Mr. Neill
industries in the district which I represent and throughout British Columbia generally, and if possible to suggest some constructive ideas to improve the conditions of those industries. That, I take it, is the primary purpose for which my constituents sent me here.
The major industries in my district are the basic ones of farming, fishing, lumbering, coal mining and the manufacture of pulp. If we are committed to a system of protection and higher protection, I submit that these basic industries demand that protection now, rather than that we should continue to give higher protection to the combines of wealthy manufacturers of the east, who already have more than is coming to them. As proof of this I might refer to a statement which already has been put on Hansard several times, showing that the prices of the basic products of the soil and the sea have fallen from five to eight times more than the prices of the manufactured products of the eastern factories.
Dealing first with farming, the dairy industry was materially helped when Hon. Charles Dunning cancelled the New Zealand agreement with respect to butter. The dairy industry will reap the benefit of that action more fully in the future, when the supply of butter, which was rushed into Canada before the legislation became effective is exhausted. Credit must be given also to the present government for making a temporary arrangement with Australia under which butter from that country does not come into Canada except at a price of 31 or 32 cents per pound. This arrangement is temporary, however, and the dairymen are looking anxiously for the new treaty to discover what is going to be done about imports of butter, mutton, tallow, honey and so on. Four or five months ago we heard a great deal about this Australian treaty; to read the press at that time one would think the treaty was practically negotiated. But I find nothing whatever about it in the speech from the throne. Goodness knows there is not so very much in the speech but that it would have been strengthened by a statement as to the Australian treaty. I am quite ready to remember that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), who was negotiating the treaty, has been ill. We all hope for his speedy return to the house, but reports as to this treaty appeared in the papers long before his illness overtook him, and in any case the government goes on as a whole and it should have been possible to make mention of such an important matter in the speech from the throne. From what the leader of the government said to-day, however, it would seem that we cannot look for any action in that regard this session.
The poultry industry, which is important in British Columbia was helped also by Mr. Dunning when he raised the duty on eggs coming from the United States to 10 cents per dozen, through the countervailing duties The present government, while repealing the countervailing duties, confirmed that rate of 10 cents a dozen and made it a permanent item in the tariff. That has been a great help to the poultry industry and has practically stopped the importation of American eggs. It might be easy for me to say now that the present low price of eggs has come about because of the tariff, but that is not the fact; *it has come about in spite of the tariff. However that does show that the tariff is not a panacea for every ailment from which the *body politic can suffer, especially when we run up against high production coupled with low consumption.
What can be done to help these two major branches of agriculture? I would suggest three things, not as cure-alls, but as proposals which, in my opinion, would substantially help the situation. The first is a material advance in cooperation. The late Minister of Agriculture introduced into his department the beginning of a branch having to do with cooperation, and secured a capable man to attend to it. That should be largely developed; farmers should be encouraged, informed and trained, so to speak, to go into cooperation much more extensively than is the case at the present time. They should be educated in cooperation in the selling of their products, which is more important perhaps, than cooperation in buying. They should be trained also in cooperation in buying and in the processing of their products, in order to get them to market more cheaply. Above all, they should be educated in cooperation in the distribution of their products, because that is where a great loss occurs. As one man said, we want to cut the costs from the land to the larder. Cooperation would do away with a great deal of our present trouble.
The second grievance under which we are suffering is an old question, but it is extremely important; I refer to freight rates. We pay $4.20 per ton more for bringing wheat from the prairies for consumption in British Columbia than is paid for wheat which is to be shipped to China or Great Britain. The high rate is put upon the low grade wheat for domestic use and the low rate upon the high grade, exportable wheat, making it doubly unfair. We used to hear about the railways putting on all that the traffic would stand, but in this case they are putting on more than the traffic will stand. This ques-
The Address-Mr. Neill

tion has been before the Board of Railway Commissioners, and has been carried to the Canadian privy council, which is the government. It was taken to the privy council nearly a year ago, or perhaps more than a year ago. The last government dallied with it and did not give a decision, and the present government seem to be doing the same thing. It is time they took some action. If they do not feel called upon to deal with the matter on their own initiative by order in council, then they can bring down legislation as was done in the case of the Crowsnest rates.
It has been asserted, whenever this question has come up, that it is customary to give a preference to exportable produce of any kind. Yes, that is so in many instances; but you will find it is nearly always so when there is an alternative water route to compete, and when it is necessary to make one route compete against the other. There is no water route betwen the prairies and British Columbia, and if anything else were needed to show the injustice of the thing it is this: Since the Hon. John Oliver took up the question twelve or fifteen years ago-he fought it at every stage of the game-twice in that period there have been reductions in the export rate, but he did not succeed in getting a corresponding reduction in the domestic rate.
We will say for the sake of argument, but only for argument, because I do not admit it, that the spread fifteen years ago between the export and the domestic rates, was a proper one; but by no reasoning or logic, or lack of logic, can it be argued that the spread is right and proper now, because the export rate has been reduced twice while the domestic rate has not been reduced at alb in that period. We find nothing of this in the speech from the throne, and it is a subject of major importance and one which should find a place there. We can only suppose-I hope I am wrong-that it is not the intention of the government to deal with the matter in the immediate future.
These two things, the development of cooperation to a large extent, and the question of rates, would help the dairying and poultry industry very considerably. Ir, would enab^ them to produce cheaper and to cut the cos' in the world's market, at a time when the purchasing power of ordinary people has been much reduced.
There is another item I would suggest although it is perhaps more confined tn British Columbia. It is this. A great deal of th = coast country of British Columbia and Vancouver island, is or has been heavily timbered and before the land can be made available for agriculture it has to be cleared and

stumped; and even under present scientific methods this is very expensi\re. It costs roughly, to clear it, five times what it is worth after it is cleared, because it is not first class land, although it is good second class land Consequently it naturally holds back enormously the development of the country
I discussed the matter with the late government last year and got from them some promise that they would try to induce the National Research Council to investigate whether some method could not be devised of providing a cheap chemical which would enable these stumps to be burned out. A chemical of that kind can be obtained now, but it is too costly, and some tentative promise was made that the matter would be investigated. But little has been done. They tell me that there are other projects showing more promise of achievement which they think should be given attention first. That may be; but I would urge the government to consider the question. It would be of enormous benefit. There are a large number of soldier settlers just on the verge of insolvency, under debt to the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment, and a chemical such as I suggest would help them to get out of their financial difficulties. Furthermore, the government owns areas of these reverted lands, and there is going to be a great loss on them. It would enable the government to sell these lands at a reasonable price and, moreover, it would be a very substantial contribution to the relief of unemployment, because it would furnish a great extent of fairly cheap land. One has no idea of the large area_ which is in that condition, logged-off lands with stumps in them, which could be immediately available for people to make a living on them. At the present time it is little better than a crime to invite people to go on that land, and ask them to clear it at a cost five or six times what the land is worth after it is cleared. If this land could be cleared as I suggest, it would materially help the agricultural situation.
I come now to another industry which is absolutely unprotected, that of coal. It is suffering from competition with fuel oil. It is suggested that we should have a duty on fuel oil. At one time that would have been immediately effective, but it is somewhat doubtful whether it would work at the present time. In days gone by, all fuel oil used in British Columbia was imported, and a duty on it would have restricted its use. Now it is nearly all-and it will apparently soon be all-manufactured in British Columbia. It is manufactured through the production c"

The Address-Mr. Neill
gasoline out of crude oil. It is a by-product, and it is doubtful whether a duty would have the desired effect, because the manufacturers treat this oil as a by-product. They make their money on gasoline, and it might be that if a duty were placed on fuel oil they would sell it for whatever they could get for it and they would cut the price to the extent of the duty. That would mean that the government would get an income, but it would be of no benefit to the coal industry, which is what we want to help. That is a matter which the government experts might inquire into.
Now there is an immediate and certain remedy. I emphasize those words because it cannot be denied that it would have an effect the moment it was put into force, and I urge the necessitiy for immediate action inasmuch as the industry is in a desperate condition. What I suggest is this: that the government grant a bonus of $1.50 a ton on all coal mined in Vancouver island for export purposes other than to the United States. I leave out the east of British Columbia because they share in certain favourable rates granted Alberta. I leave out coal for domestic purposes in British Columbia and also coal for export to the United States, as there is a reciprocal condition there which would not benefit us. I am speaking merely of coal for other export. There is a precedent for it. Nova Scotia gets a railway rate to allow it to get into the markets of Ontario, and Alberta gets a rate which is sometimes quoted as $1.25, although it is $1.48, and it is apt to be more than that because it is on a sliding scale. That is what the country at large pays to make up the difference between the rate granted Alberta and eastern British Columbia coal and what it costs the railway company. The first period calculated, as I say, came to $1.48 a ton. And what is it for? To enable coal to be moved to the desired market in Ontario. Now, we suggest that a bonus of this description would enable us to export coal to the markets of South America-Peru, Chile, Valparaiso. It would not be a great drain on the treasury to begin with, and we believe it would develop more trade.
In this connection we also ask for some cooperation from the government, more particularly from the Department of Marine. I am sorry the minister is not present. A father can flog his child for lying to him, but unless he sets an example of personal rectitude he will not do much more than make the boy a hypocrite. And this is the situation here. There is a boat called The
Lillooet, under the control of the Marine department. It has been operating on the Pacific ocean on a hydrographic survey. Some years ago the department proposed to turn it into a oil burner and I opposed this. With the help of the late Hon. Mr. Sloan, a member of the provincial government and a representative of a coal-mining district, we ' got the government to abandon the idea. Now this last fall the Department of Marine decided to build another hydrographic survey ship, and the moment I heard that tenders had been called for I wrote to the minister. I wrote at once, not after it was too late, and urged him to see that the boat should be a coal burner. I am sorry to say that I have not received a reply to my letter-of such are the children of Ammon! My appeal certainly fell on stony ground, because a notice appeared in the papers a few weeks ago to the effect that the ship would be an oil burner. Then Sir Henry Thornton, the president of the Canadian National Railways, informs us that he will not allow the hotel which is being built in Vancouver to use anything but oil. And worse than that, we find them building a great tank of a million gallons capacity at Port Mann, with a view to changing a good many of theiir engines on the Canadian National Railways from coal to oil, in startling contrast with the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is not under government control. A meeting of the coal operators was held last fall, at which I was present, and the agent of the Canadian Pacific promised that their switching engines in Vancouver would be changed back from oil-burning to coal-burning. This means a coal consumption of something like 20,000 tons per year. The government should continue the experiments made by the late government in the use of pulverized coal. At a recent sitting of the provincial legislature, a member moved a resolution along these lines, but the government moved an amendment suggesting a survey.
If there is one thing we do not want in this connection, it is a survey. The Government in British Columbia have gone crazy over surveys. It does not matter what the trouble is, whether it is cut worms or currency, whether it is railway rates or rabbits, if you complain the government finally says: "We will, give you a survey." The hon. members from British Columbia know what that means; it means a lot of fat jobs for political heelers and it means the postponement of action dearly beloved by the provincial government When we ask for anything during the sittin
The Address-Mr. Neill

of the legislature we are promised a survey to be made during the recess. Upon one occasion we endured such a survey and we came back at the next session and said: You have had your survey, give us action. What did they do? They ordered another, a second survey. We do not want stone, we want bread. I have argued this matter for ten years both in and out of this house, and now with desperate earnestness I say to the government: It is now or never for this industry. I have a local paper which announces that two large mines have been closed and other mines are operating on a part time basis of two and three days per week. That practice has been carried on all winter, which season is the harvest time for the coal miner. If they can only get two days work a week in winter what will be their condition in the summer? I tell the government that if no action is taken in this matter, 5,000 miners counting those dependent directly and indirectly upon them will have to be supported by relief measures. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) will give us some action. He has never been accused, even by his worst enemies, of not being a man of action, and surely he will do something to relieve this desperate condition.
The next matter I would draw to the attention of the government is the lumber and pulp industry. This industry has reached a state where many operators are indifferent whether or not they run their camps. When the camps are run, the work is speeded up, sometimes through the efforts of the men themselves in an attempt to keep the camp going, and such overspeed means danger. The equipment is not being kept up and in many cases has reached a state where it might be called haywire. That class of equipment and speeded operations mean but one thing-increased danger, more accidents and, alas, more deaths, because in many instances the accidents prove to be fatal.
This industry sent a delegation to Australia some years ago and they received a promise of preference in the treaty soon to be negotiated. An Australian paper says that a preference on lumber as well as on fish has been given to us, and we are very anxious to see what is to become of that treaty. Up to the present, all that we can find is that nothing is to become of it. A very substantial preference was granted, something like $5 per thousand on lumber. Unfortunately, their currency has depreciated and this preference does not mean nearly as much as it would seem to. A mistake has been made in Australia, apparently through lack of information, in that while a preference has been given on Douglas fir, none has been given

on hemlock and spruce, both equally important to the industry. I hope the government will keep this fact in mind in negotiating any treaty.
The government should continue the payment of a bonus to ships on the Australian route. Because of conditions in Australia, this trade has dropped considerably and the government should do everything to encourage it.
The Commercial Intelligence Journal contains a statement that the sale of Canadian lumber in Great Britain is being handicapped because other nations are selling their lumber as Canadian. The suggestion is made that it soon may be too late to make an effort to have Canadian lumber marked as such. One of the lumber associations in British Columbia has arranged to mark their product with a trade mark, but that is not what is wanted. We want government action which will guarantee that all lumber from Canada will be marked under government control with the word "Canada" or some similar word. An attempt should be made to get the British government to make it compulsory that other lumber be marked with its country of origin. Some publicity should be given to the superiority of our Douglas fir over other competing woods, which superiority is not generally understood. Perhaps the High Commissioner, after he has completed his self-imposed task of reforming the sentiments, morals and economics of the British people, will find time to advertise Canadian lumber.
Fisheries are very important to British Columbia. The market and prices have both almost disappeared, but we are living in the hope that world industrial conditions will improve and that we shall be able again to find a reasonably profitable market for our fish. Australia has recently given us a preference on salmon amounting to something like $2.50 per case. The government should take steps to implement this preference and see that it is included in the next trade treaty.
When assistance for the fishing industry in British Columbia is mentioned, one's thoughts naturally turn to the regulations, which are changed once or twice each year. If I may suggest to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes), we would like a holiday on regulations-leave us alone for a time. We are like the soldier who lay wounded in hospital. He was being fussed over by well-meaning society ladies until finally he put up this notice: " I am too sick to be nursed to-day." I think I speak for the great majority of the working fishermen when I say that there is

The Address-Mr. Neill
one exception to this rule; we do not want the minister to abandon the system which hs inaugurated of either he or his deputy or both visiting British Columbia every fall. That is one of the finest things ever started by the department. In the old days the fishermen had no voice; the big interests formulated the policies in the minister's office. They could come to Ottawa, but the fisherman was never heard of. Some hon. member might make a protest from the floor of the house, but it was then too late. This holding of meetings of fishermen in Vancouver, Nanaimo and Prince Rupert has been of great benefit to both the industry and the department. The fishermen feel that their complaints are being listened to and that if they are reasonable, some relief will be given. I strongly recommend that these meetings be continued.
I wish to thank the minister on behalf of the industry for coming out last fall, and I desire to thank him for what he did not do on that occasion. In making this statement, I do not want it to be taken as cheap sar= casm. A small section of the industry made up their minds as to what he was going to do; every political, financial, economic and social influence was brought to bear. He was not to be allowed to take a bath without being accompanied by some of the elect. Banquets were held which only the elite were permitted to attend; he was to be supplied wiui food, flattery and fiction, and it was determined that he was to see only through their eyes. But what did they get? The minister turned out to be, in the vermicular of British Columbia, a wise guy, almost as wise as he looks. He sat and listened and drank it all in, and looked wise and the more he listened and the more he drank, the wiser he looked. That is about all they got out of him. A few days later he insisted on attending an open meeting of fishermen held in the same town, where there were no flourishes, no sycophancies, no banquets, no flowers, but he listened to the orderly presentation of the views of twenty thousand working fishermen. He listened attentively and courteously. He did not promise anything, we did not expect that; we wanted only a hearing. He went away. When the regulations came out, he had not given us much we asked for, but he had rejected the views put forward by the vested interests. There were three major proposals presented to him by them, and he was to be compelled to adopt them. He turned them down. I am prepared to say, without fear of contradiction, that if he had granted any one or all three of those things 22110-35
it would have spelled disaster and ruin to thousands of working fishermen. I must admit that the minister did fall from grace in one respect, or rather I will not say "fall", I will just say, "slipped". It was just a cog. He gave way in his regulations on two small points, unfortunately in the district which I represent. This will inure to the benefit of a gentleman who was the campaign manager of my opponent. While I chronicle that side slip, so to speak, I must admit that as regards the general industry as a whole, it was in two entirely minor matters.
If I have time there are two or three suggestions I should like to make. I have the backing of meetings of fishermen and boards of trade in asking that the minister should not give more power to the chief supervisor of fisheries in British Columbia. He has too much power already. We do not want any Mussolinis in British Columbia. Give power and authority to some officials and they rise to the occasion and become bigger and better men. Others merely-swell. Again I would say, as the minister values his reputation, let him refrain from having any part or lot with the Hon. Mr. Howe, Commissioner of Fisheries of British Columbia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Alan Webster Neill: I see these words awake an echo amongst British Columbia members. He is a very nice gentleman, but his ignorance of fishery matters is appalling and his credulity is colossal. About a year ago the privy council in London gave the provincial government power to regulate the manufacture of fish after they were caught, not before. This gentleman was induced in his innocence to formulate a series of quibbling regulations by means of which he was going to wrest the power from the minister who sits opposite; he was going to take away our jurisdiction over the catching of fish. The result as regards the condition of the common fisherman would have very much resembled that in Russia. It certainly would have been economic slavery. The members of the local house, Liberals and Conservatives alike, united to fight the proposition in a committee of the local house. At last the Commissioner threw up his hands and admitted that the whole thing had been conceived by arrangement and born in ignorance. That was the end of that. A few weeks afterwards I read in one of his party papers-and I suppose it was correct-that he said his scheme was getting along nicely, but the member for Comox-Alberni had gone up and down the coast "sowing his poison" and he himself had

The Address-Mr. Neill

"reaped the whirlwind." I did not know that reaping the whirlwind was the repercussion of poison; I thought that the first reaction would be a tummy-ache. The gentleman's metaphor was very much mixed. It suggests that he has little knowledge of medicine, but I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that his knowledge of medicine is profound as compared with his knowledge, or lack of knowledge, of fishery matters. Defeated in that attempt, he has adopted another line of procedure, and is now trying to work up propaganda to get this government and parliament to hand over to him the whole of the rights o.ver the fishing industry. All I say to that is: God forbid. We do not know very much about the minister at Ottawa, but what little we do know is rather to his credit, and I think we will take this position, that we would rather have the devil at Ottawa-he will excuse the term; it is used as one of endearment-of whom we know little, than the devil at Victoria of whom we know all too much.
I do not know whether I have time to say a word on the question of fishery guardians. They are temporary men appointed for from two to five months every year. They are not *Civil Service Commission appointees, and therefore they are not entitled to the soldiers' preference by law, but surely the government will admit that they are entitled to the preference in so far as it comes under political patronage. That is to say, these men will be appointed by patronage in accordance with the custom "but I hope they will give a preference to present employees and to the returned men. .The system I followed in days gone by was that if a man had been employed for two years and there was no kick from the department as to his work he should be left on, no matter what his politics were. This gave the department good servants, efficient men, because they knew that it was not politics but attention to their duties that kept them in their positions. What is to be done to-day? I very much fear they are going to revert to a system of political appointment only. I know a man who has given six years' good service and who has been told that he will have to apply for the endorsation of the local Conservative Association. That means that some political appointee, and not even a returned man, will get the job. That is not going to make for good service. I should like to read part of a resolution passed by a soldiers' body, which, after reciting the facts outlined above, says:
Therefore the Courtenay branch of the Canadian Legion beg to recommend,-

First, that where men have held such positions for two or more years without complaint from their superior officers, they should be reappointed.
Second, that when there are vacancies, the branches of the legion in the districts where the vacancies occur (or the nearest thereto) be asked to nominate returned men suitable for the position.
I think two or three of these resolutions have been sent to the minister and I would suggest that he take the stand that those who have done good service, who' have not taken any part in politics, and especially those who are returned men, should be left alone.
I have just time for a word more regarding the Imperial conference. I regret the failure of that conference. Criticism has been made of the methods of approach and also of the result. A great deal of it I fear was true. I fear that the wisest methods were not adopted, but behind and beyond those methods is there not this fundamental cause, so to speak, namely that Canada rejected the British preference? If she had not done that the result might have been different. At least it appeared to Great Britain that- we rejected the British preference, although I do not think we did. The issue was so involved with other things that it was not possible to state the situation clearly. But Great Britain saw it in that light, and that was primarily the cause of the non-success of the conference. More diplomatic methods might have been applied. I believe in "vox populi, vox dei," in accepting the decision of the people. Nevertheless it is possible to say that I regret the decision if it was clearly against the British preference, because I think that was a mistake. Speaking from an entirely selfish, mercenary point of view_ and __for the moment as one whose horizon is bounded by a Canadian " sspectr I think it would have been better for us, better for Canada, if we had united ourselves along those close and intimate lines that trade produces, with our own kith and kin across the water rather than with the country to the south of us, who, however friendly for the moment, may at any time- and this has happened-cut all those bonds of trade and turn us loose with a disorganized trade condition on our bands from which we cannot recover for many years. Apart from any sentimental regard whatever, I think it would be better if we dealt with our own breed. I hope the day will come soon when we may secure a greater measure of British preference, which cannot but be to the mutual benefit of Canada, Great Britain and the British Empire itself.


Mr. L. DUGUAY (Lake St. John) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate

The Address-Mr. Duguay
myself with previous speakers in congratulating the mover1 and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I especially want to congratulate the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier) for having stood up as the representative of the Acadian minority. With reference to the question of minorities, permit me to go back to March 20, 1931, when the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) stated in the house, "If Mr. Anderson is allowed to do to-day what he intends to do out west in Saskatchewan, where does the fault lie?" I answer that the fault rests not only on Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but also on the Liberal party as a whole. Last year, that party had the opportunity of proving its sincerity in connection with the rights of the minority, but instead of vindicating here in this House of Commons, the rights which it haughtily proclaims in the province of Quebec, it is content to take a different attitude as I shall show by referring to last year's Hansard, at page 1699:
I think the hon. member for Labelle and the house as a whole can trust the sense of justice and fairness of the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan and their respective governments to deal generously and fairly with every class of the community.
Mr. Lapointe:	That is really what is being
done.
Mr. Speakman:	I quite appreciate that in
the terms of the argument. I am applying my remarks rather to the argument of the member for Labelle.
Mr. Lapointe:	That is really what is being
done. It_ is a, mark of our confidence in the two provinces instead of keeping this endowment fund here w'e are transferring it to them.
They then expressed their confidence in the Saskatchewan government which is the same one in power to-day. For instance, in the last general election, the Prime Minister of Quebec himself, according to the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), took advantage of these prejudices against the Conservative party in Quebec. Fortunately, many Quebec ridings gave little credence to them, and, to-day, more than twenty members from that province are here to straighten things out and tell the house that Conservatives deal with the French language with equity and are happy to proclaim that, under the present government the rights of minorities are as well safeguarded as they were under the previous administration. Moreover, sir, I may state that personally I am entirely opposed to Mr. Anderson's policy and that I would never sacrifice the rights of minorities for political gain, because to me principles are above party interests.
Some hon. members opposite shouted: "Shame, shame," when they were unmasked
22110-35J
by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne). But what do they think, for instance, of Mr. Olivar Asselin, chief editor of the Canada, a Liberal newspaper of Montreal, who wrote in his pamphlet entitled: "Sir Wilfrid Laurier", at page 8:
The Dominion cabinet, in which were still to be found a few of the fathers of confederation, for decency's sake, hesitated to definitely break off with the traditions of Macdonald and Cartier, and became alarmed. They wished to gain time, consult the courts with reference to some terms which to all men of good will-seemed quite clear. The courts having acknowledged the rights of Catholics, after years of delay, the government decided to act. The* cabinet divided. Mr. Laurier might, by adhering to the right cause have assured its triumph, and thereby might have helped in guiding the federal authorities in the right path whence they had been drifting away for ever so long. However, the opportunity of being raised to power was too alluring, it was he on the contrary who, the first, declared war, siding with the government despoiler, shouting: "Hands off Manitoba!" He was the first in this crisis, and the first since 1867, with the exception of a few fanatics whom all parties had always kept at a distance, he laid down as a principle the absolute sovereignty of provinces in matters of education. All whose sentiments were anti-Catholic and anti-French, in Canada, grouped around him.
That is what the chief editor, himself, of this Liberal newspaper of Montreal wrote at the time. When a Conservative, not long ago, stated very similar views, they shouted: "shame", yet, the author of this article, is given high praise for his editorials in the Canada and they feel proud in handing over to him the management of -this partisan newspaper.
If this is the way, sir, that the Liberals protect the rights of minorities, I am glad to see the Conservative party in power, because I am convinced that these rights are better safeguarded under Conservative than under Liberal rule.
Let us, sir, broach another subject. May I ask what in substance has been advised by our opponents since the outset of this session? They delivered many speeches. They especially proclaimed that the Conservatives had not fulfilled their pledges. May I, previous to indicating how the present government fulfilled their pledges, state what the Liberals did with theirs? At the opening of the first session of the Liberal government on March 9, 1922, the following words are put in the speech from the throne:
Whilst of the opinion that unemployment relief is fundamentally a municipal and provincial responsibility, my government has felt that as conditions have arisen in a measure out of the late w'ar, they would be justified in continuing for the period of the winter months the expedient of supplementing by grants from

The Address-Mr. Hurtubise
the federal treasury the relief or contributions of provinces and municipalities for the purpose of alleviating actual distress.
A little further in the same speech from the throne, we find:
The stream of immigration to the Dominion was much interrupted and restricted during the war. Now that the blessing of peace is with us, a renewal of efforts to bring in new settlers must be made. My government are fully alive to the importance of this question and will use every reasonable endeavour to attract to our country people of the most desirable class with particular regard to settlement on our undeveloped lands.
The Liberal government alleviated unemployment which existed in 1922 by bringing to our shores, in the space of 9 years, from 1921 to 1930, more than 1,150,000 immigrants who cost the country 820,000,000. Under the Liberal regime, the right hon. Mr. King absolutely stated that he had wiped out unemployment. Yet, a year ago, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) requested the government to take immediate steps to relieve unemployment. What was the government's answer? I shall quote, for the benefit of members on the left who shouted: "No, no", when the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) told them that they had denied there was any unemployment, the baffling statements of their leader, on April 3, 1930, at page 1226 of Hansard:
.... we have no right to say that there is any national unemployment problem in this country.
He went further and stated:
.... that there is no way in which you can more effectively defeat the possibility of investment of capital in your country than to seek to create the impression in other lands, and throughout your own,- that conditions are _ not prosperous, that they are bad and that there are within this country large numbers of unemployed.
Last year, mention of unemployment was not permitted, however, this year they are in the opposition and last year's scruples are set aside.
In 1922, the government wished to relieve unemployment by bringing immigrants to this country. What was the policy of the Conservative government in 1930? They admitted that unemployment existed and their first step was to stop immigration; secondly they called a conference of delegates from all the provinces; thirdly they convoked an emergency session-which was never to take place according to our opponents-and lastly they appropriated an amount of $20,000,000, thereby giving work to thousands of unemployed. Yet notwithstanding all this, we have done nothing according to our hon. friends, to alleviate the

present crisis! Hon. members in the opposition, sir, in order to belittle the acts of the present administration, unceasingly lay stress on the pledges which we made. These pledges, neither the government nor the people will forget and they will be carried out for the greatest welfare of the country.
What is very interesting also is to remind the opposition of their 1921 pledges and find out what became of them. They were, first, to force people of means to pay the war expenditure in the shape of an income tax. This tax, in 1922, brought in a revenue of $78,000,000; in 1929 under the Liberal regime, it had already decreased to $69,000,000. Instead of increasing this tax they decreased it. This was in violation of their first pledge. Then, the war expenditure was to be paid by business profit taxes. In 1922, this brought in $23,000,000; in 1929, it gave but $450,000.
The sales tax was to be abolished to help the poor ratepayers. The tax amounted to 5 per cent in 1922. TJie Liberals increased it to 6 per cent, to reduce it later to 4, 3 and 2 per cent. But thanks to these increases, the Liberals drew from the people $180,000,000 more than the Conservative administrations.
The cost of living was also to be reduced. In 1922, the weekly family budget for five people was $21.52. After nine years of Liberal administration it fell to $20.21, that is a decrease of $1.21. Labour wages are considerably lower so that living conditions are harder to-day than they were at that time. One wonders what would have happened in Canada had the Liberals remained in power.
We have been listening to their complaints, since the opening of the session, that we are doing nothing to alleviate unemployment. But what suggestion to alleviate unemployment have they made to the government? Very seldom since confederation has a government, presenting its first speech from the throne been subjected to such an avalanche of criticisms. If they are truly desirous as they proclaimed during the elections, to promote the welfare of the people and remedy unemployment, why do they, to-day, oblige the government to listen to these lengthy speeches which are devoid of all suggestion tending to alleviate unemployment? It seems to me that the best way to prove their sincerity would be to curtail the number of their speeches and ask the government to act immediately.
I should like to make suggestions, but under the present circumstances, I shall desist seeing that I expect the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to enact measures which will be very helpful to farmers.

The Address-Mr. Hurtubise
The Quebec farmers especially are suffering from the unemployment crisis. The majority of them had no crops last year, the consequence is they feel very depressed. I hope that the measures brought down by the hon. Minister of Agriculture will be a boon to all farmers. The Lake St. John county which I am privileged to represent is anxiously awaiting these measures.
In closing my remarks, sir, I wish to state that the government may depend on my entire support and that it rejoices me to think that some day prosperity will return again to this country under the standard of the Conservative party.


Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, my first thought is to express a feeling of diffidence in the presence of hon. ministers of the crown and members of this house, who for the most part are my seniors in parliamentary experience. 1 .therefore, sir, beg your indulgence. At the outset, allow me to make use of the French language, it being a privilege for which I am indebted to a large number of my constituents who were the pioneers of New Ontario; settlers, artisans, manufacturers and professional men. In spite of many adversities they succeeded in having their language, usages and customs respected, and in reaching an enviable place in the community. I shall thereafter speak in English; I owe it to my English-speaking friends who have been kindness itself towards my compatriots and with whom also we form a large family, working harmoniously together for the common weal. Ho! there are among us, like in Saskatchewan, extremists who preach hatred and discord, but their number is limited and sensible people pay no attention to them. It would have given me much pleasure to be one of those who congratulated you, . Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of your election to the speakership of this house. I have full confidence that you will, sir, continue with all fairness, dignity and ability to direct the deliberations of the house. My congratulations extend also to the hon. members who moved and seconded the address in reply to the speech from the throne. It was a credit to them and I wish them success in their future career. I also want to extend my congratulations to the leader of the opposition for his splendid speech which will be handed down to posterity as the most complete, up-to-date and to the point speech in the present crisis. It will be looked upon as a "vademecum" by the Liberal members and perhaps also by the members on the opposite side. Speeches both well thought out and instructive have been delivered since the opening of the session, however, I wish to mention particularly that of the hon. member
for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand)-the riding in which I had the pleasure of polling my first Liberal vote. He vividly pictured the decline of agriculture, made worse by these few months of protection under the present administration, and he suggested the remedy for these ills. Then I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien), who gave us an outline of the situation on the western farms. I entirely agree with these hon. gentlemen and I trust the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) will not turn a deaf ear to those appeals and that he will soon acquaint us with the measures which, in his opinion, will remedy these conditions. We have already been waiting a few months. After all the pledges made during the last election, and especially the one with reference to the immediate relief of unemployment, what do we see? The $20,000,000 are spent; unemployment is very much in evidence everywhere the price of farm products is ever on the decrease; the elevators are still overflowing with grain, the granting of old age pensions is made conditional on the state of our finances; the highway from coast to coast which was to give work to hundreds of thousands of men has not been decided upon. To shelter themselves the Dominion government blame our provincial governments and vice versa; the deepening of the St. Lawrence channel is still under consideration and as things stand it will yet be for some years to come. The partial tariff revision enacted last, session has been so unpopular that the government has been obliged to amend or cancel almost all their decisions. Every day, through correspondence, conversation and the press protests are lodged against the raising of the tariff and we are earnestly entreated not to allow the government to have their own way during the present session. Since July, 1930, sir, the Canadian people have been expecting a well-defined policy in all the various departments, yet the ministers of the crown travel about, deliver speeches and lectures, sometimes are even present to listen to the debates in the house, but remain dumb. When shall we expect the next sequence of pledges? The hon. ministers of the crown have the floor.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks in English as I feel it is my duty to present the views of my constituency, which is composed of a considerable number of farmers and also a large number of labourers employed in the mining, lumber and railway industries.
I have listened with great interest to the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), which I believe-although its length and content and

The Address-Mr. Hurtubise
preparation did not suit the government-was the most comprehensive, detailed and elaborate that I have heard. I have also listened to the answer of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who spoke more laboriously than during the last electoral campaign. Many other well-prepared and interesting speeches were made by hon. members on both sides of the house. The trend of those speeches has been along the line of the promises made by the government last summer, its legislation passed thereafter, and the benefits derived therefrom.
In my part of the country the people-although the majority had great confidence in the late government's policy, and did not let themselves be humbugged by the alluring promises made my opponents-have yet to see the fulfilment of most of the promises and to experience the benefits to be derived from the legislation passed by the government since its advent to power. The farmers, who have been toiling under great difficulties for several years on account of the lack of encouragement from the provincial government, had hoped to have some temporary assistance from the 820,000,000 voted last session; but the benefits received have been far from what was expected.
I congratulate the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand) upon the very valuable information contained in his speech. He dealt with the question of farming as a man who knows something about the cost of farm production and farm revenues. I congratulate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beau-bien) on his splendid speech. I happen to know a little about the difficulties encountered by the-western farmer, as I_ have a brother in Alberta whom I visit regularly. I fully concur with the hon. member because I too believe that agriculture is the basic industry of the country, and unless something is done to check this state of marasmus-and it is not exaggerated as we were led to believe by the right hon. Prime Minister-general conditions, I submit, will continue to be more and more embarrassing for those that have the duty and the responsibility to guide the destinies of this country.
I cannot see how our farming industry can be helped otherwise than, first, by lowering the tariff and increasing the British preference, for the British market at present is the best outlet for Canadian trade since the United States and other countries have closed their doors by high tariffs; secondly, by lowering the freight rates which are such an item of cost in some parts of the country; third, by giving the farmers a low rate of interest on loans, not only to oarry them over the crisis,

but for an indefinite time until a change in rate is judged necessary; and, fourthly, by representation of agriculture on the Canadian National Railway board on account of the farmers being particularly concerned in transportation.
In northern Ontario the farmers are leaving their farms every year, not on account of extravagance in living, but on account of the high co6t of production and of the high cost of living. They have to pay more and more every year for their farm implements, automobiles, trucks, household equipment, groceries and clothing. At the last election they were led to believe that good times were around the comer and that the only way not to miss the opportunity was to vote Conservative. Then they would be able to sell their farm products at almost any price that they might ask, and in their spare time they could work on that famous trans-Canada highway and participate in the large sums of money to be voted for that purpose. Some believed it, but the majority in my county did not. To-day the farmer can get hardly anything for his butter and eggs, and the trans-Canada highway has been undertaken only at points where a few men can get a few days work at a wage that is next to slavery, as was said by my hon. friend from Kenora (Mr. Heenan) Yes, since last fall I have received letters from some describing the conditions under which they were working, and from others asking me if it was reasonable to work at wages so low as 30 cents an hour-eight hours a day, $2.40, $14.40 a week. In other places the men were employed only three days a week, thus earning only $720. I know a man who is taking legal proceedings against the northern development branch for money earned and refused to him, I have proof of this under my hand.
Labour conditions in northern Ontario have been going from bad to worse. To-day I have received my home paper, the Sudbury Star, of April 8, which contains a long statement by the chairman of the local relief committee. Let me quote the following extract:
An idea of the situation this winter may be had from the records of the relief committee. On the first of November there were 415 married men registered out of work. By December 31, this number had increased to 1,226 and on April 3 it was 1,693. On the first of November there were 498 single men registered, on December 31 there were 3,052 and on April 3, 3,438. Of this total registration there were, of course, a large number of men given part time work throughout the season.
Since the soup kitchen opened in November there have been 90,329 meals given out at an approximate cost to the city of $5,419. The

The Address-Mr. Hurtubise
kitchen is still in operation, serving an average of 425 meals a day. and the city is at present caring for 170 families.
This expense is not borne by the government, but by the local authorities. I submit this confirms my statement that labour conditions in northern Ontario have been going from bad to worse.
In 1919 there was an understanding between the Minister of Lands and Forests of Ontario and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, who was then member of the provincial legislature representing the Constituency of Kenora, that in northern Ontario the wages whould be 35 cents an hour, that is, $3.50 a day, or $21 a week for all government work. At the last session, there was a promise by the government, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Kenora, that the prevailing rate of wages would be adhered to. Although this was provided for in the Unemployment Relief Act, we find that those rates have been cut down. I say that the government is in duty bound to refund the difference to the employees. We have reports from papers of March 6, 1931, that labour conditions in northern Ontario are good. Those reports are not correct. Every day I receive letters, some are anonymous, because the writers do not dare sign their names for fear of losing their pitiful jobs-describing the favoritism practiced by the friends of the government and the hardship the writers have to endure. When the Minister of Labour reports that conditions in northern Ontario are good, either he is misrepresenting the facts personally or he is being misled by his friends. The Prime Minister says conditions are improving all over the country. While this may be so in a few isolated places, in the majority of cases they are going from bad to worse. During the last campaign the Conservatives said that the federal government, which then was Liberal, would not cooperate on a fifty per cent basis, but there is nothing in the sessional papers to show that a province ever asked for help.
When I consider the psychological effect created by the propaganda of our Conservative friends during the last campaign; the unrealizable promises which were made; the policies advocated which thereafter proved impracticable and even noxious to the consumer while beneficial only to the few, it is not surprising to see so much unrest in this country and to hear so much talk about communism. I do not want to refer to the matter of trade between this country and Russia, where at present communism is being tried out, because this trade proposition seems
to be a debatable question. This is proved by the diverse expressions of opinion by financiers and leading men of Canada, and even by some hon. members of this house. Sudbury, through publicity, has the name of being a centre of communism. Probably that is so, but let me say that of the large number . of immigrants who have come to our city representing many nations, a great many have been naturalized, have adopted the laws and the ways of living of the Canadian people and to-day rank among our best citizens. They are industrious and law-abiding citizens, to whom I owe this tribute of consideration.
If there is such a state of unrest and such an attraction to communistic ideas, it is due in great part to the lack of foresight in the province in not preventing part time work in many of our industries, such as the pulp industry. It is also due to the fact that, particularly in this present crisis, the people of Canada have been living on promises. When these promises have not been fulfilled or, having been fulfilled, have proved worthless and even injurious to the mass of the people and had to be changed or cancelled, we have been told to be patient. We have been waiting, waiting and waiting, but hope deferred maketh the heart sick.
Since the opening of the session some hon. members have referred to Canada, in the present crisis, as a very sick patient. As a doctor myself, I believe the patient is very sick. In this world-wide epidemic of markets crumbling, industries closing and people walking the streets waiting anxiously for the proper advice and treatment to save them from disaster, Doctor King said, " This is going to be a serious epidemic. Let us confer so as to not make a blunder. We shall see what germs are the cause of thi3 disease, what are the reasons for these clinical symptoms and what treatment we will then apply." But Doctor Bennett came rushing in, saying, "This is no time to confer; this is a time to act. We shall use an empirical treatment. We shall first give the patient a good dose of some preparation of opium, such as 'a special session', immediate disappearance of unemployment', 'good markets for the western wheat', 'good markets for the farmers' eggs and butter', 'pensions for old age', 'the immediate construction of a trans-Canada highway which will give work to thousands and thousands of people,' 'a St. Lawrence waterway which will take care of our farm and manufactured products' and then we shall give him a good rubbing with the famous salve called 'protection', the great panacea which has been advocated for so many years."


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk):: In rising to make my first speech in this house I am perhaps in the mental state of Macbeth, as described by Master William Shakespeare when he said:
My functions are smothered in surmise, and nothing is but what is not.
The House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, is a strange place to a new member, and although it is called parliament it is perhaps the last place in which a new member, even if he be a lawyer, desires to speak. I spoke to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) before the house met this afternoon and he advised me that whatever I had to say perhaps I had better first try it out on the dog; but as I have no dog I am sorry to say that I shall have to try it out in the first instance and inflict it upon this parliament.
It is a very strange thing indeed for me to be here this evening. It is rather in the nature of a prophecy and also rather in the nature of the 'realization of a dream. Perhaps I shall discover it is a nightmare. But about sixteen years ago there was a young friend who, with myself, was preparing to go overseas. We came up to this hill one evening about 1915 when parliament was in memorable session. We stood overlooking the Ottawa river, and my friend, who is no longer here, turned to me and said: "You know, I have often dreamed that some day I shall be here in parliament. I don't know that I shall ever realize that dream, but if I am not here perhaps you will be." Mr. Speaker, it is one of the mysteries of mysteries that my friend, William George McIntyre, now lies asleep on Vimy Ridge, while I am here speaking in his place and, I hope, in the same spirit in which he spoke when he thus addressed me some sixteen years ago. I have wondered, especially since coming here, just what was in my friend's mind. I believe it was this: I believe he felt, as we all did

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
in those days, that the unity of our country was the great thing; not only the unity of our country but the unity of the world. It was that principle for which we fought, and it is that principle for which I trust I am here now.
Reflecting on that sentiment, I am prompted to make a protest. I desire here and now, as a young member, to protest against the kind of utterances that were made prior to the last election by certain hon. members then supporting the Liberal party. I refer by name to the Hon. Senator Lemieux, the Hon. Senator Casgrain and the Hon. Senator Dan-durand. I say that I believe it becomes me to protest on this occasion against the utterances which were made by these gentlemen just prior to July 28 last when, in the frenzy of fear lest they be driven from power, they tried to divide Canada again, in spite of the principles of unity which they had advocated at other times and which they should have advocated then. I did intend, Mr. Speaker, to bring their words here before parliament, to register them here in the records of this house, and protest against this sort of language as the kind of thing that ought not to be in this country. But I do not believe they deserve that much notice. I think, it would be far better for us and all Canada to remember the words and the work of Thomas d'Arcy McGee, the great patriot orator and martyr of confederation. Perhaps I can indicate to the house better what I mean if I quote what Thomas d'Arcy McGee said in 1861:
We Irishmen, Protestants and Catholics alike, born in a land of religious controversy, should never forget that we now live and act in a land of the fullest religious and civil liberty. All we have to do is each for himself, to keep down dissensions, which can only weaken, impoverish and keep back the country; each for himself to do all he can to increase its strength, its wealth and its reputation; each for himself, you and you gentlemen, and all of us, to welcome every talent, to take every invention, to cherish every gem of art, to foster every gleam of authorship, to honour every acquirement and every natural gift, to lift ourselves to the level of our destinies, to rise above all low limitations and narrow circumscriptions, to cultivate that, true catholicity of spirit which embraces all creeds, all classes and all races, in order to make our boundless province, so rich in known and unknown resources, a great, new northern nation.
When I quote the words of Thomas d'Arcy McGee I cannot help reflecting and wondering why he who was once the hon. Speaker of this house should forget that spirit and should propagate in the province of Quebec words animated and conceived against that very spirit.
There is an incident which Mr. McGee quotes in his confederation addresses, where he speaks about the establishment of the first Protestant church in Montreal. He said that .about the year 1790 the Presbyterians, both Canadian and American, organized themselves into a religious community in Montreal. They had no church, but they were given quarters by the Recollet Fathers there. Just imagine, Mr. Speaker, a situation like that, a situation where the disciples of John Knox were given by the Recollet Fathers in Montreal quarters wherein to carry out their religious observances. There was recorded in the minutes of that first Presbyterian organization their thanks to the Recollet Fathers, and it is recorded that they presented them with fifty-six .pounds of wax tapers and one hogshead of wine as a thank offering for what they had done for the First Presbyterian communion in Montreal. Thomas d'Arcy McGee in speaking of that said:
Gentlemen. I think this is an incident which could not be recorded and is perhaps not recorded in the annals of any other country.
I stand here a supporter of the Conservative party in this house and I am pleased and gratified beyond expression that we have supporting this government so many hon. members from the old province of Quebec. I am unable to speak their beautiful language; but I say to them as a British Canadian that I am glad they are here; I am glad that the long night is over and that the harvest has come to those who have stood for Canadian unity and for a union of the two races. Not only am I pleased, but I know the country is pleased and I believe it is a great thing for Canada.
If Your Honour will permit me, I desire to comment on the remarks of the right hon. gentleman, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). In the great oration which he delivered he seemed to have the fervour of Edmund Burke, but I believe he had also the satire of Sheridan. The right hon. gentleman spoke for four and a half hours, and it is remarkable to me, representing as I do the constituency of Selkirk, when I recall that the communist candidate in that riding also spoke for four and a half hours. I believe he was just about as successful as was the right hon. gentleman in his diatribe against the Prime Minister. I do not believe it to be incumbent upon me, nor should I deem it wise, to analyze too freely or too carelessly some of the utterances made by the right hon. gentleman, but there is one in particular to which I desire to make reference.

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
I believe he was quoting the words of Sheridan when he said:
"I think, father," said he, "that many men who are called great patriots in the House of Commons, are great humbugs."
Perhaps it would be invidious for me to analyze that statement or to ask this house if it believed that there is any hon. member here who is a humbug, or if it is quite sure who are the patriots.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Herbert Stitt: Patriotism always
means sacrifice, and I make that statement in spite of the laughter of the hon. gentlemen from Manitoba. I repeat again, patriotism entails sacrifice, but I do not know that the right hon. gentleman who used that term has made that sacrifice usually coupled with patriotism.	.
The implication contained in the remarks of the right hon. gentleman were nothing more than this: that the Prime Minister and leader of this house made proposals at the recent Imperial conference which were humbug.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Stitt: If my wits do not leave me altogether, I believe before I have finished that I will be able to prove that that term has boomeranged back to the leader of the opposition. I believe it will be made plain to everybody that the man who introduced that word in this house was himself the humbug.
With Your Honour's permission I would like to quote from an article by Mr. John L. Garvin, which appeared in the London Observer of -October 12, 1930. Speaking of the Imperial conference, Mr. Garvin said:
,, ()n. Wednesday the conference assembled at the foreign office to get down to business. The overseas statesmen spoke with the unprecedented frankness required at this juncture. Une and all they explained the only policy that can be useful to them and to us-extended preference for British manufacturers in their markets and broad reciprocal preference for dominion staples in ours. Other methods may be supplementary but they must be subsidiary. Nothing but preference all round can establish a ioundation for the closer economic cooperation of the empire.
Will hon. members please note these words: Mr. R. B. Bennett for Canada led the line.
Then all the other prime ministers of the self-governing dominions were behind him. I would much rather take the word of Mr. John L. Garvin, the greatest living journalist, than I would the word of the right hon. gentleman opposite. In the issue of the Observer of the following week, Mr. Garvin says:
(Mr. J. H. Stitt.]
The Daily Herald's proclamation does not mean the cabinet's no to Canada, it means the government's no to all the dominions. It is the dead hand of the old doctrinaire Liberalism laid upon the life of the empire and upon all that is fresh and growing and creative in the life of labour. Mr. Bennett of Canada is a Conservative appealing for change; Mr. Scullin, the Australian premier, is as good a labour man as any of them. Every child knew that reciprocal preference for Dominion staples in the mother country and for British manufacturers overseas, would be the fundamental proposition of the conference.
Will hon. gentlemen opposite please note the words:
The Daily Herald's proclamation does not mean the cabinet's no to Canada, it means the government's no to all the dominions.
There was a time in the history of' this country when Canadians led the line. As one of those Canadians who had a humble task in the line, I am happy to state that I followed the right hon. the Prime Minister and he certainly led the line and showed that Canada was the foremost of the overseas self-governing dominions.
Who was it used the word "humbug" in the first instance? If he will listen to me, I will direct my remarks to the right hon. the leader of the opposition. I believe it was Mr. Thomas, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who used this word, and I would ask to be permitted to quote from pages 30 and 31 of the Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire. The following are in part the words of Mr. Thomas:
T ou do not render them a service by running away from the facts. They-
Speaking of the dominion prime ministers- -are prepared as we are prepared, to face them. They value these things and say so, but they much prefer to face the facts. We do not discuss these matters with them as partisans. Mr. Bennett did not come here as a Tory leader. Mr. Forbes did not come as a Liberal leader. Mr. Scullin did not come as a Labour leader. They all came as representatives of the dominions prepared to subordinate their particular party advantage and to examine the whole thing in the light of what is best for all.
Would you please note these words, which are those of Mr. Thomas:
The idea that they went away bitterly disappointed only exists in the minds of those who know nothing about the matter.
I believe that is almost sufficient criticism of the diatribe that was offered against the Prime Minister. Mr. Thomas continues:
It is not true, and I still say that whenever it opens, the Ottawa conference will have the benefit of the examination of a hundred and one matters which will be to the advantage of all concerned. We have said that we will go there free to examine every proposal on its

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
merits and not blindly say we accept it before we know what it is. That is not the way to run a government.
The best evidence that we have is that of Mr. Thomas himself who compliments the overseas prime ministers upon the manner in which they presented their case. If the attitude of the Prime Minister and his supporters at the Imperial conference was one really inimical to the welfare of the empire, and if hon. gentlemen opposite are real patriots, if they really have at heart the welfare of the empire, would they stand there hour after hour and day after day trying to engender in the minds of the people of Canada and possibly in the minds of the statesmen overseas the idea that the action of our representatives there was inimical to the welfare of the empire? Is that conceivable? It is not logical. The Prime Minister's admirable defence has been heard by all in this house. May I refer again to the words of Mr. Jebb, the historian of the Imperial conference, who said that the policy of the present Prime Minister was practically the same as that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I notice that hon. gentlemen opposite took umbrage at that statement. The ex-Minister of .National Defence (Mr. Ralston) devoted almost his entire speech to an effort to explain to the house that the policy of the present Prime Minister was not that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but I refer the house particularly to the words of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I believe he knows something about imperial affairs. What were his words? As reported at page 87 cf this year's Hansard, the hon. member for Labelle said that the Prime Minister was right when he said that he practically imitated the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Does that not reduce the whole argument of hon. gentlemen opposite to an absurdity? If what the Prime Minister proposed was humbug, then if Mr. Scullin and the other prime ministers stood behind our leader they were all humbugs, and if, as the hon. member for Labelle says, the Prime Minister's policy was practically an imitation of that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we have this unwitting Comment of the present leader of the Liberal party in this house, that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's proposals were humbug. That is analyzing logically the attitude of the right hon. the leader of the opposition.
When one considers the argument presented by the leader of the opposition, it. is best described by a story told by Mr. Peter McArthur some years ago in Toronto. When I heard this lengthy speech of the ex-Prime Minister I said to myself: It must be a phenomenon; it is absolutely phenomenal, with the country in the state in which it is,
that a man charged with the responsibility of leading His Majesty's loyal opposition should stand up for four and a half hours in the house and criticize, criticize, criticize, the policy of the Prime Minister, and notwithstanding the extremity in which we find ourselves, offer practically no remedy for the solution of our ills. Let me give the house the story of Peter McArthur. He was a good Liberal, and he was relating the story of a coloured preacher who was fond of using the word "phenomenon." After he had preached a rather lengthy discourse, he was proceeding home with one of his parishioners, and he said to his parishioner, "Did you notice the use of the word phenomenon?" The parishioner replied, "I sure did, but I do not know what it means." The preacher said, "I will tell you what it means." He put his hand into his pocket, and took out a nickel, saying, "That nickel is not a phenomenon." He pointed to a cow in the field and he said, "That cow is not a phenomenon." He also pointed to a thistle and he said, "That thistle is not a phenomenon. Do you hear that lark singing? That is not a phenomenon. But if that cow should try to chew the cud on that nickel and sit down on that thistle and then try to sing like a lark, it would be a phenomenon." It occurs to me that that definition of the word "phenomenon" accurately describes the attitude of the leader of the opposition towards the Prime Minister in his work at the Imperial conference.
I heard the wards of the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) when he almost shed teal's over the British Empire. I believe he said in effect that the British Empire was a soul, a spirit, and he practically wept tears over it. I could not help thinking that if the right hon. gentleman's leader had been in his true preelection frame of mind he would have stood up, taken his pocket handkerchief from his coat-tail, wiped the tears from his face and said, "Me, too, I stand first for the British Empire." Then, perhaps, in order that the right hon. gentleman and the ex-Minister of Justice might be consoled, I thought in imagination possibly the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) would rise in his best sepulchral manner, hold his hands over the two distressed hon. gentlemen weeping for the British Empire, and say, "Hush ye, hush ye, little pet ye, or the Black Douglas, he will get ye."
It seems to me that some of the addresses which have been presented to the house are very much like the bushel of chaff that contained a couple of grains of wheat which, after you searched for them through the bushel of chaff and found them, were not

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
worth the finding; they were full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Perhaps one of the most remarkable spectacles that we have had in the house was the leader of the opposition working up his eloquence in his apostrophe to freedom in support of his friend the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) who, I believe, is now famous in the house for his pair of white socks. Sometimes it occurs to me that I can express myself a little better in rhyme than in prose. I thought that the right hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Weyburn were on a rocky shore with tall cat-tails growing round and the evening falling about them. These would probably be the appropriate words of the right hon. gentleman in his apostrophe to freedom-and hon. members must realize of course that the hon. member for Weyburn would be there acting as flag boy with the right hon. gentleman:
0	Freedom, sweet Freedom, we weep dear for thee,
We're driven, marooned on the Loyalist rocks,
We fly in high heaven our flag dear for thee,
How bravely it floats-'tis a white pair of socks.
1	think, Mr. Speaker, as the black mantle of night fell over the hon. gentlemen in their rocky island that the frogs in the adjoining waters would take up the call, and probably a very large old bull frog as he jumped into the water would say, "Hoom-bug 1 hoom-bug! hoom-bug! "


John Vallance: I wonder how Hansard will take that down?


James Herbert Stitt: It appears to me,
Mr. Speaker, that much of the speaking in this house is of no avail.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


James Herbert Stitt: Representing as I do the great constituency of Selkirk I wish to make some small contribution towards a solution of the problems which beset this country. In my constituency of Selkirk there is being worked out the problems of the new Canadian nation by representatives of almost every race we have in this country. We are all poor people. During the election campaign and since I have been in this house, by word, letter, telegram I have heard nothing other than the still, sad music of humanity. These people work with their hands. I want to thank, if I may, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) who said some years ago that there was a great deal said in parliament which to her mind did not touch the real 
points at issue. It seemed to her that we should be here honestly and sincerely trying to solve the problems of the country and trying to represent those people who worked with their hands. There are no millionaires in my constituency, not a single one. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, as a Conservative-


An hon. MEMBER:: Make it a Tory.


James Herbert Stitt: All right, a Tory if my hon. friend wishes. I want to thank the right hon. gentleman who leads this government and to thank the government for the magnificent, direct and quick way in which they tried to grapple with the serious problem of unemployment.


An hon. MEMBER:: "Tried" is right.


James Herbert Stitt: A courageous effort was made, Mr. Speaker, and made by a gentleman Whom many people have called a millionaire, a man who in the minds of many people in my constituency would not be able to grapple with the problems of the poor. I say this government is here to-day and that we hon. members on this side of the house are supporting the administration because there was a courageous and heroic presentation made before the electorate, and because there was a man who would make a promise and at least endeavour to carry it out.
There has been a lot of talk about a one man government. Well, I am pleased to support this government even if it is called a one man government, rather than a government which might adequately be described as a no man government. The great difference, Mr. Speaker, between the right hon. gentleman who leads this house do-day and the right hon. gentleman who led the house in the last parliament is the difference between five cents and twenty million dollars. I make this statement in dead earnest.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Herbert Stitt: My hon. friends on the other side of the house may laugh. I want to say however that the poor in this country were crying for bread. In my constituency during the last winter there would have been many cases of starvation and privation had it not been for the courageous attitude of this government and the vote of $20,000,000. When I appeared before my constituents asking for a brief I said that I believed in the principle that a lawyer should never ask for a brief. On that occasion however I did ask for a brief, the greatest brief a lawyer ever had, the brief to represent and plead the case of the

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Selkirk)
poor in the temple of the people. The case of the poor has been heard and I hope will continue to be heard by this government. Look at the position of agriculture in western Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, look at it.


James Herbert Stitt: Yes, what would it have been if hon. gentlemen opposite had been sitting on this side of the house? My hon. friends talk about losing the market for wheat. During the last parliament a member named Mr. Fansher rose in the house and said to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, "What about our wheat?''


An hon. MEMBER:: Well, what about it?


James Herbert Stitt: What about it?
The answer at that time was, " It can look after itself." My hon. friend however got the answer of the Canadian electorate at the last election. What were the economics of the ex-Minister of Finance and the economics of Mr. Crerar? They said, "These are world conditions; we cannot do anything about them. All we need is another 500,000,000 bushels of wheat." That is a sample of the economics preached on the opposite side of the house. Those are the economics hon. members preached to the people of this country, and they received their answer. The answer is that there is a government in power pledged to deal with these problems directly and in a practical way.
I notice that some of the hon. ex-ministers opposite are laughing. As I have listened to this debate I have realized, that particularly by the ex-ministers, the problems of this country are not taken seriously. They are treated as a joke. Our problems were so treated before the last election and that is one of the reasons why the hon. gentlemen are out of power to-day. I wonder how the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, had he been in this house to-day, would have described the four and one-half hour speech of the right hon. the leader of the opposition. I think he would have described it something like this, that it was the distressed and dismal diatribe of a disappointed and dispossessed demagogue. I have listened to speeches by the United Farmer members in this house and in my opinion they have made a real contribution to the debate. Following the long speech of the right hon. gentleman I looked at that honest corner of the chamber and there was not a smile on the face of any hon.
member there. That is how the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition was received.
A few days ago I visited my old home at Smith's Falls. I went to the gentleman who gave me my first shave, and may I say that that is quite a few years ago. He said to me, "Jim, are you in parliament?" I said to him, "Yes, I am." He said "Do you listen to all those speeches?" I said, "Yes, I do." He said, "And did you listen to that four and a half hour speech?" I said, "I did, every word of it." What was his answer? He said, "It is no good for the country; it is not human; it is not human." I do not know whether my time has expired or not-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, go ahead.


James Herbert Stitt: I want to say that I am here to support the government. I am pleased to be in a position to support it and to be a follower of a man of the calibre and character of the right hon. gentleman who went over to England and led the line. In the words of General Jan Smuts, "Humanity has struck its tents and it is on the march." If we are to solve the problems of this country, if we are not to have to scrap all our forms of democracy, call them Liberalism or Pro-gressivism, or whatever you like; if we are to overcome our difficulties we must realize that humanity has struck its tents and that we are on the march. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is impossible for me to answer the letters of my constituents clamouring for work. In the course of his speech, the right hon. leader of the opposition, pointed his finger at the Prime Minister and said:	"Remember how we
handled the affairs of the country, remember how we balanced all our budgets out of taxation. Don't you dare do anything else, don't you try to solve the problem now confronting the Dominion by means of a capital loan." I say to the right hon. leader of the opposition that that is the dead hand of laissez-faire Liberalism, and if the Prime Minister of this country is to be guided by it I do not believe that our problems will be salved. I speak as an honest man. I hoped if I had time, to plead the cause of agriculture and labour as reflected in my constituency.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, last July, in the middle of a year of commercial and financial distress and of worldwide political upheaval, the King government appealed to the people. It was of course defeated. The Conservative party won success by insisting that its chief, now the Prime
o58	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri)
Minister, had a cure for unemployment, that he had a stimulant for the restoration of industry, and that his agricultural policy would enrich the wheat producers and the farmers to the extent of making them millionaires.
Eight months have gone by. Has unemployment been cured, or has it reached its maximum? No. In Canada, as in the countries of Europe, the year 1931 presses forward with its train of financial and political difficulties, and harassed by storms. Everywhere the number of unemployed is increasing; in Great Britain, in Germany, in Italy, in Belgium, in Holland, in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in the United States, in Australia; and even in Canada, under a Conservative government that promised so much, our unemployed still represent about 25 per cent of the membership of the labour unions. Is it not true that agriculture is in a precarious condition, and that manufacturing industry also is endangered by the fall of prices? At this very moment the Canadian farmer is obliged to sacrifice his commodities at prices ridiculously low, so low as not to meet the cost of production. What will become of him? Where do the Bennett government and its supporters stand with their promises to help agriculture, to bring it back to a degree of prosperity even greater than that which it enjoyed under the Liberal government from 1922 until the sad hours of the worldwide economic crisis of 1930? What is the farmer going to do next summer to meet his farming expenses? He finds it hard to get the kind of labour necessary to carry on his farm, and by that time, without foreign markets in prospect in which to sell his crops, and with his local market crowded, he will be in an even more desperate condition than he is at the present time?
And what about our manufacturing industries? Is not the manufacturer to-day sacrificing his surplus stocks on the home market, stocks which he has been holding in his warehouse for a better price? For the past two months he has been throwing his goods on the domestic market at a constantly receding price. Everything is being sold at a sacrifice. As a consequence our industrial plants are not working full time. The budget soon to be brought down will enable us to judge whether the government null be able to give to Canada that era of prosperity promised by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and his supporters during the recent campaign. We very much doubt if that promise will be redeemed. Certainly within the next month we shall be given the opportunity of discussing our friend's budget innovation, called high protection. I am one of those who believe that Canada, from a moral, [Mr. P. Mercier.l
social and commercial point of view, should be part of the whole civilized world; our country should follow the wude road travelled by humanity, and not isolate itself; we should cooperate with the nations of the world in a spirit of good wall; we should obtain commercial exchange of products in order to revive our export trade which shows a constant decrease. As proof of this may I quote the latest official figures of the National Revenue department. These figures constitute a barometer of our commercial condition:
(a)	Net decrease in customs and excise revenue for October, 1930, $11,108,474.04.
(b)	Net	decrease	for	November,	1930,

(e) Net	decrease	for	December.	1930,

(d)	Net decrease for January, 1931,
$4,590,119.12.	'
(e)	Net	decrease	for	February,	1931,

What will be the net decrease for the past month? Our two railways and our maritime transport companies	are	looking for	morebusiness, which is absolutely needed. Our government	railway	and	merchant marine
showed a total deficit of $13,694,008.93 at the end of their last fiscal year.
Hon. gentlemen opposite contend that prosperity is coming back. I see it in their speeches, Mr. Speaker, but it is in no way an accomplished fact nor is there any likelihood of that statement becoming true for some time. Are not the incomes of our professional and business men decreasing? Have not the stock exchanges in Canada been visited by violent declines and real hurricanes which have taken away, piece by piece, the fortunes of the rich, the savings of the professional and business men and even the savings of the imprudent workingmen. The Prime Minister has announced through the press of this country that this year, under his administration, Canada will have a deficit of $100,000,000. With a policy of protection and isolation, Canada, an industrial and farming nation, now enters into a period of budget deficits, unfortunately, to roplace the surpluses of the King government from 1924 to 1930. When the Liberal party relinquished power in 1930 the government showed a surplus over all expenditures of $44,506,000. During that period of Liberal administration there was also a reduction of the colossal debt contracted by the Conservative party from September, 1911, to December, 1921, so surely it is time to say:
Is it not evident that, at times, false doctrines appear to be true?
On reading the newspapers, or European, Canadian and American reviews we see that the anxious world has turned its eyes towards

The Address-Mr. Harris
New York and that land of high protection, the United States. Even with the high tariff protection existing in that country, the condition of the United States has become worse Bankruptcies have increased by 46 per cent; iron production has decreased by 37 per cent ; steel production has also decreased by 35 per cent; the consumption of cotton has declined by 37 per cent and salaries have been decreased by 28 per cent. These are the consequences to-day of that high United States tariff protection. What are we to think of the future of our Dominion now that we are to have a similar protective policy which will be applied by the present government, after the experience at the special session of last September? The Canadian people will have the opportunity to pronounce themselves again and will find the proper remedy. Then the Liberal party will receive the justice it deserves, and which it did not receive in 1930 because the people were deceived.
The people of Canada are now asking the Bennett government to end unemployment as the Prime Minister and his elected candidates promised to do, because unemployment is financially ruining Canada as a whole as well as the individual provinces and municipalities, which are obliged to help the unemployed. The Prime Minister, who is also Minister of Finance, has answered and will answer agais with an increased tariff. He administers a non-patent medicine which is being used at this time by almost all countries. I refer to increased duties, the closure of our border lines to individuals and to merchandise, the laws against dumping and the artificial increase in prices, which is a temporary source of greater profits. These expedients are only attempts to cast off on someone else the weight of the evil which affects Canada as well as the other peoples of the world All the nations are using these expedients at the same time. They have not been useful to any nation, and the situation will be the same in Canada. Increased duties will be of no avail; at the most they will bring about an artificial prosperity -which will last only for a few months. Time will soon tell.
Canada, with a higher tariff, inaugurated at the session last September, is isolating itself. We are witnessing the disappearance of the equilibrium between production and consumption. That can mean only failure. The Liberal party believes in the bringing together of Canada and the other nations of the world; a policy of cooperation must prevail. May I quote, in the French language, the appropriate words of a well known economist, Mr. Guglielmo Ferrero:
II est Evident qu'aueun peuple ne pourra a lui seul, en s'isolant, retablir l'equilibre entre la production et la consommation. C'est encore un probleme universel. Les cinq continents souf-frent d'une maladie commune, et ils ne gueri-ront qu'ensemble. Nous vivons dans une epoque ou la misere et la prosperity font avalanche. Le probleme economique n'est pas d'ailleurs iso-le; il est. lui aussi, lie etroitement a la paix.
Detruit violemment par la guerre, l'equilibre entre la production et la consommation ne pourra se retablir serieusement qu'a la suite d'une longue periode de paix. Or la paix est aujour-d'hui le plus universel des problemes.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I leave to the right hon. Prime Minister for study and consideration some verses by Sully Prud'homme, a great French poet, which would seem to apply now. I will read them, as they were written, in the French language:
Yiens! ne marche pas seul dans un jaloux sentier;
Mais suis les grands chemins que Fhumanite foule;
Les hommes ne sont forts, bons, et justes qu'en foule.
Ils s'achevent ensemble, aueun d'eux n'est entier.


Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I congratulate you on your elevation to your new position as first commoner among us. For some nine years I have had the privilege of being associated with you, sir, and during that time, in common with other members of this house, I have learned to love and admire not only you but the good lady who is so much thought of by members on all sides of this house. Your legal attainments, your soldierly bearing and your friendliness in days gone by to those of us who were somewhat younger, will not be forgotten, and our fondest hope is that you may be spared for many years to serve us in your present capacity.
With regard to the mover and the seconder of the address my position is rather unique. For four years I had the pleasure of sitting in this chamber with the member for North Grey who represented that constituency before the election of the young man who now occupies that position. I learned a great deal about North Grey; I had the privilege of speaking there on several occasions and of mixing with the people, and I came to know the hon. member (Mr. Porteous) long before he entered parliament. I say, sir, that we are happy to have him with us, and as one year succeeds another he will prove to be a valuable acquisition to this chamber.
In like manner, for some years I had the pleasure of being a seatmate of Mr. Doucet, a man from the land of Evangeline, from
The Address-Mr. Harris

which we now have the present member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier). I learned at that time, sir, that what we had read of the great Canadians coming from that district was true, and I say to hon. members of this chamber and to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have heard so far merely presages what we will hear in the future from the hon. member, whom I congratulate on the message which already he has left with us.
It would be nice to go on in this manner for some time, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the four and a half hour marathon speech which he delivered, and so on. But unfortunately the rules of the house restrict us to forty minutes, and if I might make a suggestion to the government in this regard it would be that on the clerk's table there might be a clock, divided into forty segments, so that those who have a peroration could time themselves and get it off their minds before the expiration of their time. I felt sorry the other day for the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). He took over forty minutes and said little, and he found he did not have time for his peroration. We waited for it, and the probability is that in it he might have had something real to say.
One or two other members who have participated in the debate, are really the cause of my now saying a word or two. I would ask that the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair) be paged, because I am going to say something in reply to him, inasmuch as he made a reference to Toronto. The hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor) is not in the chamber; I should like to see him too. And the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) also had something to say about Toronto; I should be glad to have him paged. But while we are waiting for these hon. gentlemen I might say a word or two in reference to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and what he had to advance in the interests of the country in this debate.
A good deal has been said about the days of prosperity during the regime of the government he led; a good deal has been said by the leader of the opposition about deficits and so forth. Let me ask this house one question:	On whose budget has this country
been operating up to September of the fiscal year just closed? Was it the May day budget that laid dow'n the system of taxation from which revenues were going to be derived-revenues which were to take care of the run-

ning expenses of the country? Whose is the responsibility in this regard? Taxation measures should have been in the May day budget. I say to the leader of the opposition that we have not had a real budget in this house since the days of the late Mr. Fielding. The budget we had on May day last year was purely and simply a political budget. There was in it no estimate of the proposed expenditures or the proposed revenues, and this country found itself operating under that budget and heading for a deficit from the very day it came down in this chamber. And no one knows that better than does the leader of the opposition. He gave us statistics, lots of statistics; and he ended up his period at a very convenient point for himself, namely, the end of the fiscal year, March 31, 1930. But he had in his possession the figures up to the end of February of this year. If he did not want to use them why was he not fair, not only to his own members but to Canada, and give the figures he had at least until the end of July? Why stop a year ago? The leader of the opposition said, as reported at page 18 of Hansard:
In short, a condition exists in this country at the moment the like of which, fortunately, it has not witnessed at any time heretofore in her history.
He was asked when he first noticed it, and he replied:
It has been noticed by everyone since this administration came into office.
He knows in his heart that this is not a fair statement. He knows that these conditions were brought about to a large degree by a world situation. If he does not, let me refer him to some of the statements of his own followers. The hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) says, as reported at page 236 of Hansard:
I frankly and freely admit that the Conservative party in power to-day is not and cannot be held wholly responsible for the unhappy conditions that exist at the present time both in the matter of the lack of market for our farm products and in the matter of unemployment.
And the hon. member for Toronto West Centre 'had this to say:
Whatever unemployment, whatever suffering exists in this country was due to world conditions. . . .
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) also had something to say. We are glad to see him back in the chamber again, restored to his usual health and vigour. He is reported:
I have been asked many a time, is it the fault of the present government. Well, Air. Speaker, to be perfectly frank I will say, no, in the

The Address-Mr. Harris
main it is not. . . . They have been in power only a few months and they had neither the time nor the opportunity to go into the present situation in any large way.
These are the statements of hon. gentlemen surrounding the leader of the opposition, and he knew better than to make the statements he did make. World depression is with us; we all admit that. It is a cycle and seems to come after great world events. Go back to the days of a hundred and fifty years ago in the time of the Napoleonic wars and you will find the fact illustrated graphically in Goldman's Graphic Charts giving statistics with regard to world conditions. The year 1790 is used as the base in connection with wholesale commodity prices of all sorts of goods on the London auctions. The Napoleonic wars came on two years later, but using 1790 as the base, with the figure 100, we find that in 1800, after eight years of war, it had risen to 175. By 1809 it was 195 and by 1830, at the conclusion of the wars, it recedes again to 100, and lies along the base of 100 for some years until the advent of the Civil war, 1861-65, when it again moves from the figure 100 to as high as 215, receding again in 1875 to 100, and remaining pretty well on that base-a a little below at times, and occasionally a little above it-until 1912, when it moves to 110, and we find that with the advent of the great world war the wholesale commodity prices again reach the figure 215. And now they are receding.
These charts show that the same state of affairs has prevailed in each of these three periods, with this difference, that to-day we have the advantage of more than 100 years of modern civilization. We must be guided very carefully in getting back to pre-war conditions, and it is the duty of the government to see to it that they are so guided. We have a condition of cartels in the eastern hemisphere of Europe and Great Britain, in the lines of nearly all manufactured goods, these countries dumping their surplus on communities such as this. We have a condition of trusts in that gigantic nation to the south of us, which have a tendency to hold up the prices of nationally advertised goods and to control them. These conditions make it difficult for us to recede to the position to which we shall have to get back, which is something similar to pre-war conditions. Our people themselves, we find, are accustomed to the new luxuries they have had and will be slow to give them up. But little by little we shall have to get back to that pre-war state.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) a few days ago gave us a chart showing that products had receded in the agricultural line much faster than in other 22110-36
lines. It is true that agriculture is one of the first industries to suffer in our economic system; and when it does, the effect, seems to permeate the whole country, bringing distress with it. But fortunately in this country the people of strongest fibre are to be found among the agriculturists, and you will find them to-day getting ready to put in their crops once more as they have done in years gone by. And with the fortitude and courage characteristic of them, assured that this country is guided by a strong government such as we have to-day, Canada, as no other country can, will come through this depression. Throughout my entire remarks, if I cannot do anything else, I wish to leave this one impression, that this Canada of ours is a grand and glorious place to live in, and I am very optimistic with regard to the future.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in the chart to which I have referred, showed that western grain prices had receded 59 per cent while the price of farm products had gone down 34 per cent. The right hon. leader of the opposition gave us figures with regard .to our export trade and he would lead this country to believe that all our export trade is demoralized. Mr. Speaker, export trade is not always measured in dollars and cents; there is volume, there is the pounds, the barrels, the bushels and so on. Might I bring to the attention of this house the fact that Canada is still doing a very large volume of export trade and will continue to do so. I would like to put on record a few figures which I have obtained from the latest publications. These figures reveal that for the twelve months ended February, 1930, 1,679,740 barrels of apples were exported, while the total exports for the same period of this year amounted to 1,928,659 barrels. The total exports of fruits for last year amounted to $8,807,844 while this year they amounted to $9,506,360.	.


Mr. YOUNG:: Is that the value?


Joseph Henry Harris: Yes, that is the value. My wheat growing friend has asked a question and he will be interested to hear that for the twelve months ended February, 1930, the exports of wheat amounted to 186,62)1,0S4 bushels while for the twelve months ended February, 1931, they amounted to 215,939,942 bushels, a really substantial increase.


Edward James Young: Would my hon. friend give us the price received?


Joseph Henry Harris: The same increase applies to newsprint, lead, silver ore, silver bullion, zinc ores, nickel and so on.

The Address-Mr. Harris

My hon. friend from Winnipeg mentioned the reduction in the wholesale commodity prices, but when the factor of tonnage is considered I have no hesitation in making the assertion that in spite of the present world depression and the barriers which are being erected against our natural products, Canada's export trade for this year will equal in volume that of all other years. Our products are finding a place on the markets of the world and will continue to do so.
I am sorry the hon. member for Toronto West Centre is not in his seat because I believe a reply should be made to the statements he gave to this house. He complained about the unemployment situation and stated that it had not been relieved to the degree to which he would like to see it relieved. On page 309 of Hansard he says:
In the latest official information furnished the press on March 11 we find that 228,351 individuals have been given employment and 3,975,355 man-days have been afforded to them from the commencement of operations under the Unemployment Eelief Act up to February 28, 1931.
The hon. member stated that unemployment was just as acute as it ever has been, if not in fact, worse. The hon. member who has just taken his seat made a similar statement and said that it was still down 25 per cent, or some such figure. My answer to the hon! members who sit behind the leader of the opposition is this: where would this country have been, how much more acute would have been the situation, had the people through a mistake put into power last july the "not a nickel" government? We know that the people realized that what was needed in -Canada at that time was a man at the head of our democracy who would give action instead of platitudes, who would give work instead of statistics and who would give real leadership instead of imbecility and non-leadership.
The right hon. leader of the opposition had something to say in this regard, and in reply I would say that I was reminded of his stand while trying to put the children to bed after church on Sunday evening. We were singing that little nursery rhyme, "Ding Dong Bell, Pussy's in the Well," but I would like to change that to:
Ding dong bell, Canada's in the well.
Who put her in? Little Willie King.
WTe might go a little further and say:
Who'll pull her out? E. B. Bennett, no doubt.
The right hon. gentleman complains bitterly that we are not making haste. He wants to know where is the national highway, or what progress is being made with the St. Lawrence
(Mr. Harris.]
development. He did not think so much about that, during the nine years he was in power. He asked: Where is the aid to agriculture, technical education, old age pensions and so on? Little by little these things are coming.
The hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) made an interesting contribution to this debate the other day. He mentioned the city of Toronto and said he re-jretted that one hundred mechanics, carpenters, bricklayers, technicians and contractors had been guaranteed employment in soviet Russia. Arrangements for their sailing had been made, this party being composed of Russians, Canadians, Frenchmen, Finlanders and others-one hundred men out of a population of 600,000. It might be just as well for Canada if a few more people possessing the idea that civilization would be best benefited by the ideals worked into the fabric of the present Russian constitution would take a trip abroad and stay there. Perhaps we could suggest a few hon. members from the other side who might go along. I hesitate to suggest that the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) might even go as a chaperone. Then, in order to make sure that he would be right with his own constituency, the hon. member said: Most of us in the province of Quebec felt as proud as did the Prime Minister when he heard that he was breaking off trade negotiations with Russia. Consistency, thou art a virtue, but where is the virtue in that statement of the hon. member? Then the same hon. gentleman-I do not seem to be able to get his attention-said: We ought to have some real economy in this government, we should get rid of some of these 'departments, the Department of the Interior, for instance. He did not think of that when the natural resources were being turned back while his old administration was in power. He did not think of that when the charwomen were drawing their last pay envelopes. The hon. member-he still will not give me any attention-went on to say that we were going to have a new tariff board.


An hon. MEMBER:: He cannot hear you.


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Joseph Henry Harris: He said that he was afraid there might be some partisanship in the formation of that board. He did not think of that when the late administration chose as chairman of its tariff advisory board the present partisan incumbent for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Consistency, thou art a virtue, but I would like to know where the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay keeps his consistency.

The Address-Mr. Harris
We have his attention now. We have also the attention of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Among other things the right hon. gentleman had something to say about old age pensions. I was sorry to see a man of his calibre stoop to this method of insinuating in the way he did when, as is reported on page 21 of this year's Hansard, he made this statement in regard to old age pensions:
Every old man and old woman who had a vote was made to believe that he and she were going to get full pensions as soon as this parliament met, but now they are told that they will get it as soon as the current economic situation warrants.
Let me couple with him on that occasion the hon. member for North Wellington, who seems to know a good deal about old age pensions. In this regard I want to be kind to the honourable, ethical doctor. I am referring now to the speech he made away back last September. If he thought he was wrong, he had plenty of opportunity to square himself with the public. I waited, listened to another speech by him in the house, and still he did not correct himself. Therefore to-night I shall have something to say on the subject of his ideas on old age pensions. As reported at page 134 of Hansard of September, 1930, he said:
I do not think any persons in my district received an old age pension without being distinctly led to understand that they would lose it if they voted the wrong way.
This was playing on the feelings of those of our citizens who have given of their best to further the interests of Canada, many of them during the pioneer days in different parts of the country. This sort of appeal does not in my opinion find a response on the part of the real Canadian people. He was a new member, he used the privileges of the house and he had a score or more of editorials in his local press brought to his attention, giving him an opportunity to retract statements he had made. As reported oh page 133 of Hansard of last session, he said:
The widows' and orphans' fund was interfered with. I do not believe such statements were true, yet the influence came, as it were, from Toronto; that idea seemed to permeate the riding and it was very hard to offset it.
He said that when they wanted to get votes in North Wellington, they had to go out like Nicodemus in the dark, and try to secure them. Then he goes on to speak about the condition of the farmers. He also said:
In the district which I represent are a great many comparatively poor farmers. Many farms are being sold for tax purposes. The farmers are in extreme need.
22110-36J
The hon. gentleman, when he made these representations, was from one end of his constituency to the other the subject of editorials. The Palmerston Spectator bad this to say to him:	*
Doctor Blair, member of parliament for North Wellington, was telling the nrembers of the House of Commons that intimidation was practised in this riding during the recent election. Citizens of all political shades will oppose those practices. It is not common knowledge that such conditions as stated by Doctor Blair exist in this riding and they will await with interest full particulars regarding the charges which he has made.
We believe the electors of this riding have a right to a full knowledge of conditions as they actually exist and we believe it is up to Doctor Blair to fully explain his remarks in the house.
In the Fergus News-Record they say:
These charges are serious.
And so on. I have not time to read all these editorials, but I have them under my hand. In the face of this accusation the old age pension board for the county of Wellington makes this reply:
That in view of the alleged serious charges made by Doctor J. K. Blair, member of parliament for North Wellington, on the floor of the bouse during the recent emergency session, as reported in the public press of the county: "that he did not think that any persons in his district received an old age pension without being distinctly led to understand that they would lose the pension if they voted the wrong way," we the members of the old age pension board for the county of Wellington feel that the above allegations are a very grave reflection on the integrity or uprightness of the county representatives on the local board, and the secretary is hereby authorized at this our first meeting since these charges appeared, to request Doctor Blair to substantiate his statement or publicly apologize to the board.
Old Age Pension Board for the County of Wellington.
Udney Richardson, Chairman.
R. J. Holtom.
William Whitelaw.
George W. Dodge.
James Beattie, Secretary.
I say to the hon. member that he has privileges in the house, but those privileges are not here to be abused. He has the right when he makes reply to back up his statements with real facts. I rather thought he was going to do that a day or two ago when he again spoke in this chamber, but he followed the same line of attack as he had done before, offering no apology in the face of all these editorials. But something was forthcoming afterwards. It was a letter written to his constituents. I have a copy of it in my hand, and it is headed, "House of Commons, Ottawa, March 23, 1931," and addressed "Cheer up Henry." It reads:
The Address-Mr. Harris

Dear Sir:
We are having lovely weather here, and we sure are having a lively session. We are working real hard, and there is plenty of work to do, but I enjoy it very much.
I have a lot to learn. I have a considerable advantage over some because of my education. I do not require to have problems worked out for me that arise in mathematics, but in questions of opinions and logic the answer is not quite so plain as it is in arithmetic.
I spoke for 35 minutes the other day to the speech from the throne. I was requested to do so by the Hon. Mackenzie King, and after I had finished he came back and shook hands and congratulated me, remarking that I did real well, and that he saw in me some splendid timber for new debates, so that cheered up my drooping spirits, because I was not too well pleased with my own remarks. I tried to lay Mr. Bennett's promises before him regarding agriculture, and I appealed to him to help the farmers in whatever way he deemed best.
The room and crowd is so large here, it is not like speaking in Arthur, and it takes some nerve. Mr. Sinclair was here the fourth year before he gave his maiden speech. I am" too impetuous to remain that long, especially as I think the people are not getting a fair deal.
I will drop a line again later. Hoping you are all well, I am,
.	Yours truly,
Jno. K. Blair, M.P.
I rather apologize for occupying the time of the house with this particular matter, 'but statements of this kind, which have no 'basis in fact, should not be made in the house. A member should not exercise his privilege in the house in that way. When the bon. member says thait the former member did not speak in this chamber for four years, that is not a fact. The hon. member says that he is good at arithmetic, but his arithmetic is all wrong. The gentleman who formerly represented North Wellington took his seat on February 5, 1925, and- he. spoke, on a budget debate on March 6, 1928. Is that four fears? He raised a question in the house in 1927. Does twenty-five from twenty-seven leave four? He spoke in the committee on agriculture the first time he was on that committee. Is that four years? I say to the hon. member for North Wellington: Your arithmetic is wrong. You have got a very wrong conception of your duty in this house to your constituents. I say to the hon. member for North Wellington that he will learn before he is here very long that there is a time to speak and a time to bridle his tongue. You will learn that there is a time to give service to your constituents in committee as well as an opportunity to waste the time of this House of Commons. You will learn there are common decencies in vogue in this chamber; you will learn that your constituents expect nation-wide views as well as picayune local politics; you will learn we expect state-

meats backed by facts; you will learn that it is undesirable to inspire or inculcate into the minds of your constituents a distrust in democratic forms of government. You will learn that there are some ethics in politics as well as in the medical profession. You will learn, sir, that your wonderful educational attainments which were of such great advantage to you over other hon. members in this chamber are outweighed many many times by the small picayune frame of mind in which you address yourself to the problems which come for attention in this chamber.


An hon. MEMBER:: So will you.


Joseph Henry Harris: My hon. friend from North Wellington will probably learn to accept congratulations in modesty from his leader. He will learn that perhaps the real timber is not all found in this chamber but that some is still in the maple bushes back in North Wellington. Concerning the hon. member who on a previous occasion occupied the seat of my hon. friend I doubt if there is one man who will rise in his place and say that that member was not the image of the best in Canada. Was he not the mirror of his own constituency? Was he not beloved by all members who sat on both sides of this house? To reflect on a former member is in rny humble judgment a misdemeanor for which the hon. member at present, representing the constituency of North Wellington will have ample opportunity of making amends; or, as his own newspapers ask him to do, he should either substantiate his statements or apologize for making them.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, to have trespassed on the time of the house so long in this regard. Let me say that so far as Canada as a whole is concerned this government is making lapid progress with its great task. Canada ds the only country in the empire, yea I believe in the civilized world, in which to-day industries have taken on new hands. Old factories are being renovated and enlarged; vacant buildings are being rehabilitated for new lines of production and enterprise. Our good farmers, even those in North Wellington who are so afraid of being sold for taxes, are planning to put jn as big a crop as they have done before. I would say- that sixty per cent are not worrying about this parliament and perhaps do not know that it is in session. They are plowing their furrows; they are hoeing their rows, and they have faith in the country which has done so much for them. There is in their breasts and in the breasts of all Canadians to a greater degree than in any other part of the civilized world

The Address-Mr. Dubois
a hope and courage that in that final analysis will weigh heavily in the economic plans of world affairs. We see to-day processions of new industries coming not only from the United States but from the mother country. Employment has been extended to a quarter of a million of wage earners. Sixty-five American manufacturers are establishing branches in the Dominion and many other negotiations are in progress. Time and again the statement is made that these industries are located here on account of the policy of the present administration. Canadians are returning from the republic to the south and side by side with them are others coming to this land of opportunity. Since the beginning of the economic depression the development of Canada has far surpassed that of any other country. We are seeing the beginning of greater things. Step by step we are fast getting out of the present depression and side by side with the mother country and other parts of the empire we are making real, genuine, sound progress. So long as this party is in power we will not only see the empire retain its place in the sun but we will see our glorious empire go on from point to point, as she has done in the last thousand years, continuing to be the greatest agency for good that civilization has ever known.


Mr. L. DUBOIS (Nicolet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity of raising my voice in the midst of this imposing assembly, as one who speaks for the tillers of the soil. You will allow me to repeat, after one of our great men, that my first speech in this house will be made in the language of my forefathers; thus, in my turn, I acknowledge the principle of the official status of the French tongue, immortalized in the statutes of our Dominion and to which a fitting monument has been erected in the Baldwin-Lafontaine memorial which adorns the northern corner of Parliament Hill. This monument must guide us, like the polar star, in all matters of language and of race between the two important elements who go to make up the Canadian nation.
Like those who have preceded me I find it my pleasant duty to congratulate, in their excellent effort, the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
I trust it will not be held against me if 1 congratulate in a special way the mover of the address, my hon. friend from Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier) for having delivered the first part of his speech in our mother-tongue. What deep pleasure he must have afforded his illustrious forebears; how
they must have thrilled with joy on hearing within these portals the resonant syllables of the tongue they loved so well; what pride they must have felt, they who had strewn with shattered hopes the bitter road along which, with faltering steps, they straggled into exile. And the hon. member has not lost any of the typical characteristics of his ethnic group: listening to him I recognized the accents heard on t'he shores of the Madawaska, at Grand-Pre, at Pubnico and at Shediac I have but one regret, that I cannot congratulate him on his political allegiance.
My next duty, before going on with the debate, is to offer my sincerest congratulations to our worthy Speaker in his efforts in the study of French, since the special session. Last fall, Mr. Speaker, we all considered you a distinguished gentleman; today we realize that the distinguished gentleman is, moreover, a broad-minded Canadian. You are deserving of the highest praise for undertaking the study of French at your age; and your study of our tongue will go much further towards the maintenance of national unity than the last speech of-the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull).
It seems to me that our problems of domestic economy are sufficiently burdensome without launching into debates like that instigated by the hon. member, and without entering into disputes that may prove too forceful for both groups. I do not intend to dwell at any length on this question; without giving answer to the untruthful charges of fanaticism levelled at my party by the hon. member for Regina, I send this bugle call to my fellow F reach-Canadians in Saskatchewan:	"My
compatriots, 'way out there, fight on, with all your ardour and with all your courage. But let the fight be waged with loyalty. It is not only your right to struggle, it is your duty, for three centuries of Canadian history look down upon you. You owe it also to your persecutors who, sooner or later, will be forced to recognize the importance of French culture in the western provinces. You will meet with still other obstacles; but they will come from merely a few narrow-minded men without vision. Do not forget that beside this small group of meddlers there are, thank God, a very large number of Anglo-Canadians, and I" say it to their credit, who not only admire you and like you, but are broadminded enough, and patriotic enough, to help you in your struggle for the defence of your rights and your liberties."
The hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. La-Yergne), on the floor of this house, used certain regrettable words concerning Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I owe it to the memory of our great
The Address-Mr. Dubois

compatriot to accept that challenge to-day. The hon. member charged Sir Wilfrid with having betrayed the province of Quebec. Let us open the newspapers of 1905, Mr. Speaker, und ure shall discover that impartial history throws on events a light that will astonish certain contemporaries of that time. While Sir Wilfrid waged his unrelenting fight for the cause of the minority in those parts, demanding separate schools for the new provinces, another man was denouncing this system, rational though it were.
During the bye-election of Mr. Hyman, in a speech delivered in London, Ontario, and reported in The Free Press of May 31st, 190a, Mr. Bennett said what follows,-I quote in English:
The parliament of Canada lias fastened on the northwest a separate school system. It had said they could do what they like: in many other things but they could not interfere with the rights of the minority to a separate school system.
In 1891 and in 1901 the parliaments passed further school ordinances, but still they were given no right to say what school system they were to have.. They might legislate as they might, but they could never free themselves from separate schools, even if they wanted to.
Let us continue-we are still quoting Mr. Bennett:
Tf you turn down Mr. Hyman on the 13th of June,' I think they will withdraw that clause. Never in the history of Canada have men had so great responsibility as is thrust upon you, electors of London. Once this act goes upon the statute book, it cannot be withdrawn. They say they will go to London and get an act "endorsing it before we may do so. I tell you, the west will never stand that. There will be a revolution before the west will submit.
And, on June 5th, 1905, the Tree Press carried this:
Mr. Bennett said it was stated upon authority that Sir Alexander Mackenzie had not intended to place the provision for separate schools in the North West Territories Act. But a certain province that proposed now to control the educational policy of all the other provinces-this great province said to Sir Alexander Mackenzie: You just grant separate schools or go out. And it was the regret of Mackenzie to his dying day that he did not go out.
I defy any man to say we are given any right to do other than to forever and forever maintain that baneful restriction that says we must have separate schools.	*
Sir Wilfrid Laurier says that separate schools are the best thing for the state. I deny that. No Church or creed has a right to ask for special privileges. We must stand together. How otherwise may we work out our destiny?
Who betrayed the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker? Who betrayed not only the province of Quebec, but common sense, harmony and the spirit of justice, if not the Prime Minister

of to-day (Mr. Bennett)? And why hold Sir Wilfrid Laurier responsible for the present difficulties in Saskatchewan?
Our dear departed statesman must have been great indeed, since envy still strives to belittle him. Yes, he was truly great, whose personality traced a path of glowing splendour across the firmament of our history; he was truly great, whom a whole people still mourns; he was truly great, who followed in the footsteps of Disraeli and of Gladstone; he was so great that even those who deserted him at a certain turning in their careers and who found themselves unable to hold their ground, feel the need to-day of trying to cast a shadow on his glory, the better to excuse their betrayal. He was so great that whoever attacks his memory in the terms used by the hon. member for Montmagny, merely succeeds in proving his own smallness, his political insignificance.
Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne has many remarkable analogies with the election campaign of 1930. We find there the same muddled expression of the means to be employed for ridding us of the economic crisis, which is still with us, and going from bad to worse. The same uncertainty, the same vague, nebulous language which, even to the most practised eye, yields no tangible conclusion. But the speech differs somewhat from the campaign of last July inasmuch as the bell, which has passed into the government's hands, does not give out the same note to-day. In July, 1930, the battle began to the strains of the mournful chant: "The Liberal administration has ruined the country; Canada cannot escape bankruptcy."
In the npeeehTrom the Throne, fourth paragraph, first line, the leader of the government has this to say of the economic crisis:
The fact that in this period of universal distress Canada has been spared the same acute degree of hardship which many other nations have been called upon to bear.
Only eight months of administration and can we not already feel the magic power of the dictatorial wand?
" Put me at the head of the government," said the present Prime Minister in 1930. " and I will bring prosperity back to you. Put me in power and a new day will dawn for our Dominion." With disconcerting cocksureness he led the voters of this country to believe that he had fathomed the causes of the economic depression and found a remedy.
In 1931, ini the speech from the throne, still the same fourth paragraph, the leader of the present government tells us that the obstacles which bar our way to prosperity are numerous

The Address-Mr. Dubois
and important. In. order to arrive at a satisfactory solution of these difficulties we must first of all understand them. So the right hon. gentleman did not understand them during the campaign of 1930?
Last July, our opponents promised to cure all our ills; to-day, face to face with the failure of these so-called remedies, our friends of the government no longer promise a cure; they have come back to earth and, like everybody else, they hope the situation will improve. It is not necessary to recall all the pledges made during the campaign to prove to the voters of Canada that the government has failed all along the line.
The right hon. Prime Minister knew very well that he could not rid us of the crisis Why did he promise to do so? He swindled ,the voters; but the voters have the right to demand that he fulfil the mandate given him in accordance with the terms and conditions under which he received it. Let him remember the words he uttered in Quebec city, and which were reproduced in the Ottawa Citizen of July 14th, 1930:
I ask the candidates who are elected from the province of Ontario, and the other members of my party to throw me out of office if. after having been victorious at the polls, I fail to keep the promises made to the Canadian people. I will not climb into power over violated pledges.
The leader of the present government promised prosperity and the people will never forgive his failure to provide it.
What should we say of the Imperial conference? On this matter I do not speak with authority; nevertheless the government leader's attitude appears strange to me. He was evidently not taken seriously in London. He left Canada in a miniature whirlwind which had become a hurricane by the time he landed on Britain's shores. He believed himself a lion, but he could barely imitate the lion's roar. After several days of fruitless negotiations, like the fox in LaFontaine's fable he turned his face toward home and Canada; no doubt he swore, on the deep blue sea, but a little late, that he would not be caught again.
The ninth paragraph of the speech from the throne touches on a question of principle which I am proud to emphasize. Like all those who interest themselves in the welfare of humanity I believe that the doctrine upheld by soviet Russia is thoroughly opposed to the moral, intellectual, and even material., progress of a people. You have only to rend the contemporary history of Russia to become
convinced that the present day leaders of this gifted people are making Russia into a pitiable outcast among the nations of Europe.
But I am in a hurry to come to the false attitude of the present prime minister as regards the agricultural industry. I note that this government has not given the farming community all the assistance they were fully entitled to expect after the fine phrases used by the prime minister on occasions like the following:
At Woodstock, N.B., on July 2nd, 1930, Mr. Bennett said:
I declare here and now that if I am elected on July 28th my first duty will be to see to it that all the resources of Canada are used to uphold the agricultural industry. I would believe myself unworthy of presiding over this country's destiny if I did not do that.
This is what he told us on June 13th, 1930,
at Calgary:
We pledge ourselves to encourage agriculture, stock-raising and the dairy industry all of which the farmer has got so sadly neglected. We must train our young people in agricultural schools and, for this reason, I promise to continue the federal grant to the different provinces; for it is only from a rural population that is educated, in the broadest and best sense that we may expect the results we hope to attain.
At the special session of last September the right hon. Prime Minister insisted still further on the needs of agriculture and in unbelievably highfalutin' language set forth the capital importance of this basic industry. The result of all his fine words has been tariff meddling, and that carried out in such a way as to stabilize the price of all manufactured products and to increase the taxes borne by the farming class. Out of a total of 130 tariff items amended last fall, a mere 28 had to do with agriculture, despite the high-sounding phrases of the prime minister. Moreover, of these 28, only 14 were helpful to the farmer: the other 14 levied tribute on him. On close analysis of these tariff increases, we find that when the farmer, whose interests the prime minister has so much at heart, pockets $1 as a result of the first 14 items, the other 14 make him part with $1.50. And they call that protecting the agricultural industry.
What rural members sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, have risen in this house to protest against such senseless and deplorable mistreatment of agriculture? Have any among them remembered their leader's own words: "I will not climb into power over violated pledges"?
The members for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) and Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) sought to excuse their leader by claiming that the
The Address-Mr. Dubois
commons
Liberal administration had never done anything for agriculture. But a glance at the records will show that the King government did more for the farmers than will probably ever be done by those now in power.
May I be allowed to give a short synopsis of what was accomplished along this line; hon. members can check up on my statements at the federal department of agriculture here in Ottawa.
The main features, from 1922 to 1929 were the following:
1.	The establishing of a research laboratory at Winnipeg for the intensive study of cereal rust and the best means of combating it.
2.	The promotion of tobacco-growing in south-east Ontario and in Quebec through the enlargement of the substations at Harrow, Ontario, and Farnham, Quebec, and their establishment as experimental stations specializing in tobacco culture; also the purchase and establishment of a new tobacco culture station at L'Assomption, Quebec.
3.	The development of research facilities at Swift Current, Saskatchewan, relative to cultivation without irrigation.
4.	The establishment of a demonstration farm at Manyberries, Alta., for the furtherance of the solution of the problem of feed conservation so vital to the rancher.
5.	The establishment of the new demonstration farm for irrigation culture at Windermere, British Columbia.
6.	The establishment of 133 demonstration stations throughout the country for the purpose of acquainting thousands of farmers, through practical object-lessons, with the value of the methods, varieties and practices followed and recommended by the experimental farms.
7.	Cooperative experiments along the Hudson Bay Railway route.
8.	Small demonstration linen-mills were established in Quebec and. in the maritime provinces; thanks to which these districts are to-day in possession of a prosperous homespun industry.
9.	An inspection service was established for all export honey.
10.	A new bacteriological branch was inaugurated at the Experimental Farm, Ottawa, for the study of agricultural problems which must be solved through the application of bacteriological methods.
11.	The Elwood farm was purchased at St. Catharines, Ontario, so as to provide the laboratory of plant pathology with more complete facilities for the treatment of fruit diseases, particularly those which attack peaches, grapes, tomatoes and strawberries.
iMr. Dubois.]
And the Liberal government did nothing?
The most effective method yet for combating tuberculosis among cattle is the slaughter of all animals that react positively to the tuberculin test, within certain well-defined zones, following the system established in 1924. Since that date more than 800,000 cattle have been tested in the nine zones and extension already established, or about to be; 45,000 positive subjects have been slaughtered. At the present time there is at least one of these certified zones in every province of the Dominion.
This system of certified zones has provided absolutely healthy districts for immune herds. It facilitates cattle-raising, reduces to a minimum the danger of reinfection, induces the farmer to provide more hygienic housing for his cattle, and creates a more active demand, at higher prices, for milch cows.
The erection of a modern and thoroughly equipped experimental and research station at Hull, Quebec, completed in 1927, is a most important step towards the establishment of facilities for research work on the diseases of animals.
Experiments and research work on swamp disease were conducted in the prairie provinces, at Saskatoon and at Lethbridge; and at the agricultural laboratory of the experimental farm at Agassiz studies were made of the incidence and cure of hematuria.
And the Liberal government did nothing?
The following developments may be noted as results of the Live Stock Act:
1.	The remarkable improvement in the quality of Canadian hogs resulting in large measure from the application of modern systems nf- grading which guarantee to the producer himself the premium paid on high quality animals. This system has brought about a very great improvement in the quality of our bacon which to-day is almost on a par with Danish bacon on the British market, except in the matter of quantity; the Canadian consumer can now buy much better bacon and other pork products than was formerly possible.
2.	A registry system for thoroughbred hogs was inaugurated early in 1929; already twenty-three herds have been registered.
3.	In 1922 were adopted the rules governing the inspection and grading of all eggs imported into Canada. All eggs exported from Canada are graded; since this grading system was adopted there is a big demand for Canadian eggs in Great Britain.
4.	The department insisted that all commission houses having to do with our Canadian stockyards keep a shippers' guarantee

The Address-Mr. Dubois
account so that the producer who sold his animals through commission merchants should run no risk of losing the product of his sales.
5.	Since the department organized calf breeders' clubs in 1923 great progress has been made in the growth of clubs among young breeders of cows, sheep and hogs. The encouragement thus given to the younger generation and the lively interest the young folks have taken in these clubs have borne fruit in the general and far-reaching improvement to be noted in all breeding activities wherever these clubs have been organized.
6.	The animal husbandry branch inaugurated recently a system of approved incubators, which provides for the farmer a trustworthy source of baby chicks. The poultry pens which furnish hatching eggs and the incubators themselves are inspected. The incubators which come up to standard are authorized to sell certified chicks.
One of the main objects of the Seeds branch of the department is to promote the use and the production of better quality seeds and with this end in view the department, in 1929, increased by S3,OflO its grant to The Canadian Association of Seed Growers.
In 1921 there were only some 40,000 bushels of registered seeds on the market. In 1929 the quantity had risen to 952,215 bushels. And the Liberal government did nothing?
The following are among the chief efforts made by the Entomological branch in recent years to assist agriculture through the destruction of insect pests.
After exhaustive experiments and research work for the purpose of effectively combating the European maize borer, work undertaken and accomplished in co-operation with the Ontario Department of Agriculture, the branch Ontario department of agriculture, the branch made certain recommendations which were enacted into law by the provincial legislature; there is no doubt that as a consequence of these accomplishments the extinction of this pest in the most infested regions is assured and the growing of seed-com in Ontario will once more come into its own.
Measures instituted as a result of cooperative research work undertaken by the federal and provincial branches of entomology enabled us to repeal the invasions of the black beetle in the yellow pine forests of British Columbia.
In 1924 the agents of the entomological branch discovered in Quebec province a certain number of masses of nits laid by the dangerous sponge-worm. Since then the invasion has been repelled, thanks to the cooperation of the Department of Lands and Forests in Quebec.
The main accomplishments of the dairy branch since 1922 have been the grading of dairy products and experimental work concerning dairy produce.
The grading of dairy products has brought about a very great improvement in the quality of these products and the publicity given to quality through the grade certificates has been responsible for a new attitude on the part of both producers and manufacturers. Grading has been very beneficial to the dairy industry. Thanks to this system our Canadian dairy produce is more sought after on the markets of the world. If our Canadian cheese is quoted a little higher than others on the British market it is chiefly due to this system of grading. The improvement in the quality of our butter and of our cheese was most marked, and I speak now not only of the export market but of the home market also: to-day the Canadian housewife buys dairy produce with much more confidence than formerly.
Co-operative sales, etc., etc., etc., etc.
The Liberal government was going to keep up the good work.
And this government of dreamers and idealists did nothing for agriculture?
What has the Conservative government done for the farmers during the past eight months? What are they going to do this year? If we read the speech from the throne, paragraph 12, we find that this government, with a view to protecting agriculture, which it rightly calls the basic industry of this country, has inserted in its program only three words: "Aid to agriculture." As though the farming community were a class of beggars to whom one throws a meagre pittance when one has the time. As if our farmers, who go to make up some 52 per cent of the entire population of Canada, were a negligible quantity 1
Far be it from me to incite my own class against the other classes of the community. I know that it is only through harmony and concord that lasting things are accomplished; but I have faith in my profession and representing, as I do, a constituency which is 96 per cent agricultural, I owe it to my electors to demand for them all the consideration and all the protection they are entitled to. Tireless and peaceful workers, they contribute more than any other class to the development and to the maintenance of our country's prosperity.
For the past eight months the present government has striven in vain to cope with the economic depression and with the unemployment crisis. Why do they not try rather to encourage the farmer, to find profit-
The Address-Mr. Dubois

able markets for our farm products, to favour agriculture as much as possible, to make the farmer feel contented with his lot, become attached to the soil which feeds him, and thus become an apostle of the Back to the Land movement. Is it not a fact that if this Back to the Land movement were to succeed, our cities would be relieved of a number of the jobless who swarm into them? I believe that if the government were to act in this way they would do much more for the people of Canada than in dallying, in theory and in practice, with an excessive protective policy which favours only a very small group of capitalists.
May I be allowed to quote the opinion of M. R. Levrault, French economist, on this matter of protection that is made so much of by our friends opposite:
People do not know what protectionism has done to Europe. Everybody is aware that most of the ills that beset us are derived from that source: it is responsible for the high cost of living and for our staggering taxes.
Protection begets higher and higher protection. When every country is protected none enjoy its advantages any longer. Then starts a race in the building of higher and higher tariff walls. Each country strives to be the first to profit, be it only for a few years, even a few months, by tariff increases.
You are looking for ways and means to cope with the unemployment problem. Would you permit a young man who has spent thirty-seven years of his life on our Canadian land to suggest to you what he believes to be a good way to discover the real cure for our present economic ills? Every democracy must beware of one danger: the sovereignty of wealth. Capitalists of every description, capitalists forever insatiate, follow the lead of certain capitalists in my riding: come down from your pedestals, come out of your ivory towers! If you really wish our people well, rub shoulders with our workers, in the city and in the country; their contact will teach you more than all the shallow generalizations of arm-chair sociologists.
Mr. Speaker, I end with these words:	At
the special session allusion was made on the floor of this house to the Unknown Soldier. Like all good patriots I bow, and deeply, before him who sheds his blood for his country. But there is another unknown soldier: his work is less in the limelight, but it is none the less deserving. This unknown soldier is the settler in the northern parts of Ontario, the settler in the northern regions of my own province. This unknown soldier is the farmer in the western provinces, the farmer in the maritime provinces, the Ontario farmer, the Quebec farmer, the farmer in my
	.
county. We bow low before the soldier armed with the sword. What must we not do in the presence of the soldier who guides the plough? Before him, as before the other, we should bow. But one thing must be borne in mind: this soldier does not live on fine words alone; he must have acts, he must have substance.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I should like first to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne on their splendid efforts. They did credit not only to themselves but to the constituencies which they have the honour to represent. I had been given to understand that a new member was generally granted considerable indulgence by the older members when making his maiden speech, but after listening to the gibes and jeers that have been hurled across the floor during this debate I find that that is not always the case. However, on this occasion I would ask indulgence for myself. It has been very interesting to me to listen to the many excellent speeches that have been delivered during the course of the debate, and if I had time I should like to make some observations on those speeches and to state how .they have impressed me as a new member. I will mention briefly one or two.
I think the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was worthy of note. He apparently has a style all his own and speaks with considerable force. I may say to him that while he chooses to devote the greater part of his time to reading speeches of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) he will always have a careful hearing and considerable Applause from this side of the house. I might reply at length to some other speeches from across the way, but time does not permit. The clear cut and business-like statement by the right hon. Prime Minister is in my opinion the outstanding speech yet delivered in this debate. I wish also to refer briefly to the very careful and thoughtful speech delivered by my desk-mate the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon); also to the speeches delivered by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull); the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan); and the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loueks). I imagine it must be very pleasant to our friends from Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes after many long years to hear the Conservative voice from Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it might be well for me to state a few particulars with respect to

The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
the constituency of Qu'Appelle which I have the honour to represent. It is situated in the central and easterly part of Saskatchewan. The foundation of its fine citizenship is the stock of the pioneers from old Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes, although of late yeara we have had a cosmopolitan addition from foreign countries. I wish to bring to the attention of the house four things which 1 think are a great credit to my constituency. First, we have there the third prize winner in the competition organized last year by the Canadian National Railways, known as the foreign community progress competition. I refer to the Hungarian colony south of the town of Kipling. It is a fine colony of foreign citizens, and they are doing wonderful work. They have fine houses, schools, churches and public buildings and would be a credit to any part of western Canada.
Then I want to refer briefly to the fact that in my own constituency I have one of the master farmers of Saskatchewan, selected through the master farmer movement inaugurated by the Northwest Farmer, an agricultural journal. I refer to George Stutt, of Yandura, who was selected as one of the three master farmers of our province. I might state briefly to the way the points were scored. The inspection had to do with five branches of farm life: First was the operation and organization of the farm; second was the general appearance and upkeep of the farm; third was the business methods, fourth the home life, and .fifth the citizenship of the farmer. Any man who could secure a sufficiently high percentage to be classed as one of the three master farmers under those conditions is a credit to any constituency.
I wish to mention also the fact that on the border line between the constituencies of Qu'Appelle and Assiniboia is a farmer whose name is George Avery and who, at the last international grain show, secured the grand championship for durum wheat. That is a point worthy of mention, and I would like also to place on the records of this house the fact that a.t the annual livq stock association meeting in the capital city of Regina the boys' judging team from the agricultural society of Fairmede secured first place, both collectively and individually. Those are four facts I should like to place before hon. members of this house.
While we have in my constituency these four distinguished examples, Mr. Speaker, yet we are feeling the depression which is being felt all over the west as a result of conditions for which the farmers are not altogether responsible. Last winter I attended many meetings held by farmers, at which .they discussed
their problems and passed certain resolutions which were forwarded to the government, yet in spite of present conditions I did not hear a single word at any one of those meetings with regard to secession. During this debate we have listened to many speeches dealing with conditions as they are to-day in western Canada. I agree with a great deal of what has been said, and some of the hon. gentlemen in the far corner of the house, particularly the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speak-man), have shown a very blear grasp of the situation and have made clear and careful statements of the facts. I understand the hon. member succeeded the late Doctor Clark as member for Red Deer. Doctor Clark was one of the outstanding orators of this house, but I think the constituency of Red Deer will be equally well looked after by its present representative.
I have outlined as carefully and as concisely as possible what I consider to be the exact condition of affairs in western Canada, and my. conclusions are these: A very large percentage of the western farmers are heavily in debt. I believe that is generally admitted. Their ability to pay is a very serious consideration, and not one in a hundred, in fact not one in five hundred of the western farmers is deliberately or willingly trying to evade .the payment of his indebtedness. Under existing conditions, however, the debt is growing out of all proportion to his ability to pay, and the mental and moral effect of this situation is exerting a tremendous influence on the farmers of the west. Under existing world conditions not more than the cost of production can be realized from the 1931 crop.
That is the condition as I see it, but I would like to ask if there is one member of this house in his right senses who thinks that this condition has arisen in the west during the last six months. It took years to bring it about, and while I would not care to charge the late government with the responsibility for all our ills and troubles, yet I think when we compare the situation as they found it when they came into office in 1921 with the conditions which existed when the present government came into power on August 7 last, you cannot help but charge the late government with a great deal of the responsibility. This point was very well covered by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) in his first speech, and I will not go into further details at the moment.
There are certain causes for the present condition, Mr. Speaker, and I have tried to group them in four classes. I believe the western farmers are anxious to be fair in considering the situation, and I may say that
572	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
now I am speaking as a farmer from western Canada. If you will pardon a personal reference, I have been farming in the west for thirty years on rather a large scale-too large, no doubt, under present conditions. I am not going to say to what extent I have been farming, but when I left home last Wednesday we had in our bins on the farm 6,000 bushels of clean grain waiting for the seeder, so you will see how I am involved in the farming game. I say the fanners are prepared to be fair, and they are responsible for a small part of the present situation. I come to that conclusion from the fact that it has been stated in this house that the greatest purchasing power in Canada is the western wheat crop, and during the last ten years we in the west have produced and marketed six billion dollars worth of grain. Some hon. members from the east might ask where all that cash has gone, and my reply would be that one of the reasons is that the farmers have allowed themselves to be exploited. They have been easy prey for expert salesmen, particularly those handling American made machinery and other products. Farmers sitting in this house know they 'have been guilty of this; I have been guilty of it myself. The expert salesman comes into our yards and easily makes us believe that the old binders, seeders or tractors, only half worn out, should be replaced by new, up-to-date and more expensive machines. That is what has been happening.
Another minor cause is the banking system and the way the banks have been dealing with the farmers of the west. Much has been said *with regard to the banks. I am not going to add a great deal to that, only to say that I believe hon. gentlemen who have spoken on that point are correct in nearly every particular. As I see it to-day, the great effect of the banks is that they are taking away the morale of the people of the west. A year or so ago a farmer would go to the bank and ask for $200 or $300 of a loan. The banker would say, "Mr. Smith, you do not want $200; you should have $300 or $400." The farmer would take the money on a straight note, without security. Now these men go in and find their credit gone and their securities of no value. The morale of these men who have been farming in the west for thirty or forty years is being wrecked.
There is a third reason. Our method of marketing grain for the last six years has been such that it has demoralized the whole grain trading system, not only in Canada but throughout the world. I do not find fault with the pool or with cooperative marketing; far from it. Any man would be crazy to do

such a thing. But their sales agency made a mistake, and when they did so I claim it was the business of the Department of Trade and Commerce of the late government to know that that mistake was being made. If I understand it, the Department of Trade and Commerce should know what is going on in the game of international trading. The department exists for that purpose, and when the markets were slipping they should have known the reason and taken steps to meet the situation. They should have advised the great marketing agency in western Canada of the mistakes they were making. That was the duty of the department. However, we have a situation there; it is on our hands, and the very uncertainty at the present time as to the whole marketing of the next crop is affecting the price very materially.
Fourthly, and this is the major count: The fiscal policy of Canada, the whole of Canada, for the last ten years-yes, for the last twenty-five years-has been wrong; and I think we can charge that to the late government more or less. For instance, take agriculture in western Canada. We have been developing one line of industry, that of agriculture and that alone. An industry which employs peak labour for only two months of the year-and this is the case in this industry, as farmers all know-cannot satisfactorily build up a great country. We must develop other lines of industry.
I have tried briefly to set out one or two of the causes of the present condition, and I consider it my duty to offer one or two constructive suggestions. We have had some from both sides of the house, but I. do not think anyone .has gone far enough to meet the emergency. One suggestion has been made from this corner of the house, that the 1930 crop be subsidized, and another suggestion is the amortization of capital debt. I am going to make my suggestions under two heads-a long-range policy and a policy which will have immediate effect. I believe the Department of Agriculture will do much towards improving the present situation. We have a new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) from the province of Saskatchewan, and we are very proud of him. He is an expert agriculturist, a man who is sincere in purpose, and who I know will do much to inaugurate a new agricultural policy for the whole of Canada. Much can be done along that line. The Department of Trade and Commerce can do much in the way of merchandising, or assisting in merchandising the crop. Canadian wheat is recognized in the markets of the world as the best wheat pro-

The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
duced anywhere. It has been used primarily for mixing purposes, and it has been proven conclusively by experiments that Canadian wheat will do more for a loaf of bread than any other wheat grown. That is to say, 15 or 20 per cent blended with other grains will do more than 15 or 20 per cent of any other wheat similarly blended. So that we have something special to merchandise. If any factory or company or organization producing a certain article or line of goods discovered that they had the best product in that particular line they would immediately go out and sell it. Now we have the best wheat in the world, and it is up to the Department of Trade and Commerce to assist in selling it; the department should make a greater effort in this direction than has been made heretofore.
Secondly, I think we should have some scheme put into practice-and I believe the Minister of Agriculture will see that this is done-to take advantage of the expert advice which is available to our farmers. I believe that one of the greatest wastes which we have seen in western Canada in the last fifteen or twenty years has been the failure to benefit from such expert advice. There is no district in the west wherein you will not find an expert farmer, an outstanding agriculturist who has made a success of his particular line of agriculture; while you will find his neighbours, for miles around him, failures or partial failures, notwithstanding that they operate under the same climatic conditions and in the same soil. We find one expert, outstanding man and the rest largely failures. Now I suggest that we should adopt some system whereby each district might make use of the advice and experience of such experts. That is something that could be worked out-a campaign of education and educational leadership.
Next I would suggest a rigid enforcement of the Bank Act. I will not enlarge upon that question or go into details just now: sufficient has already been said in that regard. I will, however, say this: that the implement concerns in the west have been allowed in many cases to sell their goods on notes bearing 8 or 9 per cent, and 10 per cent interest after due date, something which should not be permitted.
Then again I would suggest a duty on corn imported for feed purposes. The hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis) made a clear case in favour of western coarse grains. I will not discuss that matter because the figures are in Hansard and, as I say, the hon. member made an able case in support of coarse grains. There
should also be a development of our great natural resources, the vast potential wealth of the western country-mines, forests and lakes.
These suggestions which I have outlined constitute what I might call a long-range policy; that is to say, there is nothing in them which can have an immediate effect, although their development will be fruitful in the future. But what the farmer of the west needs today-and having just returned from Saskatchewan I know what they need-is something in the nature of direct relief. The present government has done much; it has seen to it that no farmer in the west will be without seed. It has seen to it that gasoline will be made available to the farmer to enable him to put in his crop. But this is not even meeting the situation, because there are many farmers who, if they had a little direct assistance, would employ one or two more men. If you will pardon me for speaking personally again, I have five tenants, and I know that if they had some asdstance they might each employ another man. And I venture to say that if assistance were forthcoming from the banks, if the banks would loosen up and give credit in the west where credit is needed and should be given, fifty per cent of the farmers of western Canada would employ an extra man. What would that not do towards solving the unemployment problem?
As I say, these are long-range policies. I will now offer a suggestion by way of affording direct assistance. It has already been stated by one hon. member that capital investment by loan companies amounted to $215,000,000, while interest due and in arrear is in the neighbourhood of $20,000,000. I suggest that if we want to save agriculture, if we want to show the farmer that we are all interested in keeping him on his land-and that is the important thing for us to consider at the present time-there must be no change of tenancy in the farms of western Canada. To keep the farmer on the land is the important thing to-day; and if the loan companies pursue the policy which they have followed promiscuously, of foreclosing on farms, the tenancy of a great many farms in the west will be changed. I would suggest that the government call a conference of the loan companies and make the proposal that should the loan companies write off forty or fifty per cent of the interest in arrears, the government will pay them the balance and thus place the loans upon the basis they were when first placed upon the farms. This would re-establish the confidence of the farmer and he would realize that no interest in Canada was working to put him off the land. I do not suggest that as a hand-out
574	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle)
by the government to the farmer, but it could be considered on an amortization of some kind extending over a period of from ten to fifteen years.
My next suggestion may be considered a little drastic, but I offer it by way of immediate relief. I think a suggestion that the 1930 crop be subsidized has been made by one hon. member on this side of the house. I do not intend to go that far, but I think the 1930 crop should be subsidized to the extent of the government paying the freight on all grain sold since the price dropped below 70 cents per bushel. That subsidization would involve only about 50 per cent of the crop, as considerable of the crop was shipped during last September, October and November before the price got below 70 cents per bushel. This would not involve the expenditure entailed in pegging the price at 70 cents per bushel, which has been requested generally by the farmers of western Canada. Certain opposition may be offered, and there might be considerable detail in the working out of this system, but I believe it would be equal and fair to all concerned. Perhaps the railway companies might be asked to bear some part of this burden.
I now come to the last and most important of my suggestions, and that is that we have a complete policy of protection such as has been inaugurated by this government. During the campaign of last summer the people accepted the proposition outlined by the Prime Minister. One policy was offered from one end of Canada to the other. The voice in Halifax was heard in Vancouver, and the voice in Vancouver was heard in Halifax. The people accepted that policy because they wanted to know what the policy of Canada was to be. The hon. member for Southeast Grey made a statement the other day with which I agreed; she said that she wanted to know what was the right tariff policy for Canada. Canada wants to know, but if this country will give this government the support it deserves, then Canada will know.
I do not think that any reasonable person ever expected that the critical condition of affairs and the depression and unemployment found in August last when the present government took office would be corrected in six short months. If this government is allowed to put its policies into force conditions in Canada will improve and the east and the west can join hands in making Canada the great industrial dominion she should be.
Considerable has been said about the Imperial conference and I would not endeavour to answer the many speeches we have heard from the opposition in criticism of the attitude taken
'Mr. E. E. Perley.] .
by the Prime Minister. To do that would take more time than I have at my disposal. The right hon. leader of the opposition seemed to be very much concerned about this matter, and he objected to the method of approach adopted by the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) proceeded very reasonably when he asked the hon. leader of the opposition to indicate why he thought a different approach to the British people would have resulted in their paying better prices for Canadian wheat. The answer *made by the right hon. gentleman was not very definite, he seemed to be satisfied with mentioning a conciliatory method of approach and making reference to the Dunning budget.
The very mention of the Dunning budget gives me pleasant memories and recollections, for it was in my constituency in the province of Saskatchewan that the Hon. Charles Dunning made his first pronouncement in the last campaign. I had the pleasure-it was a pleasure because I think every time he spoke he assisted me-of having him speak at three meetings in my constituency out of seven or eight in Saskatchewan. I had the pleasure also of having the former Minister of Railways, Mr. Crerar, speak at two meetings. At Broadview, at the Liberal nomination, speaking before eight or nine hundred people, Mr. Dunning stated that his May day budget had been framed for the purpose of selling Canadian wheat. He said: We asked no preference but we gave a preference, and he suggested that the British people would feel it to be a duty and responsibility to buy our wheat in greater quantity. What was the preference given? It was a preference in our markets for their cattle and hor3es, and a preference in our .markets for their carts and perambulators, cut flowers and cast iron pipes.
Since coming to Ottawa I have been asked why the Hon. Charles Dunning was defeated. Perhaps the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) is better able to answer that question, but I think the principal reason was this: We had known Mr. Dunning in the provincial legislature when he was a private member, we had known him when he was a member of the cabinet and when he was the premier; we knew that at every session of the provincial legislature he had spoken in favour of the resolution which was always introduced asking for free trade. On many occasions he had stated that he was an avowed free trader, but when the people of western Canada examined his May day budget they said: Our Charlie has betrayed us, and they voted accordingly. They thought the May day budget was humbug. The hon. leader of

Canadian Nationals Act
the opposition took about twenty minutes during his speech in the early part of this session to explain the meaning of the word "humbug", but I think that every definition given to that word by the right hon. gentleman could be applied to the Dunning budget.
The hon. leader of the opposition seems to be very much concerned about this being a one man government. I prefer to follow a one man government, if you like to call it such, when the policies announced by our leader are those I have been looking for for the last fifteen or twenty years. The Prime Minister proved to the people of Canada that he was a man of courage and conviction. He announced a policy which he would enforce if given the opportunity. On July 28 the people said: Canada -wants to know, and Canada will know.
The right hon. leader of the opposition stated in his speech that the greatest purchasing power that we had in Canada was the western wheat crop. Does he hold the present Prime Minister responsible for the loss of that purchasing power? What did they do about the matter? I think the hon.' member for Regina referred to that in his speech. When the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) last year was asked about wheat, they said that the wheat would take care of itself. We know they did not do very much about it.
The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Mc-Phee) spoke about false fiscal policies. I should like to ask him what they did during the last nine or ten years that they held office. I think we are all agreed that this is not the time for idle talk; that it is the time for action. The people of Canada have decided to give the Prime Minister and his government an opportunity, and I think it is the duty of every good Canadian citizen who realizes the meaning of the term "citizenship" to give at least reasonable support to the present government to inaugurate policies of protection and other policies, to develop our industries and to make trade agreements that will help us to sell our natural products. Canada has an opportunity to go forward. It is up to us to be ready, a united, prosperous and contented Canada under the leadership of the greatest prime minister that Canada has had since the time of Sir John A. Macdonald.
On motion of Mr. McIntosh the debate was adjourned.



MAIN ESTIMATES, 1931-32

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1932. was presented by Right Hon. R. B. Bennett (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply-
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m
Tuesday, April 14, 1931