1931-04-28

RULES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Last Thursday I gave notice that I would propose to-day that the standing orders of the house be amended by inserting the following:
9(a). Upon a division a member is not obliged to vote.
In moving this amendment I do not propose anything new. I simply desire to clarify the situation and to enable the house and yourself, sir, as guardian of the rules of this house, to avoid a repetition of the little embroilment of last week. That, however, I regard, as a matter of fact, only as an incident. What I wish to make clear is that there never has been and that there is not at the present time any standing order or set rule governing the manner in which members must vote or refrain from voting. What has -been quoted in this house or outside the house as Rule 68 is not and never has been a rule; it is one of the footnotes which Mr. Beauchesne has incorporated as comments upon the very rule
which I propose to discuss to-day-that is, standing order No. 9. And even at that, Mr. Beauchesne's footnote, No. 68, which my good friend from Charlevoix-fiaguenay (Mr. Casgrain) mistook for a rule of the house, is but the reproduction of a paragraph of Bourinot's fourth edition, at page 381, as any man familiar with Mr. Beauchene's book, or with the rules of the house, can easily find out; because there, after paragraph 68, you have "B-381." Besides, that paragraph in Bourinot's fourth edition of 1916, which was edited by a predecessor of our able clerk, Doctor Flint, is also a verbatim reproduction of the same words used by Sir John Bourinot in the first edition of his book in 1884, at page 389. Now, that comment of Sir John Bourinot, reproduced as it has been from time to time, was absolutely true and accurate as applied to the practices of the British and Canadian houses in 1884. I do not think I shall have any trouble in demonstrating that it is no longer applicable to the rules of this house as they were revised in 1927.
Now to give a short history of our standing orders. The first set of rules or standing orders of this house were adopted on December 20, 1867, as may be found in the Journals of the House of Commons for the year 1867-68, at pages 115 to 125. Neither in these standing orders, any more than in any other standing orders following, nor in the present standing orders, was there any disposition regarding the right of members either to vote or not to vote. But there was a general governing clause, adopted as standing order No. 116, which stated:
In all unprovided cases the Rules, Usages and Forms of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall be followed.
That is what I call the governing rule of all our standing orders, from that day until the present time. As it was in 1867, that general clause did not make any mention as to date with regard to the usages pursued in the House of Commons in England; they were to apply from time to time. The first time that the matter was brought up in the house-at least the first time, and I think it is sufficient, that I have discovered-was in 1879, when the house voted, if I remember rightly, on the famous legislation concerning the Canadian Pacific Railway. An hon. member having voted, his vote was challenged by one of the ministers of the crown, Mr. Caron, because he had paired; upon which the Prime Minister, Sir John Macdonald, leader of the house, stood up and stated, in contradiction of his own colleague, that-

Rules-Members Not Voting
Every member in the house, if called upon, was compelled to vote, and even if a gentleman got up and stated that he had paired, the house could compel him to vote, because, if he had paired, he must leave the house before the Vote was taken. This was English practice.
If the rule stood now as it was then, it would mean that every time a vote is taken, members getting up and declaring that they have not voted because they are paired, break the same rule, or rather what has been mentioned as such, but which as a matter of fact is not a rule but only a practice. Let us see, however. Upon this opinion of Sir John Macdonald, implicitly endorsed by the whole house, Sir John Bourinot based the comment which I have quoted and which Mr. Beauchesne has reproduced in his paragraph, No. 68, misquoted as a rule of this house. The only rule was the practice as defined by Sir John Macdonald in 1879, then in force in England as here; because it must be noted that Sir John Macdonald invoked it as applying to this house inasmuch as it was the English practice.
In 1906, however, the British House of Commons revised its standing orders and adopted the following rule:	[DOT]
No. 29. A member may vote in a division although he did not hear the question put.
And paragraph 2:
A member is not obliged to vote.
-which are the exact words that I have put in the motion I now propose to the house. Now, did this apply to Canada? No. And why not? Because in 1906, the same year, in the month of March, the House of Commons of Canada had revised its rules and in substitution for the governing rule 116 of 1867 it had introduced a new governing clause. It is called "General Rule No. 1." This, I claim, is the most important of the standing orders because it governs the whole. It reads:
In ah eases not provided for hereinafter- That is, by the standing orders.
-or by sessional or other orders, the rules, usages and forms of proceeding of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in force on the first day of July 1867, shall be followed.
As Doctor Flint quotes in his posterior edition of Bourinot's work, the effect of this was to prevent the application to the House of Commons of Canada of the new standing order adopted in England in December 1906. So that when, in 1022', Mr. Beauchesne issued the first edition of his comments, he was perfectly justified in inserting this footnote. It was 'then under No. 69, now under No. 68. This paragraph says that an hon. member is Obliged to vote. That was copied, I repeat,

from feir John Bourinot. Then paragraph 70^69 of the second edition (1927)-reads as follows:
Under ancient custom, refusal to vote was considered a serious parliamentary offence, but the practice was changed in 1906 by the British house adopting a standing order whereby a member is not obliged to vote. That standing order does not apply to the Canadian Commons The practice has not been changed in Canada where every member who has heard the question put is bound to vote..
This is the second paragraph referred to by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Cas-grain) as being another rule of the house. The hon. member was apparently under the misapprehension that Mr. Beauchesne is the parliament of Canada and that his comments are to be taken as rules of this house, just as a lawyer in consulting with a client might confuse the opinion of a commentator with the text of a statute or of a judgment delivered by the court. I do not think my hon. friend would act in that way in his capacity as a lawyer.
Mr. CA8GRAIN: Not all the time.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My hon. friend did not do it intentionally. I am sure that most hon. members of this house are apt to make such mistakes once in a while; and may I say for the benefit of the hon. lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) that many members of the press gallery seemed to be under the same misapprehension. Neither Sir John Bourinot nor Mr. Beauchesne is the parliament of Canada, nor should a private opinion expressed by even such eminent parliamentary jurists as Sir John Bourinot or Mr. Beauchesne prevail over the expressed will of parliament.
I think I can demonstrate quite easily that in 1927 this house changed its attitude with regard to this very question and adopted a new rule which put into effect the practice which for many years, even previous to 1906, had been in force in Great Britain. In 1927, as every hon. member knows, our rules were revised. Heaven knows-my hon. friend beside me (Mr. Neill) will support me in this- they were not revised with the idea of giving more freedom to independent members of this house. However, the committee which revised our rules did not think it necessary to impose upon hon. members the obligation of voting if conscientiously they did not feel like voting. What did they do? They introduced a new governing rule. While the House of Commons had, in 1006, declared that such practices, customs and usages of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom would apply here only as prior to 1867, under the

Rules-Members Not Voting
rules adopted by this house in 1927 we reverted to the principle of 1867, and in fact made it much clearer. The general rule governing all such cases now is standing order No. 1, which reads as follows:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
The principle of applying only those rules in force in 1867 was deleted. So that from 1927 on, we have it stated in so many words in our standing orders, which are the laws governing the proceedings in this house, that the forms and practices now in force in England are in force here to govern all cases not provided for by our own standing orders. Under this new governing rule, which was a revolution, whether right or wrong, the then Speaker, Hon. Mr. Lemieux, decided twice during the session of 1928-the first session following the adoption of these rules-that a member although present in the house was not obliged to vote.
The first occasion occurred on March 27, 1928, to be found at page 1755 of the debates of that year. Curiously enough, the challenge was issued by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), so he has good reason to know the rule which was applied at that time. The hon. member raised the point that the then Minister of Immigration, Mr. Forke, had not voted, and then followed a very picturesque and I think very true comment by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), as follows:
'The minister is not the only one who did not understand what he was voting for.
I think that is one of the best comments on parliamentary government ever made. Mr. Speaker Lemieux spoke thus:
The rule is that members who are present when a motion is read must vote if they are in the house whilst the division is being taken. But when an hon. member declares that he does not know what the amendment is about, he is excused from voting. That is the practice followed in the British House of Commons.
Unfortunately, the Speaker, who had given his decision on the spur of the moment, did not quote the authorities. However, on May 26 of the same year another occasion arose on which the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Robb, challenged the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) for abstaining from voting. The decision of the Speaker, which appears on page 3420 of the debates of that year, was as follows:
Generally, under the practice of the house, an hon. member who has heard the question put must vote. However, lately, since 1906,
I know, in the British parliament this time-honoured practice has been ignored; I have seen a standing order-
The one which I read a moment ago-
-to the effect that when a member does not feel justified in voting he need not do so. I decided this point some weeks ago, when the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) was in the same position; he declared that because of conscientious reasons he did not think it wise to vote on the question.
The cause of the confusion which arose last week reduces itself to this:	In publishing his
book in 1927 our excellent clerk did not delete those so-called rules Nos. 68 and 69. They were not really rules, they were opinions previously expressed by Sir John Bourinot and Mr. Beauchesne. At the time they were expressed, they were quite proper but had no further application after the change of the governing rule made in 1927. In justice to our clerk, whom I consider to be one of the best parliamentary authorities, not only in Canada but in the British Empire, it must be said that this book was published a few weeks after the close of the session. He himself in his preface points out the fact that because of the changes adopted during the previous session he added some two hundred footnotes to the present edition, and struck out other footnotes which had no further application. His mistake would probably have been made by nine out of ten, if not by forty-nine out of fifty men. The clerk had to follow, and he did so with much industry and legal insight, the full effect of this new governing clause No. 1 upon all the standing orders and practices of this house. It would have taken months fully to realize what the effect of this new rule would be on the various practices and customs theretofore undefined either in the rules of our house or in those of the British house. So I repeat and I think I could end by saying that what I am moving to-day is in order to dispel a misapprehension, to put into concrete form what has been since 1927 the unwritten rule of the house and assented to by jurisprudence from the chair the year after the rules were revised.
But before I take my seat I want to go a little further, and I hope the house will acquit me of a desire simply to give a little satisfaction to my amour propre. What I want td demonstrate in my closing words is that this rule, as now written and applied in England-and it was applied in practice several years before it was enacted in their standing orders-is in strict conformity with

Rules-Members Not Voting
the evolution of parliamentary government that has taken place both in England and here, not to speak of other countries. I quite realize that for the many years during which the House of Commons was divided into two strictly regulated parties, the shepherds of those two flocks, for instance my good friends the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson), were mostly concerned with bringing in all the stranded ewes and making them vote in accordance with the party whip or order. But whether they like the situation or not, in England as here, with the extension of the suffrage not only to the various classes of men but to women as well, the point has been reached that the two party system is no longer satisfactory to a growing number of men and women either in Great Britain or in Canada. I find it quite legitimate on the part of the old party leaders, their followers and their press men, to deprecate that growth, but still it is there; and so long as there are fractions of the Canadian community, as in England, who send to parliament men who are not bound to follow the dictates of the two old parties, not only must those men be allowed freedom to express their opinions in concrete motions as they present them in contradistinction to the motions presented by the government or the official opposition; but in addition we must acknowledge to those men elected by the free electorate of Canada, the same liberty of not voting for any motion presented by a Conservative or by a Liberal if they find in that motion something to which they agree and something with which they disagree. Is that not reasonable?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: If this be the rule as it exists now, what is the necessity of enacting this new rule as would be done by the hon. member's motion?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: This is simply to clarify the matter. First of all it was evident last week that many hon. members were misinformed as to the situation. I am quite sure and I am prepared to say that every one of them was in perfect good faith. Under what circumstances are laws or regulations passed in the British house? In such matters I always rely upon British practice because, after all, the practice of parliamentary government is essentially British, and whether we agree or disagree with many things in British policy, we must agree that the British parliament, as a parliament, remains the example. Why did they adopt that rule in England? Because the point had been reached when

first the Irish party, then the Labour party, and then the Independent Labour party, had cropped up; and very often they were not permitted to express their views otherwise than by abstention from voting. Very wisely here as in England we have stuck to the rule that we should not have numerous amendments. But suppose even we changed that so as to give to my friends to my left, the Progressives-and even they are now nearly divided into two groups-or my friends of the Labour group, or myself or my good neighbour, the right to express our views in subamendments. After those subamendments have been disposed of we are obliged to vote either for or against the amendment, or the motion, or to abstain from voting. I do not want to refer to a past debate, but as a matter of illustration I may say that I stated quite clearly that the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) suited me in one respect but not in another. By voting against it I would have been forced to deny something in which I believed and by voting for it I would have been forced to approve something I did not approve. It is evident it was under the weight of such considerations that the change was made in England and I ask the house to make the same change here simply to clarify the question.
May I appeal to both the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition for whom-and they know this although we may differ on many occasions,-I have the greatest respect? I appeal especially to the Prime Minister whose marvellous erudition in matters of law and of parliamentary government has many times given me wonder. He is undoubtedly one of the greatest legal minds in this country. I am quite sure he is sincerely very much concerned with the preservation of the best traditions of British government. May I remind him of this? When the change was made in England it was proposed by Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, not an upsetter of things, I believe, one of the most respected of British statesmen in the last century. Around him sat as ministers of the crown such men as Sir Edward Grey, James Bryce-I call them as they were then styled, mere commoners but men of great value- Mr. Haldane, who later on became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Asquith. On the other side the opposition was led in the house by Mr. Arthur Balfour, surrounded by such men as the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, his son Austen, Lord Robert Cecil, and that veteran, not so well known perhaps outside of England but so much re-

Rides-Members Not Voting
spected in England, Sir Edward Clarke, who died just a few days ago, one of the shining lights and one of the most respected men in the British parliament as well as before the British courts. All those men sat there, and whilst many other proposals which were enacted then by a majority were discussed, this disposition which I ask the Canadian House of Commons to adopt for the same obvious reason that it was adopted in England, was not only adopted unanimously but not challenged by anybody. Do hon. members think if that change had been considered as an attempt to break with the best traditions of the House of Commons, as a danger to the working of parliamentary institutions, there would not have been found amongst those that I have named a single man to protest? But no, it passed unanimously.
The other portion of the rule, the one which exempts members from hearing the question, was challenged and, indeed, rather amusingly. The Conservative member who challenged the other part of the rule and said th-at the members should listen to the question, gave at the same time the evidence that that rule also had been disregarded for a good while in England, especially since the adoption of the new system of registering the vote by going through the lobbies. He said that time and again, he had heard members rushing into a lobby and asking friends of theirs; "What is all this about?"-"Biowed if I know!" Thus you had two informed members of the House of Commons pushing themselves into the lobby and coming out from the lobby into the House without knowing what they were voting for. For that reason it is better to discriminate, and here I give to the hon. member for Quebec East, the former Minister of Justice, (Mr. Lapointe), my reason for proposing this change. If we left it as it is, the whole of standing order 29 and the practice founded in England upon it, would apply to us. It would exempt members of the house from listening to a question. I do not believe in that, first for the reason that was given by Mr. Rutherford in England, but mainly because our mode of voting is not that which prevails in England. I claim, sir, that I am precisely within the spirit of British institutions when I say, as was stated time and time again by Sir John A. Macdonald and others, that all those rules and practices of the British parliament which are applicable to us we should endeavour to preserve, and those that are not applicable we should not. Therefore, I think that we should discard the first part of standing order 29 as adopted in England because not yet having resorted to the lobby system of voting it seems to me only
decent, were it only for the edification of the public, that a member should be in his seat when the question is put. I think that that is a conclusive reason why we should adopt that part of standing order 29 of the English house which concerns the liberty of members not to vote, but not the other part which allows them to vote without knowing upon what they are voting. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), the motion standing in my name as it is recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I voice the views of all the members of this house when I express our gratitude to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) for the toil to which he has gone in bringing to the attention of the members the history of this rule. He has done it dispassionately, and I think with precision.
May I venture, however, to remind him that the reason why we in Canada are authorized to make such rules as we might desire for the government of our own house, provided that they did not exceed the power exercised in the making of rules by the House of Commons of Great Britain is to be found in the fact that when the British North America Act was originally passed it contained in section eighteen a clause which provided as follows:
The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members therof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by act of the parliament of Canada, but so that the same shall never exceed those at the passing of this act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of 'Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
That, in a very vital moment in our history, was found to stand in the way of the exercise of certain necessary powers, so in 1875, on the 19th of July, the imperial parliament amended the British North America Act by substituting a new section reading as follows:
The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by act of the parliament of Canada, but so that any act of the parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.
As the hon. member for Labelle has very properly pointed out, there was a rule in

Rules-Members Not Voting
England until recent years compelling members to vote. That rule was abrogated in 1906 under the circumstances to which the hon. gentleman has referred, and to which I shall presently make some reference. The original rule was based on the assumption that every member of the House of Commons should, if he were in his place, vote upon any given question that was submitted by the Speaker for the consideration of the house. Two factors influenced the commons in changing that rule, one was the confusion with respect to voting. The hon. gentleman has referred to that. As is well known, in England to vote a member leaves the chamber and goes into either the government or the opposition lobby. The tellers are appointed by the Speaker for the division. When several parties other than the two old parties, as the hon. gentleman has said, began to exercise authority there was first of all provision made, not by law, but by custom, for abstention from voting, and the reason that the rule was amended was because it was so wholly disregarded. That was the real reason. In other words, the confusion in voting and the difficulties in voting, by reason of there being but the (two lobbies, had brought about a situation that made it incumbent that the rules should be changed in the manner indicated.
In my opinion this is a matter which every member of ithe house should consider from the point of view of the best interests of the house. In my opinion every member of the house, if he is in the chamber, should record his view on every question submitted to the house by the Speaker. As I was thinking of this matter ithis morning I remembered the words of Burke:
I certainly have very warm wishes for the place of my birth, but the sphere of my duties is my true country.
Those of you who recall that celebrated 9peeeh of his to the electors of Bristol will recognize that he -put perhaps as fairly as it has ever been put the position of a member of parliament. The duty of a member of parliament is not only to his own constituency; it is to every part of this broad Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Once we have conceded the right of any member to withdraw from the chamber, then I think by the very nature of our proceedings and the method we adopt in voting, he must vote if he is in his place. I say that for two reasons:	First, because his	sitting	in	thischamber	when ithe question	is put	involvesmuch confusion if he does	not vote.	Youhave that here in this chamber yoursel-f, Mr. Speaker,	and it is known	to all	of	us.
Secondly, I conceive that there rests upon 
every member who thinks it worth while to sit in the chamber the duty to express to this country what his views are with respect to the questions so submitted to him. Does not that seem to be reasonable? In a vast country such as this where we have but 245 members, with questions which affect the well-being -of every part of the body politic constantly -being submitted for our consideration, and having by an extension of our rules given the right to a third group to move a subamendmen-t -when going into supply, thereby securing great freedom for -every individual in the expression of his opinion- is it not incumbent upon every one of us elected not only to represent a particular constituency, but to deal with problems that affeot the well-being of Canada as a whole, to express his opinion in the only method known to the law in which he can express it in this house, namely, by rising in his place and recording his opinion? While pairs are not recognized by parliamentary practice and procedure, the custom or convention has grown up whereby the view of a member paired is recorded upon the journals of the house. I cannot therefore do other than in a very few words indicate that I believe it is the bounden duty of every hon. member of the Canadian House of Commons, in view of the problems with which we have to deal, to be ready and willing if he sits in this house to express an opinion. If peradventure there be those who believe that it is undesirable for particular reasons at a given moment not to express an opinion, I see no reason why an hon. member might not withdraw from the house. I very distinctly recall an occasion in which I did. I felt that for the moment I was not in accord with the view held by my friends, and another hon. gentleman and myself retired from the chamber rather than vote. I was sitting in the seat now occupied by the former Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin). In England it requires only seven or eight minutes to record a division, and in the English House of Commons there are about six hundred members. Those hon. members who have watched the clock realize how long it takes in this house. The provision for calling in the members in the Canadian House of Commons is somewhat different from the custom in England. In our house Mr. Speaker says, "Call in the members," and during the interval which elapses between the time the bell rings to call in the members and the Speaker rises to put the question there is a period given for hon. members to finally determine whether or not they will go into the lobby and not vote or be in the house and vote. I consider that interval to afford

Rules-Members Not Voting
opportunity to each hon. member to consider how he will vote-such an opportunity is not afforded in the same way in England. As Burke said in one of his addresses the English do not believe that customs which violate the law should long continue and the law is repealed. And so the custom by which the law was disregarded with respect to voting in England was crystallized by the repeal of the provisions which called upon members to vote.
We are a new country, with fresh problems, large obligations and responsibilities, and I do not believe there is in this house a single member who desires to escape his obligations or be relieved of his responsibilities. His obligations are ito Canada. His responsibilities are to the country as a whole and in the discharge of those obligations and responsibilities I believe it is in the best interests of this Dominion that every member of this house should, when the proper moment comes, rise in his place and express his opinion upon every question submitted from the chair. If he does not wish to do that he should withdraw from the chamber and thereby preserve his independence of mind and freedom of choice hereafter. That is my conviction in the matter.
Holding these views as strongly as I do I now move an amendment to the motion made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) seconded by Mr. Stevens as follows:
That the motion be amended by striking out the word "not" therein before the word "obi iged."

so that hereafter, whatever doubt may have been entertained in the past, it will be removed and all hon. members in this house will be obliged to vote when the question is put from the chair.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Bennett moves in amendment, seconded by Mr. Stevens that the motion be amended by striking out the word "not" therein before the word "obliged." The original motion reads:
That the standing orders of this house be amended by inserting the following as 9(a).
Upon a division a member is not obliged to vote.
The effect of the amendment is to strike out from the motion the word "not". The motion would then read that the member is obliged to vote. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: On a point of order, I would like to ask whether the amendment as put is in order? Is it not a negative of the original motion?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My ruling is that the amendment is in order. The original motion 22110-66
is for an amendment of the rules, and the amendment is also for an amendment of the rules, but in a different way. I therefore hold that the amendment is in order.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I am not quite pleased with the way the Prime Minister has explained the situation, or his contention that every hon. member who i3 present in the house must vote. Those who are paired cannot vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I excepted them.


Charles Marcil: There is no record kept of pairs, except in Hansard, and Hansard is not official. It is not an official record of the proceedings of this bouse. Therefore if this new rule passed a member who is paired would have to leave the house because he is paired and cannot vote. He is prevented from voting because he is paired. Pairs however are not recognized by the chair and are not mentioned in the journals of the house. I would like to know what the Prime Minister means.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no doubt that my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is correct in his interpretation of the situation as it exists. So much is clear. From the words of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister there is no doubt a mistake has been made, and now it is proposed to correct that mistake by enacting a new rule. So far as I am concerned, although I believe it is desirable that hon. members should vote on every question submitted to them, I do not think it fair to correct that situation by enacting a rule in this way to-day. Usually rules of the house when changed or amended are so changed and amended by a special committee. There is a Speaker's committee where the whole situation may be considered and studied, and I am free to say that if I were a member of such a committee I would perhaps support the views of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. Certainly however I will not vote for his amendment in order to correct the mistake which was made the other day.


Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: In view of the discussion which has taken place, I have not very much ,to say more particularly with regard to the statements which have been made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). In so far a3 former rules are concerned he has covered the situation very clearly. The Prime Minister has moved an amendment however which is of some importance, and which probably will mean a great deal to hon. members of this house. I think the suggestion made by
acviaro edition

Rules-Members Not Voting
the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the former Minister of Justice, that this matter be referred to a special committee of the house, is a fair one. However I am not very hopeful that this will be done, because I believe the Prime Minister has made up his mind that he is going to have his way on this occasion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Rather unfair, but still


Mr. McINTOSH:: What is wrong with
that?


Robert Gardiner: Both the motion and
the amendment arose out of an occurrence of last Tuesday night when the amendment to the motion in regard to the reply to the speech from the throne was being voted upon. At that time certain hon. members in this corner of the house did not vote either for or against the amendment. So far as we were concerned, we felt that we were within our rights, more particularly having in mind the rulings of the former Speaker.
Let me point out clearly to the house that the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne was purely a party amendment. That is my judgment of it. The time of this house is given to playing party politics more than to the real business of the country. In view of the proposed amendment by the Prime Minister apparently such practice is going to continue unceasingly. I wish the people of Canada could sit in this house sometimes-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Robert Gardiner: -and listen to the debate and note the waste of time through the two political parties jockeying for political advantage; if the people knew what went on in this chamber I am satisfied they would make a change pretty quickly.
The rules of the house up to the present have been designed practically for the playing of the old two-party system. As far as we are concerned we object to this. Personally, and I think I can speak for my colleagues as well, if any question comes before ' the house that merits the attention of members, and consequently is a question upon which they would vote, you will always find, Mr. Speaker, that we will vote. But when questions are brought forward as a matter of party tactics, we will not take notice of them and we will not vote on them. If this amendment is adopted and we are forced to leave the house while a division is being taken, then we will leave the house as a protest against this kind of procedure.


An hon. MEMBER:: And stay out.


Robert Gardiner: I am not afraid to stay out for a few minutes. Now, sir, let me come back to last Tuesday night's performance. I propose to deal with that now in view of the amendment which the Prime Minister has introduced. The vote had been taken and was being counted. The hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) rose in his seat and stated:
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) have not voted.


Mr. NEILL:: Which was not correct.


Robert Gardiner: Then Your Honour
said:
My understanding of the rule is that hon. members may refrain from voting if they see fit.
That was your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Of that there is no question, for it is in Hansard, and in my judgment undoubtedly it is a correct ruling, in that you were following the precedent laid down by the former Speaker. Furthermore, the explanation which the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has given this afternoon with regard to these rules has in my view confirmed the correctness of Your Honour's first judgment. But what happened? Protests were made; for instance, the chief whip of the Conservative party (Mr. Simpson, Algoma), and the chief whip of the Liberal party (Mr. Casgrain), probably being very much exercised over party discipline and feeling that it was necessary for them to say something on the question, called Your Honour's attention to a supposed rule, No. 68. Evidently these gentlemen did not know that that was not a rule at all. At the present time we have only two rules dealing with voting. They are as follows:
8.	When members have been called in, preparatory to a division, no further debate is to be permitted.
9.	Upon a division, the Yeas and Nays shall not be entered upon the minutes, unless demanded by five members.
I challenge any member to point to any other rule or standing order with regard to voting. These two, I repeat, are the only rules dealing with the question whether a member must vote or not. But my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has given a very good description of how under the former practice prior to 1927 every member who was in his seat and heard the question read had to cast his vote on whatever motion was before the house. The chief whips of the two old parties again called your attention to the fact that certain members in this

Rules-Members Not Voting
corner had not voted. Then the Prime Minister entered into the discussion, and I may be permitted to quote him briefly:
Mr. Bennett:	Perhaps nothing more serious
has arisen since I have been in parliament. The authority of the chair is challenged, is defied openly by members of this house. The house must then do what the rules require. You will name, Mr. Speaker, the members thus in contempt.
Just imagine the Prime Minister of this country making such a statement based on an insufficient knowledge of the rules! Why Your Honour changed your mind I do not know. Probably it was because of the pressure of the Prime Minister and other members.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Robert Gardiner: I will withdraw the
word "pressure" and substitute "suggestion." Probably it was because of the suggestion by the Prime Minister and several other members that you changed your decision. But, Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you that you did make a right decision in the first place. If you had only followed out your first thought in the matter you would have continued to be all right.
I am going to oppose the amendment. I think it is detrimental to the best interests of the members of this house. Let me remind the house of this important point, that the day may come when certain members who are now opposed to our stand may find themselves in the same position as we were in a few days ago. Let them think of the future; that is very important for them to remember. There is no reason why we should permit the privileges of private members to be further curtailed simply for party purposes. We should see to it that instead of the private member's privileges being curtailed or destroyed, those privileges should be enlarged, because to-day the private member is a nonentity in this house.


Mr. MANION:: Might I ask the hon. member a question?


Robert Gardiner: Yes.


Robert James Manion: What is the party purpose that would be served when we are all put on the same basis?


Robert Gardiner: It is for the purpose of disciplining party members. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment. As to the motion, I do not think it is really necessary, the rule appears to me to be plain, but if the motion is earned it wall so clarify the rule that all members will have a better understanding of it.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this discussion had it not been for the remarks of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), who is a very old and experienced member of this house, who for a period of years was the first commoner, and for whose judgments and opinions I have a very high respect. Writh the principle involved in the amendment moved by the Prime Minister, I am in hearty accord. And I feel that all thinking members, if they dissociate themselves from certain events which occurred in this house last week, on calm reflection will agree that every man sent to the House of Commons, representing as he does not only his constituents, but the people of Canada as a whole, should have an opinion and be prepared to stand behind his opinion by his vote on every vital question that comes before the house. For that reason I intend to vote for the amendment, but I hope the Prime Minister will pause for a moment and give heed to the suggestion-it was merely a suggestion as I understand it-made by the hon. member for Bonaventure. We have a system of pairs that has been in force for many years. This system is a great convenience to all gentlemen in this house. I for one feel that I could not carry on my parliamentary duties unless I had a permanent pair for each and every session. Members who have interests outside the house are often called away at a moment's notice to fulfil other duties of an imperative nature. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he give consideration to the proposal made by my hon. friend from Bonaventure, so that a member who has a registered pair may still sit in his place and not vote, and yet have his name appear in Hansard as having been present. I understand from my reading that in England a member of parliament is judged very largely by his constituents, not by the number of speeches he makes in the House of Commons, but by the number of times he is present and records his vote. I commend this to some of those gentlemen who talk so much in this house; let them remember that actions speak louder than words. I again suggest to the Prime Minister that he give heed to the proposal of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) in order that some way may be found whereby those members who are paired and are present will not have to walk out of the house.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday night last I was very definite and outspoken in refusing to declare my vote at your request, and I presume I appeared to the members of this house as

Rules

Members Not Voting
setting at naught the rules of parliament. I want merely to say now that at that time I knew what is now known by the entire house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: Yes. We have had occasion to study the rule and we have studied it; and we knew perfectly well that the rule became obsolete in Great Britain in 1906. We knew that we were following the British practice in respect of that rule, and we knew also that we had the ruling of a previous Speaker on the matter. So that I knew when I made that declaration that I was observing the rules of the house and was the only man who was keeping them. The hon. gentlemen whom the Sergeant at Arms should have tapped on the shoulder were the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the two whips; for the Speaker had given his ruling before they spoke and they disregarded it, trying to press upon us an old and obsolete rule which had been discarded in England and ruled against by a Speaker of this house. I am glad, therefore, of the opportunity of making my position clear, and I trust that members of the press gallery, who knew as little about the rides as some hon. members of the house did, will take note of this and see that we are apologized to in the press.
With regard to the amendment, it is now seeking the authority which this house lacked on Tuesday night. That is the meaning of the amendment, and I take it, therefore, as an excellent apology to this corner. And as regards pairs, I hope that this rule, if it passes, will abolish the practice of having pairs. In that event, hon. gentlemen will be in a worse position than we are when we are compelled to walk out of the chamber.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: It seems to me that the house is attaching more importance to this question than it deserves, because whether the main motion or the amendment carries, the result is practically the same. If I believed with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that the institutions of British government and parliamentary practice were in serious danger unless the amendment carried, I should be disposed to vote with him. But surely that [DOT]cannot be the case when, as is well known, and as has been stated here, in the British parliament members are not compelled to vote. And no one claims that parliamentary or representative institutions are endangered thereby.
But I have three chief reasons for being opposed to the amendment proposed by the Prime Minister. In the first place, I do not

believe very much in compulsion except where it is necessary in the public interest. Secondly, I conceive that it is quite possible that a member may conscientiously refrain from voting, not having so crystallized his opinion on a question as to warrant his voting one way or the other. And in the third place -and this is as important as the other two reasons, if not more so-if the amendment carries and hon. members are compelled to vote in the event of their remaining in the chamber, it is quite easy for them to evade the question after all by simply absenting themselves from the chamber. After all, why should it be necessary for a member to leave the chamber in order to avoid being compelled to vote?
Mr. LaVER'GNE : May I ask the hon. member a question for information? Suppose a member does not leave the chamber: If his vote is not recorded, how are we to know the difference between those who are absent from the chamber and those who have not voted, being present, because they lacked courage or conviction?


William Daum Euler: The argument has been advanced that a man should be compelled to vote if he stays in the chamber. But if he leaves the chamber you do not know what his views are on the question. Let me say that his constituents will know what position he takes on certain questions; and the mere fact that he is in the chamber and declines to vote makes his attitude more conspicuous than possibly it would be if he left the chamber.
Mr. LaVERGNE: But under the rules his views would not be recorded.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend knows very
well that, with the press gallery in full operation, and with his friends listening to and observing him, his constituents through the press will soon know that such a member declined to vote. My right hon. friend has also stated that he is in favour of the amendment for the reason that, if members remain in the chamber and do not vote, it leads to confusion. I cannot see the point of that argument. If there is any confusion whatever it must be because of some difficulty in the taking of the vote by the assistant clerk. But any difficulty that he might have in that regard is certainly also present in the case of those who abstain from voting because they are paired. We do not recognize pairs, and I cannot see that there could be any possible confusion, so far as taking the vote is concerned, if certain members were absolved altogether from voting.

Rules-Members Not Voting
Mr. LaVERGNE: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend-


William Daum Euler: I shall be through in a moment and then the hon. gentleman can make his speech.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Unless the hon. member
who has the floor consents, he may not be interrupted.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	If my hon. friend does
not consent, I will sit down.


William Daum Euler: I have given the reasons for
my attitude. I am opposed in principle to the idea of compelling members to vote; I think they should be free. My mind is open, however. I do not think that the matter need necessarily be decided here, nor do I see any reason why we should not adopt the practice that has been frequently followed m similar cases. I am going to propose a subamendment, and if it does not carry I shall certainly have to oppose the amendment moved by the Prime Minister. My proposal is that the matter be referred to a committee for report to the house. If that proposal is not adopted, I shall have to vote against the amendment and in support of the motion made by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). My motion is:
That all the words after "that" in the amendment be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"all the words after 'that' in the main motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
a committee of the house be appointed to act with Mr. Speaker for the purpose of considering the question of amending the standing orders of the house by adding the following:
'9a. Upon a division, a member is not nbliged to vote.' "


Alan Webster Neill: I will vote against the subamendment. The issue is a clear one, and if the house cannot settle a simple question like that we had better go home. Although I was seconder of the motion proposed by my deskmate (Mr. Bourassa) I did not intend to speak upon it until there was an amendment, for the reason that my hon. friend covered the ground so thoroughly and clearly that it was not possible to say anything without repeating his arguments. But since the amendment has been moved, I should like to say a few words. The amendment compels members to vote, and the Prime Minister put forward some arguments in support of that proposal. He drew a comparison with the British House of Commons, where they vote by going into lobbies; and if I followed him rightly he said that when more than two parties arose it led to confusion because the
members of the third or fourth party objected to going into one or other of the lobbies. The same condition exists here. While we do not go into a lobby, we are asked to vote yes or no, which is exactly the same proposition. I do not see any strength in that argument. Then again he told us that of late years the rules had been changed in this house and it was now possible to move an amendment and subamendment to going into supply, and upon one or two other occasions, and that, he said, afforded a full opportunity for the expression of views by the groups opposite.
I would point out to the house that there are now at least five groups on this side and the possibility of their being allowed to move one subamendment does not give them an opportunity of expressing their views. They may be peculiar views, but nevertheless they are the views of the group and there is just as much reason to allow five groups to express their views as there is to allow two or three.
On the question of pairs the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) read out of the records of the house where Sir John A. Macdonald, in dealing with this very point, said that in spite of pairs hon. members would be compelled to vote. Sir John said that the rules read that wherever an hon. member had got into the house inadvertently he would be compelled to break faith with the man with whom he was paired. Here is the situation which now exists. An hon. member on this side pairs with an hon. member opposite; he is obliging the hon. member, and when it comes to a vote, under present conditions, he stays in his place. He does not vote, but after the vote has been taken he rises in his place and says:	I was paired with the hon.
member for so-and-so, if I had voted I would have voted in such a way, and that remark is recorded in Hansard. That serves a double purpose, it reveals to his constituents the fact that he was in the house and paying attention to his duties on that occasion, and reveals what his intention in the matter was. That safeguards him and allows him to be courteous to his opponent.
If this rule is introduced the member who is paired will have to absent himself and there will be no record that he was even in Ottawa on the day of the vote. I have known worse things to happen in the heat of party politics than for someone to get up and say: "Why the hon. gentleman was not even in the house when the vote was taken", quite regardless of the fact that that apparent absence was only an act of courtesy to an hon.

Rules-Members Not Voting
member opposite. It would lead to the doing away with pairs and to confusion and injustice in connection therewith.
I have always voted when I was in the house, and so far as I know, I intend always to do so. I recall the remarks of some great man, I forget now who he was, who said to his opponent:	"I bitterly oppose your sentiments but I will fight to the death for the right for you to utter them". That is the view I take in this matter. Whether or not I approve of abstaining from voting, I am prepared to fight to any reasonable extent in support of the views of those who wish either to vote or to abstain from voting. As the hon. member for Labelle said the other evening, the privileges of one are the privileges of all.
There is too great a disposition in this house, and there always has been ever since I have been in it, to curtail the privileges and rights of the individual private member. To-day it is almost impossible for a private member to introduce a bill and get it carried through to completion; it is possible by the very simplest intrigue to prevent its passage. Another good illustration occurred a few years ago when we agreed to cut down the time of speaking to forty minutes. During the debate on the address I have been grimly amused in observing that almost every hon. member who got up and deplored the fact that he had only forty minutes in which to speak, voted on that occasion for the passage of that rule, while I and a few other hon. members opposed it.
Why not let us follow the practice followed in Great Britain? The Prime Minister says that the other practice had been followed for three hundred years before they changed it and that we are a young country. Because we are a young country there is no reason why we should move three hundred years behind Great Britain. Why not take advantage of Great Britain's experience which has led her to change her rules after trying them out for three hundred years? Is that not a very good argument in support of the assertion that there was wisdom in their action and that we should be well advised to take a similar step? Why should not we follow in her footsteps?
Therefore, while I have no wish or intention to abstain from voting in the house, I will vote in support of those who wish so to abstain.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the hon. member who has just spoken CM. Neill), but although we have been
]Mr. Neill.]
waiting for an expression from the other side as to the reason why an hon. member present in the house should abstain from voting, I must say that I have not heard that reason expressed. We are allowed a motion, an amendment and very often a subamendment and I should think there would be opportunity afforded to hon. members whose conscience may be rather delicate to make a fair choice. I understand there may be cases where an hon. member cannot find a choice suits him either in the motion, the amendment or the subamendment, and that is why I put the question: Why should an hon. member who stays in the house abstain from voting? Another hon. member may be absent from force of circumstances, and should this motion carry the votes and proceedings would place the hon. member who abstained from voting either because his conscience had not been enlightened sufficiently or from lack of conviction or courage, upon the same footing as the hon. member who had been forced to absent himself. Unless we change our whole proces verbal, the hon. member who is in the house and who abstains from voting because he has found no motion to his choice will be absolutely in the same position as the hon. member who is forced to be absent but who would have had the courage to vote had he not been prevented from attending in the chamber. I have tried to find a reason for supporting the motion of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), but I have been unable to do so. When an hon. member is present in the house and does not desire to vote, there is only one thing to do; instead of sitting in his place, he should step out.


William Daum Euler: Why should he?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	If he remains in the
chamber and is not challenged, he is in the same position as though he had stepped out.


William Daum Euler: Then why go out?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	The hon. member who
is absent by force of circumstances and who would have voted had he been present would be placed upon a footing of equality with the hon. member who has not the conviction or courage to vote.


William Daum Euler: Should an hon. member not desiring to vote step out of the chamber, is he not in the same position as the hon. member who is unavoidably absent but who would have voted had he been here?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Unless we change our
rules, especially in our proces verbal, it will mean nothing when an hon. member remains in the chamber and abstains from voting. We

Rules-Members Not Voting
will have to change our rules of procedure so that the hon. member who remains in the chamber and abstains from voting will be registered as having abstained from voting, either because of conscience or other reasons. Otherwise it will mean nothing at all, as he would be on the same footing as the hon. member forced to be absent from the chamber.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend wants to
propose another subamendment.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	No, I am satisfied with
the present rule and my hon. friend can rest assured that as long as I am in the house I will have the courage to vote.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, having in mind what he had to say, I am rather surprised that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) found it necessary to introduce any motion. He made his position quite clear, and I believe he convinced the house that he is in the right in the position he takes with respect to the present rule being as he describes it. He has, however, introduced a motion, an amendment has been proposed to it, and an amendment to the amendment has also been proposed. We are now in the position that with respect to these several motions we have either to rise and make clear where we stand, or refrain from voting by abstaining, as apparently that is now permissible, in which latter event no one in the country will know just where we stand on this all important question. Inasmuch as I believe in members of the house indicating to the country where they stand on all questions that come before the house, I do not propose to avoid voting on any of these motions, but I wish to state where I stand in regard to the subamendment which is before the house and, if need be, later on with respect to the amendment and the main motion.
I would ask whether this is not the right moment to consider following to the full, the British practice and custom. As nearly as I can make out from the discussion which we have had this afternoon, such embarrassment as has arisen in different quarters of the house has arisen from the fact that in one particular we follow the British practice and in another we do not. The British practice is to record the votes by members leaving the chamber and passing to the right or to the left of the Speaker. Their votes are recorded by tellers. Only those votes are recorded which refer to the names of hon. members who have passed the chair. If any hon. member does not wish to vote, he may remain in the house. That is what my hon. friends in the far corner
wish to do, I understand, on many questions; they wish to stay in the house and refrain from voting. I would suggest that the amendment to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), proposing the reference of the whole matter to a committee of the house, be supported by the house, having in view a consideration at this time as to whether we should not adopt the British practice with respect to the recording of votes. I believe if that step were taken, it would solve the difficulties of practically all parties or groups in the house. Those who believe in members indicating to the country where they stand, will, if the British practice is followed, have their position known by passing to the right or to the left of the Speaker. Those who wish to refrain from voting, and at the same time remain in the house, will be able to abstain and to remain.
There is one other reason why I suggest that that course should be followed now and it is in reference to the subject of pairs which has been raised by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and spoken to by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). The directing of the attention of His Honour the Speaker to hon. members who have not voted has to be taken before the announcement of the vote is made. Obviously it is impossible for one, looking on, to read in the mind of an hon. member whether he has abstained from voting because he is paired or because he does not wish to vote. If hereafter an effort is to be made to find out which of the two reasons has actuated hon. members who may have refrained from voting, there will be endless confusion. If the practice is followed whereby members pass to the right or to the left of the Speaker, then, with respect to pairs, all that would be necessary that pairs might be recorded would be for the whips to hand a list of the pairs to the tellers and have them subsequently recorded in the proceedings. That would indicate how every member who was paired had intended to vote. It would meet what the hon. member for York-Sunbury has in mind, of making sure that pairs are recorded while at the same time preserving to hon. members an honourable obligation between them to abstain, in certain circumstances, from voting.
A further point I would make is this: the time that is taken up in the house in calling and recording names is considerable. There is a great waste of time in recording votes by calling individual names and causing members to rise in their places, while the names are being recorded and then subsequently

Rules-Members Rot Voting
counting up the totals. I believe we would save the time of the house-and surely we need to save all the time we can-by adopting this speedier method of simply walking into the lobbies, having the vote thus recorded, and allowing the journals of the house to indicate what action the different members have taken. It is for that reason that I would strongly urge hon. members to support the amendment to the amendment. If the amendment to the amendment went the length of a general revision of the rules of the house, I would object to it. I do not think it is necessary at this time to open up the rules generally, but the concrete motion that is before the house might well be referred to a committee in language sufficiently broad to permit of its consideration in relation to the larger proposal.
Before taking my seat, may I say that I resent very strongly the imputation of the leader of the group in the far corner, the so-called Independent group, that amendments moved by one or other of the old parties in the house are moved for reasons of party politics, pure and simple. I will remind my hon. friend that long before there were any third parties or independent groups in the house, the custom in parliament was for members of a political party to express their views in the form of motions and amendments to motions. This was and is the one and only method where a vote is to be recorded. It ill becomes my hon. friend to impute a motive of that kind to any hon. member or to any political party. May I just say to him, and to those who take that view, that the fact that they do impute such a motive to others makes me feel very strongly that something of the kind is in their own minds? If there ever was a playing of party politics with respect to public questions, it will be found in relation to more than one of the subamendments which have been moved by the so-called independent groups in the house.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ont-ario):: This question affects not only the rights of members of parliament, which are not greatly jeopardized, but the rights of the electors of the country. The people have a right to know the views of every member of parliament on every question that comes before the house. All these subterfuges are simply methods to enable the members of the house to shirk their duties. Look at the array of talent in the press gallery. What are they there for? They are there to enlighten the people of Canada as to the views of the respective members on every question that comes before the house. I for one do not wish 
to shirk that responsibility. It is up to every hon. member to record his vote on every question that comes before us.
I am very much in sympathy with the amendment moved by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), with the exception that some provision should -be made for pairs. But I think sometimes we forget the great past, the grave responsibilities that have come down to this house. When we study the history of parliamentary government, what does it mean? If we go back hundreds of years, what did they fight for? First it was for parliamentary government; second, for the supremacy of the House of Commons, and, third, that the House of Commons should represent the people. How are the people who send us here to know whether we represent the people of this great Dominion or not if provision is made for every hon. member to shirk the recording of his opinion upon any question that comes before the house? There are at least three ways now open to a member: one is to record his vote; a second is to pair with another member, and the third is to absent himself from the house. Every member knows that to-day a man who shirks his vote in the house has to bear the disgrace of that before his electors. They look upon it as an act of cowardice. This is only opening another door whereby a member may shirk his duty. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment of the Prime Minister should carry, so that every member of the house who is present when a vote is taken shall have to stand up and record his vote.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I had no
intention of taking part in this debate, but the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) has made a statement which should not pass unchallenged. He says that any member who does not vote is showing cowardice. I should like to remind him that his own leader a short time ago said very frankly that last year he deliberately walked out of the chamber to avoid taking part in a vote. If there was a little more thinking behind some of the talking that is done in this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Gibson Coote: -we should not have so much confusion, and that applies to some of the things that were said by hon. members opposite last Tuesday night.
The Prime Minister in moving his amendment made some reference to the confusion that is caused in the house by members not voting. I would like to point out that last Tuesday night, when this confusion is said

Rules-Members Not Voting
to have taken place, you were called upon, Mr. Speaker, at one time to get up and remonstrate with some members of the house because of their disorderly conduct. They were causing so much confusion that you remonstrated and said that after the vote was over you would send some of the pages out to play marbles with those members in the lobby. Your remarks were addressed to members who had voted, not to the members in this corner of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask hon. members to observe the rules that we have now and to keep silence in the chamber when a member is speaking.


George Gibson Coote: There is one other matter
to which I wish to refer. I was under the impression, as were other hon. members, that a year ago both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition were rather in favour of changing the method of taking the vote in this house, so I think the Prime Minister would be very well advised to accept the subamendment and allow this matter to go to a committee to see if we cannot get a better method of taking the vote. It may be that the committee would recommend the method used in the British house. I do not know whether that method is the best or not, but I certainly think that all sides of the house are agreed that we need a new method, and I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he take that into consideration before he makes up his mind to press his own amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The subamendment is
predicated, I submit, upon an entirely erroneous impression of the situation. The right hon. leader of the opposition has suggested that he was left in some doubt as to why the hon. member for Labelle moved his motion. I confess that I have had doubts as to the wisdom of it because it has precipitated this question into the house, and it must now be decided. The question to be decided is: Shall members vote or not, when they are in the house?
There is a singular misunderstanding on the part of a great many members as to what the obligation of a member is. I wonder how many have read standing order 5. It reads:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the house, unless leave of absence has been given him by the house.
That is the rule.


Mr. VALLANCE:: What about the Prime Minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; he is bound to
be in his place at the opening of the house.


Ernest Lapointe: It does not say the
opening.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Wait till I give you the rest of it. Paragraph 53 of Beauchesne's Rules and Forms comments on that standing order as follows:
A member _ of the British house was expelled, in 1715, for refusing to attend the service of the house.
Paragraph 54 says:
In case of unavoidable absence it was for several years usual, in the Canadian House of Commons, to have the reasons explained to the house and leave then given to the member to absent himself from his duties.
There is the standing order, and I fancy that is the reason why most of us try to be here at prayers.
Having had this question precipitated into the house, may I make this further observation with respect to what was said by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). My statement the other evening and that of the leader of the opposition was based upon the defiance of the rules of the house by certain members of the house. It was not a statement as to the wisdom of the rule. The Speaker having decided as he did, it was perfectly obvious that for any member to defy his ruling was not the proper method under our institutions of dealing with the matter. If hon. members had desired to appeal from his ruling, an appeal could have been taken. But certainly it could not be done by defiance. I did say what I believed then and still believe, that nothing is better calculated to drag the whole institution of parliament into disrepute than to have members speak of it in just that way. That was my objection, and that of others who followed me, and I am sure that it is the reason why the hon. member for Labelle referred to this whole matter in the way he did. He said that that was but an incident; but what is larger than the incident is the principle involved.
The subamendment does not afford an opportunity to discuss the method of voting. Let the hon. member for Macleod have no misunderstanding as to that. By the subamendment a committee is asked to deal with a very simple question. For once I am wholly in accord with the hon. member for Comox-

Rules-Members Not Voting
Alberni (Mr. Neill) when he said, "I feel capable of dealing with this matter without asking a committee to deal with it for me." The whole question is this: Shall we be obliged to vote or not? I have given at some length the reasons that induced me to believe that we should. If the members of the house think that we should not, it will be found I think that to refer this to a committee is merely to invite a few gentlemen to meet together and discuss among themselves how you or I should determine for himself a question that is personal to himself.


William Daum Euler: Would it be competent so to enlarge the subamendment as to make it possible for the committee to canvass other methods of taking the vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly would be competent to enlarge the subamendment so as to involve many things that it does not now involve. At least half a dozen members of this house have studied the different methods of voting. I recall a conversation that I had with the right hon. leader of the opposition after having watched the British House of Commons divide. I am free to say that I took considerable time one afternoon when we were waiting on a committee at Westminster to ascertain just how the voting did take place in the British House of Commons. The vote is over in seven or eight minutes, as we all know. Our lobbies seem to me to be reasonably well adapted to that purpose. But there is nothing that a committee can do with respect to it. It is well known how the voting is done in the British house. The Speaker names the tellers, the ayes go to the right and the nays to the left, and the tellers report back. I saw the changes which have been made in recent years because of difficulties in counting. The whole matter was carried on simply and effectively. I did think that we might try it here as an experiment, but I am not convinced that it would be a successful experiment at the moment. I am bound to say that I do not think that anything a committee can do can be more than has already been stated in this house so many times. If it is the opinion of the house that the method of taking the vote should be changed, I for one should be very glad to afford the opportunity for members to decide whether or not the present method should be abolished and a different method should be used, but for the moment the question is: Shall a member who is in the chamber vote or not, and upon that issue I propose, as far as it goes, to vote.


Ernest Lapointe: May I remark that in my experience during the twenty-seven years I have been in the house the rules have never been changed or altered except-


Richard Bedford Bennett: By a committee.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, through a committee especially appointed for that purpose, with the one exception of the occasion when closure was introduced. As my hon. friend knows there was an emergency at the time to require that special procedure. Why not in this instance proceed as we have always done and follow the practice which has always been followed by the house? Surely there is no emergency in the present instance. We might very well observe the tradition that the rules of the house should not be changed except after consideration by a committee. My learned and hon. friend must realize that in the present instance there is nothing at issue with the exception of one particular question. If it were other than that, if it were a question of setting out a new rule, the circumstances would be different. Since, however, the question has been raised in the house by an hon. member, we are bound to deal with it.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Will the Prime Minister please answer a question? Under the rule suggested by the Prime Minister how will pairs be affected?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say I have not looked into the matter, but I assume the situation in regard to pairs will stand as it is. They are unofficial, having no official standing in the house.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: The answer of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) at least gives me an excuse for speaking to this matter. I am inclined to agree with him that the subamendment of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) is rather too restrictive in its nature. As it is worded the proposed committee can decide only yes or no on the main motion of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). However the amendment of my right hon. friend the leader of the house would seem to exclude ithe practice of pairing. The amendment .to my mind is quite fair in that it says that every hon. member in the house must vote. This is a new regulation being introduced into the rules which govern the conduct of this house. It will be in vain that we refer to the age old custom of pairing which has been followed. Mr. Speaker will say to us, and I think quite properly, that we

Rules-Members Not Voting
have passed a new rule which precludes us from taking advantage of that custom. There is the broad question as to whether or not hon. members in the house shall vote. On that particular point I am in substantial and hearty agreement with the Prime Minister. It seems to me however if there is one occasion when a member might freely absent himself from the house and not vote it is when he is faced with three alternative proposals such as those we have before us today. Not one of them satisfies me, and I think many hon. members are in a similar position. May I suggest that if the Prime Minister would for a few minutes discuss the matter with the hon. member for North Waterloo it might be possible to evolve a subamendment which would refer to a committee on rules the question of the method of voting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles Gavan Power: The Prime Minister says
"no". Very well, but I think there should be consideration of the matter of drafting an amendment to our rule which would meet the views of the Prime Minister and those of the vast majority of hon. members in the house who wish every member to vote but who wish also to retain the privilege of pairing which we have enjoyed in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the house I should like to add one word further. I suggest that the house permit one of the hon. gentlemen to my right to move the adjournment of this debate, and instead of having a committee we could talk this matter over and see if some provision of a satisfactory nature cannot be made.


Mr. STEVENS:: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Before the debate is adjourned I desire to say a few words, in the spirit in which I introduced the motion. First I thank the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for the absolute vindication he has given of my attitude. There cannot be any better evidence that hon. members in this comer of the house were observing the rules as they have been interpreted by yourself and your predecessors, sir, than the amendment of the Prime Minister to-day providing that, in the future, we must not do what the other day was pointed to as constituting a violation of the rules. The action of the Prime Minister answers the objection of my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and that of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) that I was wrong in introducing my motion. If the rules of the house were and are as outlined in my proposal, then it follows that hon. members in this comer of the house were right the other day when they refused to vote, and that Mr. Speaker was right when he sustained them in their attitude. However, I shall not insist upon that.
There are one or two points to which I wish to refer before the debate is closed, because evidently it will be closed for this year. I introduced the motion in the first place because it was the only way of rectifying the wrong impression which has been created by the press of nearly all parties all over the country that a certain number of hon. members in this house, with whom I was counted, gave an awful example of rebellion against the rules of the house and the decision of Mr. Speaker. By choosing the only means at my disposal to have the house settle the question the press may now be informed, and I hope will inform the public, that those hon. gentlemen and the hon. lady who refused the other day to vote acted strictly in accordance with the rules of the house and the jurisprudence established by two speakers of the House of Commons. After all, the honour of all members in this house is dear to them, and it is their right to have such honour vindicated. I think every member, whatever his party differences may be, has no desire to have any of his fellow members, regardless of party, bandied all over the country as unruly persons and fit to be expelled from the house. And why? Because, forsooth, they observed the rules of the house.
Next I should like to refer to the question of paim. In the event of the amendment moved by the leader of the government carrying there could be no doubt left that any hon. member sitting in this house would either have to vote, regardless of the fact that he was paired, or step out of the house. How are we going to lay down the rule which the leader of the government says-mind you, I am not entirely opposed to his views-would oblige every hon. member sitting in the house to vote? Are we to impose that rule upon men who, rightly or wrongly, but in the fulness of their conviction and their conscience, believe that they cannot or must not vote? Are we going to apply the rule to them and not apply it to hon. members who, for their own personal convenience or to suit their business interests or professional callings, make arrangement through the whips to exempt themselves from
Buies-Members Not Voting

that duty which, according to the Prime Minister, is the bounden duty of every member of parliament? If the rule applies to members of parliament who do not seek refuge behind the practice of pairing in order to attend to their private affairs in preference to their public duties, then is the rule to remain inapplicable in cases of pairs?
Various hon. members whose names I will not give, because I wish to keep this debate on a friendly basis, have insinuated that hon. members who remained in the house and did not vote lacked courage. It may be that at times such action would amount to lack of courage. Also it may be a lack of courage when some hon. members vote against their personal convictions, because their party has voted that way. We are all subject to such weaknesses. Let no party or no hon. member of any party in this house pose as a Pharisee, We are all human and subject to mistakes. I confess I am subject to them in a retail and wholesale way. I beg however of the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition not to pose as the sole caretakers of the virtues of parliament; they also make their mistakes. My friends to the left, from my point of view, make their mistakes. From the point of view of all, I make mistakes, I admit. But I repeat, whether we belong to one party or the other, we are all here because we have been elected by the people of Canada to vote or not to vote according to our conscience and our convictions.
The Prime Minister has repeated the well-known argument that the right of any member to move a subamendment offers him ample freedom. I say no. I repeat, and I insist upon it, that once the subamendment has been disposed of, you must vote for or against what is before you, the unamended motion or amendment. If that contains things of which you approve and things of which you disapprove, I. ask again:	How then can
jmu justify the iron rule which you desire to impose upon the inherent right of a member of parliament, to vote for something of which he disapproves, if the motion necessarily contains something against his conscience or his convictions? With regard to the right of the electors to see *whether we vote or not, that is a matter to be arranged between each member of parliament and his electors when he appeals to the final judgment of the people. But so long as we remain in this house, until the next time the people pass judgment upon the government, upon the opposition, upon the second opposition and upon the free-for-

alls or the independent members, so long as we are here, I claim there should be one rule or none. So far as I am concerned, I prefer the rule proposed by the Prime Minister to no rule at all. If it is to be the rule, very well, I am prepared to accept it. I will vote against it; but suppose it is adopted, I think it better to have it rather than to be in the absurd position in -which we found ourselves when members were threatened with expulsion from the house because they chose to exercise a right which on all sides is now acknowledged to be incontestable. I claim that this should not happen again, therefore I would rather have the amendment moved by the Prime Minister than no rule at all. But may I respectfully tell the right hon. Prime Minister that in moving that amendment he is resorting to another part of himself which is not the result of his study of British law, or of British practice, which is not the result of his British spirit; but that in this as in some other instances he is letting himself follow his autocratic instinct and his stand for an iron rule instead of the broad interpretation which has been followed for over thirty years in the British house and which has been followed in this house from 1927 until 1931.
Just one further word. The Prime Minister has quoted rule 5, which makes it an obligation on all members to attend to all sittings of the house. That is quite true. It is an old rule and was in effect all along previous to 1867. Any student of the old records could find therein that at any session of parliament no member could absent himself without having the leave of the house, and that leave was recorded in the journals. Are the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition prepared every day to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the absence of their various followers, whether they are paired or not? That rule does not acknowledge pairs. If that rule applies, no member has the right to go to Montreal or to Toronto to plead a case; nor, although paired with the member for Muskoka-Ontario or for some other constituency, can a member stay in his seat mum and for the time being suspend his functions as a member in order to enable another gentleman to go to Montreal or to Toronto to attend to his private business. If that is to be the rule, then let it be applied to all; let it be applied to pleading lawyers, let it be applied to bankers, let it be applied to merchants, let it be applied to members for near constituencies while our colleagues from the

Unemployment Situation
far distant western and eastern provinces have to stay here, Sundays included. That is my sole answer, and I think it ought to be sufficient.
I thank the house, Mr. Speaker, for the manner in which it has received my humble suggestion. I do not think the time spent on this debate has been lost, because it has shown the necessity of clarifying a situation which in the future, as last week, could have given birth to disagreeable incidents. As far as that is concerned, I thank again the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition for their timely suggestion. I hope it will materialize sooner than other pious intentions that have been expressed many times to have a complete revision of the manner in which votes are recorded in this house; and also dealing with the question of pairs, not from the viewpoint of individual convenience, but from the viewpoint of public trust and interest, which has been so eloquently pointed out this afternoon by the leader of the house.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) was out of order in speaking to a motion to adjourn the debate. I was choked off last night under similar circumstances, and I hope that in the future Your Honour will accord me as much latitude as you have just allowed my hon. friend.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (St. Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) had moved the adjournment of the debate. I humbly suggest that having already seconded the amendment of the Prime Minister, he cannot now move the motion for adjournment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion before the
house is the amendment to the amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: There is a motion to adjourn the debate.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have heard no motion
to adjourn the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Mr. CAHAN:: If there is no such motion,
I now move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by Mr. Black (Halifax), that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ARMS AND AMMUNITION


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the
table a copy of the international convention for the supervision of international trade in arms and ammunition, with declaration regarding the territory Ifni, dated Geneva, June 17, 1925.



UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask the acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) which of two reports that appear in the press to-day from the Canadian Press is correct, if either. One is dated Hamilton, Ontario, April 27. The other, Montreal, of the same date. I am quoting from the report as it appears in the Ottawa Citizen:
Sees Unemployment Problem Diminishing Senator Gideon Robertson Speaks at Hamilton
Hamilton, Ont., April 27.-"In Canada the unemployment problem is diminishing," declared Senator Gideon Robertson, federal minister of labour, addressing the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce at its annual meeting here to-night.
"We have experienced the most distressing winter in many years, but we emerge into the sunlight of hope at the beginning of another season, and it is within the realm of reason to say that, before the snow falls again, our worries will have largely disappeared," he declared.
In the same paper there is a despatch from Montreal:
Thinks Relief Plan To Be Repeated By Government Next Winter
Montreal, April 27.-A conversation he had with Senator Gideon Robertson, Dominion Minister of Labour, led him to believe the Dominion authorities would repeat for next winter their unemployment relief, Alderman W. H. Biggar, leader of the Montreal city council, stated to-day.
By this he meant that the Dominion government would again vote twenty million dollars for relief work, the provinces paying twenty millions and municipalities 40 millions.
I wish my hon. friend would advise the house as to which of these reports, if either, is correct.
Old Age Pensions


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Of course, it is
obvious that it is not within my knowledge as to whether or not the Minister of Labour was correctly reported. But if I understand correctly the coordinated efforts that are being put forward by all agencies, both governmental and industrial, and by every other force in this country at the present time, then I am sure that the Minister of Labour was not far out when he said he could look forward-I am stating it in substance-with a great deal of hope to relief, in a large measure at least, from the difficulties in which we are now placed before the coming of next winter. With respect to the alleged interview in Montreal,
I have no information concerning it. But if events do not materialize as we hope they will, then this government, I am sure, will take whatever steps are necessary to see that there will be no undue suffering among the people of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What my hon. friend says hardly answers my question. I wish he would ask the Minister of Labour whether he made such representations in Hamilton or Montreal, and advise the house definitely after he has had an opportunity of communicating with his colleague.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Before the orders of the day are called may I ask the Prime Minister a question which is of very great importance to the province of Manitoba. In a press despatch which appears in the Citizen of April 28, I find this:
Government unlikely pay 95 per cent this year.
Under this heading I wish to read a short article:
Winnipeg, Manitoba, April 27.-Likelihood that the Dominion government will not undertake this year to pay 95 per cent of old age pensions, an election campaign promise of Premier R. B. Bennett, was expressed here to-day by Hon. D. L. McLeod, municipal commissioner for Manitoba, in making public a telegram received from the Dominion Prime Minister.
In reply to a wire from Premier John Bracken of Manitoba, Mr. Bennett advised the provincial government to make provisions for paying old age pensions this year on the same basis as it has in the past. There remained a possibility, the wire intimated, that the Dominion government would have the legisla- . tion necessary for transfer of the pensions burden passed at the present session of parliament.

The question I wish to ask is this: In view of the fact that the province of Manitoba, in its budget, has made no provisions to pay old age pensions this year, will the Prime Minister tell us whether he intends to introduce old age pensions legislation and pay 95 per cent, as I understand it was promised the three western provinces during the conference last fall.


Richard Bedford Bennett: (1) No such promise was made. (2) This government is not responsible for the conduct of the business of the government of Manitoba.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Was this wire sent-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all I propose to
say.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Thank you.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand my right hon. friend to say that no promises were made?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said, no such promise.


Ernest Lapointe: No such promises were made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; no such promise was made.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I again direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) to the fact that the papers I have asked for have not yet been tabled. We are going to take up the estimates and no doubt to-day, or at the next sitting of the committee, we shall reach harbours and rivers in the province of New Brunswick. I do not wish to delay the estimates at all, but I desire to have these papers that I have asked for, and to which I am entitled, before we get to that stage.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I assure the hon. member for
Gloucester that he will have ample opportunity when the estimates of the Public Works department are under consideration, to discuss all matters in connection with harbours and rivers in the province of New Brunswick. The return has been prepared and has been forwarded to the Secretary of State, and will be down before we reach that item.


Mr. YENIOT:: I wish to say that while
that may be satisfactory to a certain extent,

Customs Act
if they are not down I shall have to press for them. I will not say I shall adopt the method of obstruction, but I want the information before we go on.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assure my hon. friend that he will have every opportunity, and we will leave one or two items open if necessary to enable him to discuss anything he thinks proper with respect to his province.



GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the third reading of Bill No. 37, to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act.
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) (for the Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Ryckman), moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
that it is expedient to amend the Customs Act in respect to discounts or deductions to be allowed in estimating the value for duty; to provide for power to examine witnesses on oath, and to pay their reasonable travelling expenses; and for the imposition of penalties and prevention of smuggling operations.
He said: The bill which will be introduced upon the passage of this resolution deals with departmental amendments for the purpose of carrying out efficiently the terms of the present Customs Act. The resolution in its first two lines would seem to signify some serious amendment in respect of deductions to be allowed in estimating the value of duty, but in fact it simply deals with a difficulty which has arisen in the preparation of invoices submitted by importers which have been prepared by merchants and salesmen in foreign countries. A difficulty ha3 arisen in the department and a slight change is requested.
William Daum Euler: Would the hon. minister tell the house just what sections of the act are to be amended?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The section of the act which is to be amended is section 3 of chapter 2 of the statutes of 1930, second session. That section will be amended by the insertion of
the words "and deducted" in a certain part of the section, which will make it more clear and facilitate the administration of the act. The amendment does not deal with any principle or policy, but with a difficulty which has arisen in its administration by the department.
The other amendments suggested are almost exclusively amendments which were previously suggested during the regime of the former Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). The hon. gentleman had a bill drawn up by the department dealing with certain difficulties which had arisen, but owing to the time which elapsed before the prorogation of parliament, I am informed by the departmental officers that no opportunity was afforded for its introduction. The present minister has adopted it almost word for word, with the addition of one or two suggestions. One suggestion is that certain affidavits may now be taken by trade commissioners abroad as well as by other persons authorized to administer oaths in affidavits for use in this country.
Another amendment which my hon. friend had prepared provides that the assistant commissioner of customs may exercise certain powers of the minister as well as of the commissioner of customs. Owing to a vast increase in the business of the department during recent years, of which no one is better informed than is my hon. friend, it has been deemed wise that in certain matters the assistant commissioner of customs may act when the commissioner of customs is otherwise engaged.
Another suggestion deals with inquiries to be held by officers of the department. That suggestion is new to this parliament, but I understand it was previously made by the hon. gentleman in connection with the draft bill of 1930.
I am sure I could explain these matters to better advantage after the bill is introduced. As I understand it, no question of principle or policy is involved, the amendments being suggestions were made by departmental officers and1 had, in large measure, been accepted by the former Minister of National Revenue. They have been accepted almost word for word by the present minister for whom, owing to his temporary absence on account of illness, I am acting to-day.
Mr. EULER; Has the bill been printed?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The bill has been printed and is ready to be introduced. I have a draft copy before me,


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, before this resolution carries I would like to draw the attention of the
10.56
Customs Act

house to the peculiar method of procedure with which we are faced. I expressed the other day in a most courteous way my regret that a bill introduced by the government did not contain the usual explanatory note to enable hon. members on this side of the house to realize the meaning of the changes suggested.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I will tell my hon. friend
that I learned my lesson the other day when the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) pointed out to me a rule which I had not observed. That rule has been observed in connection with the proposed bill.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I surmise that that was
the result of our remark. There is another matter of procedure to which I would refer. I think it is most unusual for an hon. minister to introduce a resolution from a department other than his own.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I suggest to the hon.
member that I am now the Acting Minister of National Revenue and I am authorized to introduce this bill.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then I withdraw that
part of my remarks. I am glad to see that the worth of the Secretary of State is recognized and that he is now given work outside of the rather narrow borders of his department.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I can assure my hon. friend
that I have found sufficient to do in the State department.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I will admit that that
point has no bearing on this particular instance. but we should not allow any minister other than the official or acting minister of a department to introduce in this house any matter affecting that department, even though it be to facilitate progress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. acting Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cahan) in the course of his remarks seemed to leave the impression that the bill to be introduced was a bill which he found in the Department of National Revenue at the time the present government came into office. The public, which understands very little about these matters, might assume from the minister's statement, that this measure was one which had come before the previous administration. If it was still in the department I think that would be prima facie evidence that if it had been before the cabinet for consideration it had been rejected by the previous administration.

When the bill is before us we will be better able to indicate whether or not we on this side of the house will be in favour of its provisions. There are many bills prepared by departmental officials which do not meet with the approval of the ministry of the day. Whether or not that was a bill of that character we will only be able to ascertain when it is before the house.
I wish it to be quite clear that the hon. minister should not seek to leave the impression and I do not think he would wittingly do so, that the measure he is introducing is one which was favourably considered by the previous administration.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, my memory is not as good as it might be or as I would wish it to be, and in the absence of the bill itself I am unable to say whether or not it is of the nature indicated by my hon. friend. However, I will take his word for it. I have a more or less faint recollection that a bill was prepared to which I had given my own consent or approval but which, according to my recollection, had never been considered by the preceding government. I think, also, as the acting minister says, the bill in itself is rather an innocuous one. It deals very largely with the administration of the department itself and no great departure from any existing principle is taken in it. I have of course to wait until the bill comes down to see its exact terms.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cahan thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39 to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUPPLY-AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS AMENDMENT TO MOTION OP MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['Mr. Veniot moves,seconded by Mr. Brown, that the debate be adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?\nMotion agreed to and debate adjourned.']
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker,
it is my intention before you leave the chair to bring to the notice of the house a question that we deem to be of prime importance, namely the position of agriculture in this country. I may say that before I sit down I shall move an amendment to the motion to go into supply.

Agricultural Conditions
If any apology were necessary for bringing this question to the attention of the house at this time, it would be found in the speech made a few days ago by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). But no such apology is necessary; indeed that speech, in which he sought to give to the people of Canada the impression that there were no serious conditions existing in relation to agriculture, has made it incumbent upon us to bring this matter to the attention of the house. Members who are in touch with agricultural conditions not only on the prairies but throughout Canada, members who really know what the position of the farmer is, heard with amazement the statement made by the Prime Minister, and I can well believe that that speech caused not only amazement but consternation among his supporters in the house and outside of it. If I correctly estimate the way in which that speech has been received by the people of the country, I can say that they view it, not only with amazement and consternation, but with the utmost indignation. It is true that we heard similar statements made by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan), the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan), and hon. members from other parts of the west, but we did not attach a great deal of importance to the statements made by those hon. gentlemen. When, however, the Prime Minister of Canada, from his place in the house, makes an effort to show that there are no serious conditions confronting agriculture; that agriculture is not in a precarious state, and when he undertakes to show that whatever may be wrong is entirely the fault of the farmer himself for having indulged too freely in speculation, then it is time for us to take notice.
But when we see the evidence upon which the Prime Minister bases his conclusions, we see how hopelessly he has failed to appreciate the true condition of agriculture. The Prime .Minister pointed to the fact that in years past the west has produced immense crops. That is true, and it is still capable of producing immense crops. We have a fertile soil; we have with here and there, it is true, a few exceptions, favourable weather conditions. We have an industrious population. We have men and women who for fifty years past have borne the burden and the heat of the day; they have produced immense crops, and we can produce them again. The Prime Minister, if I read correctly an account of a statement he made some time during last winter, intimated that he could not understand why with all these favourable con-22110-67
ditions there were among the fanners no reserves upon which they could fall back. I think the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) the other day clearly demonstrated why it was that there were no reserves. It is true that we have produced an immense amount of wealth, but far too small a proportion of that wealth has remained on the farm. The conditions have always been that too large a proportion of the wealth that we produce has been absorbed in its passage from the producer to the consumer. While it may be that those conditions are worse to-day than they have ever been before, nevertheless it is only the emphasis of a condition that has always prevailed. Therefore to point to the great wealth that has been produced on the prairie provinces during past years is not dealing with the situation at all.
The Prime Minister also referred to the fact that $300,000,000 were invested in automobiles and tractors. If he meant that as a further proof of the great prosperity of the west, I simply say that he has failed to take into consideration the fact that a very large proportion of that money has not yet been paid and that the farmers are still in debt for those vehicles. If he referred to that as proving that the farmers have been improvident; that they have invested where they should not have invested; that they have bought automobiles and tractors which they had no right to buy, let me say again to the Prime Minister that the privilege of using automobiles is not to be confined to the people who live in the great cities. If any class of people in the world is entitled to the use of automobiles, it is the farmer who lives out in the prairies. I might further point out that the very fact that we have spent such large sums of money on automobiles is a proof that the farmer is a good buyer and a good spender. Upon his ability to buy and spend depends the automobile industry and the living of the men who are making automobiles in this country. With regard to tractors, it is still an open question in the minds of many, and perhaps it has not yet been definitely decided whether the tractor can be used economically on the farm. Undoubtedly under certain conditions it can be. When oats were selling at 75 and 80 cents a bushel it did seem possible to save on oats and buy gasoline. But when oats are selling at 10 and 11 cents and barley at 15 cents a bushel, and gasoline still remains at the old high price, with tractors at their present high prices, and with the price likely to be still further increased if the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite prevail, it may well be questioned whether the tractor can be used economically.

Agricultural Conditions

The Prime Minister also referred to the fact, if it be a fact-I presume it is; I shall not dispute ik-that large numbers of farmers still have money in the bank. It would surely be a deplorable condition if after all these years there were no farmers with some money in the bank; but let me say that those reserves are being very rapidly depleted. Certainly nothing has been added to the bank accounts of the farmers during the last year or two. So the fact that there are still some of them with money in the bank means nothing at all. Even the farmers who do have a small current account in a bank are not necessarily solvent. It is the practice of men who wish to do business in a businesslike way to carry on their business through a bank. But money in a bank by no means proves that agriculture is solvent.
Does the Prime Minister see no significance in certain other facts? Does he see no significance in the fact that the banks have ceased to lend money to farmers? I know that that statement will be disputed, as it has been disputed by the banks; but is absolutely true that the banks will not lend money to farmers on the prospects of next year's crop. I went into a bank, not in my own town but in a neighboring town, and as I had some former acquaintance with the bank manager I had a half hour's conversation with him. I said to him, "I am not wanting to borrow any money, but I want to know if you are lending money to farmers." "Well," he said, "it depends upon circumstances. If a farmer can show good security or that he will be able to repay the loan within a little time, we will consider a loan; but if it is on the prospect of next year's crop, no." That, Mr. Speaker, is the condition which I believe is general throughout Canada. So we need not take very seriously the statements of bank managers that they are lending money to farmers. They may say so, but it is with the mental reservation that they will lend only what the farmer is entitled to. It is quite possible that neither the Prime Minister himself-nor you, Mr. Speaker, nor any of us would lend money to a man who had no prospects of repaying it. That may be good business, I am not saying that it is not; but the fact remains as it is-the banks are not lending money to farmers, and it goes to prove the statement that agriculture is practically insolvent.
Does the Prime Minister also see no significance in the fact that a limited moratorium is now in existence in each of the three prairie provinces? Surely there is some significance in that fact. Does he see no

significance in the fact that the Manitoba Debts Adjustment Act came into force only a few days ago? All these things indicate that the conditions are not as the Prime Minister described them to be. Conditions are infinitely more serious than the Prime Minister seems to think they are. Do not these facts which I have cited prove that agriculture is practically insolvent?
It is, I believe, absolutely true that the present depression has wiped out all the equity that many farmers had in their homes. It is no small thing, Mr. Speaker, for a farmer to lose the equity in his home. Remember that a farm is not merely a place of business. It is far more than that. It is the farmer's home around which many sentiments and associations have gathered for, it may be, fifty years or more, and when a farmer through force of circumstances loses the equity in his home that means infinitely more to him than it does for a business man to have to change his place of business or even to have to move from one house in the city to another. Those are the conditions that confront the farmer in this country, today, and they are conditions that cannot be minimized.
Perhaps it may not be amiss to refer to the opinions of others who are in touch with the actual conditions. The press of the west has certainly taken notice of what the Prime Minister said. I am going to quote a few extracts:
W. J. Ward of Dauphin, president of the United Farmers of Manitoba, Wednesday, spoke briefly of the statement made in the House of Commons Tuesday by Premier Bennett to the effect that the prairie provinces were not suffering undue hard times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Bennett did not say that at all. That is the other side of it.


John Livingstone Brown: The quotation may not be strictly accurate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No,


John Livingstone Brown: That is immaterial for the
Prime Minister certainly gave the impression to this house and to the country that in his judgment agriculture was not passing through very serious times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no,


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps we do not understand the English language. Perhaps we do not interpret hon. gentlemen opposite correctly, but certainly that was the impression given to the house and the country.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: By whom?

Agricultvml Conditions


John Livingstone Brown: By the Prime Minister.


Robert Charles Matthews: Oh, no.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Ward goes on to say:
I have been a resident of the province for more than a third of a century, and have been in the closest touch especially with rural Manitoba for that entire period. For the past three or four months I have been engaged in making a tour of the province, holding meetings and discussing current conditions with the most representative farmers, merchants and others, one of my objects being to ascertain present conditions and the outlook for the future.
For Saskatchewan and Alberta I am unable to speak from personal knowledge, but so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned, I am quite able to say that Mr. Bennett does not know what he is talking about, and has not the slightest conception of the circumstances which exist here. X visited one of the rural areas of Manitoba Tuesday, not one of the worst, but one that in former years was considered among the best.
In that district I was told by the leaders, who know local conditions accurately, tint in one area ten miles square, there was but one solvent farmer left, and the country merchant is naturally, along with the farmer, in a poor position too.
I am thinking of wiring Mr. Bennett to-day, and congratulating him, so far as the west is concerned, on writing his own obituary notice. What he has said indicates a total and complete failure to appreciate a situation worse by far than was ever experienced, even in the hard early days.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the hon. member knows something of Mr. Ward's agricultural history.


John Livingstone Brown: I have no doubt hon. gentlemen will make speeches which will seek entirely to explain away the speeches they have previously made. There is not the slightest doubt about it. However the words [DOT] of the right hon. gentleman are on Hansard, and any reasonable man will give to them the interpretation I am now giving to them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. member permit a question? Does he consider Mr. Ward an agricultural authority?


John Vallance: He is president of a farmer's society.


John Livingstone Brown: The question is asked to throw reflection upon one who was an hon. member of this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I simply have asked: As an agriculturist does the hon. member consider Mr. Ward to be an authority on agriculture?


John Livingstone Brown: I will answer in my own way, please.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely.


John Livingstone Brown: We are not now on the orders of the day and I am going to answer the question as I wish. The question asked by the right hon. the Prime Minister is one which seeks to throw a reflection upon a gentleman who was an esteemed member of this house and who for five years was my room mate. I consider that Mr. Ward is a man thoroughly acquainted with agriculture in a way in which many hon. members opposite are not.


John Vallance: Including the Prime
Minister.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, because Mr. Ward made his way as a working man. It is no discredit to him to say that he climbed with his working clothes on to the position he holds to-day.


Robert James Manion: And so did the Prime Minister.


John Livingstone Brown: And Mr. Ward is a farmer. He has been directly in contact with farmers of the province of Manitoba. Carrying out the duties of the office to which he was elected he made trips throughout the province of Manitoba and I consider he is just as able correctly to estimate the condition of things among the farmers in Manitoba as any hon. member opposite. In fact I have no hesitation in saying that he is better able to do it than nine-tenths of the hon. members opposite, and when I choose that figure I am allowing a large proportion?
I have before me another extract from a Canadian Press despatch from the city of Saskatoon. It is as follows:
Need of clothing relief on thousands of farms in Saskatchewan is stressed by the United Farmers of Canada in a reply to the statement of Premier R. B. Bennett that the west is not suffering from depression.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that, either


John Livingstone Brown: No, he did not say it was not; we know-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he did not say the west was not suffering from depression; on the contrary he said it was.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not say the Prime
Minister said the west was not suffering from depression, but what we are saying is that he minimized that depression.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it from Hansard.


John Livingstone Brown: Very well.
It ill becomes-
Oh, but we are not allowed to read from a former debate. If I might be allowed, Mr. Agricultural Conditions

Speaker, to violate the rules of parliament by reading from a former debate, I will do so. I did put the book back on the desk because I knew that in reading the extract I would be proceeding contrary to the rules of the house. However, if I may be allowed by hon. members opposite I will read from Hansard as follows:
It ill becomes hon. gentlemen here, who know of an isolated case here and another there, to draw a general conclusion in respect to conditions in western Canada. I can sav that in western Canada there are tens of thousands of farmers who have deposits of money in the banks. It is true that there has been great hardship encounterd by many farmers, for two reasons. The first reason is because of crop failure, and the second reason is because of low prices for the crops they did produce. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) himself lost his crop ....
That particular section is not the right one-	[DOT]


Robert James Manion: The hon. member has
chosen the wrong page.


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful.


John Vallance: Order.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not purpose to be
howled down in that way. I am going to repeat the statement that if the Prime Minister did not say there was no depression in western Canada he unduly minimized it.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say it.


John Livingstone Brown: To continue with the extract from the Canadian Press despatch from Saskatoon:
During the past winter, says U.P.C. statement, clothing has been sent out by the red cross to 2,600 families; by the United Farmers of Canada to 670 families, and by the Wheat Pool to 350 families.
In addition the U.F.C. has on file applications for relief from over 100 families. Relief operations, it is pointed out, have also been carried on by the press of the province, the Salvation army, the Canadian Legion, the churches, the Jewish community and by other organizations.
"Since last faS about 500 members of the TT.F.C. have appealed to the legal adviser of the association for assistance in their financial difficulties. Retail stores and business organizations in Saskatoon are experiencing the greatest difficulty in carrying on business and are making drastic reductions in staffs."
"These are facts," says the statement, "and facts will not give place to statements even though made by prime ministers."
In reply to Mr. Bennett's remark that tens of thousands of farmers have substantial bank accounts, it is pointed out that farmers are losing money on every bushel of wheat ffiey grow and in these circumstances the bmk balances are not likely to last very long. Many of the bank balances, it is urged, are from sources other than agriculture.

"Mr. Bennett states," says the U.F.C., "that $300,000,000 are invested in automobiles and tractors, and that this bespeaks the solvency and economic well-being of the people of the west. Even farmers must have some means of getting about the country and must have some means of carrying on work," continued the statement.
"Has Mr. Bennett considered how much time would be lost in the summer time if farmers were to depend on the antiquated buggy? Has he considered that if they did not possess tractors they would at least have to keep large teams of horses to do the necessary work? And. by the way, economists have not yet been able to advise us which method is the most economical. Again, it would be pertinent to ask why Mr. Bennett omitted to state how many millions of dollars are owing on these automobiles and tractors. Farmers may have been, in many cases, injudicious in incurring the expense associated with^ these machines, but we have got to deal with conditions as they exist."
I think it would have been more to the point-


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I do not wish
to interrupt the hon. member but I must remind him that it is against rule 306 to read in debate extracts from newpapers on the remarks of any other hon. member in the house.


John Livingstone Brown: That is an interpretation
of the rule which I do not think has been followed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The rule is
very plain.


John Livingstone Brown: It has not been followed
before in this house.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I have never heard it followed.


John Livingstone Brown: It may have been ruled
upon by you, sir.


Robert Gardiner: Will Mr. Speaker quote the rule?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Rule 306.


Robert Gardiner: But that is not a rule.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Is it a rule or a comment?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It has been
held by previous Speakers, my hon. friend knows that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend from
Lisgar will allow me, I should like to point out to Mr. Speaker-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does the hon. member rise to a point of order?

Representation Act


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Yes. Paragraph 306 is
not a rule of the house. It is a case similar to that cited this afternoon-merely a comment by Mr. Beauchesne on some standing orders.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But the hon.
gentleman should know that those comments are based on decisions of Speakers in the past and have the force of rules.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, no.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is my
decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This rule has been often enforced.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My experience is just to
the contrary. Former Speakers have always allowed the reading of newspaper extracts.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But the comment in Beauchesne is very clear on the point, and that is my decision. If the hon. member is not satisfied with it, he can appeal to the house.


John Livingstone Brown: Well, I have read the extract.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to a point of order. Ever since I came into this house in 1923 the Speaker has allowed members to read extracts from newspapers. That latitude has been allowed to members on both sides of the house. You are the first individual who has occupied-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Thomas McMillan: -the chair
who has ever taken advantage of the rule in the way in which you have on this occasion.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon.
gentleman knows the rule, and he ought to know that that has been the decision in the past. The reason for the decision is very clear, that no outside influence should be brought to bear on members. Members are here to express their own opinions. I can only refer the house to former decisions, and repeat that that is my ruling.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely, Mr. Speaker, in
the course of an address a member has the right to quote the papers of the country in support of his arguments. It has always been allowed. I recall, Mr. Speaker, that you gave a similar ruling last session, but on a subsequent occasion the Prime Minister intervened and you reversed your ruling.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No, I did not reverse it; I permitted the extract to be read with the unanimous consent of the
house. I did not want to be discourteous and I let the hon. gentleman read his extract. All hon. members know the reason for the ruling, namely that this house may be free and independent of outside opinion. That is my ruling, but if the house decides against me, I shall have to abide by its decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on the
point of order:	The former Minister of
Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is correct in pointing out that on one occasion I thought the rule which as Deputy Speaker Your Honour was enforcing was being too narrowly interpreted. But in this particular case Your Honour has directed attention to the fact that the member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has been reading from a newspaper commenting upon a speech made in this house in a previous debate upon which the house had recorded its opinion. That is, there was a division on the address; the speech was made on the address; the matter was thus disposed of. There is a rule against the reading of newspaper comment under such circumstances. If every time the opinion of the house as recorded and reviewed in the newspapers and the attitude taken by various members reflected upon, those reviews are to be read into Hansard, where will we get to? If that is done page after page of Hansard will be filled with extracts from newspapers. Undoubtedly during the currency of a debate frequently arguments have been enforced by newspaper extracts with respect to figures and matters of that kind; but when the debate is ended, if the comments of newspapers reflecting on the conduct of members in the debate were to be quoted, there would be no end to our discussions and Hansard would be filled up with newspaper extracts. That is my view of the rule, apart from the pressure which the hon. member for Lisgar would thus zealously endeavour to exercise against me.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. REPRESENTATION ACT AMENDMENT



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 27, the debate on the motion of Mr. Heenan for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to amend the Representation Act.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for the question?
Armistice Day Act


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the question is put I should say it is very unusual to introduce a representation bill during the middle of a parliamentary term. The census will be taken this year and redistribution follows, and no good purpose could be served unless there were a possibility of a by-election-and the present excellent condition of health of the hon. gentleman would seem to ensure against that. I do not think the bill ought to be accepted at this time. It has never been the rule to introduce a bill of this kind at this stage, and there is more reason why it should not be introduced now than at any other time, for re-distribution is made by a committee and not by the house. The considerations that influence the hon. gentleman in introducing the bill are considerations that should influence him in desiring to drop it, for it would, from what he has said, disturb the balance of population with respect to other constituencies in the country. The government could hardly accept the bill and I trust it will be dropped.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the debate be adjourned.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Veniot moves,seconded by Mr. Brown, that the debate be adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ARMISTICE DAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, April 27, the debate on the motion of Mr. Neill for the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Armistice Day Act.
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: The mover of this bill has been good enough to speak to me about it on different occasions, and largely, I think, one is disposed to agree with the general idea of it. However, the bill as I read it leaves the question of Thanksgiving day pretty much as it is, and incorporates with that a day called Armistice day. The objection I have to the proposal is that the celebration or remembrance of Armistice day, if it occurs on a public holiday, is likely to lose its full significance.


Alan Webster Neill: I am sure the hon. member does not wish to be unfair. It does not say a public holiday; it says legal holiday.


George Reginald Geary: The bill reads:
Shall be a legal holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Armistice day.

If that does not mean a public holiday, I am not sure that I know what it means or what the advantage is in declaring it a holiday at all. I am quite in accord with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that November 11th should be devoted primarily or exclusively, so far as the celebration goes, to a commemoration of those men who lost their lives in the war. The 11th of November is an appropriate day for that purpose. Thus far we have celebrated Armistice day on November 11 throughout the country. I cannot speak of other parts of Canada than my own home, but there, at eleven o'clock on the morning of November 11, we have a service which is attended by thousands upon thousands of people. Not only is that service attended by these thousands of people, all apparently devout, all very lovingly commemorating the men who lost their lives in the war, but at eleven o'clock, as if by common consent, throughout the whole city, in transportation activities, in industrial enterprises, in the shops, on the street, in the courts, everywhere, all activities cease for the short space of two minutes. Men go about their business afterwards but they do not lose the refreshment of memory which they have derived from that one simple act. If this day, through being made a holiday, degenerate into something that has not as its foremost and practically exclusive function this perpetuation of the memories of these men, I think we should be losing all that is sweet, all that is fine in the observances of the occasion.


Alan Webster Neill: But it has always been a
legal holiday since 1921.


George Reginald Geary: I am not objecting to that, and the hon. member must not think I am trying to argue with him at all. My hon. friend seems disposed to make this a matter of dispute; it is not that by any manner of means. If the hon. gentleman can convince the house that this is the proper way to observe the day, well and good; I make no opposition to it. I seek only to impress upon the house what views I have of my own. I claim no special right to take part in this discussion: I do not think it is the right of one who has served any more than it is the right of anyone else. But this I do know. Perhaps some of us who have served have, more than others, just a little bit of personal recollection, a memory, whatever you may call it, that makes us feel very sincerely anxious that the day shall be observed in the proper way.
You are going to have, apparently, two holidays in the same season of the year; Thanks-

giving day is not disposed of. My fear is that this day of Armistice, this day of remembrance, as the legion has called it, will come to be just such another day as Thanksgiving is with us now. Thanksgiving day has lost its original significance, and I am not so optimistic as to suppose that, as the years and decades pass, there is going to be the same special interest in the celebration of Armistice day, or Remembrance day made into a legal holiday as there is at this moment.
Now that my hon. friend has had the opportunity of bringing this matter up again, I should have liked to have him let it lie in abeyance for a short time until all hon. members have had an opportunity of making up their minds as to whether or not we would be doing the best thing in connection with this oelebration by passing this bill. I say again, with the danger of being accused of repetition : the appreciation of what Armistice day means may disappear as the years go by and be lost, submerged and drowned in the idea of a mere public holiday. That, at all costs, I do not want to see happen, and I believe we would be encouraging that very thing by entering on a hasty disposal of this bill. Let us allow it to stand for a time. Autumn is far away and there will be time to discuss the matter in the house during this session.
I am quite sure that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, as well as the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), who took such an interest in the matter last year, are desirous of reaching the end I desire to reach, and that which I think it is the desire of the people of this country should be reached in connection with this proposal. The legion has written to me and I have letters from different people, some expressing one view and some another. This proposal does not altogether meet the views of the legion executive and I have written to them asking for their considered views in connection with the phase which I have presented to the house.
It is the farthest thing from my mind, and I believe it is the farthest thing from the mind of any hon. member in this house, to have this matter dealt with at arm's length. It is our idea to hold in some way a celebration which will be truly the celebration it is intended to be, one that will enable the men, women and children of this country to take from their busy lives some time in which to give a loving thought to the men we lost.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, this matter, being one of the fixing of holidays, comes under the Department of the Secretary of State, and I may say that in my capacity as such during past years
Armistice Day Act
I received considerable correspondence concerning the matter. There are two questions involved in this bill, as have been involved in similar motions which have been placed before the house at other times. One is as to whether Armistice day should be celebrated on November 11 or on the Monday of the week in which that day happens to fall, and the other is as to whether or not we should celebrate Thanksgiving day on the same day as Armistice day. Basing my opinion on the correspondence to which I have just alluded, I may say that it is my recollection and experience that the general desire of public opinion is, in the first place, to dissociate Thanksgiving day from Armistice day and, in the second place, although I have not the authority of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) to speak for the veterans-


George Reginald Geary: I have no official authority
to speak for anyone.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Then I will say "connection" or any other word that will suit my hon. friend. I meant to be complimentary to him when I said that.


George Reginald Geary: I understand that.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Judging from the letters
received from veterans, I should think that they would rather celebrate Armistice day on November 11, on the actual anniversary of the armistice. The reason for its being fixed on the Monday of the week in which November 11 falls was not because of the armistice, but rather to meet a situation existing in connection with Thanksgiving day. A number of representations had been received from trade and commercial institutions in favour of having Thanksgiving day celebrated on a Monday in order to give three days in which tradesmen and others could enjoy that holiday.
My reason for supporting this bill, not only as a private member but with the added experience derived from my connection with these matters, is that both difficulties may be overcome. If hon. members will read the explanatory note on the bill as printed they will find that the purpose is to repeal two sections of the act. The bill will repeal the section under which Armistice day was always celebrated on a Monday, and in that respect I think it will meet the demands of the veteran and of those most closely interested in that particular anniversary. It does away also with another section whereby the government was asked to fix Thanksgiving day on the same day as Armistice day. I think the bill meets both purposes very well, and I would commend it very strongly to the support of the house. Should this bill pass,
Armistice Day Act

Armistice day will be celebrated on November 11 and the government may fix Thanksgiving day on any other day it thinks proper, perhaps in October so as to permit a certain lapse of time between the two holidays.
The hon. member who preceded me thought that this bill might be left over for further consideration, but it is the experience of every hon. member that when public bills are not dealt with as they come before the house they are likely to be forgotten and left over for the rest of the session. This is not a new question; it was raised some two or three years ago by my hon. friend in the form of a motion, and I think every hon. member understands fully what is involved.
I repeat, as emphatically as I can, that inasmuch as we are desirous of meeting public opinion, expressed as it is by a volume of correspondence, the proper thing to do would be to adopt this bill which would permit of Armistice day being celebrated on Nevember 11, and to allow the government to fix Thanksgiving day on whatever date it chooses.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, on two previous occasions I have had the pleasure of speaking on a bill similar to this one, and I just wish to add a few words to what has already been said. A general desire has been expressed by hon. members who have spoken to have Armistice day fittingly observed; the only difference of opinion seems to be as to the exact procedure of the celebration. No one desires to see Armistice day degenerate into an ordinary public holiday, stripped of all its sad memories. Yet we must realize that almost twelve years have passed since the armistice was signed, and that a considerable number of those who took part will not have very many years more to live. Much can be done to educate school children and the younger and rising generation regarding the serious lessons of the war if Armistice day is suitably celebrated every year on the 11th of November, with the idea not of glorifying war, but rather of pointing out the sad, serious, sacred side of the war. I believe Armistice day should be observed at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, because it will then have that special significance which we wish it always to have.


Mr. J. L. BOWMAN (Dauphin):: May I say a word in favour of this bill? The views I wish to express are very ably set forth in a memorial which I received within the last day or two from the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. This com-

munication, which is addressed to myself as a member of the house, was sent to me under date of April 24, 1931. It is as follows:
Re Observation Of Armistice Day
At a recent meeting of the Dominion executive council of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League held in Ottawa, I was directed to invite your kind attention to the following resolution which was unanimously passed by the Dominion convention of the Canadian .Legion, held at Regina, Saskatchewan in November, 1929, and reaffirmed at the meeting above referred to:-
"Whereas November the eleventh is the anniversary of the cessation of hostilities in the great war and is a day sacred to all ex-service men and women and which should be sacred to the people of Canada.
And whereas the day now set apart for the observance of this anniversary does not generally coincide with the actual day.
And whereas by reason of this, the observance of this anniversary loses much of its significance, and its sacred character is thereby much impaired.
Be it therefore resolved that we request that the parliament of Canada be requested and we do hereby respectfully request it, to enact legislation whereby in place of the present Thanksgiving day, November the eleventh in every year shall be set aside as a national holiday to be known as Remembrance day."
I also wish to bring ,to the attention of the house a resolution passed by the returned men at Dauphin, Manitoba, under date of November 11, 1929. The resolution reads:
Whereas this gathering of returned men of Dauphin and district is of the opinion that the day which marked the end of hostilities in the great war should be fittingly and thankfully observed by all of the citizens of Canada in perpetuity.
And whereas we believe that the maintaining of Armistice day as a day of national import would be of inestimable value in the furtherance of ideals of peace among the nations.
And whereas in our opinion the identity of Armistice day as being the eleventh day of November is in grave danger of being lost by reason of the extent in which Armistice day has been and is being confused with Thanksgiving day in the minds of the people of Canada.
Now therefore this gathering of returned soldiers, sailors and airmen of Dauphin district, met together for the purpose of observing Armistice day, hereby records its conviction that in order that the significance of Armistice day may ever be preserved, November eleventh in each year should be set aside as a national day of observance and as a public holiday, and further that Thankgsgiving day should not be permitted in any way to detract from the memories and ideals which Armistice day should inspire in Canadians.
In accordance with the sentiments so ably and clearly set forth in these two resolutions,
I have much pleasure in supporting the bill which has been introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).

Armistice Day Act


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: This bill, if it were adopted, would have the effect of making Armistice day a fixed day, the 11th of November in each year. It would be a day of observance, apart altogether from any day celebrating or commemorating any other occasion. There is in my judgment no necessity of its interfering in the slightest degree with the celebration of Thanksgiving. Coming as it does in November, it will allow ample time in October for Thanksgiving, if fixed in that month, thus avoiding the difficulties that might arise from two of these public holidays occurring within a short period of time, and more especially avoiding what I think would be an unfortunate feature, namely, that of both being celebrated on the same day. These commemorative occasions are distinct and different, and it would be unfortunate longer to try to couple the two together. Therefore I favour the passing of the bill.
What is of importance is not one's personal views, but how the proposed measure will be regarded in the country. One can judge only from personal observation, from meeting people and from general information. My view is that it will be most acceptable; that it will meet with the approval of a very large, number of people. I believe its adoption will be a source of gratification and comfort to the returned men, their families, their dependents and their descendants. I therefore support the object of this bill and strongly favour- its passage.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: I certainly desire to congratulate the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), who is doubtless speaking for the government-


Murray MacLaren: No.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver) in supporting the request which has long been made by the organized veterans of Canada.


Murray MacLaren: I was speaking personally.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member's support is equally welcome in either case. I certainly desire to congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) upon facing eventually the triumphant consummation of his very consistent and persistent efforts to have the request of the organized veterans of Canada granted.
I suggest that apart altogether from the present and vital issue which confronts the house in regard to the matter now before us, we have in Canada far too many public holidays, and it might be well for the administration
to consider doing away with some of them.
In my opinion-and I believe I am in the judgment of the house-far greater than even the birthday of our beloved sovereign, His Majesty the King; far greater than the twenty-fourth of May, which is Empire day, should be the solemn commemoration in Canada of the eleventh day of November in each year, when all the people of this Dominion, all the people throughout the British Empire, and all the people of all the allies, are at eleven o'clock in the morning hushed in one great moment of solemn remembrance of our glorious dead.
I am in hearty accord with those hon. members who have already given their support to the bill introduced by my good friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).


Peter McGibbon: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my approval of this proposal. On a number of occasions during the last ten years I have expressed the opinion that Armistice day and Thanksgiving day should be kept entirely separate and distinct, as they serve altogether different purposes. It does seem to me that as the years go by this country is apt to forget altogether too quickly the sacrifices made by those who had the honour and the privilege of serving overseas during the great war from 1914 to 1918. If for no other reason than that this measure is largely desired by the returned men of this country, I think that the house, in deference to them and to their request, should pass this bill. The great events of those memorable days are fading too quickly into history. We sometimes forget that England journeyed to the battlefield for one of its unknown warriors and buried him in that great sepulchre of kings and princes in the old land. Similarly the United States buried one of their unknown warriors at the national cemetery at Arlington. Italy has not been behind. From the maritime Alps they have taken an unknown warrior, and his last resting place is now by the side of that great hero and liberator of their country.
It is now some twelve years since the close of the war, and I think the question should be settled now, once and for all. The stirring deeds of those trying years are surely worth our setting aside at least one day in three hundred and sixty-five upon which to commemorate the achievements and the sacrifices not only of our own brave soldiers, but of those of our allies. It is the least we can do, and I urge upon the house that this question be settled now an in keeping with the wishes of the returned men, regardless of the feelings of the rest of the people of this country.
Armistice Day Act


Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York):: To my mind it is unfortunate that the proposed bill of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) attempts to make a dual change in the law as it now stands. If I correctly interpret the purport of the legislation contemplated by the bill, section 2 of the act which it is proposed to repeal originally provided that the Monday of the week in which November 11 fell should be observed ae Armistice day, and section 3 provided for the celebration of Thanksgiving day on the same day as Armistice day. By this proposed amendment you change not only the holding of both celebrations on the one day, that of remembrance and that of thanksgiving, but in addition you adopt the principle that the day of remembrance shall be the calendar day, the 1.1th of November, instead of the Monday of the week in which that day falls.
Like many hon. members of this house I have received a copy of the circular containing the resolution passed by the executive of the Dominion command of the Canadian Legion. There are many legion branches and many returned soldiers in the riding which I represent, and although it may be said that the returned men are unanimous with respect to the desirability of the observance of Armistice day as a day of remembrance separate and distinct from Thanksgiving day, there does not appear to be unanimity of opinion as to whether or not Armistice day should be observed on the Monday of the week in which the 11th of November falls or on the calendar day, the 11th of November.
I would therefore suggest, if I may, to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that he allow the bill to stand for a short time until we have had an opportunity of determining just what the majority of the returned men desire.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is no doubt about it.


James Earl Lawson: My hon. friend feels sure there is no doubt about it. I only wish I were in that fortunate position, but judging from the communications I have received I must confess there is a great deal of doubt on that one point-whether the observance should be on the 1.1th of November or on the Monday of the week in which November 11 falls.


Alan Webster Neill: I challenge the hon. member to produce a resolution or report from any one recognized body of soldiers saying that they want the day of remembrance to be on the Monday. They want it on November the 11th.


James Earl Lawson: I wonder if my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni has yet grasped the significance of the statement which I have been trying to make.


Alan Webster Neill: No, because there is nothing in it.


James Earl Lawson: There is no question that the returned men are unanimously in favour of a separate day of remembrance. That much is clear, but I say to my hon. friend that there are returned men who are members of the legion in the riding which I represent-it so happens that I am myself a member of that body-who have a preference for Monday rather than the 11th of November. If I am not mistaken, Armistice day itself, November 111, 1918, fell on a Monday, consequently it has sentimental associations, if you will. Monday is given a preference in the minds of a great many. If my hon. friend will read the circular which has been forwarded to the members by the Dominion executive of the Canadian Legion, I think he will agree with me that it is not clearly set out in that resolution whether the legion is desirous as a body of having the day of remembrance on the 11 th of November, or whether in the main the object of the resolution is to separate the two celebrations we are now discussing. I suggest therefore, that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni allow the bill to stand until it is next reached on the order paper.


Mr. W. D. COWAN (Long Lake):: I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lawson) in his desire to have action on the proposal of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) delayed. It has been my experience that when matters of this sort are delayed they do not further develop. So far as I am concerned I stand pledged to my comrades in the city of Regina and the province of Saskatchewan to support the eleventh of November as Armistice day, and no other day. In that part of the country the day of the week has never once entered into our discussions. Both in the local branch and in the provincial command we have taken the view that the eleventh is the eleventh, and the ninth cannot be made into the eleventh. In my locality the people interested want the eleventh and will not be satisfied with anything else.
I wish to make one or two statements in regard to the resolution passed by the Dominion command when they met in Regina. As president of the local branch it was my duty to welcome to Regina the Dominion branch. The meeting in Regina constituted the largest convention in Canada of its kind. We passed

that resolution in favour of the eleventh and never for one moment thought of any other day. I do not know what the wording is, because I have not read it, but I do remember that the eleventh of November was the day asked for by the Dominion command, a body which represents between 80,000 and 100,000 people in Canada. I suggest that we should settle this matter now, get through with it, get it out of the way and turn our minds to other business. Let us make the eleventh of November Armistice day. The members of the legion will never be content with the present arrangement. Annually the question comes up, "Why celebrate this day? It is not our day". On November 11th they visit our cenotaph and a celebration is held there and then. No matter what happens the eleventh is the day on which we hold the celebration, and the day on which we will continue to hold it.


Mr. R. K. SMITH (Cumberland):: I wish
to express my approval of the principle of this bill. I do hope however that when we reach the committee stage the suggestion made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr Dickie) and the recommendation of the executive of the legion respecting the change of the name from Armistice day to Remembrance day will be kept in mind. In my humble judgment, in order to have this day fittingly observed there should be some statutory enactments with respect to it similar to those under the Lord's Day Act. In recent years this holiday has been one not of commemoration but of celebration, and in my judgment we all should frown upon the practice which has been followed in that respect. Armistice day is the one day in the year which should be observed and commemorated more than any other. I do hope that the comments which have been made during the discussion of this bill will be kept in mind so that when it reaches the committee stage suggestions may be offered whereby the day may be fittingly observed and provision made for its proper commemoration in the future.


Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: I wish to place myself on record as heartily endorsing this bill. I think the legislation is long overdue. I agree in every detail with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan). The commemoration of Armistice day should be held on November 11th, not the ninth, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth or any other day. It was on the eleventh of November that the Armistice was signed, and I am satisfied as a returned soldier
Armistice Day Act
and a member of the legion that the returned soldiers throughout Canada want the commemoration to be held on November llth, whether it be called Remembrance day or otherwise. That is the day which should be celebrated; that is the day the returned soldiers want to celebrate, and I am pleased to support a bill which will make such commemoration possible. I congratulate the hon. member who introduced the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: At
this stage' I shall not delay- the house because it is more important to have the bill passed than to make speeches.
The feeling of the house has been generous, and I have only one comment to make. One hon. member suggested that it would be desirable to delay, to let the matter lie a little longer.
Net a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep.
This matter has been before the country and before the house for years, and there is no need for further postponement. For six weeks the bill has been before the house, and if hon. members cannot grasp the meaning of a bill of only three sentences in that time they should be able to do so.	_
The same hon. member said that he did not speak for the soldiers; I think I can say in al good faith -that I can. Here is one of the many communications I received.
Britannia branch Canadian Legion, Victoria with nearly five hundred members strongly supports your efforts to have Armistice day observed November eleventh and no other. Wish you every success in your endeavours to have an objective of Canadian Legion ot British Empire Service League for many years attained at this session.
I hope Mr. Speaker, that the vote will be unanimous and will show that, regardless of party or seot or any other consideration, we in this house are united to grant to the soldiers this measure of consideration. They have asked for it and I think after all they are entitled to get it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1.
Mr. DICKIE:: In deference to the wishes of the headquarters of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League I wish to introduce an amendment. I think it has been thoroughly conceded by the house that Armistice day should be separate from Thanksgiving day. To my mind it is a day not of
Dairy Industry Act

joy or cheerfulness, but of sacred memory on, the part of those who lost relatives or friends, as well as those to whom such losses did not come in the late war. It is a sacred day, and I thoroughly agree with the recommendation of the Dominion headquarters with respect to a change of the name. WLen we gather round the war memorials throughout the country we are all thankful for the anniversary of the cessation of hostilities, but still the prevalent feeling is not with respect to Armistice day at all, it is a feeling of sadness for those who fell in the war, and in my opinion the Dominion headquarters of the Canadian Legion are well advised in advocating that this day be called Remembrance day. I have had many letters from men of the legion in the west suggesting the same thing. I am simply taking this course out of deference to the wishes of that great body of men. And surely if there is any true index to the views of what is best for the returned men of Canada, that index is to be found in the Canadian legion of the empire. They represent the sdldiers themselves; this is a soldiers' bill pure and simple; so why should we not accede to the wishes of that great body and call the day Remembrance day? Remembrance day sounds very well, and implies all that we wish to remember and perpetuate. We know it commemorates the cessation of hostilities, but, as I say, the word "armistice" will be' forgotten when the sad memories associated with the day still live among those who on that day foregather in sacred remembrance of those who gave of their best for this empire of ours.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber):
pose that there has always existed people who have made it a practice to transgress the laws enacted by their country, and the dairy industiy has not escaped this practice. For the information of hon. members of the house who might inquire why I introduced this amendment, I shall state that this adulteration of dairy products and more particularly butter, has greatly increased within the last years. I admit that it has more or less been carried on; however, within the last two years, especially, adulteration has been practised on a large scale. Last autumn I met a butter and cheese merchant who informed me that this adulteration had greatly hurt the butter industry of Quebec and that even a number of manufacturers in our large cities were found guilty of such a practice and had been fined; that directors of such organizations had stated that they would willingly pay a fine of $200 per week, if allowed to carry on this adulteration. The latter has been so openly and extensively resorted to-


Paul Mercier: May I ask the hon. member a question? How is this adulteration, which is being spoken of for the last few minutes, practised? I should very much like to know how butter can be adulterated?


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: In answer
to the hon. member for St. Henri, may I read the act which I wish to have amended. As I have not the French version of this bill, I shall necessarily read it in English. I am sorry not to be able to quote this clause in French.
That the word "Armistice" be struck out and the word be substituted therefor.
in the last line "Remembrance"


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Section 5 reads as follows:
No person shall-
(a) manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, margarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream;-


[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) (Translation) . Mr. Speaker, as hon, members may have noticed this bill aims at increasing the penalties against butter adulterators. I sup-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hour for private and public bills having passed, the house will resume consideration of government orders.



SUPPLY-AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bennett for committee of supply.
John Livingstone Brown: When the
house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, a point

Agricultural Conditions
of order had been raised as to the propriety of my reading certain newspaper extracts. The hon. gentleman then in the chair (Mr. LaVergne) ruled that the reading of these extracts was not in order. While it is not my purpose at the present time to appeal from that ruling,-I would not seek to put Your Honour in the position which that would involve,-I think the time has come when we should have a clear and definite understanding as to just what may and may not be read in the course of a debate such as this. I have been pointing out, and have used the extracts to point out, that the country at large had put the same interpretation upon the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister as I have.
I used them to show also that the conditions of agriculture which we on this side of the house have been depicting were the conditions which prevailed, according to those whose opinions I was quoting at that time. I have no more newspaper extracts to read at the moment, but I do wish to cite another opinion that came to me in regard to this matter. I may say it came to me in the course of a letter I received some weeks ago, the writer of which said something to this effect:
Even in this most favoured district-
He was speaking of one of the best districts of Manitoba.
-we have many families that would have starved this winter were it not for neighbours giving them food. One family close to town lived on nothing but potatoes for a month, and-[DOT]
My correspondent adds:
-this man voted for Bennett to blast a market for his grain.
Complaints have been made from the other side of the house that we on this side are unfair -in holding the government responsible entirely for the present condition. That objection, of course, would come with much better grace had not hon. gentlemen opposite, during the last session of parliament and throughout the campaign, insisted upon placing all the blame for Canada's position upon the former administration. I would not hold that the present government is responsible for the whole of the depression that exists to-day. Indeed, I believe there is a limit to the power for evil even of this government. It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at any great length the fiscal policy of the present government in its effect either upon our own conditions or upon the conditions abroad, either as regards the cost of production or as regards the effect which that policy has upon export markets. That possibly may be done by certain members before we get through. I do wish to say, however, that I am profoundly convinced that the fiscal policy of the present government, if not responsible for all the evils from which we suffer, has certainly done much to aggravate the conditions that prevailed last fall.
I wish now to refer to another extract by way of laying a foundation for some further remarks which I shall make. I have here an extract from the Canadian Annual Review of 1929-30, page 99. I think I shall be perfectly in order in reading it.
At Woodstock, New Brunswick, he (Mr. Bennett) disputed Mr. Mackenzie King's claim that he had reduced taxation and stated that the reduction had only taken away part of a previous increase made by the same administration. He again emphasized his determination to protect Canadian agriculture and said that he would regard it as a great responsibility if elected "to see that the collective weight and power of the Dominion is placed behind agriculture."
I wish to call attention particularly to that last statement:
To see that the collective weight and power of the Dominion is placed behind agriculture.
That is a big promise, and up to the present we have not seen any indication of its being fulfilled. We have had, it is true, what is called a new agricultural policy issued by the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). It appeared in MacLean's Magazine and is, I believe, in the literature which is furnished in the library of the Department of Agriculture over in the west block. So that to that extent it is authoritative. To that extent it represents what is spoken of here as the collective weight and power of the Dominion being placed behind agriculture.
Let us consider them in order. First, we have a national marketing board. What that means we do not know. Then we have lower costs of production obtained by increased yield per acre. That is very good; it is the old idea of making two blades of grass grow where one formerly grew. That policy is as old as agriculture; it is not at all new, and takes no consideration whatever of marketing.
We have been told that the Minister of Agriculture is a very fine type of man, and those of us who have not had the privilege of a previous acquaintance with him have not yet had an opportunity of forming an opinion for ourselves. The sooner we get that oppor-tundty the better we shall be pleased. Now let me say to the Minister of Agriculture that while it is very good to make two blades grow where one grew before, that in itself is not sufficient to reduce the cost of production. We must go further than that. We must not
Agricultural Conditions

only reduce the cost of production by increased production, but we must reduce the actual expenses which the farmer has to incur in the cultivation of the land. And although it is contended that there is no difference in policy 'between the party opposite and the party on this side, I have no hesitation in saying that the one thing in the policy of the last administration that appealed to me was the consistent emphasis they laid upon reduction in duties, and consequently in the prices of the implements that are used in the primary industries of the country. I would commend that to the Minister of Agriculture as something that would go much further than what he proposes here in reducing the cost of production.
Thirdly, we have the proposal of sowing the land to crops best suited. That is absolutely sound, of course; but if anyone can see anything new in it I should like to know what it is. It, also, is as old as agriculture.
Next is research work to discover a fertilizer required for different soils. Very good as far as it goes, but it does not meet the emergency. Then we have the proposal of an immediate survey with respect to seed grain, seed vegetables and fodder crops. That, too, is commendable. Then the creation of bull clubs, the revival of an old policy to which we take no objection. Also the immediate improvement in the quality of swine. No one can take any objection to that, but we would not think of putting it forward as a startling innovation. Next is the eradication of disease among poultry-very good too; and research work on feeds. Well, this is exactly the work that is being done at the present time. It has been going on without any let-up; the agricultural colleges and the experimental farms are doing it and will continue to do it, no matter what government is in power. For that reason, therefore, it is not worth emphasizing. Then we have a proposal for eliminating parasites. I think one might commend to the house the observation made by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail). Then we have the transformation of experimental farms into local educational centres, which, of course, they have always been. Next is a request for cooperation on the part of the provincial governments in the carrying out of the policy. I do not take serious exception to any of these things-no person can; but the idea of stating that the collective weight and power of the Dominion is being placed behind agriculture is a pure farce. What would be thought of a doctor who would prescribe a bread and milk poultice for a broken leg? There are one or two things 
to which I intend to refer that might be considered to be of a more constructive nature.
Unfortunately the house has been given a certain impression, not from anything said here but from what has been published in the press. The following sentence indicates that certain members on this side of the house have been giving serious consideration to a certain phase of this question:	It reads:
From Ottawa comes the news that the office of agricultural representative in Great Britain is to be abandoned, or rather that expenditure on it is to be reduced to $2,500, and the agricultural representative, W. A. Wilson, B.S.A. is to be superannuated with a small retiring allowance.
I think it was the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) who asked a question along these lines the other day. We thought we would receive an answer, but evidently the Prime Minister gave an intimation to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that he should not answer it. We are not at the present moment perfectly informed as to what the policy of the department is in that connection and we can only go on the supposition that the newspaper report is correct. I desire to protest against any economy in that particular direction. Those who are acquainted with and have taken any account of what Mr. Wilson has done overseas must admit that that work was a good work; he performed it efficiently and brought Canadian products to the notice of the British people in a way never before accomplished through the advice which he gave with regard to the grading and the raising of the quality of our products. He has been of untold service to the cause of agriculture, and in my judgment this is not the time to dispense with that kind of service. Indeed, if the ideals of the Minister of Agriculture are to be realized and the quality of our products is to be increased, there is need more than ever for a man such as Mr. Wilson to keep these matters persistently before the people of Great Britain.
There is another question which is very seriously concerning the minds of our people at the present time, that of internal freight rates. If the cause of agriculture would be helped it seems to me some consideration must be given before long to this question.
I know it is not the general policy of this house definitely to establish freight rates, although an exception was made to that general rule when it dealt with the Crowsnest pass rates. I do not desire to advocate rates that are not profitable to the railway companies, although I do not believe there was any foundation to the claims made on previous occasions by the railway companies that they

Agricultural Conditions
were carrying grain at a loss under the rates provided for export. I do not think that claim can be sustained, because the railway companies are not carrying grain at a loss under the rates provided for in the Crowsnest pass agreement. It has been made abundantly clear that the chief cause of the present unsatisfactory position of _ railway finances is the smaller amount of grain which has been moving during the last few years.
In urging that the internal freight rates be reduced we are not advocating that grain should be carried at a loss. A principle has been laid down, I believe, in regard to freight rates based upon what the traffic will bear.
I do not intend to interpret that as meaning all the traffic will bear, but I believe it is the accepted principle to charge what the traffic will bear. That means that there are certain classes of freight which from their very nature must be carried at a cheap rate. Otherwise they will simply remain where they are and people will have to do without them because the freight rates charged will not permit them to be moved. We are now faced with a condition under which some of our commodities will not move freely. I refer particularly to the rates on grain to the Pacific coast and to the maritime provinces. The situation is this: the people of British Columbia who want to use the grain from the prairie provinces cannot purchase it at a price they can afford to pay, because of the high freight rates prevailing; the same is true with regard to the maritime provinces. Much emphasis has been laid, and properly so, upon the question of eastern Canada using the feed grains of the west. This is a question to which consideration must be given and a revision of these rates should be made in order to make it possible to carry that grain to eastern Canada and put it in the hands of the feeders in that part of the country. That would be of benefit not only to the producers of western Canada, but also to the consumers in British Columbia and the maritime provinces, and I do not believe any loss would result to the railway companies.
Since I have spoken for some time I will not attempt to deal with the question of wheat markets. I will leave that phase of the matter to the hon. members who will undoubtedly follow me in this debate.
There is another problem which to me seems to be of prime importance, and one to which the government should give consideration; I refer to the question of our meat products. The statement has been made again and again that western Canada-I am speaking now only for the west, but the same probably would
apply to the east-is capable of producing immense quantities of beef and pork. There is simply no limit to the amount of pork which could be produced' were marketing conditions more satisfactory. I say this advisedly; there is no limit to the amount of pork that could be produced. We have the land, we have the climate, we have the grain; we have everything necessary to produce bacon of the best type in unlimited quantities. But what happens? The very moment more than the regular supply appears upon the market, down goes the price. I once had the privilege of going through the Harris abattoir plant in Toronto and I saw the character of work which was being carried on there. One of the gentlemen in charge of that institution told me that they had a plant in Winnipeg which was idle at the time because they were unable to get sufficient live hogs. I told him what was the trouble, namely that the farmers had no encouragement to enter into production of hogs, because, as soon as a little extra supply came on the market, down went the price at which the farmers had to sell them, even less than the cost of raising them. If I may be excused for giving a personal experience, I think it was about four or five years ago I started in the spring with fifty young pigs. I would have been better off, as I found out at the close of the season, if in the spring I had knocked every one of them on the head. That is absolutely true. Of course it has to be taken into account that at that time barley was fetching a good price, and we do not want to feed pigs simply for the sake of the company; we want to raise stock so that no matter what the relative prices of pork and grain may be, we shall receive at least something for our work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When was it that this happened?


John Livingstone Brown: I am speaking of something that happened four or five years ago, when I said that we were often compelled to raise live stock at a loss. Such an experience discourages one from repeating it the following year. I am quite well aware that taking one year with another, farmers may some years have to carry on with a little less profit than others, but at the present time and under present conditions we are bearing the whole burden. As I said in a former speech in the house this year, just about two weeks before we came east, the price of hogs on the Winnipeg market went down to 5i cents a pound one day just because the packers were sitting in their offices and would not come out to buy hogs. It is true that in a week or two the price went back to about 7 cents a pound,
Agricultural Conditions

but the condition of things is simply that the farmers have no encouragement to continue the raising of hogs. We are told by those who go to the old country that there is a tremendous market there for our bacon. I believe that is true. I know we have to compete with Danish bacon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Danish bacon was sold in Canada this year.


John Livingstone Brown: I believe the Danish people are so favourably situated that they can continue to supply the British market. As I was speaking one diay with a former Minister of Immigration, Senator Forke, he told me that he had been in communication with the manager of a packing plant in Denmark, and the packer informed him they did not fear Canadian competition in Great Britain; they had what they called a green cure which could be sent to Britain and the British people could finish the processing to suit themselves. That is, of course, an advantage that they have, but none the less I believe it is possible for us to furnish Britain with bacon of a fine grade at a price that will be profitable to the producer if we can just correct the situation that to-day seems to exist between the producer and the consumer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our bacon commands a premium in England.


John Livingstone Brown: I have no doubt of that, because it is good bacon. But there is the situation that confronts us, and it is worthy of the consideration of any government. A year ago at a meeting of live stock men, held I think under the auspices of the then Minister of Agriculture, this problem was considered and the suggestion made that the government build abattoirs, one east and one west, make experiments along that line, and see what could be done. Nothing of course was done in that direction. I believe the sum of $25,000 was granted to make such an investigation, and some attention might be given by the government to that question, which to my mind is the most important live stock question that confronts us to-day-how to get over that piece of rocky ground, if I may so describe it, between the producer in Canada and the consumer in Great Britain.
I think it would not be becoming to me to occupy the attention of the house any longer.
I have placed before hon. members some of the considerations that have appealed to me. Returning again, however, to the attitude of the Prime Minister towards this question- he seems to feel that we have not been correctly representing him in this matter-

I do not know whether I would be privileged to read this one sentence:
If hon. members will take the trouble to investigate they will find that wherever men have had regard for economic laws and have kept free from speculation and wild dreams of sudden wealth, they are happy and contented and have provided a good livelihood for themselves and their families.
Then follows a statement of the amount of money that has been spent on cars in the various provinces, and the amounts that have been received by the different provinces by way of gasoline taxes. The Prime Minister made those statements either with a purpose or with no purpose, one or the other. If he made them with no purpose-well, I do not need to make any comment upon them. If he made them with a purpose, there can have been only one, and that must of necessity have been to show that statements made on this side of the house in regard to agricultural conditions in the west were not accurate. So I just want to emphasize again the statement I have made that the speech delivered by the Prime Minister is, whether deliberately or otherwise, an entire misrepresentation of conditions as they actually exist on the farms of the west to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. member point to a single statement in what I said the other day that is inaccurate?


John Livingstone Brown: I do not say the statement is inaccurate. It is not an inaccurate statement to say that western Canada has raised so many billion dollars of wealth out of the ground in a given number of years. I do not know the figures, but it may be accurate to say that an amount of $300,000,000 was invested in automobiles. It may' be accurate to say that there are some farmers who have money in the bank. My objection is not to the statements he made, but to the inferences he drew from those statements.


Mr. YOUNG:: W hat about the statement that no person who bad not speculated or bought on instalments had suffered?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That statement was not made.
Mr. BROWiN:	I move, seconded by the
hon. member for Assinilboia (Mr. McKenzie):
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be left out and the following words be inserted instead thereof:
1. The house regrets that the administration has failed to implement its definite promises with respect to agriculture and to this moment it has failed to announce any agriculture policy to this house.

Agricultural Conditions
2.	That the policies of the present administration operate to restrict, rather than to expand Canadian trade.
3.	That without the development of international trade Canadian agriculture will become increasingly paralyzed.
And further, in the opinion of the house, any policy with respect to agriculture should include emergency measures to meet the present agricultural crisis and adequate provision for the processing of meats and the marketing of live stock, wheat, dairy and of all other agricultural products.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that there may be ample
opportunity for attack, I think it is desirable that the government should make a statement at once. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has moved an amendment. That amendment deals with everything with which agriculture has to do, from grain to chickens, and with every phase of these agricultural products from growth to consumption.
The amendment regrets that the government in the few months it has been in power has not taken measures to meet the views of the mover. If that amendment reflects the opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite, may I point out to them that there is not much satisfaction to be derived from listening to the speech of the hon. member for Lisgar, because early in his dbservations he said that the conditions about which he complained have always prevailed. It is an odd thing that he should discover in the few months during which this government has been in power something which he knew had existed for nine years and about which he had said nothing during all that time. If he knew that these conditions had always prevailed, why did he not tell the house something about them before? Why did he not tell the house before about the fifty pigs which he should have knocked on the head and did not? Those things were in the days of the other government. He said that he did not find it satisfactory to raise pigs for company. Why did he not tell us before that he had discovered that? Why did he wait until to-ni^#?(? I am surprised that he reveals all things only to-night, after all the years that have gone by during which he made no complaint.
My statement in the house the other day, about which complaint has been made, can be summarized in a single word, the word used by the hon. member for Lisgar with respect to Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward, I understand from the hon. gentleman, had a good mind to telegraph me that in making that statement I was writing my own obituary. Yes, Mr. Speaker, these gentlemen are much more concerned with that than they are with 22110-68
the condition of the farmer. They are much more concerned about exploitation than they are about the progress of the farmers and about remedies for the present conditions. That I say to them without any question. All you have to do to see it is to read the record. I ask any hon. gentleman opposite to point to a single statement I made the other day which is not supported by the record.
Why did I make that statement? Because for weeks these hon. gentlemen opposite had been trying to hold up western Canada as a country in which courage had given way to despair; had been leading the people of eastern Canada and of other parts of the world to believe that western Canada was bankrupt and insolvent, that the men of that country had no longer the courage and persistence and perseverance of old. These calamity-howlers have been going to and fro in the country-


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Last July.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -forgetting that Canada is the same country and the same people that it has been since 1857 and before, with the same courage and enterprise, the same desire and hope and determination to make this a country of homes.
I say that whoever administers the government of the country at this time, whoever administers the national finances, has a great and difficult task; and whoever goes about Canada crying that the farmers cannot receive credit has no right to make it appear that they are not worth credit. That is what is being done. Men are going to and fro crying against what? Against the country, against the position of the farmers. They say that the country is bankrupt, and that the banks will not give the farmers credit. Who is it that says the farmers are unfit for credit and that the country is bankrupt and insolvent? Day after day and week after week hon. gentlemen opposite have been saying it; they complain that the farmers cannot get credit, although for weeks they have been telling us that the farmers are insolvent. I ask how much credit you would expect a banker to give you if all your neighbours went to him and said: "This man is insolvent; he is unworthy of credit; you should not give him credit, because he is broke." Yet these same gentlemen opposite complain because the farmers cannot get credit on what they say is a creditless foundation. That is the story.
The hon. member for Lisgar said that a banker whom he saw was not prepared to give credit. Why? He would not give credit, he said, on account of a crop that was not grown. And the hon. gentleman says that

Agricultural Conditions

because the farmers are broke, insolvent, bankrupt, they cannot grow a crop. Then he complains because the farmers cannot get credit on that. That is the amusing part of it.
This country is inhabited, as I said the other day, by the same people who lived in it before-


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Last July.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -this world depression came. The difficulty is that hon. gentlemen opposite are always smarting under their defeat. It is July with them always. All the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) says, apparently, is the one word, July-July- July. That is all he keeps on crying. He has not recovered from it yet.
The hon. member for Lisgar says that the farming population is practically insolvent. He says further that the depression has wiped out all the equity of the farmer.


John Vallance: You know it too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I had the pontifical manner of the hon. gentleman I might know it, but there is no evidence of it at the moment. The hon. member for Lisgar, I repeat, says that the equity of the farmer is wiped out. That is a rather serious statement to come from a western farmer. Is it any wonder that you cannot expect the banks to give credit when a representative of the farmers says that their equity is all wiped out?


John Vallance: They do not give credit when the farmers say so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know this, that one of the largest banks in Canada has increased its agricultural credits by 16 per cent in the last twelve months, and what is more, during the last six months the banks have been giving credit to all those on the prairies who have been able to show that they had the least hope of the future; but certainly they were not giving credit where the people were doing just what the hon. member for Lisgar has been doing here this afternoon. I ask any hon. member of this house, whoever he may be: Would you ask any banker to lend the savings of the people of Canada on such security as was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Lisgar? Would you do it? Is there one of you who would? Could you do it and be true to your trust? Is it not about time-


John Livingstone Brown: We are not blaming them for that. We are simply complaining that the right hon. member is not drawing the proper inference from that fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. member was not drawing any inference at all. He was endeavouring to point out to this country 
that in the midst of a great depression it is poor business to magnify your losses and minimize your courage and determination. I shall say more; no greater harm could be done to Canada than to adopt the course being pursued with respect to these very things. When we were in opposition and merely suggested that the matter should be looked into, it was considered pessimism. Now when the actuality is here, to say that you should meet it with courage is the truth. That is wihat hon. gentlemen say.
Supposing for a moment that the house look at the situation fairly. I am sorry the hon. member for Lisgar did not bring this matter up when the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was here.


John Livingstone Brown: We never know when the hon. member will be here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is confined to his bed by illness, and I very much regret he is unable to be here. However, he has a practical knowledge of agriculture. Following his return from the war he went upon the land and made a success of his operations. He had no more capital than that possessed by many gentlemen about whom the hon. member for Lisgar talked this afternoon. Why is it that he had some measure of success?


Mr. FACTOR:: Nine years of prosperity brought about by the former administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, on that point I will of course bake the opinion of the hon. member for Lisgar, who says he is a practical farmer, as against that of a lawyer from Toronto. The hon. member for Lisgar states that conditions during the last few years have been so bad that the farmer never had a chance. He was going to hit the pigs on the head rather than keep them.
I just put this to you-it is one instance, but the country is filled with such instances. The other day I mentioned wihat I believed to be one of the evils which has in part brought about the conditions which prevail. Shortly after I made that statement, Mr. Priestly, the vice-president of the United Farmers of Alberta, appearing before the Stamp commission in the city of Calgary, used these words:
While on occasions farmers had been borne to the crest of prosperity on the wave of the system-[DOT]
Speculation.
*-they found on looking back that they had spent more time in the "trough of poverty''

Agricultural Conditions
than in the joy of prosperity. Dirt farmers now believed that "paper wheat" had too much influence on the price of the real wheat.
Dealing with the money side of the question, Mr. Priestly quoted the results of his survey which showed the losses in excess of one hundred million dollars.


An hon. MEMBER:: By whom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The farmers. The extract from the newspaper continues:
Individual losses, he declared, were all the way from a few hundred dollars to $168,000.
"In some instances it was shown that farmers lost everything-land, crop and equipment," said Mr. Priestly. "Local bankers have stated that in many instances losses in their communities have ranged above $100,000. An estimate of the losses in the district tributary to one of our best southern Alberta towns exceeds a million and a quarter dollars. In one section of railway less than 90 miles, the losses in a very sparsely settled district amounted to $300,000."
All lost by speculation. That is stated by the vice-president of the United Farmers of Alberta. There is his story. Does it support what I said the other day, or does it not?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, it does.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is the position
taken in evidence given publicly before the Stamp commisison in the city of Calgary on Saturday, April 18 last. They are not my words; I leave them for the consideration of the house. It may be that one pronounces one's obituary in directing attention to these evils. It would be far better, it seems to me, for hon. gentlemen to confine their efforts to really constructive concern about how the difficulty is to be overcome than to shut their eyes and refuse to see the facts.
The Minister of Agriculture has some very well-defined ideas with respect to that industry.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have not heard
them yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has not yet presented them to the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: And the season will
soon be over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am mot going to deal further with agriculture, but -one thing more I desire to say. In Woodstock, New Brunswick, I said:
The collective weight of the resources of this country would be put behind agriculture.
I ask hon. members to name any government which has saved a situation by deliberate effort as this one has in view of the condition of the wheat market. What would the price of wheat have (been in this country had it not been for the action of the government?


An hon. MEMBER:: What has it done?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ask any thoughtful man about that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Tell us what you did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I tried to indicate the other day that I .think it is very much better that these things should speak for themselves. We put the collective credit of this country behind the wheat market.


John Vallance: It was security only to the banks which you gave, not to the wheat pool at all, or to the farmer. The help was given to the banks.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was the banks you saved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the Canadian people, to judge whether anything could better illustrate the line of thought indulged in by some hon. members than the two observations to which we have just listened.


An hon. MEMBER:: God help the farmer anyway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Could anything be better calculated to bring-shall I say?-despair on the part of those farmers who are struggling with adversity than this counsel of desperation to which we have been listening? The banks have money belonging to their depositors, and they owe it to them. The banks have no right to lend that money upon security which will hazard the deposit. The banks have lent the money to the farmers, to the pool-which was a voluntary organization created by the farmers themselves and not by the country. The banks were called upon to do one of two things; support that market by continuing to advance money; or stop doing so and let wheat drop 40 cents.


Edward James Young: Would wheat have dropped 40 cents if you had not taken the action you did?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot say. I can only say that that is the judgment of those well able to express an opinion on the subject.


Edward James Young: That is 40 cents more than it actually did drop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it would have dropped to 40 cents a bushel.


John Vallance: It went to 41 cents to the grower at the shipping point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not talking of that, I am talking of the market price. Let us go one step further. We did that. The pool controlled over 50 per cent of the wheat of this country, and the support given to the pool wheat protected and supported the non-pool wheat. That was well known by everybody. At a given day on the Winnipeg exchange it is a fact, known to those who take the trouble to investigate, that but for the action taken by the government the bottom would have entirely dropped out of the market.
Now, 50 cents wheat is no new thing in Canada. Have any hon. gentleman read the life of Sir William Van Home? Do you recall the days of 50-eent wheat as reported by his biographer?


John Livingstone Brown: I recall it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then my friend from Lisgar has had experience of what 50 cent wheat means.


John Livingstone Brown: Overalls were 75 cents then; to-day they are $3.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; everyone knows perfectly well that the prices of commodities generally have not fallen as rapidly as the prices of agricultural products. That is a fact in every part of the world. Let me go a step further. Some hon. members say we talk about what we did for the farmers. We did not talk about it, we just simply did it; that is all. And what about their seed grain? I was appalled by statements made the other day in this house because I have letters thanking us for what we did in this regard.


James J. Donnelly: Has any government ever refused to give seed grain to the farmers?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. gentleman would blame them if they did not, and find fault with them if they did.


James J. Donnelly: This government did no more than any other government in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This government was
under no obligation because, as the hon. gentleman said, we had no crown lands. In January

Agricultural Conditions
last, not waiting until the crop was to be put in, we got ready to do this work, but for reasons that must appeal to anyone the government does not want to advertise Canada by going around talking about the distribution of seed grain.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The provinces and the municipalities had to take the responsibility for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it does not add to
the greatness of our country to advertise what we do in that regard. You compel me now to do it. We supported the farmer with seed grain to an extent and in a manner that has not been done since confederation.


James J. Donnelly: You took a first lien
on his land.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We did no such thing.


James J. Donnelly: The municipalities are
taking it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot help that; we
have nothing to do with the municipalities. We took those steps because we believed they were in the national interest.
Now, may I say one word about freight rates? Since I first went to western Canada, over thirty-five years ago, it has always been something to talk about. Go and look at the condition of the railways to-day, or last year, or the year before. Canada has a 20 per cent lower freight rate than any other country in the world over the same sort of territory. In the great republic to the south their rates on an average are 20 per cent higher than ours.
An lion. MEMBER:	Domestic or export?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking of export.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are talking of
domestic.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That, I fancy, is fairly
well-known to everyone here. The Crowsnest pass rates were established by contract and perpetuated by legislation. May I say to my friends from the west:	Do you realize how
difficult you are making it for the west by the attitude that some of you continue to take? Do you realize, in your denunciation of what some of you call "St. James Street," and some of you call "the banks," and others of you call "the moneyed interests," that it is upon them we have to rely largely for our taxes? To the extent that incomes are increased, income taxes are increased; and to the extent that companies earn money, Si or 10 per cent, increased revenue is produced. You cry aloud for the spending of money, and then complain that the people
earn it that they may pay taxes. Is it not time that you took stock of some of these things? What good on earth can any member accomplish by pursuing the course that my hon. friend has pursued to-night, and that some other hon. gentlemen are pursuing here, crying aloud, calling upon high heaven in denunciation of wealth, money and means, and then in the same breath crying aloud to tax it. I met a delegation the other day, as some of you know, and their proposal was to get money for unemployment insurance on a non-contributory basis by a steeply graded income tax. Where is the income coming from? Where there is no income there is no tax.
Sir, is it not time that a House of Commons of such high intelligence as this should be thinking in terms not of our sorrows, but of our causes for gladness; not of our weaknesses, but of our strength; not that we are caught in a great world depression, but that we have the courage and the enterprise and the skill to get out of it? Is it not time to do that? I say this because I believe in Canada, because I am carrying-as most of you know-a very considerable responsibility with respect to the financial burden of this country. And I say he is no friend of Canada who endeavours to decry it.
Mr. MACKENZIE KiNG: Why did not my hon. friend think of all this last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said the very same
things last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In no speech I made
anywhere in Canada last year did I fail to speak of the greatness of my country, and of my faith and belief in her destiny. I defy any member to lay his hand upon a single speech in which I did not refer to the future of this country in terms of faith and of earnest and honest belief. I believe, sir, as I have said on several occasions, that failure by my hon. friends opposite to take elementary precautions for the future of Canada is partly responsible for the position we now occupy. I know what at that time other men did in their business. I know what I myself was doing, I know the advice I gave; and I know that common discretion should at least have induced men to see what was on the horizon.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask my right hon. friend this question:	Did he
not say from every platform that if he were put in a position of responsibility he would cure all these difficulties at once?
Agricultural Conditions


Richard Bedford Bennett: And I say that, given
my health and strength and a term of office, I will. What is more, I will not be going around crying about what somebody else did against my country because I am displaced by someone else. The time has come, it seems to me, for very plain speaking. You either believe in Canada or you do not. You either believe in the future of this country or you do not. You either believe that the same people who wrought miracles in the past are capable of doing great things in the future, or you do not so believe. You either believe that this is a potentially rich country or you do not. And if you believe these things, and have faith and courage enough, you will not do what people in the olden days described as crying "stinking fish." I speak with some feeling about this. And why should I not? Why should not any man, who loves his country and belives in it, speak with feeling when he hears this sort of thing-attempts day after day to blacken the character of his country and to lessen its resources, making it more difficult to govern it and maintain its growth. A gentleman returning from London the other day said to me, among other things, "At all hazards, maintain the high credit of Canada." What have hon. gentlemen done during five weeks to help in that direction? What have they done to-night in that regard?


An hon. MEMBER:: Told the truth, that is all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, that would be such a surprise. But, Mr. Speaker-


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: It might be strange, but still we told it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, is the basic industry of this country, and upon every platform in Canada I have so stated.
I have made that statement east and west.
I had not one policy for the east and another for the west. I had no story to tell in the west, such as I could repeat to this house,, as was told in days gone by by my hon. friends opposite. We have said the same thing in every part of the country. And now that we have been entrusted with responsibility we propose to go steadily forward with what we promised to do. There will be no turning back so long as we are here, but there will be a steady forward march; and when the time comes and this great depression lifts, it will be found that we at least have done our duty by every class and every citizen in Canada. But you will not do this by trying to minimize the greatness of your country, the richness of its resources, and the high character and persistence of its people.


Mr. ROBERT McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: After listening to this second lecture from the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) we members from the west, who have spent the greater part of our lives there and are closely connected with agriculture, are more than ever convinced that the right hon. gentleman knows little or nothing of actual conditions as they exist in the western provinces. We wonder why he did not express some of these high sentiments which he has uttered tonight during his lecture-


Richard Bedford Bennett: So he did.


Robert McKenzie: We did
not hear them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You weren't there.


Robert McKenzie: I read a few of the right hon. gentleman's speeches and there was nothing of that nature in them. If the condition of the country is as he states, why is it necessary for this government to send so much money out there in guarantees and assistance of one kind and another? I say, as one who knows-and I was in the west a few weeks ago-that conditions are gradually becoming worse instead of better in that country, and I will prove that assertion from some other expressions besides my own opinion.
The Prime Minister made the statement that one bank in particular had loaned more money this year than last year. I have no doubt that if the banks are lending a little money here and there to farmers-and it is little they lend-they can very well lend more this year than they did last year; because I venture to say that in many instances 100 per cent of the money loaned last year has to be renewed this year, and that will be counted as a fresh loan.
The Prime Minister has lectured us, complaining that we are ruining the credit of the country. Mr. Speaker, our one desire is to see the west prosperous. We all have interests in the west, not so much it is true as the Prime Minister; but all that we have in the world is out in that western country, and it would not be wisdom for us to decry western Canada. We are not decrying the country. All we are trying to do is to have the Prime Minister change the attitude he has adopted since coming into power. We want him to abandon some of his high tariff proposals, because high tariffs in this country can have but one effect so far as our producers are concerned, and that is the most detrimental effect possible.
As a seconder of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), I

Agricultural Conditions
wish to say something about the conditions that actually exist in the part of the country from which I come. I was home for the Easter holidays and I found nothing but the most distressing conditions in that country. The farmers hardly know which way to turn. If the banks are not loaning money it is not because of any expressions of ours in this house; it is because the banks know, from the statement which the farmer himself gives, whether or not he is entitled to credit. And the great bulk of our farmers to-day are not in a financial position, their holdings are not of sufficient value, to warrant the banks lending them money. I have no right to speak for the banks, but I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister to utterances of his own Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) in Montreal and Toronto, with regard to the banks, and then he will know whether or not it is we who are decrying the condition of the country.	_	_
Just a week ago to-day the Prime Minister gave us his first lecture, wherein he made some statements to which I desire to take exception. He said that the members on this side of the house were making exaggerated statements. After visiting the province of Saskatchewan recently I can say, and say truthfully, that it would be difficult indeed to exaggerate the conditions that exist in some parts of that country, particularly in the southwestern part of our province. Just imagine: the farmers can sell their barley for only one or two cents per bushel more than it costs them for threshing. How, then, can you expect anything else than depression among them? The price of wheat is the lowest in years, and everything else accordingly. The right hon. gentleman has said that we from the west take an isolated case here and there and represent it as a general condition. That statement proves to us that the Prime Minister does not know the actual conditions. It is quite evident from that statement that he does not know the conditions. If he wishes to know what the actual conditions are, let him write to ten or twelve secretaries of municipalities in widely scattered parts of the province and ask them for an unprejudiced opinion as to the actual conditions as they exist in those municipalties. I venture to say it would not be a very optimistic statement he would receive in reply.
The right hon.. gentleman mentioned the $2,000,000,000, of new wealth which had been created in western Canada during the last three years. I do not doubt that statement, but I do object, as I have on previous occasions, to so little of that remaining with the primary producers. What we object to to-day is that the effect of the policies of
this government has made it harder for the farmers to retain any substantial part of the new wealth they have created. The price of everything the farmer has to buy has been pegged, and we are faced with the refusal of the Prime Minister to peg the price of wheat or of other farm products. Whether or not it is a good policy to peg the price of wheat I will not say, but I do say that if it is a good policy to peg the price of everything the farmer has to buy, it certainly is good business to peg the price of what the farmer has to sell. If it is good in. one way, it must be good in the other, and, therefore, I am in favour of pegging the price of wheat under present circumstances.
The Prime Minister spoke of the tens of thousands of farmers in western Canada who had bank accounts. If that wias true a year ago, six months or even three months ago, those bank accounts are diminishing very rapidly, and I doubt if he could find to-day anything approximating the number he spoke of as having bank accounts. He said there were people who would try to make it appear that western Canada was bankrupt. That is not our idea; we want to lay the facts before the house and before the people and endeavour to get this government to realize the actual conditions existing and to change its policies accordingly. He said that we should not mention these things, that we are decrying the country and injuring its credit. He said a friend of his had written to him and wanted him to stop the hon, members from decrying the country because, forsooth, that friend of his had some agreements of sale which he wanted to dispose of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a friend of mine, a friend of the gentleman who wrote the letter.


Robert McKenzie: He evidently wanted to sell some agreements of sale.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He had purchased some.


Robert McKenzie: Why should we be worrying about these financial institutions selling their agreements of sale when the farmers find it impossible to sell their products?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot permit the hon. gentleman to make a misstatement. I said an individual had written to another who had some agreements for sale. No mention was made of financial institutions.


Robert McKenzie: I understood the hon. gentleman to say it was a letter he had received.
Agricultural Conditions


Richard Bedford Bennett: So it was; why be so inaccurate about these things?
Mr, McKENZIE (Assiniboia):	I would
like to quote a few expressions of opinion by others than members of parliament, who have expressed their views with regard to the actual conditions existing in western Canada. I have here an address delivered in Winnipeg on December 9, by Premier Bracken of Manitoba, in which he stated:
Times in Canada are worse than they would otherwise have been, because of the extreme nature of the Bennett policies.
Then with regard to the tariff, he said:
All past tariffs, initiated by federal governments have tended to restrict international trade. In this respect Mr. Bennett's plan is more extreme than any of the policies of the past few years. It is an axiom that when a tariff is put on goods it increases the price to consumers. It is equally true that a tariff which restricts trade works to the disadvantage of the farmer, who is dependent, as western Canada now is, upon foreign nations for a market.
That to my mind is the crux of the whole situation. We are endeavouring to make the government realize that what western Canada needs more than any other single thing is markets for its products. We cann-ot get those markets by restrictive trade measures and tariff increases. We cannot sell to other countries unless we are willing to buy from them, and that is one thing, more than any other, that we want to impress upon this government.
I have here what appears to be a memorandum got out by the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, in December last and sent to the right hon. the Prime Minister. This memorandum is signed by G. H. Williams, president of the United Farmers of Canada. Saskatchewan Section Limited, who states that he is the head of an organization having over 30,000 direct members. I will quote one or two clauses just to show what his opinion is as the head of that organization. He says:
The conditions of the farmers of the west are nothing short of deplorable, and these conditions, unless rectified, sir, are bound to be reflected first by corresponding distress among urban dwellers of these prairies, and latterly, in the city dwellers of eastern Canada.
There is an erroneous impression that portions of the province are in a fairly safe and secure position because they have had very few crop failures in past years. This, sir, is wrong.
Then he continues:
These are the conditions, sir, and you and your supporters pledged themselves "to give equalization of opportunity to the people of Canada, and-"farmers are people."

In an endeavour to protect the manufaetur-mg interests of Canada, you have imposed certain tariffs. _ These tariffs, rather than lowering the prices of the goods the farmer has to purchase, have in some instances caused a raise in price. Now the government of Canada has some responsibility to its primary industry-agriculture.
Hon. members opposite, especially those coming from city constituencies, have endeavoured to show that there has been no increase in the price of agricultural implements since the increase in the tariff. Whether or not that is true I am not prepared to say, as I have not gone into the matter, but when I was home during the Easter vacation an implement dealer told me that while there had been no increase in the price of agricultural implements there had been an increase in the price of certain repair parts. That statement is borne out by a letter which appeared in the Farmers' Sun of Toronto, of April 23. This letter is signed by Mr. Harold Currie of Strathroy, and would seem to demonstrate that the same applies to Ontario. It reads in part:
Last week the writer got a practical demonstration of Mr. Bennett's "humbug" when he went to the machinery agent to get some needed cultivator repairs. The teeth that were last year 90 cents are now one dollar; the bill hook for the binder, last year <1.50, is this year $1.65. The increase in price applies only to the parts for which there is thej greatest demand.
During the special session the right hon. the Prime Minister told us that he had received guarantees from the manufacturers that there would be no increase in the price of their product to the farmers. It will make very little difference to the farmers of the west whether or not the prices of implements are raised this year, but it will make a veiy material difference if an increase is made in the price of repairs and repair parts. If the price of repair parts has increased 10 per cent that will affect the farmer; it is those repair parts that he needs this year, because he will not be buying new machinery. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister will look into that question and see whether or not the manufacturing concerns are increasing the price of the repair parts that the farmers are most likely to need.
With regard to conditions in the west, the other day, just the day after the people of my constituency had an opportunity of reading the lecture that was delivered to us by the Prime Minister a week ago to-day, I received this telegram from the overseer of one of the important villages of my constituency. He states:
Less than 20 per cent of the farmers of this district have paid their last year's indebted-

Agricultural Conditions
ness to the banks or business houses. Depression acute all over your constituency. Very evident that Premier Bennett knows nothing of conditions in prairie provinces.
I have another expression of opinion voiced by the secretary of the Home Mission Board of the United Church of Canada, speaking in Toronto in January last. This clipping which is from the Toronto Star of January 13, 1931, reads:
Claiming that in Saskatchewan alone more than 150,000 families were in acute distress with little food, no fodder and no fuel, Doctor R. B. Cochran, general secretary of the Home Missions Board of the United Church, addressed the meeting of the ministers and laymen at the Metropolitan church to-day.
Dr. Cochran returned recently from a visit to Regina where he attended a conference of the western leaders of the church to deal with this problem.
That is an unbiased opinion. He is not saying this, as the Prime Minister would have the people believe we are saying what we are, for political purposes. This gentleman, the general secretary of the Home Missions Board of the United Church, had no political axe to grind. He was telling the facts as he saw them when he was out in that western country, and conditions to-day are no better than they were last December. Just as an evidence of what the situation really is, let us take the March report of the Department of National Revenue, as follows:
Recapitulation
Merchandise entered for consumption. Merchandise, domestic, exported.. ..
Month of March
1930	1931	Decrease$112,991,460	$75,347,854	$37,643,60689,595,317	55,048,197	34,547,120
That does not look as though the country were prosperous, as though there were tens of thousands of our farmers in the west with bank accounts. If they had bank accounts they would be buying. The fact that imports have fallen to the extent they have is evidence that the people are not able to buy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the goods are being manufactured at home.


Robert McKenzie: I believe the Prime Minister himself and one or two other hon. gentlemen opposite have drawn attention to the fact that this year we have sold a great deal more wheat than we did last year. The wheat exports in the month of February of 1930 and 1931 were as follows:
1930.
1931.
Bushels
6,732,826
10,296,608
Thus it is true that in the month of February of this year we exported something over 3,500,000 bushels more than we did a year ago, but this year the wheat sold at 58 cents a bushel, whereas in I960 it sold at SI .29 a bushel. I would like to know when hon. members expect we are going to sell wheat if we cannot sell it at about 20 cents a bushel below the cost of production. It is now below the cost of production, and yet our hon. friends opposite gloat over the fact that we are selling a few bushels more this year than we did last year when wheat was worth fully double the present price.
Last year, although we exported 3,500,000 bushels less, we received $2,500,000 more than
we did the previous year. Should we keep these things quiet? Is there no connection between the figures I have quoted showing that although selling three and half million bushels more we are receiving $2,500,000 less, and the fact that our farmers are in the position in which they find themselves to-day?
There is no gainsaying the fact that the government is not making the best endeavour it can to relieve agricultural distress. If the Prime Minister would give us some favourable indication of things becoming better, he would be better employed than in lecturing us when we try to present conditions as they actually exist to our certain knowledge. I have much pleasure in seconding the amendment.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: I have listened very attentively to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie), and I cannot understand them. In a time of depression they need a little more iron in their blood. The trouble with them is that they have pernicious anaemia. They are doing more harm to western Canada than ever was done to it in all the time I have lived in that part of the country. All I can call them is "calamity howlers". They are preying on the weaknesses of those who are suffering on account of lack of proper farming in western Canada and depressed prices. I want to read a clipping to show the hon. member for Assiniboia, who has just taken his seat, that there is not very much wrong in the constituency of Marquette, which is one of the most outstanding agricultural constituencies in
Agricultural Conditions

western Canada and takes second place to none. There cannot be much wrong with it. This is a clipping from the Minnedosa Tribune, under date of March 2:
Who says times are hard and money scarce? Up at the little town of Shoal Lake,-
The Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) knows where it is, because he and I had the pleasure of addressing a meeting there.
-no less than $500 has been spent already for 1931 auto licences, as against about $40 this time last year. The amount spent in Minnedosa so far for 1931 auto licences, if you knew it, would cause you to laugh at the preacher of hard times.
That is what the Minnedosa Tribune says. Let me read this clipping from the Shoal Lake Star under date of March 26, 1931:
Payments going out by way of cream cheques have averaged around $2,500 per week, a large percentage of which has gone to the farmers of this district, the balance to outside points.
If hon. members continue to preach "blue ruin," and "hard times," they will have me feeling that I am going with them. I heard of a professor at Oxford who carried out a psychological experiment on a certain individual. About fifteen persons were to meet this man and each one was to tell him how badly he looked. This they did, and they kept it up continually until the man actually began to feel that he was ill. My hon. friends opposite will continue to cry "blue ruin" until they will have me feeling that way. I cannot stand it any longer. They are doing it for political purposes. I belong to the same organization that my hon. friend from Lisgar and my hon. friend from Assiniboia belong to-the United Farmers.


John Livingstone Brown: Never a very active member, though.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was a very active member. I have sat in the organization with you. You remember quite well that in Calgary I took exception to things that you did in those organizations. You have played politics to the limit. You cannot play them any longer. You cannot work on the weakness of western people. You are political agitators.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must address the Chair.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I will admit, Mr. Speaker, that I was annoyed at the blue ruin talk that has been going on. Hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to work up political material for their associate, Mr. Ward, so that he can go round the country and talk secession and mild revolution and things of that sort. I do not wonder at the Prime Minister giving them a dressing down, for they deserve every word

of it; all he said to them was absolutely true. The hon. member for Assiniboia probably lives in a district where the men buy canned milk, where they go to the general store and buy their butter. They are not farmers. They are mostly all soil robbers, Mr. Speaker; they are causing all the trouble in western Canada.
I shall not take up any more time now; I shall defer my remarks until the budget comes before the house, when these gentlemen will probably hear more from me on the possibilities of our great west.


Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. Johns-Iberville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as
I represent a riding which is partly agricultural, I wish to take this opportunity to express my views on this subject. Since the election of July last, on every occasion that ministers or hon. members on the right addressed political banquets, they always stated that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had not failed in his task. The only pledge carried out, up to date, is that of the emergency session; yet the ministers contend that they have fulfilled all their pledges.
The right hon. Prime Minister, during the elections of 1930, travelled over the whole country telling the farmers:
Agriculturists, you believe in low tariff, you have been taught to applaud free trade, when did free trade fight for you? I will make protection fight for you.
Protection began in September last. I wonder how much farmers have benefited from this protection, with an increase in duties of 200 to 250 per cent on farming implements. Did this increase help the workmen? No, it favoured the manufacturers and capitalists.
The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), in his speech, on March 26 last, stated that the Prime Minister had negotiated treaties favourable to farmers. This statement amazed me greatly-and I am not the only one among the Quebec members which it did amaze. When in the legislature, at Quebec, the hon. Postmaster General always championed the interests of the farming class, however, in his speech the other day no reference was made to farmers. He has done nothing to help them, up to this day. Like the other Conservative members of Quebec who represent agricultural ridings, he took his cue from the Prime Minister who specially favours the capitalist and manufacturer.
The hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance), on March 19 last-almost forty days ago-inquired from the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) whether he

Agricultural Conditions
had a policy to announce. The hon. minister answered that he had nothing definite so far. The minister's answer, sir, was not of a nature to encourage the farming class.
The hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay) who spoke on April 13, stated that he was ready to make suggestions but that circumstances prevented him doing so because he expected the hon. Minister of Agriculture would bring down measures which would be very helpful to the farmers. In the meantime, the hon. Minister of Agriculture is conspicuous by his absence.
Assisting the farmers is an excellent way to relieve unemployment, because many of them crowd tihe cities when they can no more find their livelihood on the farm. After nine months of Conservative administration the government has not yet announced a program to assist agriculture, no.twithstanding_ all the fine pledges given by Conservative speakers who, in Quebec, insisted that they would especially help the farming class and city labour.
The workman is willing to pay a reasonable price for farm products, for when the farmer has money he is able to purchase the manufacturer's goods. The worker's motto is "live and [DOT] let live". The Conservative candidates travelled throughout Quebec, especially in the eastern townships, promising that if the Conservatives assumed office, butter imports would be prohibited. I wonder how the hon. members for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel), for Stanstead (Mr. Haekett) and Compton (Mr. Gobeil), could to-day face their electors, after having promised that butter imports to this country would be prohibited? Under the Liberal regime Australia paid a duty of 1-70 cent per pound. Since the advent of the Conservative administration this duty was decreased to 1 cent, and the butter imports from Australia have been 836,000 pounds more than in 1930. I wonder whether those are the pledges or guarantees given to the electorate by the hon. members on the right.
According to the report brought down by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), there were 6,000,000 pounds of butter imported into Canada from August 1, 1930, to March 1, 1931. As to New Zealand butter, it served its purpose in fooling the farmers, especially those of Quebec, it was stated that not a pound would enter Canada after the Conservatives assumed office, yet I find that more than 5,000,000 pounds were
imported into Canada since August 1, 1930. In 1930 we imported 408,000 pounds of butter from Australia, while in 1931, 1,244,000 pounds were imported. With these figures staring them in the face I wonder whether the hon. members on the right are fulfilling their pledges towards the electorate. It is but fair that the farmer should know what interest the government takes in his welfare.
In an answer given by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce to a question put by the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge), the following figures were given: butter imports to Canada in November, 1930, 117,600 pounds, while in March, 1931, it was 862,904, that is seven times more than in November, 1930. Well, sir, confronted with such facts, what are we to .think of the Conservative members of Quebec who pledged themselves to protect the interests of the farmers
I fail to see what the government has done for the farmers; I fail to see what it has accomplished on behalf of the worker. However, I realize that the increases in the tariff, enacted at the emergency session, aimed at favouring the manufacturer and capitalist instead of relieving unemployment and assisting the workman and farmer.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to take a
minute or two in this debate. I am one of those who believe that it is not everybody who is in a position either to give advice to or to lecture the farmer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not the farmer,
it was hon. members.


James Layton Ralston: I do not profess to have any intimate knowledge of farming conditions, but I do rise to point out to the house and to my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that we have heard from his lips to-night a very different story from what we heard less than a year ago. I do not know that I have ever heard a more vehement lecture to hon. members in this house than was delivered to-night by my right hon. friend concerning the matter of talking blue ruin and running down the credit of the country. I rise simply in order that he and the people may not forget some of the statements made by him within the last year with regard to the country whose credit he now desires to be upheld, concerning existing conditions as he described them throughout the country. These
Agricultural Conditions

statements to which I shall refer were made at a time when he was not averse to running down the country or crying blue ruin, and at a time when on every platform he seemed to have one desire at least, and that was to let not only this country but the world at large know exactly how badly oil we were.
I shall quote to the house some of the expression used by my right hon. friend during the election campaign with regard to conditions in this country, and then let us see if this is the same gentleman who to-night has condemned everybody who has attempted to tell the truth with regard to conditions as they exist in Canada to-day. Speaking at Toronto he said:
To-day we have unemployment on a scale never before known.
Speaking at Inverness he said:
Canada's national resources are being depleted.
Again speaking at Toronto he said:
Canadian industries are dying.
Speaking of trade generally, he said:
Thus Canada is becoming more and more a dependent, and less and less independent economically. . . .


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true.


James Layton Ralston: The Ottawa Citizen carried the statement from him that "industry was languishing:" Speaking at Regina, he said:
Now we have unemployment, people walking our streets, men and women hungry,-we have all these things in this great rich country.
Speaking of the then Prime Minister he said:
How ever blind he may be to your future, and deaf to your present needs, surely he cannot stop his ears with smug complacence and self esteem to the cry that carries across the nation, the cry of the destitute and hungry, the cry of mothers and fathers and little children who call to us as Christians and as Canadians to heal their pain.
And he spoke of "this time of national distress."


Richard Bedford Bennett: And we voted the $20,000,000.


James Layton Ralston: Those are statements made at that time by my right hon. friend in regard to conditions in this country. Speaking of the west, as reported in a speech at Winnipeg:
After stressing the economic ills of western Canada, showing that the prairies could not sell "wheat, foodstuffs, cattle and dairy products" ....

I ask hon. members if there could be any statements which would be less likely to obtain credit for the farmers than a statement of that kind made on a platform by the hon. gentleman who to-night condemned anybody who attempts to say that the farmer is not at the present time in a prosperous condition. Speaking at Sydney he said:
Now my fellow Canadians are out of a job, children hungry, mothers hungry, men willing to work but unable to get work ....
Those are pictures which were painted last July by my right hon. friend. While it may be good politics for him to rise in his place at this time and lecture hon. gentlemen for having dared to come here and state conditions as they exist, I do not believe it add3 anything to the debate, or that the country will be at all misled by the attitude which he takes.
He endeavours to salve his conscience, if I may use that term without disrespect, by saying that he has faith in this country. I want to state to him that he has not a monopoly on faith. All of us believe in the future of Canada, but we believe that its highest development in the future can best be attained by knowing all the conditions which require attention at any particular period land by endeavouring to remedy those conditions. Particularly I would call upon my right hon. friend, who was so lavish in his promises, to bring out his remedy and have the changes brought about. To-night my right hon. friend, amid loud cheers and applause from his followers, said that given health and strength and a term of office he would bring this country through its difficulties. May I say to my right hon. friend that there is always a time when a note falls due, and he already has had nine months in which to fulfil his promises. Considering the conditions which have been pointed out and which are said to exist in this country one would not be led to think that so far he had been very successful in his efforts; and one can be excused if he has considerable doubt as to whether the term of office for which he asks will be very fruitful of results. He is no doubt entitled to a reasonable time to bring about changes, but he must remember that the promises he made when he painted these conditions were promises for immediate action, and there was no suggestion that we would have to await the turn of a cycle of depression and for economic readjustment; the change was going to be made out of the air and in some way entirely unknown to those who were not "in the secret" when he

Agricultural Conditions
sat on this side of the house he refused to disclose to this house and country what his policy was. He said, "I am like the great statesmen in England; when I am called in, then I will prescribe." He has been called in, and for nine months he has had the opportunity of prescribing. We know how this country really stands at the present time, and I do not think that so far he can look with a great deal of pride upon the patient he has been attending.
To-night, referring to the statements made by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) the Prime Minister said "What good on earth can come from such statements as these?" Those words might well have been used at a time when he was travelling throughout the length and breadth of this land. The answer he would probably have made in private would have been, "At least it may do this; it may assist me and my party to get into power." They had that effect, and he is in power. He has the opportunity and the responsibility. I say to him that hon. members on this side of the house, and I think on the other side, notwithstanding the scolding, will continue to present to him conditions as they exist in various constituencies so that he may apply the remedies which he says he has. It is to be hoped that they will not continue to be met with lectures or with the suggestion he makes that a man who presents difficulties is not true to his country. Loyalty to our country is in all of us. Faith in our country and in its resources is in all of us. At the same time we cannot make that faith known and effective, and cannot make our country grow unless we have before us the true state of conditions. There is no use of my right hon. friend figuratively putting his head in the sand and refusing to see conditions as they are. He knows what they are as well as anybody else, and my right hon. friend may as well make up his mind to it that he will be held to his pledges, to remedy those conditions in order that the new era of which he talked and the promises he made may materialize.
As I say, I do not propose, nor do I feel qualified, to make any extended contribution to the debate in regard to agricultural conditions. But with all deference to my right hon. friend I submit that he himself made no contribution in this particular; rather he attempted to draw a red herring across the trail by blaming hon. gentlemen on this side for referring to the conditions existing in their several constituencies. I rose, Mr. Speaker, only for the purpose of reminding my right hon. friend of the attitude he took not very long ago, and of assuring him that we will
continue to present the situation as it really is, regardless of whether he approves or disapproves of that course.


Mr. L. E. PARENT (Terrebonne) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very attentively to this discussion on agriculture. I noticed that the speeches bore mostly on conditions existing in the west, such as the sale price of wheat and the financial difficulties of many western farmers. The west is not the only place where there are farmers and where farming suffers from present conditions. I have the privilege of representing a Tiding where there are a large number of farmers as well as industrialists, manufacturers and merchants, and iit is on their behalf that I wish to point out to the house what the farming community of Terrebonne thinks of the present agricultural situation. The farmers of my riding suffer like all farmers in this country from the failure to sell their products and the greatly decreased prices offered for them.
The present government, on many occasions during the last elections made pledges as regards this situation. Many pledges, but nothing has been done so far. I shall quote, among many, the pledges made by the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as reported by the Ottawa Journal on July 2, 1930:
I state that I shall regard as my great responsibility if elected on July 28, to see that the collective weight and power of the Dominion of Canada is placed behind agriculture.
I would be lacking in qualification entitling me to head a government if I failed to do so.
Speaking in Quebec, according to the Ottawa Citizen, on July 14, he stated:
I do not want place and power over broken promises.
Well, I wonder what the government has done to help agriculture? I have no idea. I am not aware of any measure introduced in the house this session or at the September session, which would improve the farming situation. In the statements made by members of the government, I find nothing relating to agriculture. May I quote certain extracts from a speech delivered by the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) and reported by the newspaper La Presse, on February 23. In this speech delivered before the Conservative Women's Association, of Montreal, the hon. minister spoke quite at length on the pledges made by the right hon. Mr. Bennett, when he took office, and the way in which he had fulfilled those pledges, he then added:
The pledge to increase the duties on about 200 articles which flood the local market to

Rules-Members Not Voting
the detriment of the manufacturer and Canadian farmer was carried out at the emergency session. What was the result? The factories of Quebec, to mention these only, are undertaking millions of dollars worth of development. A market valued at $32,000,000 is opened to the cotton manufacturers; one of $42,000,000 for woollens and another of $13,000,000 for silk goods.
Is there, sir, in this extract one word to help the farmers? No. The finst act of the government was to favour the manufacturers and industrialists. I have no objection to the government favouring to a certain extent important industrial groups, however, I state that agriculture should have preference. Both classes might have been simultaneously favoured by the government. I shall equally quote the words of another minister who seemed to reflect the views of the present government. The speech was made by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) on March 23, at a meeting of the Conservative Women's Association of Montreal. . . .


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 29, 1931