1931-04-21

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 32, respecting the Montreal Central Terminal Company.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 33, to amend the Companies Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. HACKETT:: By an amendment passed last year, auditors of companies were precluded from being or becoming directors of those companies. This amendment would make an exception to that law in the case of small private companies to the shares of which the public is not invited to subscribe.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first
time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 34, to amend the criminal code (Trade marks).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GEARY:: The amendments to the
criminal code proposed by this bill are designed to cover what are apparently omissions in the code and to implement generally the purpose for which those provisions were originally placed in the code. The matter is one that can be explained more fully in committee, but that is the general purpose of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY PROTEST OF TORONTO BOARD OF CONTROL AGAINST ALIENATION OF POWER RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: May I be permitted to direct a question to the Prime Minister on a matter of public interest? Following Your Honour's injunction of yesterday I shall be as brief as possible. The question is based on a letter which I have received from the Board of Control of the city of Toronto and which reads:
I have been directed by the board of control to bring to your official notice as the elective representative from this city that, whereas the city of Toronto has made a very considerable investment in respect to harbour and hydro developments, therefore the said city of Toronto does vigorously protest against the passing of any legislation by the government of the Dominion of Canada which would prejudicially affect the ultimate deepening and use of the St. Lawrence river as an oceangoing waterway.
This city of Toronto most strenuously objects to the further disposal of any hydro power rights to private corporations, being of the opinion that the great power water courses are the natural heritage of the citizens of Canada and should be preserved for all time to come for the benefit of the people at large The board would therefore request that you be good enough to advise them as to what progress has been made in reference to the plan for the deepening of the St. Lawrence river waterway and to notify them immediately of any proposed legislation either in this regard or in reference to any application of private corporations for the further diversion of power water rights.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In view of what was said at yesterday's sitting, I think the hon. member must realize that the question he is now undertaking to ask is one that should appear on the order paper. The matter is not urgent. It is a matter to be dealt with by the house in the future, by legislation, if at all, and it is not at the present, moment being considered. I would ask the hon. member to put his question on the order paper.


Samuel Factor: May I be excused as a new member? I have not put the question yet. May I put it?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is laying the foundation for a question which, on the face of it, is one which should go on the order paper.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Is the hon. member not allowed to put a direct question without any foundation?
Sale oj Gasoline


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That depends entirely upon the nature of the question.


Samuel Factor: The question is: Has the government received any application from private corporations for further diversion of water-power rights in the St. Lawrence river?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion that is a question which should be placed on the order
paper.



IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the press despatch this morning stating that the Imperial economic conference will be held in Ottawa next August, I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to indicate before prorogation what their trade proposals will be?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It seems to me that is certainly a matter of governmental policy to be disclosed by the action of the government.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I am simply asking whether the Prime Minister will indicate before prorogation what their trade proposals will be.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That also is a matter of policy, whether the Prime Minister chooses to indicate or not.



SALE OF GASOLINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I have in my hand two letters, parts of which I shall read in order that the question may be made clear. The first letter is dated Sedley, Saskatchewan, April 6, 1931, and reads:
We had an interesting meeting Saturday night at Riceton comprising farmers over a large area (most of Lajord municipality), and formed an association chiefly to purchase gasoline.
This is a big question. There is now apparently seven cents spread between wholesale and retail in this district and we can probably get back about five cents in patronage dividends.
That is the first letter. That is to say, the farmers at this meeting formed a cooperative association.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the hon. member
directing a question to the government or to a member of the government?


Edward James Young: I am directing it to the
Prime Minister.
[Mr Paul Merrier.]


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Well, proceed to do so.
The time of the house at this stage must not be taken up with reading long letters or extracts. If the hon. member wishes to direct a question to the government on a matter of public importance or urgency, well and good, lie knows the rules as well as any other hon. member.


Edward James Young: I will accept your ruling
Mr. Speaker. The question is this:	I have
here evidence that the Imperial Oil Company at Regina-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask the question.


Edward James Young: -is refusing to sell gasoline to cooperative associations organized to buy gasoline for their own use. In view of the fact Canadian refiners of gasoline are thus refusing, I ask the Prime Minister:	Will he
remove the duty from gasoline and allow the farmers to bring it in from the United States?


An hon. MEMBER:: Who says that is a
fact?


Mr. BENNETT:: Put the question on the
order paper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Prime Minister is
under no obligation to answer the question.


Edward James Young: The Prime Minister may
not be compelled to answer the question, but-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member may
put his question on the order paper; the Prime Minister has not answered it.


Edward James Young: The Prime Minister can if he likes refuse to answer, but the people of the country will form their own conclusions as to why.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas F. Donnelly: I wish to ask the question of the Acting Minister of Labour. The Canadian Pacific railway are building a branch line from Vanguard to Meyronne, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, and they are receiving some assistance from the $20,000,000 grant from this government. I understand that local men in that district are being discriminated against and that outside men are being brought in, even Americans, who are being hired to work on this railway at from fifty cents to one dollar per day. I would ask the Minister of Labour

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
to have this matter investigated and to see that heads of families who are at present obtaining direct relief from the municipalities receive first consideration, and that the fair wage be paid.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :: A number of instances have arisen
where complaints have been made with respect to the rate of wages paid on works in respect to which the federal government is contributing under the unemployment relief scheme. In all cases the Department of Labour promptly sends out an investigator, and if it is found that the proper rate of wages is not being paid, advances by the federal government are withheld until the matter is adjusted. That will be done in this case if it is found that such a situation as the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) indicates is in fact in evidence. Whenever such a situation is brought to the attention of the department from a dependable source, investigation is promptly made.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Will the minister
assure the house that he will have this matter investigated?



RAILWAY COMMISSION VACANCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Would the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) be good enough to intimate when the government intends to fill the vacancy on the Board of Railway Commissioners?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The matter is under consideration; the appointment will be made in due time.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Max D. Cormier for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King, and the proposed subamendment of Mr. Gardiner.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Since this debate began
nearly a month ago, there have been a great many developments both inside this house and in the country at large. I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks with regard to the
subamendment which has been proposed from this corner of the house. The particular form which the subamendment has taken represents somewhat of a compromise between the various groups in this corner of the house. We have found that in a great many ways the farmer and labour groups can work in close cooperation, but I must say that in some respects labour would state its case just a little bit differently from the case stated by the farmers-possibly because the needs of the agricultural workers are somewhat different from those of the industrial workers. Had we of the labour group been proposing our own amendment, impossible under the circumstances, we would like to have expressed ourselves somewhat in these terms:
We are of the opinion that there exists in Canada an economic condition that constitutes a national emergency which can be met only by extraordinary measures.
We regret that there is no indication in the speech from the throne of any provision which will adequately meet the pressing needs of hundreds of thousands of industrial workers and agricultural producers.
We believe that present conditions demand the mobilization of our natural resources, technical equipment and financial machinery, to provide a decent livelihood for the people of the Dominion. In our opinion this involves the abandonment of the present wasteful and inefficient competitive system and the adoption of cooperative principles both in our domestic and international relations.
We agree in the forepart of our resolution that in Canada to-day we do face a national emergency. We in the labour group would like to go so far as to say that under those conditions ive should mobilize the entire resources of this country. When the war was on we found it necessary to call upon various industries to contribute. Those in authority introduced conscription. It was felt that the emergency was so great that the entire resources of the country should be mobilized. Finances were forthcoming for the very great effort which the nations of the world had to put forward at that time. Whilst we would not say that the emergency at the present time is so acute as that which prevailed in 1914, we do say that the emergency is great enough to call for the mobilization of all the resources of this country.
I should like to remind the house that the bankers owe their position very largely to special privileges granted by this house. I would like to remind the house that the railway people owe their franchises to special privileges granted by the Dominion of Canada. and so on right along the line, and there seems to be no reason why, when hundreds of thousands of people are on the verge of


George Reginald Geary: That is nasty of them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the attitude of the communist party towards myself and the group with which I am associated. After the pilgrimage the other day of the group of unemployed led by communists I find this:
The demonstrations of February 25 and April 15 were but dress rehearsals of the demonstrations yet to come. The demonstration of May 1, international labour day will be a continuation of them and will surpass them all.
That article is contained in The Worker of April 18. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is too serious a matter simply to be off by the suggestion which has been made in this house that any man who introduces a question of this kind is promoting riots. I would urge that if the situation is so serious

The Address-Mr. Woodsworlh
that statements may be made in newspapers to the effect that such demonstrations are going to take place in the future it is high time that this parliament discussed the matter. I would point out further that comparatively speaking there are but few communists in this country. But if there is dissatisfaction and if there is want, there is bound to arise a group who will champion the cause of the needy and perhaps play upon the emotions of those who are suffering so much. Passing from Winnipeg to the east-I find in the Montreal Herald this paragraph with regard to the riots that took place last Wednesday in Montreal:
The cops, particularly the plainclothes men, were none too gentle. It was no uncommon sight yesterday afternoon to see some mildeyed and sheep-like appearing pedestrian propelled half way across the road by the toe of a constable's boot. Many times the whack of fist on face resounded through the streets.
Well, I call that .brutal treatment, whether by constituted authority or not, and I would suggest that the way to solve unemployment is not by increasing our police force and encouraging their brutality, but rather by attempting to get at the underlying economic causes.
Let me say that the position even of the communistic group so far has been quite correct. The communists headed the unemployed men in their march to the city halls and there pleaded their case. Further than that they went to the provincial governments-at least they did in my own city of Winnipeg on Wednesday last-begging that something be done for the unemployed. The unemployed have been put off by vague promises ever since last summer. When the elections were being held last July in Winnipeg the municipal authorities were feeding nearly 3,000 people. We were told that the summer would solve the situation. Summer came but there was no marked improvement and all these people have been on the unemployed list day after day, week after week, month after month. During the winter they were told that as soon as spring opened up all the unemployed would be able to find work. It is only a few days ago since I received a letter containing four or five closely written sheets of names of the Swedish unemployed of my home city, asking me if I could not do something to get them jobs on the new Hudson Bay railway or up at Churchill. These Swedish people we all know are among our finest immigrants. They were brought out here under representations that they were to get jobs. They have done good work in the past. Hundreds of them- I am not exaggerating-in my home city alone during the winter were fed at first by their own mission churches, and later by the muni-
{Mr. Woodsvrort.h.]
cipal authorities; now with another summer opening up they do not know what to do. Let me say again that recently at one of the meetings of this Swedish group a communist tried to interfere and break up the proceedings, but he was thrown out. That, however, does not solve the problem of these hundreds of Swedish unemployed, who are among the very best of our citizens. What are we going to do about the matter? We have this situation right across the country.
Yesterday the member for West York (Mr. Lawson) in the course of his speech-a speech for which I have to compliment him; it was a very fine effort indeed, and I think every one was impressed with the wonderful parliamentary ability shown by the hon. gentleman-made one or two statements to which I must take exception. He suggested that we in this corner represented a particular group of people, while he represented all the citizens of his constituency. Now, I do not like that attitude at all so far as I myself am concerned. I take it that since I was elected by a very considerable majority I can very well claim to represent all the citizens of my constituency just as much as he claims to represent every one in West York. At the last election I was not opposed either by the Liberals or the Conservatives, so the two old parties must take their responsibility for having allowed me to come back again. But we of the Labour group do represent a particular group which up to recent years has not had a chance to voice its needs on the floor of this house. And I would urge it is extremely difficult for any one but a lawyer to represent everybody in his constituency. For instance, I have the grain exchange in my constituency, but I do not think any of my farmer friends throughout the west will accuse me of representing the grain exchange and at the same time pleading for the farmers of the prairies. I have also a large number of bankers in my constituency, at least the offices of several of the banks are there, but I do not think the bankers themselves would say that I represent them at the same time as I am representing the needs of the common people of this country.
I have nothing against the bankers individually, they are a decent enough lot of men. but I do say I am not representing the policies of the banks when I come here and plead for the needs of the common people of the west. So I would suggest that this statement of the member for West York is altogether a misleading way of stating the position. I contend that we stand here, not representing this, that and the other interest

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
in our constituency; we represent a certain group that hitherto has been almost without a champion. We come out flatfooted on that point. Again, the member for West York suggests that we "purport" to represent labour, Well, when labour has returned some of us to this house for the past ten years I do not think that that word is in very good taste. Surely we represent labour because the labour men have as much right to be a party as have the farmers or the Liberals or the Conservatives. He suggests that we persist in making inflammatory speeches devoid of practical suggestions. Again, I say that is a purely gratuitous remark to make. I do not think any of us can be successfully charged with making inflammatory speeches; we are simply pointing out the facts in the situation. Further, it cannot be said that we have failed to put forward certain suggestions. If you, Mr. Speaker, will look at the order paper you will find it contains motion after motion, put forward by members of this group; and that has been the case ever since I have been in the house for the past decade. If any suggestions of a practical nature have been put forward, they have come largely from the members in this corner. We have made these suggestions during the present debate, and if I had the time I should be glad to attempt to make them again before I sit down. We have put forward what we regard as practical suggestions. Of course, they are rejected by hon. members on the other side, by the government powers, as being impractical. Well, in that case I suggest that it is distinctly the part of the government to make suggestions. In fact I think we are all sufficiently familiar with parliamentary procedure and British traditions to recognize that fundamentally it is the government that is responsible for policies. It is our part to show the need for certain legislation; it is the government's to work out the policies. If the government wants suggestions, right in our subamendment will be found a few practical suggestions, and it is for the government now to say whether it will accept these in the spirit in which they are proffered or whether it will arrogantly brush them aside and say that in its own way it will solve the problems now confronting the country.
The member for West York states that all he wants for the working people of the Dominion is the maintenance of the system of collective bargaining. Let me say to him that to-day there are very few workers who are allowed to bargain collectively. The vast majority of our working people are outside the trade unions altogether, and when they
are members of such unions they usually have to go on strike in order to maintain the principle of collective bargaining. The hon. member for West York says all he wants is the maintenance of a family life and fairly high standard of living. That is all we want, but those standards do not exist to-day. You have only to turn to the official records of the Department of Labour to find that statement amply corroborated; you have only to refer to the evidence given before our committee on industrial and international relations to find ample corroboration, and you have onlj' to turn to the pages of Hansard for the last few weeks to find how much below those standards our people are at the present time. That kind of thing is simply an attempt to divert public attention from the real issue.
I noticed that the hon. member for West York, posed-I was about to say-but since I objected to his use of a word of that kind I will withdraw that word and put it this way. His name appears on the letterhead of the Canadian Workers' Association as legal adviser. I hold in my hand a communication from the secretary of that organization stating that their association is running a series of three mass meetings in the interests of un-t employment insurance. The first of these meetings will be held on a certain date, and one of our group is asked to be present. I would suggest that this question of unemployment insurance is one of the things we have been bringing forward year after year, and it is on the order paper again this year in the name of my colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). If the hon. member for West York is really serious in his interest in the working people I would urge that he use his influence with the Prime Minister to see that there is enacted at this session of parliament a measure of unemployment insurance. The hon. member for West York, unfortunately, in having a fling at labour is really more or less following in the lead of the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister said the other day:
No good service is being done to the country by the exaggerations made by some of those who have addressed the chamber this afternoon.
I object to that form of statement. I do not know whether the Prime Minister was referring to me, whether he was referring to my colleague or whether he was referring to some of the farmer members who had spoken. It seems to me that if we have exaggerated or if we have misstated the case it ought to be clearly understood what man has made the exaggeration or the misstatement, and then

The Address-Mr. Woodsworth
we would be in a position to answer. The Prime Minister then went on to discuss the academic question as to whether the rich man should put his money in the bank or should spend it lavishly. The Prime Minister was rather of the opinion, I gathered, that it would be better to spend his money lavishly than to put it in the bank. I always imagined that he had such a high regard for the banks that he would have thought that putting it into the banks would be the surest way to put it into the channels of industry.
The Prime Minister suggests that the rich man should spend his money lavishly. Our contention in this house is altogether aside from that. Really we are not very particular as to whether the rich man saves or spends. What we are trying to say is that to-day, under the existing conditions, no man has a right to millions and no corporation has a right to the power which millions give. It is not with us the particular question as to how this or that man spends his wealth; the point is that wealth comes to-day because of the social privileges which are being given by governmental authority, and if there are those to whom wealth comes almost automatically while there are those who have so little of it that they are on the streets to-day, our contention is that there should be a readjustment in our regulations, in our forms of administration and in our laws themselves so that there may be a more equitable distribution of that wealth, which I think every thoughtful man will concede is produced not through the efforts of any individual or any particular group of individuals but which is produced as the result of the efforts of thousands and tens of thousands of people working to-day, as we work, collectively.
That is the position we take, and that is the situation to which I would like to direct the attention of the house. The other day my good friend the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) undertook to question some of my statements. He was good enough to say that he did not think I would mislead the house, because he said I had been the minister in a church years ago which he had attended. I am very thankful to him for the very great kindness that underlay his statement and which has persisted during the last twenty-five or thirty years, but when he proceeds to make this statement I feel that I must take exception to it. Referring to myself, he asked:
Why is he bringing in these things and knocking down the price of lands?
That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of statement which I think should be challenged. I recall

twenty-five years ago, when I was connected with the church, when a man told me that I ought not to talk about certain things because I was "knocking" the price of real estate. At that time I was living down in the northern part of my city of Winnipeg among the foreign born, and an epidemic was sweeping the country that summer, a child's disease, of which nearly 200 children in my district died within a fortnight. They were dying in North Winnipeg almost three times as quickly as they were dying in the other parts of the city which had better opportunities for caring for the children, and when I put this statement in a diagram and wanted to show it at a public health exhibition which was then being presented in my city-and this was twenty-five years ago-one gentleman belonging to the real estate board objected and said, "Oh, no, you must not exhibit that chart. It would knock real estate."
I had one of my own children lying ill at that time, Mr. Speaker. We had a good doctor and good nurses; the child had good care and we pulled the little chap through. The children of my neighbours, however, were dying by the score, and I remember one day being called to conduct a funeral service over the body of one of these children. We went out to the grave side; there were twenty little fresh made graves all in a row. There was the grave into which we were to lower the tiny body, and behind that were half a dozen graves half dug. The children were not dead yet, but the grave diggers were getting ahead with their work. I was supposed to read the funeral service so familiar to many of us here; "For as much as it has pleased Almighty God, in his wise providence to take out of the world the soul of the deceased." I said in my heart, "That is not true." I knew the reasons for the death of those children. Those reasons were bad milk, bad housing and bad social arrangements, and I was not going to blame any God with being responsible for it.
That was one of the big events in my life, Mr. Speaker, and when I was blamed for trying to get better health conditions, and when they said it would knock the price of real estate, the situation presented itself to me in this way: if it was my duty to read the funeral service over the body of a dead child it was much more my duty to save the children then living. I would urge upon this house that the welfare of the men, the women and the children of this country is worth much more than the price of real estate in the constituency of Marquette. I know my hon. friend does not really believe the contrary; he did not think of the implications. I would not

The Address-Mr. Coote
dare to say that he was hardhearted; the hon. members of this house are not hardhearted but they do not realize the conditions which prevail in many parts of this country.
When the unemployed interviewed the Premier of Manitoba at Winnipeg the other day he called their attention to the fact that that province had passed a resolution about a year ago urging the Dominion government to call a Dominion-provincial conference to which all provinces would send representatives to consider the advisability of amending the British North America Act so that the Dominion government could establish a Dominion-wide system of unemployment insurance. This is what we are urging upon the government. I find that requests of this sort are beginning to come in from other parts of Canada, even from eastern Canada. Only to-day I received in my mail a resolution passed by the township of East York, to this effect:
.... realizing the appalling situation existing in the township of East York and throughout this country in general through unemployment. and further realizing that unemployment is getting beyond the control of the local municipalities,
We hereby demand that the federal government pass legislation as soon as possible to bring into force unemployment insurance, on the same principle as exists in Great Britain.
I do not believe the ratepayers of East York are communists even though they use the words "we demand."
I have received many letters from many parts of the country. These letters are sent to me particularly because I represent a distinct labour group in this house, and because I have spoken on unemployment. As all hon. members know, when one speaks on any subject of general interest many people send him letters and resolutions. The following was received from Calgary-I select this one because that is the city of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). It reads:
Yesterday the Calgary employment bureau here had registered 2,848 men for whom no work was available. This number will shortly be augmented by the closing of the relief camps. Housewives report that increasing numbers of men are asking for food at their doors. Private citizens are continually giving meal tickets and orders for beds, as well as cash donations, to unemployed men. Small grocers and rooming house keepers are burdened through extending credit to men on part time relief work or without work. We feel it would be fairer to the citizens and better for the men who are unemployed if they could be supported by relief or relief work of which the cost is borne by all taxpayers.
I will not take the time of the house to refer to other resolutions, but these are typical 22110-49
examples. A despatch, dated April 9, from Sudbury, to the Toronto Star, reads as follows:
Sudbury's unemployed has reached 3,438, of which '450 are married men with families. The soup kitchen is still serving an average of 450 meals a day. The city is also supplying 170 families with bread, clothing and fuel.
. The papers are full of such stories. Only yesterday I noticed the following in the press as coming from Sturgeon Falls:
A pathetic climax to the period of destitution which has left many citizens of this northern community starving and ragged was enacted yesterday afternoon at the little town hall when a band of citizens, men and women, asked permission to send their children barefooted to school.


Mr. G. G. OOOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to take up a few minutes' time to bring to the attention of the government a matter which I would have brought up on the orders of the day were it possibe to get satisfaction at that time. I refer particularly to the conditions existing in one of the towns iu the coal district of the Crowsnest pass, and I do not think I could do better than to read a letter which I received from the secretary of the Mine Workers' Union. This letter is sent from Bellevue, dated April 8, 1931, and reads:
I was instructed to write you and let you know of the conditions in Bellevue at the present time. The mine at Bellevue is only working one or two days per week and lias only worked twenty-two days for the three months of the present year.
We have now about forty men laid off and taking the manager at Bellevue at his word, there will be 180 men laid off by the 15th of April. Blairmore will no doubt be in the same position as we are.
At our regular meeting last Sunday we passed a motion to the effect that we are in favour of everyone getting a share of the work that is going with no men laid off. This motion was passed unanimously with around 120 present.
I would draw the attention of the house to the following sentence:
It was the general opinion of the members present that if we must starve then let us all starve together.
Our committee will meet the general manager on Friday and in the event of the manager failing to comply with our request for a fair share-up of the work, I will immediately write you.
I have another letter from the same man, dated April 16, which reads:
About a week ago I wrote you in regard to the awful conditions that prevail in the mining camp at Bellevue. As I stated in my lass letter to you I would write you as soon as we had our interview with Mr. Yissac.

The Address-Mr. Coote
We passed a motion at our last regular meeting which was passed unanimously by a well attended meeting. Our motion was to the effect that we want a fair share-up of the work that is to be had with no men laid off.
O.ur committee met Mr. Vissac on the morning of the 14th April and the general manager of the West Canadian Collieries made it plain to us that there would be 100 men laid off and in the near future, if things do not pick up then there will be some more men laid off. The same number of men will be laid off at Blairmore.
Our proposition which you yourselt must admit is very fair was turned down by Mr. Yissac and we feel that the general manager's attitude is anything but fair.	.
You must readily understand if this laying-off of men is carried through it is going to cause much trouble in the Pass as no doubt the other companies will follow the lead of Mr. Vissac.	.
It seems that the mines here are not being operated in the best interests of either the worker or the country and we appeal to you to intervene on our behalf and use all the influence you have to get for us the very fair proposition we put to our general manager Vissac. To throw a few hundred men on an already overstocked unemployment market at the present time appears to be very bad policy.
This letter is signed by the secretary of the Bellevue Miners' Union.
As there is no Minister of Labour in the house I would appeal to the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon) to take this matter up and endeavour to arrive at a satisfactory solution. I would again draw the attention of the house to the words, "It was the general opinion of the members present that if we must starve then let us all starve together." I do not think that resolution exaggerates the true condition of affairs. These men worked only 126 days last year. Some of the outside men draw only $4.40 per day and hon. members who are good at mental arithmetic can figure out just how far that will go towards providing the decent standard of living to which the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) referred yesterday as being a desirable condition for Canada. These men and their families are in absolute want. I know of one case where a man had $3,000 in the Home bank when it failed and he still has $1,500 coming to him in theory. He is forced to draw relief in order to keep from starvation, his family consisting of a wife and six children. He was a very thrifty man and he did the best he could, but he is forced to draw relief from the town of Blairmore.
The condition at Bellevue is particularly serious. This is a small community and I am sure there is no possibility of relief, either direct or indirect, being given to the miners out of the $20,000,000 voted for unemployment re-

lief as the town of Bellevue would be unable to pay their share of the expenditure necessary. No wonder the secretary of the Miners' Union says that if all these men are laid off, there will be trouble. There are five big mines in this area. If the other five mines follow the same policy that has been inaugurated at Bellevue, it means that about 1,000 men will be laid off within the next week or two. What are these 1,000 men to do? This mining area is located in the mountains; there is no farming country around it where these people can go, and they have not the money to move out in any ease. I have examined the pay slips of some of the miners at Bellevue; I have noted one case where a man worked every day the mine was open during the months of January and February, and for those two months he averaged $26.65 per month. Those are the net wages he received. He endeavoured to keep himself, bis wife and four children on that. Now the proposal of the management is to lay off a large number of these men and to divide up the work amongst the men whom they retain on the pay-roll. I again ask the government to send a man from the Department of Labour into that camp to try to arrange a satisfactory solution of the difficulty between the company and the men. If those men have to he laid off, this should not be done until some provision is made for them and their families when that lay-off occurs, because the day their names are removed from the pay list, (that day their credit will be stopped at the stores. What, then, are they going to live on? The community cannot give them direct relief and it will be a crime if this action is allowed to be taken by the management unless some provision is made to take care of them.
May I say that I am glad the subamendment has been moved by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner). I could not honestly vote for the motion. I took the trouble this morning to look up the motion, the words of which are rather striking. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier) moved:
That a humble address be presented to His Excellency the Administrator of Canada, to thank His Excellency for the gracious speech which he has been pleased to make to both houses of parliament, at the opening of this session.
Those are very grateful and humble words. I thought: What is in the speech from the throne that we should be so very grateful for? I read over the speech from the throne and I could find in it very little to make me really thankful. Of course in this case His Excel-

The Address-Mr. Young
lency means the Prime Minister and it does not seem possible that the speech from the throne could have been written by the same man who delivered such eloquent speeches during the election campaign. If this speech from the throne were in line with the speech, for instance, delivered at Winnipeg with which the campaign was opened, we might thank His Excellency for it. I have in my hand a clipping taken from a United States publication reading:
The contrast between the Republican campaign assurances and the present reality is pretty vivid.
By the change of one word that fits the case here very nicely. Then it would read:
The contrast between Conservative campaign assurances and the present reality is pretty vivid.
I can find no reason why I should vote for the motion for the address. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) does not suit me very well; it is entirely negative in character, and at a time as serious as this we certainly require some very constructive proposals. I am pleased that the subamendment has been moved, because it suggests something constructive to the house. It contains three very definite proposals : the appointment of a committee to examine into the causes and extent of the present depression and to suggest action to relieve present suffering, correct the present situation and render less probable the recurrence of such disasters in the future. That is surely a worthy suggestion to make to the house. Already in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne some suggestions have been made, and I think they should be considered by this committee. This is surely so reasonable that the government will accept it.
The second suggestion which we make is federal action to secure the granting of sufficient credit to enable the western farmers to put in their crops. The government must be convinced of the necessity for that. Speeches delivered by some of their own supporters from western Canada should be quite ample to convince them in that regard.
I want to read just one paragraph from a letter which I hold in my hand, because I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the house. This is a letter which I received this morning from a very reliable gentleman in my constituency. He says:
We have been encouraged in the use of credit and the present is no time for its withdrawal. The banks have almost closed down entirely on credit and farmers who have turned over to tractors are finding it almost impossible to finance seeding operations.
I cannot refrain from reading the last paragraph of the letter, because it deals with the question of unemployment which we have emphasized in our subamendment.
It looks to me as though the situation was getting worse, unemployment increasing, wages coming down and no opening at all for those completing their educational training and looking for positions. I believe the situation is worse in this class than any other. Numbers of trained boys coming on and large numbers being let out of salaried positions every day. The Canadian Pacific Railway has let most of their employees out here, men with years of training and service. Speak of communism and socialism as you will, at least it oan show nothing worse than the present situation in capitalistic countries.
I do not think I can do better than close with that quotation. Surely in the face of the conditions which have been so fully set before the house, the government should be willing to accept the subamendment which has been moved from this corner.


Edward James Young: It is a matter for regret that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the government assume the attitude they do towards questions directed to them on the orders of the day. If information is asked for in the house, especially at a time like this, it is in the interest of the government to furnish it as far as possible. Though I cannot agree with the Prime Minister in any of his policies, I have a certain personal regard for him, and I do not like to see him adopting in this chamber a practice that will tend more and more to shake the confidence of the people in his sincerity and integrity.
This afternoon I tried to ask him a question and I endeavoured to lay a foundation to explain what the question would involve in order that he might intelligently comprehend and answer it, but I was denied the privilege so I shall take this opportunity of explaining to the house exactly what I had in mind. In a portion of my constituency there is a considerable stretch of what we call heavy land. It is very productive land, level, of uniform quality and texture, and it lends itself to tractor farming. Practically all the farmers on this land have gone in for tractor farming, many of them having entirely done away with their horses. Economic conditions of late have made it necessary for those farmers to look closely at every cent which they have to pay out. They must cut costs wherever possible, and they find that the price which they have to pay for gasoline is seven cents higher than the wholesale price. On the 6th April of this year, the farmers of one of those districts held a meeting at the village of Riceton and formed a cooperative
The Address-Mr. Young

association to buy their own gasoline. They figured that by so doing they could save five of the seven cent spread between the wholesale and the retail prices. I did not intend to read as much of this letter as I am going to read now, but as I have time I shall read a little more of it to let the house appreciate exactly what was in the minds of these farmers. The letter reads:
We had an interesting meeting Saturday night at Riceton comprising farmers over a large area (most of Lajord municipality) and formed an association chiefly to purchase gasoline.
This is a big question. There is now apparently seven cent spread between wholesale and retail in this district and we can probably get back about five cents in patronage dividends and I have been prodding our boys in Saskatchewan house re gas price during session but little has been done. Mr. Stewart gave notice of a bill but withdrew the bill. I understand from Dr. Urich that the reason given was an agreement with the Dominion government. I asked Mr. Patterson (Milestone) Saturday night about it and he practically admitted that the oil companies bluffed the government out of it and that the government learned that the price would probably go up instead ot down if an investigation was started into prices.
These farmers formed a co-operative organization to buy their own gasoline. They were iocated in the village of Riceton, where there were three storage plants for gasoline owned by three different private oil .companies. The farmers went to one company and said, "We will buy your plant if you care to sell it, and if you do not, we will build another one." So the company decided to sell their plant to the farmers and the following letter, of which I shall read a part, is the sequel to that deal. It is written by Mr. W. S. Kirkpatrick, managing director of the Puritan Oil Company Limited, which is the company that sold its plant to the farmers. It is dated Regina, April 14, 1931, and reads in part as follows:
On April 10th we disposed of one of our bulk plants, located .at Riceton, Saskatchewan to the Riceton Co-operative Association, an association membership composed of farmers throughout that district. At Riceton in addition to our former plant there were also the Imperial and B. A. located at this point w'ith bulk storage. On Saturady morning I interviewed the manager of the Imperial Oil Company in regard to shipping a carload of gasoline to this Association at Riceton. Their manager apparently was very much put out with the thought that this association was formed at that particular point. I might state had we not sold our plant to them, it was their intention to erect a fourth set of tanks, and there -was no business in that particular community _ for four sets of tanks, in fact there is not sufficient for three.
At the time of ordering this car their manager informed me that it would be impossible to

get a shipment out on prompt shipment as they were some forty tank ears behind in shipping. In less than five minutes, without any further information he increased this to fifty cars back ordered. A few moments later he called the refinery superintendent on the phone and while he did not repeat any figures which were given him by the refinery superintendent, the amount was increased to seventy-five cars back ordered, and that he did not know when a shipment could be made, although they were desirous of the business. The writer called him this morning to see if the shipment had actually been made as yet, and he informed me that it had not and did not know when it could be made on account of the shortage of cars and back orders.
I got in my car this morning and drove by their plant to see how many cars actually -were available, as we are very positive it was nothing but a stall to keep these people from receiving gasoline. I found in actual count the following on trackage west of the refinery, 38 empty tank cars stored. Sixteen of them were Imperial Marvelube red cars and green cars, the balance T.C.L.X. Quite a few of the T.C.L.X. cars I might state are used for the Imperial and B. A. shipping. I then drove to the back of the refinery loading rack, and counted 22 cars stored back there. I might state it was impossible to see all the cars that were stored on account of tankage, but would judge there were possibly six or eight that were not visible.
We might also state that the refinery at Regina on account of storage being full and their country storage being full have been laying off men continuously and are only operating the refinery on a skeleton crew endeavouring to reduce their stocks previous to operating on full capacity.	. .	.
We are absolutely positive that this is simply a stall to keep this co-operative association from having supplies, and thought at this time this information might be valuable to the organization.
There is a postscript which reads as follows:
P.S.-This morning we offered to furnish the Imperial Oil an empty tank car if they were still short to handle this shipment, and their local manager refused to accept this offer.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the situation. The Imperial Oil Company at Regina, having the only refinery in Saskatchewan, have deliberately set out to deny to the people of that country the right to buy oil or gas from anyone except themselves and at their own prices. When the farmers undertook to form a cooperative association to buy their own oil and gas, this company refused to furnish them with gasoline on the pretext that it had no cars, when about eighty empty tank cars were standing on their siding. I asked the minister a few moments ago if he would remove the duty on gasoline to allow the farmers to bring it in from the United States free of duty. If he will not, I would ask the government to make an investigation into

The Address-Mr. Neill
this case and to see to it that effective measures are taken to compel the Canadian oil refineries to furnish gasoline to whomsoever wants to buy it and has the money to pay for it. That is the least which the government can do in view of what it has done to increase the price of gasoline and other articles to the farmer.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Now that my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) has introduced the question of the gasoline tax I would like to mention a condition that obtains in the west. At the session last September a duty of 2| cents was imposed on gasoline, which previously came in free. I protested at the time and suggested to the government that they should allow the same exemption as obtains in the province. The province imposes a tax of 5 cents a gallon on gasoline, but exempts farmers and fishermen from paying the tax when the gasoline is used in their operations, and machinery is provided by which they can get a rebate. But the government last September imposed a tax of 2J cents and made it apply on gasoline used by fishermen. They also made a change in the customs tariff and in the Customs Act, and it is in connection with the operation of the latter act, I fancy, that the trouble of which I now wish to speak has arisen more particularly. The fishermen on the west coast engaged in trolling compete with the United States fishermen in the open ocean beyond the three-mile limit, where, of course, the ocean is as open to the American fishermen as it is to our Canadian fishermen, but the market for the class of fish which our Canadian fishermen on the west coast catch at this season of the year is almost entirely in the United States. The United States has a duty of 2 cents a pound on fish entering that country shipped by Canadians. That alone gives the American fisherman an enormous advantage over his Canadian competitor. If we are going to increase that handicap by a tax on gasoline-the Canadian fisherman has to pay 24 cents a gallon for the class of gasoline he uses in his little fishing boat as compared with 8 cents a gallon-the Imperial gallon in both cases-which the American fisherman pays in Seattle-it will be readily understood what a great handicap is imposed on our citizen fishermen. I am told by those in a position to know that the cost of gasoline amounts to from 30 to 35 per cent of the operating costs, so it can be seen at a glance under what a serious handicap our Canadian fishermen operate.
It is not so much that American gasoline is being dumped into this country. It is not being dumped. It is being offered for sale in Canada at the same price as it is offered for sale in the United States, but the customs officials out there are now seeking to impose the dumping duty, not on its merits as we know the dumping duty, but in a roundabout way. To be applied on its merits the dumping duty must be applied to an article which is sold in Canada cheaper than in the country of origin. But the customs officials are seeking to impose it by way of a fictitious condition which they create by resorting to subsection 2, I think it is, of section 36 of the Customs Act, under which they say that the value for duty purposes-I am quoting the act from memory-shall in no case be less than the cost of production in the country of origin, plus a fair profit, plus freight. In that way they will be entitled to fix the value so as to allow the dumping duty to be put on and bring the cost of the American gasoline up from 8 cents to 24 cents a gallon. I would ask the minister in charge of this matter, when he is taking steps to guarantee cost of production plus a reasonable profit, whatever that may be, plus the cost of freight for the American manufacturer of gasoline, would it not be better first to guarantee to our Canadian fishermen the cost of production plus a reasonable profit, plus freight to where his product is sold. It is going to make enormous and untenable difficulties for our Canadian fishermen and I would suggest that in this particular matter the provisions of section 36 of subsection 2 might be waived or at least ignored.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for the question? The question is on the subamendment.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the
amendment to the amendment is put, Mr Speaker, I should like to say a word with reference to its nature and to what has been said of it by way of comparison with the original amendment moved by myself.
The amendment of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), which, as has been said this afternoon, represents the collective thought of the independent group in this house, is in the nature of an addition and expansion of my amendment. It is in no sense contradictory of it. It in fact corroborates the representations of the amendment. The subamendment is more comprehensive; it is more suitable as an
774	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
addition to the amendment I have moved than as a substitution for it. Had I been moving my amendment at this stage of the debate I would probably have made it more comprehensive. The subamendment, it is true, as it stands is an alternative to the amendment I have moved. I am prepared to admit that as an alternative in certain of its features there is much to commend it. I believe hon. gentlemen at the far end of this chamber equally believe that my amendment has also very much to commend it.
When I moved the original amendment the house had before it only the speech from the throne. In that speech there were indications that in the course of time the house would be favoured with some concrete evidences of the intentions of the government to meet existing conditions which, according to the speech itself, were regarded as exceptional and serious. For example the speech from the throne contained the following words:
It will be your privilege to consider certain measures designed by my ministers to ameliorate existing conditions-
Also the following:
My ministers are aware that changing conditions in the world's markets may necessitate further intervention by my government, which is prepared to render whatever additional assistance may be deemed advisable in the national interest.
The presence of this statement in the speech from the throne would indicate that to meet the existing situation, the government had had in mind the enactment of additional measures.
It is usual, Mr. Speaker, in a debate which lasts for a considerable period of time and in the course of which the administration is questioned with respect to proposed legislation that some member of the ministry on behalf of the government gives to parliament at least an intimation of what may be expected. Although this debate has run on for more than five weeks we have had from the ministry in that length of time no expression whatever of its intention in regard to legislation of any kind to meet existing conditions which admittedly are of a most serious nature. The two features which have been stressed by all hon. members who have spoken on this side of the house, regardless of the group or party to which they may belong, were first the seriousness of the agricultural distress and secondly the extent and seriousness of unemployment in urban centres. With regard to these all important matters

hon. gentlemen opposite have sat as dumb as oysters. We have had no expression whatever from the ministry as to what they intend doing to meet existing difficulties.
May I mention a further circumstance. We are differently situated with respect to this debate on the speech from the throne than we have been in respect of others which have taken place in parliament. Owing to the lateness at which the session was called there have been on two or three occasions motions to suspend the rules of the house in order that the ministry might proceed a stage further with necessary business. Such action was essential in order to vote the salaries of civil employees. The estimates for the present fiscal year were placed upon the table of the house and are now before us. Ordinarily they would not have been available to hon. members until after the completion of the debate on the speech from the throne. However they are now in our possession and we have had an opportunity to peruse them. I venture to say there is not an hon. member of the house who can point to a single proposed expenditure which in any way is intended expressly to meet either the acute agricultural distress or the unfortunate situation existing with regard to unemployment. That very materially alters the position from what it was at the time I proposed the amendment which appears in my name. Hon, gentlemen in the far corner of the house have had the benefit of a discussion stressing immediate needs which has lasted over five weeks. They have knowledge of two very important facts, one positive in its nature, the other negative which I had not at the time I moved my amendment. The first of these is the positive evidence as shown by the estimates that no special provision is being made to meet agricultural distress in the rural districts or the extensive unemployment in the cities and towns. Evidence of the same thing, negative perhaps in its character, is to be found in the complete silence of the ministry, notwithstanding the representations which from time to time have been made to them during this debate. For those reasons I feel that hon. members in the far corner of the house are at this stage entirely right when they come forward with a subamendment which urges upon the administration immediate action in regard to those two all important phases of our national economic life.
I wish to direct a further remark particularly to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister.

The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
Owing to the serious conditions of the country at the present time, I think he owed it to the people's representatives in parliament to have been present in this house, and to have listened to the speeches which have been made during the course of this debate. I know he has many onerous duties to perform which of necessity demand much of his time. As Prime Minister of Canada and as leader of the House of Commons his place while the house is in session is in parliament. Had he chosen to absent himself occasionally during or for an afternoon or evening, I would not have raised my voice in criticism, but I venture to say that with the exception of listening to me, during my very long speech, he did not extend a similar courtesy to a single lion, member on this side of the house. It is true he was in his seat while one or two of his own members spoke, but those instances were few indeed. The right hon. gentleman invariably chose to leave his seat immediately following the order to proceed with this debate, and throughout the whole of the five weeks and more he has been in the house for only a very short time. If he had remained here I have no doubt he would have been very much impressed by what has been said by hon. members on this side of the house as to the need of immediate attention and the need of going with greater care into the causes contributing to existing conditions.
Not only has the Prime Minister paid no attention to the debate but his ministers likewise have contributed nothing in the way of an expression of view on the part of the government, and nothing to indicate its attitude. It is true the house was favoured by a contribution to the debate from the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), but there was not a word in the speeches they delivered with reference to government policy. Notwithstanding the fact that on the treasury benches are many hon. gentlemen who have had wide parliamentary experience, we have not heard in the course of this debate a single word from one of them. I affirm, Mr. Speaker, that in this attitude the government is not carrying on the business of the country in a parliamentary way. It is not fulfilling its function as a government when, in a debate as important as this one, no member of the administration has chosen to make or been permitted to make a single contribution with respect to the all-importanit matters under discussion. I am forced to the conclusion that in the matter of its own views
the ministry feels insecure; it must feel that its policies are not as mature as they should be. It would certainly appear that there is need for something in the nature of counsel and advice to be secured perhaps by further investigation. Holding that view, I confess to a very real sympathy with the major proposal of the subamendment which has been moved and which suggests that:
Your Excellency's advisers should give consideration to the appointment of a special committee of parliament, to which committee would be assigned the duty of examining into the causes and extent of the present depression.
That is very moderately and very carefully worded. It places nothing in the way of compulsion upon the administration. It is a mere suggestion that the ministry give consideration to the appointing of a parliamentary committee. I agree with one hon. member who spoke this afternoon in his view as to the limitations of parliamentary committees to achieve anything in a short time; but in a situation such as now exists I certainly think that a committee, which would have upon it members of all parties in this house, and would have the privilege of bringing before it representative individuals from all parts of the country, might do very much in the way of bringing about that cooperative spirit which has been referred to as being so desirable between all parties in the house at a time such as the present and with respect to a great public emergency such as is to be found in more than one phase of the existing economic depression. With that part of the subamendment, I feel myself in entire accord.
The subamendment continues with respect to what is desirable in the interval, between the appointing of a committee and its findings and makes in this connection two concrete suggestions. One is that the administration should give consideration to some scheme of federal assistance to the farmers with respect to their spring operations. When I first heard that clause being discussed I felt it might be taken as a reflection upon the banks that in some way they had failed to discharge their full duty. From a perusal of the clause, however, I do not think that such could Have been the intention and such is certainly not its meaning. The wording as a matter of fact makes it clear that the situation is such that the banks would not be doing their duty were they to attempt to make certain loans in the existing circumstances. At least it seems to me that the clause is capable of that interpretation. It reads:
(a) That the failure or inability of our banks to provide the credit which is essential to our
770	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Mackenzie King
farmers in respect to their spring operations, render it imperative that consideration be given to some system of federal assistance, whether directly, by way of bank guarantee, or otherwise.
The member far Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) will correct me if I am wrong, but I take this to mean that the banks find conditions in the farming areas throughout western Canada are such that they would not be, justified in making loans on the security which they are able to obtain. That being the case, and this being spring, and spring operations being impeded through the dire necessity of many of those in the rural parts of the country, the subamendment suggests that the federal government should consider some form of ascist-ance to meet the emergency. My recollection is that over and over again the government has at times of distress given substantial assistance to farmers in connection with their seeding and other agricultural operations; and if there ever was a time when something of the sort would seem to be necessary, that time it would seem is the present.
The other clause of the subamendment is:
(b) That the serious situation which still prevails in respect of unemployment demands that consideration be given to some immediate action looking toward increased employment, and a further measure of direct relief where such is found necessary.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the necessity of some such step must appeal to every hon. member. The need for immediate assistance being granted to meet the existing situation of unemployment has been made more obvious than ever, and the ministry, if it agrees to that particular request, will only be carrving out what at one time or another it has stated was its policy.
In these circumstances I feel that I should like to support the subamendment, and I intend to do so. If the subamendment carries, a special committee will be appointed which will go into all phases of the present ind is-trial situation. That special committee will not proceed very far in its investigation before it will discover the truth of what is alleged in the amendment I have moved. The amendment which I moved some five we-.ks ago expresses the opinion that if certain proposals-
-and certain other of the policies of the government are persisted in, as wTould appear to be the intention of the government as outlined in the speech from the throne, the very serious condition which exists at the present time will be intensified rather than relieved.
I believe it to be true that every hon. member on this side of the house who has spoken, no matter to which group or party he belongs, has given expression to the view

that the tariff increases made at the special session have tended to make conditions in Canada worse rather than better. If a policy of further tariff increase is going to be persisted in, we may look for the economic condition of this country being made even more difficult then it is at present.
Just this word in conclusion. In reference to the amendment which I have moved certain hon. members have said that it is largely negative in character. They have so characterized it because in their view it does not propose some concrete measure such as they have proposed in their subamendment. May I say that what is preventive in its nature may be much more positive in character than anything that may be remedial. The measures which hon. members in the far corner are suggesting are largely remedial in character. If there had been preventive measures adopted at the outset then there might not be any necessity for the remedial legislation they are seeking at the present time. We have before us a clear demonstration of legislation which was enacted at the special session working a positive injury to the agricultural and indeed to other interests in this country. My amendment states that to persist in that policy, as the speech from the throne implies the government intends to do, will only serve to make matters worse. I submit that I am making a positive, not a negative contribution to the relief of the existing situation when I ask this house to declare that the government should discontinue a policy which has already proven inimical to the best interests of the country. If the subamendment does carry, we will have the opportunity for a fuller discussion. If it does not carry, I hope the amendment which I have moved, and which is in the nature of an alternative, will receive substantial support, and that between the two we shall get from hon. gentlemen opposite at least something in the nature of definite action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, -most hon. members of
this chamber have seen exhibitions of vacillation on more than one occasion by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King), but he has never done himself quite as much justice as he has to-day. He has never made it more clearly apparent to the people of this country than he has this afternoon, that he has no fixed opinions beyond getting a few votes to support any amendment that may be in opposition to the government.
Behold the spectacle. On the 16th day of March, 1931, the right hon. gentleman moved,

The Address-Mr. Bennett
as an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, an amendment reading as follows:
We respectfully submit to Your Excellency that this house, while recognizing the serious economic conditions prevailing throughout the world, regrets that the policies of His Majesty s government have not only failed to afford a remedy for employment and agricultural distress, as pledged by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, but have served further to prejudice the deplorable position of the agricultural interests, thereby causing additional unemployment and substantially reducing the national revenue.
The house believes that the proposals made to the Imperial economic conference and the manner in which they were submitted and discussed by the Prime Minister of Canada were responsible for the failure of the conference to accomplish its purpose in London, and that the successful development of Canada's trade relations with Great Britain has been adversely affected thereby.	.	,
The house is further of the opinion that, it these proposals and certain other of the policies of the government are persisted in, as would appear to be the intention of the government as outlined in the speech from the throne, the very serious condition which exists at the^ present time w'ill be intensified rather than relieved.
Last evening a subamendment was moved in this chamber by a representative of the group opposite to my right to strike out of that amendment all the words after the word "That," and to substitute for it a demand for a committee. In other words, the right hon. gentleman has now seen fit to abandon his censorious attitude of the past five weeks. He is no longer condemning the attitude of the government in respect to the Imperial economic conference; he is no longer denouncing the attitude of the government in respect to its policies. Now he says, "I am content now to accept a little amendment that comes from the group in the corner. Per-adventure we will all vote solidly against the government, and all we want is a committee.' That is the spectacle which has been placed before the people of this country. That is the exhibition which has been given. Let the people of Canada know that the Liberal opposition in parliament has no policy and no position, and never had a policy or position except one of destruction. When they find something a little milder than the destruction which they endeavoured to promote and could not secure, they accept it because they say it will let them all vote against the government. That is the position. Is it any wonder that numbers of them hung their heads when they heard the right hon. gentleman say, "I accept this subamendment"?


Mr. BOURASSA:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it any wonder the
hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) can no longer contain himself from laughter? Imagine the spectacle in this house of an opposition which day after day and week after week thundered and pounded their desks in opposition to the government, decrying its policies, denouncing the economic conference and all its works, now saying "We take all that back; we would like to have all those words struck out. All we want now is a little committee to inquire into the matter.
That is the position. Oh, could anything be more insincere? Could anything be more ridiculous or could anything be better calculated to make the Canadian people glad and proud to think they put the proper value upon the government that was, the party which is now in opposition, on the 28th day of July last?
The right hon. gentleman has suggested that I should have been more in my place during the progress of the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the evidence that has now been given indicates that I should not have been here at all. The evidence now given indicates that I should not have been here at least until last night, and that all this time has been wasted, because the right hon. gentleman has abandoned everything that has been said during that time. That is his position.	_ .
I would like to say this word in addition. The right hon. gentleman knows that at one time he was leader of the government, and he knew then what were the demands upon his time and how little time he was in the house during such a debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He sat in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not. I happened to be in London a short time ago, and I know that the leader of the government there was not in his place all the time. He left the house in competent hands, and this house and this government always have been in competent hands when I was absent from the chamber. I was always within the precincts of the chamber; I was only a few feet away discharging duties somewhat more oneroua than listening to the observations made by hon. gentlemen opposite, which would not have been a very difficult task. They know perfectly well that the year before, when they heard the opposition complaining that the Minister of Finance was not in his place when the debate was proceeding but was receiving delegations instead, which the opposi-

The Address-Mr. Bennett
tion of that time thought was taking up too much time, the government of the day said he had to see delegations and to meet people who came to call about public business. I assure this house that I have not been shirking my duties in any sense by not being in this chamber, and now I can see no good, whatever doubt I ever might have entertained, which would have resulted from my being in the chamber, in view of the attitude of the right hon. gentleman that all this discussion has been mere piffle and a waste of time, and that the really important thing is to appoint a committee and waste no further time in these denunciations of policies, economic conferences and so on.
I do stand here to-day to express, as far as it is possible for any member of this house to express, regret that the exaggerated statements^ that have been made with respect to conditions in the west should have been circulated broadcast through this country. I am here to say further that I regret deeply that hon. gentlemen have lent themselves to policies to which, in days gone by, they said they would never be a party. Who does not recall, in 1927, 1928 and 1929, when we ventured to criticize the government, the observations which they then made to the effect that we were injuring the country, that we were pessimists, that we were doing a harm to Canada? Now, broadcast throughout this country and in other countries, have gone statements that cannot be substantiated in any manner or form. It is true that in a few isolated cases you may be able to find hardship; of course you may. There never has been a time when you could not do so, but there are the same people in western Canada to-day as have been there in years gone by. It is the same country; the people have the same high courage and the same determination, except to the extent that the lowering of prices by world conditions, to which I shall presently refer, may have made them less optimistic of the immediate future than they have been in the past.
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 say 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 encountered by many farmers, for two reasons, first because of crop failure, and second because of low prices for the crops they did produce. The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) himself lost his crop during two succeeding years through no rMr. Bennett.]
fault of his own but through the action of the elements, through drought or hail, and last year, when there was a larger crop, the price for reasons which I shall presently indicate-[DOT] was such as did not leave any profit in return for the labour and money expended.
_ But because you happen to be in opposition is that a good reason to say that you shall at once decry your country? Is it a good reason to say that the people who a few short years ago gave you support are now people who have lost their courage and initiative and power of development? Is that the attitude to take? Is it the right attitude, to say all is lost because you happen to be for the moment defeated? Is it right to take an attitude of pessimism because the people were optimistic and got rid of you? Are those reasons that should govern men in the conduct of the serious business of this country? Then we hear them prattle about cooperation, after they have denounced the country in every way in which they can think, endeavouring to embarrass the administration.
If hon. gentlemen opposite want to know why there has been no declaration of policy during the progress of this debate, they need not do more than look up the rules governing parliamentary practice and procedure. They will find that in Great Britain the speech from the throne is not given precedence over all other business of the house. The business of the house is transacted; bills are introduced; second readings are given; discussions go on, and the ordinary business proceeds, but here we see fit, for reasons best known to ourselves, to give precedence to the address in reply to the speech from the throne over all other business, and in that way we preclude the possibility of measures being introduced or policies declared. Every member of this house who is familiar with parliamentary practice and procedure knows that is so, and in the days of Macdonald and Laurier one day or two days finished the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not always.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been said by one of the foremost authorities on the American continent that the cause of this great depression is speculation-not the narrow speculation to which some hon. gentlemen refer, but speculation in a larger sense. This has brought disaster in its wake. Although the exact figures cannot be ascertained, it is known that over $400,000,000 of Canadian money was lost last year by speculation in Wall street. However, speculation has not been confined to the stock exchanges of New York, Chicago, Montreal and Toronto; it has been spread over every part of this Dominion and of this continent. Think of the speculation in instalment buying, the gambling or staking of one's ability to pay instalments against a wage that might not continue. What is the result? Articles so purchased are taken back by the sellers, which prevents the sale of new articles, thus bringing about overproduction with all its resultant difficulties.
In 1928 I ventured to point out what would happen in Canada by reason of the speculative mania with which the Canadian people were then being attacked. In reply to the Minister of Finance, my words, which appear on page 4044 of Hansard of June 9, 1928, were as follows:
Let him consult the financial heads of great institutions to the south of us. It is true that we have a vast, untouched estate, and that new wealth may be produced much more readily from that than from an old and cultivated estate. But it is also true that where we cultivate, it is necessary that we should sell, and if we find a curtailment and shrinkage of trade among the nations of the world, we find a limitation placed upon our ability to dispose of that which we produce. The minister knows that. He has been told time and time again by the great heads of financial institutions to be cautious, to look ahead. Every thoughtful business man is doing it; everybody is shortening sail except the speculators. Do you realize, sir, that this great speculative era that we now have on the American continent is one fraught with possibilities of the grarmst disaster for this country? The brokers' loans alone in New York last week were over $5,000,000,000, an unheard of figure. In this country speculation is rampant. Some people imagine that trading in pieces of paper upon which there are engraved words and figures constitutes the creation of now wealth. It is not so. The new wealth of the country is being created by the application of labour and capital to the natural resources of the country, and this trading in stock certificates, this great era of speculation in this country and on this continent, is one fraught with possibilities of the gravest danger to Canada, because we have not as they have 111 Sie i n^e(? States a vast accumulation of wealth that will enable us to meet the approaching conditions with ease.
Look at the movement of securities; look at the movement of gold; look at every indication 
there is with respect to speculation in this country. I know great brokers' houses that have declined to take new accounts in this country for over twelve months, one perhaps the greatest brokerage house in this country, because they fear what they see in the distance. But no one in the government seems to care, and if _ we point out the conditions we are pessimists V if we venture to direct attention to the conditions we are ''decrying our coun-tiy . That is the talk that hon. gentlemen opposite hurl at us and before the country. But I recall the language of one who was regarded in t>
-V- years as one of the very greatest of British statesmen, who observed that when their orgy was through, when they had at last recovered from the debauch in which they were then enjoying themselves, possibly then in their sober and quiet moments they would look back and recall the warning that had been given by those who, looking into the future as best they could, guided by those economic signs that were apparent, and by beacon lights, warning of the future, had pointed out the conditions as they also had come to pass. You perhaps will look back upon our warnings, and perhaps remember with at least some degree of fairminded justice the observations that were made bv those of us who have pointed out the national disaster that is inevitable if this orgy of mad expenditure continues.
Those were my words in June, 1928. I pro-fess_ to no special knowledge; I had only the advice that any other hon. member might have had. Anyone who is any student at all of economic conditions, who could not foresee the result, must have been blind to the signs of the times. I know how difficult it is to induce people to realize what is about to happen. Only last week I was looking through certain proceedings in the courts, and I found one brokerage firm $15,000,000 short in a single day. Do hon. members realize what all this means? Did they notice what the courts of Alberta showed as to the number of farmers who had wheat accounts with firms that were before the courts? Have they had the experience I did the other day of a man seventy years of age coming into my office from a remote town in Ontario: he had been well to do, but he went to the little brokerage office in that town, and now he is absolutely without a dollar. That is speculation, and many of the difficulties that confront us in this country to-day arise from that very sort of thing, using the word "speculation" in the large and broad sense in which that term should be employed.
There are some people who try to make it appear that the western country is a country that is bankrupt. I repeat, those gentlemen are entirely wrong. Western Canada is the country it always has been; the people are the people they have ever been. If for a reason that I shall mention, and that I think

it is only fair to mention, the sudden drop in prices, their ardour may have been dampened for a moment, this will not retard them in their advance. It will set them back temporarily, but it will strengthen their courage. But hon. members opposite are not helping to encourage them by decrying their country. They are not doing it by making people abroad believe what they say is true. The other day I had a letter from a gentleman saying: Cannot something be done to stop Mr. So-and-So from talking so about his country? Agreements for sale are being offered abroad, and people overseas say that these have no value because members of parliament say the country is bankrupt. Members of parliament are sometimes accepted as being more important individuals than they are, and their opinion has attached to it an importance that is not warranted. But that is the situation when these things go abroad from Canada's capital city.
How well do I remember in days gone by the present leader of the opposition lecturing me for my pessimism and lack of faith and courage with respect to this Canada of ours, and his saying that to take such an attitude was almost treason to the country. I suggest that hon. gentlemen opposite who, during the last five weeks, have been making the speeches they have, go now and read their leader's observations in days gone by and ask themselves what they think of themselves.
It is true that there was a great diminution in the price of grain. What brought it about? There are hon. gentlemen opposite who scoff and scorn at our mentioning the word ' Russia. Every man knows that the wheat debacle of 1929-30 arose from causes that it is not difficult now to explain but which it might not have then been easy to foresee, although there were many who did foresee them. The world crop of 1929 was known. Some took no account whatever of the Russian crop. The crop of 1930 was known. The price went up beyond one dollar; it went to SI.25 and more, and the farmers of western Canada were told that it would go much higher. They were told that all they had to do was simply to watch and the price would become greater and greater still. I recall farmers who were holding their crops for $2 a bushel, sincerely believing that they were going to get it. They heard of higher prices on the radio; they read of them in the press. What happened? The importing countries, first of all, were increasing their production to a maximum; in the second place, Russia produced a crop of approximately 1,000,000,000 bushels. In other words, Russia had to be reckoned with as an exporting country. I had a friend in the
The Address-Mr. Bennett
grain business go up to Liverpool from London last fall for the purpose of ascertaining just what was involved in this Russian wheat.
He saw wheat which he said was quite the equal of our Canadian wheat of the same grade being sold for sixty cents a bushel, delivered in Liverpool, and the price subsequently went lower. There being an overproduction of wheat, there was a producer willing to sell it at any price he could obtain, a price lower than that of his competitor. Canadian wheat had also to find a lower price level. Practically one-half of that wheat was held by the pools of the country, and unless something were done to steady the financial situation with respect to the pools that held that one-half, then there would be chaos and disaster. This government got behind those pools and said it would assist the orderly marketing of the wheat crop of western Canada. That assistance and support had, of course, the same effect upon non-pool wheat. That was what the government did. It did not peg the price; no government of which I am the head ever will. I have seen artificial prices placed upon commodities and whether that commodity be wheat or anything else, it matters not, I know the inevitable result. It cannot advantageously be done; it will not succeed. It may cause a temporary advantage, but that disappears. Look at the situation in the United States to-day. Mr. Legge, with all his vast experience, with all the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars that he had behind him, declared that the principle of artificial price-fixing was unsound, and it has been abandoned. We did not adopt it, so we did not have to abandon it, but we did give our assistance as I have mentioned.
At this point let me make another observation: some hon. gentlemen have been saying in the house that the attitude taken by Canada at the Imperial conference had the effect of doing what?-lessening the sale of Canadian grain in Great Britain. They thought they would deceive the people of this country by making statements such as that. We have sat in silence while they made those statements, but the time has come to speak, and here are the facts. The total exports to the United Kingdom of wheat in the month of March 1930 were 4,000,000 odd bushels, and in the month of March 1931, 5,000,000 odd bushels. The total exports to the United Kingdom for the eight months of the crop year since August-what think you the figures were?-09,398,672 bushels in 1930, and 96,170,518 in 1931. While the former Minister of Trade and Commerce said that nothing could be done to stimulate or assist the sale of wheat, this government at least
The Address-Mr. Bennett

was doing its level best by every means within its power to stimulate the sale of Canadian grain, not only in the United Kingdom but in other parts of Europe as well, and there is the result in the United Kingdom. Oh, if my hon. friends opposite had only had such a result to talk about, what they would not say 1 But we have sat silent, content to believe that the people of this country wanted action, which they have secured, and not words which they have been receiving during the last five weeks from the benches opposite.
We might have been content with that; but we went to France. France had been buying but little of our wheat. We explained to them the situation and said that if they were to continue receiving the benefits they were receiving under our trade treaty, they must buy larger quantities of our wheat. Listen to the figures. The total of Canadian wheat entering France in January, February and March, 1930, was 1,213,789 bushels. Those were the days of hon. gentlemen opposite. Those were the days when nothing could be done. Here are the figures for the three months after something has been done. For January, February and March, 193ll, the figures were 7,538,860 bushels, and those figures came from the French government themselves, because it frequently happens that cargoes are shipped to France and then deflected to another country after they are afloat, and so we secured these figures from the French government, through Mr. Roy, by cable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon. friend the money values?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, I hope not. I have already said to the right hon. gentleman that there has been a decrease in the values for the reasons I have indicated. Mr. Tardieu, the Premier of France, explained to me that no government could live in France that did not care for the agriculturist; that must be his primary concern. Then he explained what the situation was with respect to wheat. They were growing wheat in their country on every little corner of the soil that could be made available for the purpose, and they put on a duty against foreign wheat which at one time was over $1.50 a bushel, in order that they might stimulate the activities of the domestic growers. When they found that great floods had occurred in the southern parts of France affecting a part of their grain crop, they gave us the benefits which I have indicated, and they have lived up entirely to their obligation and undertaking in that regard. They said they would buy larger {Mr. Bennett.]
quantities from us, and they have done so and will. We think that that is a fairly creditable performance under the circumstances, but we have not blazoned it from the housetops. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that by our attitude abroad we have hurt the market for Canadian wheat. All I can say in reply is this: If as a result of our attitude abroad twelve has become seventy-two, and sixty-nine, ninety-five, let us have more of that attitude.
I have one observation to make with respect to another matter, and that is the agricultural credit corporation in which, while we do not direct it, we have a deep interest. The president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to-day released to the press a statement which can be read by all. It just shows how little importance can be attached to the summary kind of statement made in this house by those who either are woefully ignorant or wilfully desire to mislead-one or the other-because a line of inquiry would have elicited the information. But that did not serve the purpose. It sounded well to make an incorrect statement. It might make discontent a little greater, might make people a little more suspicious, might make the unrest a little deeper. That is all that was wanted.
The right hon. gentleman opposite has made some reference to the necessity of action being taken as suggested by the subamendment for the purpose of ensuring that crops would be planted this year. As I have already said, while the amendment was being cogitated over, we were acting. We made an arrangement with the governments of the three western provinces. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) went west, met the representatives of the three prairie governments at Winnipeg, and made arrangements satisfactory to them with respect to the seed grain for the crop of 1931. I wonder if this house realizes that except in 1892, 1916, 1923 and 19-24, the Dominion of Canada has advanced money for seed grain to the prairie provinces from 1876 to 1926. That is not generally known.


Mr. VALLANCE:: On crown farm land.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, and if that logic is sound, no longer having crown lands, we should no longer have any interest in the matter. But not being content with such logic, and realizing our national obligations, what did we do?


John Vallance: Might I ask a question? I know the right hon. gentleman wants to be fair. He knows and the Minister of Agriculture knows that there are hundreds of farmers-
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: A question can be put
only with the permission of the right hon. gentleman.


John Vallance: May I ask a question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman may ask a question, but not make an allegation.


John Vallance: I wish to make a statement on which to base a question. The right hon. gentleman said that western agriculture last year created two billion dollars of wealth. The question I wish to ask is this: Did it not cost western agriculture more to create that new wealth than they got for it? How much has agriculture left to-day of that two billion dollars?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman has asked a question that he has already answered himself. He knows perfectly well that of the two billion dollars of new wealth created last year, the whole was not expended in its creation. We all know that. There are tens of thousands of farmers with money in the bank to-day.


John Vallance: I do not know where they are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do, and I will take you to them if you will come with me.


John Vallance: You did not meet them in Regina.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is becoming, one might almost say, not to be offensive, a nuisance. If he would possess himself in patience, and not with that dogmatic shake of his head arrogate to himself an importance that he does not possess, it would be very much better.	_
Now I shall go a step further. I ask this house just what importance can be attached to an opposition that takes the attitude that is now being taken by the opposition with respect to the subamendment asking for a committee. Is this opposition one that might be trusted to see anything at any time affecting the welfare of Canada? Did hon. gentlemen eveT look at the speech from the throne of 1930? Bear in mind what I ventured to predict in .this house in 1928. In 1929 I duplicated the statement in slight-
The Address-Mr. Bennett
right hon. gentleman placed a speech from the throne in the hands of the representative of the sovereign and in that speech he referred to the great prosperity of Canada. The right hon. gentleman could not see what was coming; he was blind to the signs, he could not read the stars, he could not observe the beacon lights warning of danger and disaster. He was thinking only of power of a budget which possibly might give him a few votes; and of expenditures which might embarrass the treasury if another party succeeded to power. There is the speech from the throne in which the right hon. gentleman talks of prosperity. Let us see what he said about wheat.


An hon. MEMBER :: The wheat was not
sold.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Listen to the language
of the right hon. gentleman which he used a year ago last February.


An hon. MEMBER:: Wonderful.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These are the words of
the right hon. gentleman:
Tlie Dominion is already recovering from the seasonal slackness evident at the end of the year, and it is not to be forgotten that the bulk of the 1929 wheat crop still remains m Canadian hands for final disposition.
That represents the prescience with which the then Prime Minister looked into the future of Canada. If hon. gentlemen opposite would speak so that they could be heard I would be greatly obliged, but their mutter-ings remind one of a summer storm. There are rumblings and mutterings and thunder but there is no lightning, and it never strikes anybody.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The lightning
is all from the other side of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Then, let us go
a step further and examine one of the great causes of conditions in this country. How many people do hon. members think were brought into Canada from continental Europe, in the year 1929 and seven months of 1930, preceding the time we assumed power?


An hon. MEMBER:: Probably 300,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. gentlemen seem to
think themselves clever. Probably on reflection they will realize they are mistaken. I ask them if the then government had any true realization or appreciation of conditions existing in Canada in 1930 when in February of that year they placed in the hands of His
The Address-Mr. Bennett

Excellency the speech from the throne to which I have referred. On that occasion they stated there had been a little slackness at the end of 1929 but that all was now well. Ihey said that the 1929 crop was in storage and that things would be much better. Would you entrust your business to a general manager of that kind? Would you?


An hon. MEMBER:: No, they took it
away.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would anybody?


An hon. MEMBER:: Some of the people
did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And my hon. friends
opposite to the right said, "We will get them solid; they will abandon everything they had before, we will ask for a little committee, and all will be well." That is the story. Let me place before the house one statement shown by figures I have in my possession. Do hon. members realize that during that period of time 104,556 people came into this country from central Europe? They came here, and they are now largely being kept by Canadians.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Most of them are being kept-not all of them-by Canadians, with our taxes. The howl that is heard in some quarters about direct relief arises from the fact that the government of 1929 and the early part of 1930 could not foresee what was coming. They brought them here in increasing numbers for us to feed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now they have the hardihood to complain because they say we do not feed them fast enough or give them enough to eat.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Were they not assisted by the official opposition of that day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly correct.
If the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) would take the trouble to look she would find she is not correct.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I heard the debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the hon. member
did not hear that from the official opposition; that is all I can say.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Does the right hon.
gentleman not remember the speech by General McRae?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly do, but that was not the official opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. BEIs NETT:	Is there any doubt as
to who is the leader of the official opposition in this house? I will admit the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is indeed competing with my right hon. friend for leadership, but at the present time the official leader of the opposition is the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Mackenzie King) and not the hon. member for Temiscouata.
One step further. A complaint has been made as to what has been done by the government of the day. What has been done by the government of the day? I put this question to the house and to the country:	If
the government of the day had been less determined and less decisive in what it did, what would now be the position in Canada? Was the $20,000,000 voted for nothing? Has it been properly expended? Has any hon. member suggested that a single dollar of it has been spent for purposes other than proper ones; has anybody suggested that it was not properly used? What has been the result so far as that vote of money is concerned? Some 248,000 individuals have been given employment with that money, and they have worked 4,857,000 man-days. Some people have a similar opinion to that held by hon. gentlemen opposite, that when relief is being given and employment provided for relief purposes workmen should be provided with kid gloves and automobiles to take them to their jobs. All I can say is that there is a duty upon this country to endeavour to find employment for those who can be employed, but it is not a duty that hon. gentlemen would have some of the people think it is. We cannot have it both ways; the people of this country must pay for it. Taxes must be imposed upon them; taxes must be paid and the people of Canada will pay them. It is important that since the people have to pay taxes for that pur. pose we observe a most rigid rule of economy and decency in administration. That is what this government has done.
In connection with part of the subamendment of my hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) the right hon. leader of the opposition endeavoured to split hairs and attempted to salve his conscience by saying that the hon. member for Acadia did not mean to find fault with the banks. No, he said he \vas finding fault with the government. Let

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
us look at the language of the subamendment; just listen to the language, Mr. Speaker: That the failure or inability of our banks to provide the credit which is essential to our farmers in respect to their spring operations, render it imperative that consideration be given to some system of federal assistance, whether directly, by way of bank guarantee, or otherwise ;
I ask hon. members to note the expression "the failure or inability of our banks to provide the credit". My right hon. friend has said that that expression does not mean what it would seem to imply. Probably he can interpret the expression of the hon. member for Acadia better than that hon. member can interpret his own expression.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I have said that it means exactly what it says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It refers to the failure of banks to provide credit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And it also uses the word "inability".


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, "or inability".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why did not my right hon. friend say that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did. I read the expression "failure or inability." The hon. member for Acadia I think was mot endeavouring at the moment to seek from the official leader of the official opposition an interpretation of his very plain language. If that is so, however, we have a much clearer appreciation of what the situation really is. All I can say is that some weeks ago a very definite, clear and sound understanding was arrived at between the provincial governments and ourselves. We did not wait until the time arrived when the crops should be put in; no, we did not wait for that at all. The Minister of Agriculture journeyed to Winnipeg and met the provincial premiers. Having met them an arrangement was made which the premiers thought undesirable to publish to the world. The reasons I think are apparent to everyone. Relief is being given in the manner and form hon. members might expect it to be given, namely by those who know best how it should be given and how the distribution of seed grain should be administered.
Now, sir, I have concluded all I desire to say with respect to this matter. Committees of this house will presently be struck. These committees have power in trade and commerce, in agriculture, in industrial relations, to determine whatever it may be necessary to know in order that we may be able to deal with the situation that lies before us. This government is not in any way, shape or form 22110-50
seeking to escape responsibility. This government seeks no quarter so far as criticism of its actions is concerned. This government realizes that it has come into power at a very, very serious moment in the life of the body politic. It will to the very best of the ability of the members who constitute it discharge its duties as befits Canadians who are trustees for all their fellow citizens. Unswerved from their course by abuse, undeterred by vilification or misrepresentation from any quarter, they will go forward to discharge the duties that the people have placed upon them. If it becomes necessary to ascertain facts, the standing committees of this house are always available. But the government will never palter with its principles in order to retain power. No, if the moment ever comes when the majority of this house conclude it to be desirable that this government should go out, it will go out, but there will be no vacillation, no paltering with the opinions of others to secure support in order that it may continue in power.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, my first words will be to tell my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) how pleased we are that he is back in the house. He has always proved to be a brilliant debater, and I hope that he will help the government to formulate policies that will meet the pressing needs of the people. I like the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as a man, I admire him as a speaker, but I am sorry that I cannot approve his policies. Like all members to your left, Mr. Speaker, I was expecting a declaration of policy by the head of the government. But what has he given the house? He has given us a lecture on gambling and speculation, that is all. We were treated by the right hon. gentleman as though we were school children. I would remind him that we on this side of the house are full grown men. Sometimes the right hon. gentleman makes gibes about the ignorance and lack of ideas of young members. I think he should acknowledge that we on this side have on several occasions offered him constructive suggestions. For my part, I made a constructive suggestion with reference to the Riviere du Loup station, and on three or four other occasions already this session I have presented constructive suggestions. Apparently the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin) did not understand the purpose of any of those suggestions. Well, I would have been very much surprised if he had understood.
I am in favour, Mr. Speaker, of the subamendment moved by the leader of the Pro-

The Address-Mr. Pouliot

gressive group (Mr. Gardiner), for the reason that it contains constructive proposals. I am always in favour of such proposals. I do not always agree with what my hon. friends in the far corner say, but whenever they present proposals so constructive in character as those contained in their subamendment I am glad to support them.
The amendment moved by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) contains this clause):

this house, while recognizing the serious economic conditions prevailing throughout the world, regrets that the policies of His Majesty's government have not only failed to afford a remedy for unemployment and agricultural distress, as pledged by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, but have served further to prejudice the deplorable position of the agricultural interests, thereby causing additional unemployment and substantially reducing the national revenue.
That is absolutely true, Mr. Speaker. During the special session last September, a month or two after my right hon. friend had attained power, the number of unemployed in the Dominion was in round figures 100,000; the other day the hon. Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) stated that at the present time the number is 260,000. In other words, under the brief and wonderful administration of my right hon. friend unemployment has increased by 160.000. This, I regret to say, means acute distress for a large number of Canadian families. The amendment continues :
The house believes that the proposals made to the Imperial economic conference and the manner in which they were submitted and discussed by the Prime Minister of Canada were responsible for the failure of the conference to accomplish its purpose in London, and that the successful development of Canada's trade relations with Great Britain has been adversely affected thereby.
With regard to this paragraph, I understand that a very large portion of our surplus wheat still remains unsold. Recently the right hon. Prime Minister characterized a member who had complained of an expenditure of $25 as not being very clever. Apparently a member's ability is to be measured by the magnitude of the figures he deals with, and I suppose that a [DOT] reference to billions and billions of dollars must be taken as the hallmark of cleverness. It may be very interesting to quote substantial figures representing expenditures for gasoline and other commodities, but it must not be forgotten that gasoline is the motive power for tractors, and if people are able to buy gasoline there should be no occasion for them to complain of unemployment. I do not live in the west, but however much the people out there are suffering I

know that the people in my part of the country, especially those engaged in the lumber trade, are very much embarrassed at the present time. The building of skyscrapers in the cities no doubt provides employment, but it affords very little help to the lumber trade, these buildings for the most part being constructed of cement, iron, steel, stone and brick; but in the small country parishes expenditure for lumber enters very very largely into the cost of enlarging their stores or houses or building barns. But for several years while the Liberals were in power the people there listened to the blue ruin talk of hon. members opposite. At that time -conditions were very much better than they are now; was it in order to gain power that my hon. friends were so pessimistic about the future of this county? Because of the pessimism preached by hon. gentlemen opposite many -people living in the country did not spend money for lumber in order to carry on construction. They said to themselves, "The leader of the Conservative party is a great financier and business man, and he must know something about the future of this country. It will be better if we save our money."


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order: It is very difficult indeed for any hon. member to address the house with a -continual buzz of conversation going on, as is the case just now from both sides of the house. I would ask hon. members to observe the rule in that respect.


Mr. POULIOT:: That was the reason why more money was not spent for lumber, with the result that the lumber yards were left full of material which has remained there for a year or more. Hon. gentlemen opposite, as they themselves fully realize are responsible for that situation, and the consequences have been very serious. The lumber remains in the yards unsold; there are no more shanties in the woods in the winter, and the carpenters and workmen of the small parishes go to the cities because they cannot find employment in their own villages. This is what has happened, and hon. gentlemen opposite are responsible.
I heard the Prime Minister say, "I have never said anything to hurt the future of this country", and he read what he had said last June in answer to the Minister of Finance of that time. It is all very well to say that conditions throughout the country are good, but the other day in that Tory paper, the Montreal Gazette, i-t was -pointed out that within the last few months there had been a slump in trade amounting to some $600,000,000.

The Address-Division
I should like to say a word about the banks. I believe our banking system is very good, but often the bank clerks and employees are insufficiently paid. That is a shame; there are young men in the banks who handle thousands of dollars every day and who are not paid a wage commensurate with the importance or responsibility of their services. The Minister of Finance should confer with the heads of the banker's association to see if those salaries cannot be increased.
During the last campaign the government told the people, in my contituency at least, that the Mackenzie King government was doing too much for the west. This statement was made repeatedly in my county by Tory speakers; they said the Liberal government was tied up with the west in political matters and that the east was suffering therefrom.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we on this side of the house are proud to support our leader. We are ready also to give full support to proper government measures if the Prime Minister will do something more than lecture the hon. members of the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.
Bell (St. Antoine), Black (Halifax), Boyes,
Cahan,
Gagnon,
Edwards,
Garland (Carleton), Gott,
Guthrie,
Laurin,
Lennox,
Macdonald (South Cape Breton), McGibbon,
Maloney,
Murphy,
Rhodes,
Ross,
Senn,
Simpson (North Simcoe),
Stevens,
Stinson.
Tetreault,
Raymond,
Dubuc,
Deslauriers,
Rinfret,
Boulanger,
Elliott,
Goulet,
Rutherford,
Lapointe,
Fontaine,
Pouliot,
Urquhart,
Power,
Young,
Stewart (West Edmonton), Ralston,
Roberge,
Sanderson,
Fraser
(Northumberland), Malcolm,
Hall,
Dumaine.


Mr. BOYES:: I was paired with the hon.
member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. FONTAINE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. LENNOX:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Ontario) (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. HALL:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Stinson). Had I not been paired, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. TETRAULT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. CAHAN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. SIMPSON (Simcoe):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. GOULET:: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment to the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is now on
the amendment.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you call in the members, because some hon. members may not have been in the chamber when the first vote was taken.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Call in the members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This must not be regarded as a precedent. Once the doors are closed, they are closed for an entire division.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This is a separate division. When the doors were closed at a quarter past eight, members were here for the vote that was then called. It is very likely that some hon. members have come in since that time, and they are entitled to their votes.

The Address-Division


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question was put,
including the two amendments. The amendments were read. The question on the amendment to the amendment has been decided, and the question is now on the amendment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Speaker has decided to call in the members.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not know he had.


Mr. DUFF:: The rule is quite clear with
regard to divisions. When the amendment to the amendment is put and voted upon, then Your Honour is supposed to put the amendment. After that Your Honour asks for the yeas and nays, and if a sufficient number rise, you must ring for a division. Every vote is a separate one, and the bell must be rung so that the members may come in.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	May I call attention to
the fact that nobody on the other side rose?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It might be that some
members who did not wish to vote on the amendment to the amendment would expect a call for the vote on the amendment and the main motion. I think in this instance the fair way would be to treat each motion separately.
The house divided on the amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King).
YEAS Messrs:
Ah earn,	Hanson (Skeena),
Beaubien,	Heaps,
Bertrand,	Heenan,
Blair,	Howard,
Bo th well,	Howden,
Bouchard,	Hurtubise,
Boucher,	Ilsley,
Bradette,	Jacobs,
Brasset,	King, Mackenzie,
Brown,	Lacroix,
Buckley,	Maelnnis,
Butcher,	Mackenzie (Vancouver
Cardin,	Centre),
Casgrain,	MacLean,
Cayley,	McIntosh,
Chevrier,	McKenzie
Denis,	(Assiniboia),
Desrochers,	McMillan (Huron
Donnelly,	South),
Dubois,	McPhee,
Duff,	Marcil,
Dupuis,	Mercier (Laurier-
Euler,	Outremont),
Factor,	Mercier (St. Henri),
Fafard.	Moore (Ontario),
Ferland,	Motherwell,
Fiset (Sir Eugene),	Munn,
Fournier,	Neill,
Gershaw,	Parent,
Girouard,	Power,
Gray,	Reid,
Hanbury,	Rheaume,
Robitaille,
St-Pere,
Seguin,
Stewart (Edmonton West),
Taylor,
Thauvette,
Totzke,
Vallance,
Veniot,
Yerville,
Weir (Macdonald), Woodsworth, Young.

73.
NAYS Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Anderson (Halton), Arsenault,
Arthurs,
Baker,
Barber,
Baribeau,
Barrette,
Beaubier,
Belec,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Beynon,
Bowen,
Bowman,
Burns,
Bury,
Cantley,
Casselman,
Chaplin,
Charters,
Cormier,
Cotnam,
Cowan (PortArthur-Thumler Bay), Cowan (LongLake), Dickie,
Dorion,
Duguay,
Dupre,
Duranleau,
Embury,
Ernst,
Esling,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Ganong,
Geary,
Gobeil,
Gordon,
Hanson (York-Sunbury),
Harris,
Hay,
Johnstone,
Jones,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Lafleche,
Larue,
LaVergne,
Lawson,
Loucks,
Lucas,
Macdonald (Kings).
Macdougall,
MacLaren,
MacMillan
(Saskatoon),
MacNicol,
McDade,
McGibbon,
McGillis,
McGregor,
McLure,
Maloney,
Manion,
Matthews,
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Morand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Myers,
Nicholson,
Peck,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Perley (Sir George), Pettit,
Pickel,
Plunkett,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Robinson,
Rogers,
Rowe,
Ryckman,
Ryerson,
Sauve,
Shaver,
Short,
Simpson (Algoma West),
Smith (Victoria-Carleton),
Smith (Cumberland) Smoke,
Spankie,
Speakman,
Spence,
Sproule,
Stanley,
Stewart (Leeds), Stewart (Lethbridge), Stirling,
Stitt (Nelson),
Stitt (Selkirk), Sullivan,
Sutherland,
Swanston,
Thompson (Simcoe East),
Thompson ( Lanark), Tummon,
Turnbull,
Weese,
Weir (Melfort). White (London',
White (MountRoyal), Willis,
Wilson,
Wright.-116.
The Address-Division


Thomas Edward Simpson: Before the vote is declared, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that there are some members of the house present who have not roted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Name them.


Thomas Edward Simpson: The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill)-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My understanding of the
rule is that hon. members may refrain from voting if they see fit.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would draw the attention of Your Honour to rule 68, which says:
If a member who has heard the question put does not vote, and the attention of the Speaker is directed to the fact, the latter will call upon him to declare on which side he votes; and his name will be recorded accordingly.
That will be found on page 26 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If he does not choose to
vote, what then?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We will see then, but
we should ask him first.


Mr. GARDINER:: Arising out of the
point of order, may I call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the ruling of the former Speaker? The former Speaker ruled-he ruled several times to this effect-that a member, even if he had heard the question put, was not forced to vote. There is no rule of the house that I know of by which a member can be forced to vote.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I ask for your ruling,
Mr. Speaker. There is a ride at page 25, No. 68, and it is there for a purpose. Even if in one or two cases a former Speaker ruled differently, there is no reason why we should depart from the rule generally. The rule, I repeat, is there for a certain purpose; it is part of the rules and forms by which we in this house are governed. Rule No. 68, which I have cited, is there for the purpose of enabling the house to ascertain how each individual member will vote on a particular question. I ask for your ruling on the point, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If you will allow me,
Mr. Speaker, as this is a matter of privilege for members of the house, and as the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) has thought fit to make it a question of order, I would respectfully remind you that rules are from time to time interpreted

by Speakers in the House of Commons, both in England and here, and that usages sometimes become rules. For example, pairs are not recognized under the rules of the House of Commons in England or here. Several times to my knowledge members have availed themselves of their natural right and privilege, when they did not feel like voting either for or against a question, not to vote at all, which is more courageous than going behind the curtain and concealing oneself. I shall not vote, and it will take a squad of police to force me to do so against my will and my liberty.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I think probably the difference, Mr. Speaker, between this occasion and the other occasions to which my hon. friends have referred is the fact that on this occasion the attention of the Speaker was drawn to the occurrence before the vote was declared. On the other occasions it was after the declaration of the vote.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I omitted to quote another paragraph on the same page 25 of Beau-ehesne's Rules and Forms, paragraph 69, which reads as follows:
Under ancient custom, refusal to vote was considered a serious parliamentary offence, but the practice was changed in 190G 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.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Rule 68 is as follows:
If a member who has heard the question put does not vote, and the attention of the Speaker is directed to the fact, the latter will call upon him to declare on which side he votes; and his name will be recorded accordingly.
Up to the present the Speaker's attention has not been called to the fact that any member in particular did not vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh yes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood the statement to ibe a general one.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I mentioned the hon. member for Labelle, the hon. member for Acadia, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Pursuant to the rule of this Canadian House of Commons, the Speaker's attention having been drawn specifically to the fact that the hon. members having heard the question have not voted, I now call upon them respectively to declare on which side they vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Respect the Chair.

The Address-Division


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My attention having been drawn to the fact that the hon. member for Acadia, having heard the question, did not vote, I call upon him to declare on which side he votes.


Robert Gardiner: I am paired with the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer).


Mr. VENIOT:: I would call the attention of Your Honour to the fact that the following members who were present in the house when the question was put have not voted: the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy), the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote), and the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovieh).
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that they all should be asked to declare how they would vote.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My attention has been called by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) to the fact that the hon. member for Kindersley, having heard the question put, has not voted. I call upon the hon. member for Kindersley to declare on which side he votes.


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: I am paired with
the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell).


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How would you have
voted?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My attention has been
called by the hon. member for Gloucester to the fact that the hon. members for Wetaskiwin, Vegreville, Macleod, Bow River, Peace River, and Southeast Grey, have not voted, having heard the question put. I call upon any of these hon. members who are not paired to declare on which side they vote. I commence with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.
I call next upon the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Luchkovieh).


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr Irvine).


Mr. IRVINE:: I am not paired, and I am not declaring.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I call upon the hon.
member for Peace River, the hon. member for Southeast Grey and the hon. member for Macleod. having heard the question put and not being paired, to declare on which side they vote.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The hon. member for
Kindersley has said that he was paired with myself. I am paired with him.


William Duff: There can be no pair when
both members are in the house.


Martin James Maloney: This vote is a climax
tc a debate which has kept us here for forty days.


William Duff: And forty nights.


Martin James Maloney: If certain hon. members who have taken up a very large part of the time of the house see fit to refrain from voting and to treat the matter as a joke, as many on this side have treated the debate since the commencement, I believe we should let the matter pass.


Paul Mercier: The rule
which my hon. friend from Charlevoix-Saguenay has quoted from Beauchesne is a regulation of this house. If we do not respect our own rules, how can we expect the people of Canada to respect our laws?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Speaker has now
discharged his duty with respect to the matter.


Richard Bedford 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. The Sergeant-at-Arms will touch each of them on the shoulder and they will be retired from this house. I was sitting in the Imperial conference when the Prime Minister of England left the conference and went into the chamber of the House of Commons and moved the suspension of a member of his own party; for there are matters that transcend party and the rules of this house is one of them. We can have no House of Commons worthy of the name, we cannot maintain its traditions, if for a moment we allow any consideration other than the well-being of this chamber and the authority of its rules to govern our conduct on this occasion. I appeal to the fairness of the hon. gentlemen. They knew there could be no such thing as two hon. members pairing with one another when they are both in the chamber. My hon. friends knew that. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is an old and valued member of this house and familiar with its procedure as few men are. In the name of the great
The Address-Division

traditions of the House of Commons, its fair name and fame, I appeal to the members concerned that they do not thus openly disregard the rules and established procedure of the House of Commons.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The appeal made by the Prime Minister I think entitles me as a matter of privilege quietly but firmly to state the reason for the position I took.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, it is a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: A similar situation may confront any member of this house one of these days. I would ask my hon. friends to remember the. old proverb that a threat to the liberty of one is a threat to the liberty of all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Retire.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, since I have been a member of this house I have myself witnessed at least two occasions that I can recall on which members refused to vote-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. The attention of Mr. Speaker was called to the matter and he stated from the chair that although the rule was there, no sanction had ever been given to it and therefore it could not be enforced. I therefore came to the conclusion that it was considered by hon. members as one of those rules which are not strictly applied. If the, incident had not occurred in my prcser-.ce what I would have done in this instance is what I have done in other instances; I would have stepped out into the hall. I would not have done so, however, to shirk the vole, because when I addressed the house after the leader of the opposition moved the amendment I gave the reasons why I could not support or oppose such an amendment. I mrde my reasons clear, and in the attitude I have taken to-night I have done what I saw done in this house during the session of 1926.	1
shall not name any hon. member, but there are in this house to-night hon. members who then did exactly as we have done on this occasion. The attention of your predecessor, Mr. Speaker, was invited to the fact that certain hon. members had not voted and he. made the statement I have just referred to. Some hon. members may not have heard it, but I heard it positively. His ruling surprised me, and for that reason I went to his chambers the next day and talked the matter over with him. He told me-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: He told me that it was one of those rules which was not strictly applied. Otherwise I would not have taken the attitude I took to-night. I think generally speaking I have been respectful of all rules of the house which have been observed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If you please, Mr. Speaker, I have the right to appeal to you. If Mr. Speaker tells us he does not regard-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If he tells us-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I ask the hon. member for Labelle kindly to desist. If hon. members are going to put the Speaker into the position of naming them, no matter how distasteful it may be to him, I must proceed to carry out that duty. Under the rules when a member is named he has the privilege of making an explanation. I should like to think that the hon. members who have refrained from voting would see their way clear now to declare to the Speaker on which side they vote rather than to foree the house to take action under the rules. If hon. members persist in refraining from voting and from declaring on which side they vote, I am obliged to hold that those hon. members are transgressing the rules of the house and are out of order. If they persist in remaining out of order there is nothing left for me to do but to name them, with the consequences as set out by the rules of the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I am one of those-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre states he is rising to a point of order. He will be given an opportunity to state his point.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In this particular instance I declared myself but I do believe that on previous occasions the Speaker has ruled-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do believe that on previous occasions the Speaker has ruled as indicated by the hon. member for Labelle. In the past there have been hon. members who have taken advantage of his ruling and have abstained from voting. Under those circumstances I think Mr. Speaker should carefully consider the precedent set up by his

The Address-Division
predecessor before taking the drastic action of naming the hon. members. It often happens that certain of our laws lapse and become inoperative, and this appears to be one of them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has raised no point of order. As I understand it there is no point of order before the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that your decision with regard to the rule that has been called to your attention is a point of order. I think the interpretation given to this rule by previous Speakers ought to have some weight as well as the letter of the law. I would urge that that be taken into consideration.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. During the tenure of office of your predecessor I remember two occasions, as stated by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), when members present did not vote, and the fact being called to the attention of His Honour he ruled that they need not vote unless they so desired. It was on that occasion that the members in this corner refused to vote on the amendment then before the house. To-night, on the basis of that ruling, as they were not interested in the amendment they did not vote either for or against it. Now, sir, before you put the question on the amendment we could have withdrawn if we did not want to vote, but relying upon the ruling to which I have referred we remained in our seats and abstained from voting. We do not wish to transgress the rules; on the contrary, we feel that we should be amenable to them; but in view of the misconception which has arisen because of the ruling of the former Speaker, I think our abstention from voting on this occasion might very well be overlooked. Then if your ruling is that in the future we must vote if we hear the question put, we shall know how to govern ourselves.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No record of the ruling referred to has as yet been produced to me. I remember the occasion last session when my attention was called to the fact that a member had not voted, but that was after the vote had been announced and the count made. This is the first occasion to my knowledge on which the rule has been invoked at the proper time.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I remember the occasion referred to by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: Just a minute please. May I make a suggestion to end this deadlock? It may perhaps prevent us from being placed in a position in which we will appear ridiculous. I suggest that we follow the practice that obtains in the British Columbia legislature. There when a man does not vote he is counted as having voted in the affirmative.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As every hon. member knows, His Honour the Speaker has, above all other duties, the duty of enforcing the rules of the house, and in the discharge of that duty the speaker has the right to expect the support of every hon. member.
I wish on this occasion very strongly to support Your Honour in any decision which will serve to enforce the rules of the house and the procedure as they appear in printed form. May I, however, mention this circumstance? Some hon. members appear to have been under a misapprehension as to what the rules were owing to a practice which they allege was followed in previous parliaments. We are at the beginning of a new parliament, and on that account it is advisable that regardless of what may have occurred in the past we should begin in the right way. It is all important therefore that the decision of His Honour the Speaker, if it is right, should be upheld at this time. If hon. members are prepared to say that they themselves conscientiously believed they were in the right when on this particular vote, they abstained from voting, so far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I should be satisfied were they exempted with respect to this vote, but not with respect to any future vote. I do think it would be a mistake to fall into the practice, which unfortunately some hon. members seem prepared to do, of having the exception govern in more cases than the rule itself; to have a rule honoured mainly in the breach. It is an advantage to the House of Commons and to the country to know how every member feels and where every member stands, on every question that comes to a division in the house, and on division his vote should be recorded. If a member does not wish to declare where he stands, it is his privilege to absent himself and take the consequences that follow upon abstention; but if he is in the house he should record his vote. I will support you, Mr. Speaker, in enforcing that rule, but if hon. members state they would not have remained in the house had they known that they would
The Address-Pairs

be obliged to vote, I hope, Your Honour, will feel that on this particular occasion they might be exempted and that you will not find it necessary to go to the length of naming them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the right
hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has taken a position which I fully expected he would take and which I think is wholly in accordance with the obligations which both he and I owe to this parliament. Section 286 of the rules deals with the result of a member being named, and the unpleasant duty then would fall upon the leader of the House of Commons, whoever he might be at the moment, to make the motion which would suspend the hon. member so named. Since this incident occurred I have been turning over in my mind what should be done to mete out justice to everyone. I cannot quite agree with what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said, but I suggest that this house adopt, in part, the principle of what he proposed. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and others have said that but for a previous ruling they would have absented themselves during this division, I would suggest that by unanimous consent Your Honour permit them to retire, which would in a sense meet the proposal of my right hon. friend opposite.


William Duff: Some of them said they were paired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; but as has
already been pointed out, being both in the house they could not be paired.


William Duff: Certainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I attribute that to the
excitement of the moment.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They wanted to get
under cover.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) for that suggestion. I adopt the language of the right hon. leader of the opposition in saying that in future we must treat the rules as they are, and as they should be administered, but I think it would be found that in one of the cases to which reference was made, the attention of the Speaker was drawn to the fact, after the division had been declared that an hon. member had not voted. That is my memory of the occasion.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not in the first instance.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Notwithstanding the fact that hon. members refrained from voting after the question was put, and were out of order in so doing, I hesitated to call them out of order and to name them because of the very serious consequences to any member so named. Some of those hon. members have explained that by a former ruling they believed themselves to be in order in remaining in the chamber while the vote was taken, without declaring on which side they voted and without voting, otherwise they would not have been in the chamber when the vote was taken. By the suggestion of the right hon. leader of the opposition and the right hon. Prime Minister they now have an opportunity of withdrawing if they do not wish to take part in the vote, and I suggest that ithey take advantage of that opportunity now.
And the members having withdrawn:


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. I declare the amendment lost, yeas: 73; nays, 116.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs:


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think by unanimous
consent those hon. gentlemen may be allowed to withdraw from the chamber. If my right hon. friend thinks it would be a reasonable vindication of the rules and of the rights and privileges of this house, which are as dear to my right hon. friend and to everyone as to myself, I think such action as I propose would meet the situation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I would formally ask, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. members who have abstained from voting be permitted, by the unanimous consent of this house, to retire before the vote is announced.


Mr. POWER:: So long as that is not taken as a precedent.

Bell (St. Antoine), Black (Halifax), Boyes,
Cahan,
Edwards,
Gagnon,
Garland (Oarleton), Gott,
Guthrie,
Hackett,
Laurin,
Lennox,
MacDonald (South Cape Breton), Rhodes,
Ross,
Senn,
Simpson (North Simcoe),
Spotton,
Stevens,
Stinson,
Tetreault,
Raymond,
Dubuc,
Deslauriers,
Rinfret,
Elliott,
Boulanger,
Goulet,
Rutherford,
Lapointe,
Perras,
Fontaine,
Pouliot,
Urquhart,
Ralston,
Roberge,
Sanderson,
Fraser
(Northumberland), Hepburn,
Malcolm,
Hall,
Dumaine.

The Address-Mr. Speakman


Thomas Edward Simpson: I was paired
with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Finlay MacDonald: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired
with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Alfred Goulet: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ont. (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Frank Boyes: I was paired with the hon.
member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Walter Allan Hall: I was paired with the hon.
member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was paired with
the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question now is
on the main motion.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, before this vote is proceeded with, contrary to my habit and very much contrary to my inclination, I desire to take part for a second time in this debate. Owing to some statements that have been made and owing to the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) I feel it incumbent upon me to offer a few comments and to make a brief statement. I may remind the house that the amendment having been disposed of, it is fully in accord with the rules that I should now speak to the main motion.
I think I can characterize some of the statements made by the Prime Minister in respect of this corner of the house as being in the first place rather unjustifiable and in respect of a part of his attitude at least,
almost one might say deliberately or gratuitously offensive to some of the members here. I am not now making any comment upon the utterances of the Prime Minister as addressed to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), I am taking no part, and I intend to take no part, in any exchange of political animosities. However,
I may remind the house that during the entire debate every hon. member in this corner of the chamber who spoke refrained most assiduously and most meticulously from making any statement of a condemnatory character. They have refrained from taking an attitude of partisanship. They have outlined conditions as they knew them to exist; they have offered certain suggestions, as they thought, tending towards their amelioration, and to-day-I am sorry to say it-when at last the Prime Minister takes part in the debate he throws back in our faces our offer of friendly cooperation. He repudiates the assistance we sought to give in meeting the conditions which prevail, and he characterizes our statements as exaggerated, as being not according to facts, as tending not towards the betterment but towards the imperilling of the future of this country. He characterizes our statements in regard to conditions with which we are absolutely familiar as not only exaggerated but as carrying weight throughout this country and throughout the world only in virtue of the position which we occupy and not by virtue of either the common sense, the knowledge or I might say the accuracy of statement on the part of the members themselves.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder just what solace it will bring to the hearts of men and women at home who, whatever the Prime Minister may say, are looking to this parliament for help. They are suffering, and I wonder what comfort it will bring them to have it stated that except in those districts in western Canada where for years there have -been crop failures, there is no farmer who has not been guilty of wild speculation in the widest sense but is to-day comfortable and prosperous and happy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman is referring to anything I said this afternoon, I direct attention to the fact that that is not what was said.


Alfred Speakman: I am speaking from
memory, and I am very glad to accept the correction, because certainly that was the interpretation I put upon what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. If it is a wrong interpretation I am very glad indeed to withdraw the statement. I will put it as carefully

The Address-Mr. Speakman
as possible, and my right hon. friend knows I am not often guilty of wild statements. I did understand the Prime Minister to say that except for the results of speculation, using the word in the widest sense, farmers who had not suffered from repeated crop failures were, as a class, in prosperous and happy circumstances. I think I am doing no injustice to the Prime Minister when I say that, because I think I am using almost his exact words.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to bring forward any individual cases. I agree with the right hon. Prime Minister in that one may bring individual cases which are exceptions to the rule and which may prove anything. One may bring individual cases of intense hardship in times of wide prosperity. One may bring individual cases of comparative affluence in times of general penury, and these cases will prove nothing. I do say, however, from the intimate knowledge which I possess of that part of Alberta in which I have resided for forty years, that as a general rule and taking the great majority of the citizens there, they are not in a position either of comfort, of happiness or of affluence, nor have any great percentage of them been guilty of speculation even in the widest sense of the term. They are men who have been working and are working to-day, men who have done their best, but owing to the conditions which we know exist, conditions in relation to low prices, which have not returned the cost of production during the last year or two, they find themselves at the moment without the necessary funds with which to carry on their farming operations.
May I say this further, Mr. Speaker, that when I listened to the Prime Minister, in reference to the enormous wealth which has been created in those provinces during the last three years, I wondered if they were the same three provinces which I heard described not so many months ago as being in a state of distress owing to the misgovernment of the ten years preceding. Conditions have not changed since then except for the worse- not because of any fault of the government, but rather because of the operation of natural forces and the continual lowering of prices.
I have stated and re-stated the facts which I know to be true. I have expressed the disappointment-I shall not say the regret- which I felt at the refusal of the offer made in good part by hon. members in this house of cooperation and assistance rather than a threat of partisan warfare. We regret that, because we had intended so to conduct ourselves in the house during this session that 
we would have demonstrated the fact that we place the welfare of the country above party warfare, and we had hoped that that would be the attitude adopted at least for this session. If that is not to be the attitude adopted, it seems to me that little hope is offered. If we are to be told that no need exists, then in the opinion of the government no policy is necessary to relieve that distress, and, that being the case, how can I look upon the speech from the throne? It has become what I refused to call it five weeks ago, a hollow, watery grave. I voted against the amendment because I believed that it offered nothing of value to my people or to Canada, and I must stand in my place and vote against the motion for an address in reply to the speech from the throne because I feel no gratitude or can see no hope as I read its terms or as I listen to the speeches delivered thereon.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention again to address the house on the subject matter now under discussion, but I feel it my duty to do so because of the statements made this afternoon by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). One has only to go back twelve months or so to the time when the present Prime Minister was the leader of the opposition and when those now supporting him were in opposition to the then Liberal government to recall the debates staged on going into supply .for the purpose of trying to make the government of the day take cognizance of the distress then prevailing in many parts of Canada. It is a curious thing that the conditions which existed while a party was in opposition suddenly and for some unaccountable reason, change when they come into office and assume the responsibility of government.
When speaking this afternoon the Prime Minister directed some of his remarks to this corner of the house. He said: The exaggerated statements of -conditions in the west are not true in any way, shape or form. I do not know where the Prime Minister obtains his information, unless it be from the secretary of the Canadian Bankers' Association. If he believes that such information is absolutely correct then I can understand the position he adopted this afternoon. I say without fear of contradiction that those who have recently had the opportunity of visiting the west and meeting the people actually living on the land ought to know more about conditions than those who have not had such an opportunity. It is unfortunate that important or so-called important persons from eastern Can-

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
ada seem to obtain their information with regard to conditions in western Canada from such places as the lobby of the Palliser hotel in Calgary. They do not seem to be given the opportunity of getting out among the people and finding out just how they are being affected by present conditions. Under these circumstances perhaps they may be excused if they make certain rash statements, because they probably believe that the information which they have obtained is correct.
I made a statement yesterday which I intend to discuss for a moment or two. It was as follows:
May I say also. Mr. Speaker, that in my judgment if the farmers of western Canada to-day were forced to liquidate, eighty per cent of them would be insolvent, notwithstanding all that has been said by my good friend from Marquette (Mr. Mullins).
I sincerely believed that statement to be true, but further on in my remarks I made this reservation:
If price levels get better they may be able to get away from that condition but, sir, if this condition continues for another twelve months my advice to the western farmer will be that his only hope is to go through bankruptcy.
I made that statement in all sincerity and I do not appreciate the Prime Minister questioning my veracity.
The Prime Minister called the attention of the house this afternoon to the tremendous volume of wealth produced by the western farmer. He quoted figures to the effect that during the last three years there had been produced new wealth to the tune of $1,900,000,000. and that new mineral wealth had been produced to the extent of $100,000,000, or a total of $2,000,000,000. He asked the question: Where has all this wealth gone to? May I say that as far as the farmer is concerned, the man who really produced this wealth, it did not go into the purchase of expensive automobiles. In my opinion there is no person in Canada more entitled to an automobile than the man living on a farm, ten, twenty, thirty or forty miles away from a town. I know something about what an automobile means to a man on a farm, and I say this, if I were to farm some distance from town and could not afford an old tin Lizzie of some description, I would not farm very long. An automobile has become one of the necessities of farm life. The farmer appreciates the convenience it offers, and in view of the fact that he is the producer of new wealth I say that it ill behooves the Prime Minister to point to the farmer as having squandered his wealth on the purchase of automobiles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not at any time say that he had squandered his wealth. I did not even suggest that. I merely said that men possessing $300,000,000 worth of cars were not poor.


Robert Gardiner: I accept the Prime Minister's correction, and I gladly take back the words which I used in that regard.
The Prime Minister, I believe, also made the statement, not this afternoon but when he was speaking earlier in the session, that he wondered why the western farmer, after having produced so much wealth, did not save. If the Prime Minister had an opportunity of going out to that western country and homesteading, opening up a new farm and going through all the trials and troubles which that entails: if he had had that experience, I am satisfied he never would have asked such a foolish question. It is only about twenty-five years since the opening up of western Canada began. Prior to that time we had a fringe of settlement along the main line of the Canadian Pacific, along the line from Regina to Prince Albert and also along the line from Calgary to Edmonton, so that the west is practically a new country. Indeed, it is being developed every day.
What is the position of the man who goes on new land in western Canada? He has the hope that he is going to make a home for himself and his family. It is true that we had a few speculators, but the primary hope of the person who goes on a homestead or takes up new land in the west is to create a home for himself and his family. During the first few years they are on those farms, they do not spend much money. I know how some of those people have lived in order to develop the property which they had under their control at that particular time. I know the aspirations of those people; I know the moment they made any money on those new farms they put it back into new developments, such as breaking up more land, clearing bush, fencing, or adding to their homes or barns or granaries as the case might be. Why? Because the only money they had to develop the property was what they earned from it. That is the spirit of the west. We are not yet old enough in the west to have accumulated great wealth. Therefore when the farmers of the west have a good year, if after having met their liabilities in full or in part, they have any money left, that money is reinvested in their property for the purpose of further developing it. If that had not been so, western Canada would not have been half as well de-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no. The hon. gentleman must certainly know that that is not what was said. It was directed to the observations of General McRae. He was named as such. The hon. member will be good enough to remember that.


Robert Gardiner: I understood that the Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon that in a previous year a substantial amount of immigration had come from central Europe, and he gave the figure I think of 130,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, 104,000.


Robert Gardiner: Thank you. He stated
that most of those people to-day were being fed by the country or by charitable organizations. So far as immigration is concerned, I think that the immigration policy of this country for the last few years has been rotten. I use that term because of the fact that immigration has brought upon this country a greater burden than we should have had to carry. But I do not think that the Prime Minister should try to get away from the responsibility that properly falls upon his shoulders because of the fact that very many members of his own party were continually calling for more and more immigration.
The only other point with which I wish to deal is with regard to the assistance which the government has given to western Canada. It is quite true that this government has devised a policy, and I congratulate them upon it, for assistance in the way of seed,
feed and so forth. I think that the government has done very well in that regard. But may I point out to the Prime Minister this great weakness in that proposal. In order to secure seed relief or feed, and so forth, it is necessary for the individual to make an application to the municipal council, and I know that many municipal councils feel that because of the unpaid taxes due to their municipalities and the obligations which are now upon them they are not justified in even risking being called upon to pay 25 per cent of any ultimate loss that may occur. Consequently, under these circumstances, I believe that many of the farmers of the west will be denied the seed and feed that they require; but of course that probably is not the fault of the present government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose my hon. friend knows that the municipalities are not at the moment asked to pay anything.


Robert Gardiner: I quite appreciate that. I said 25 per cent of the ultimate losses. The great problem at the present time, however, is not so much the question of seed and feed. The great problem to-day is bank credit. The farmers require credit to-day more than feed and seed to put a crop in. I know that from actual experience. If you do not happen to be one of the fortunate ones possessing a bank account, it is necessary to go to the bank and secure a loan. That is the greatest immediate problem that I see before western Canada, and my judgment is this:	If the
people of Canada think that the western wheat crop is of any great value to this country, then it will be necessary for the government to take action along whatever lines they deem expedient to see that reason-, able credit is afforded to those who put in crops. That is very important, and it should be done immediately, otherwise it will be of no value.
The Prime Minister this afternoon, in twitting the right hon. leader of the opposition in regard to markets for wheat, pointed with pride to the greater amount of wheat which had been exported by Canada during the last eight months as compared with the previous eight months, and took credit to his government for being able to assist the grain trade and the pools in selling that wheat. But does the house realize that every bushel of wheat ' shipped out of this country means a dead loss of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel? Yet the Prime Minister prides himself on the attitude which his government has taken in assisting to send wheat out of this country-

The Address-Miss Macphail
at a loss of from 30 to 40 cents a bushel. It is always easier to sell a larger amount of wheat when it is cheap, particularly when the price falls below the cost of production, than to sell it at the cost of production or at cost plus a profit.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How much profit is there in keeping it ?


Robert Gardiner: I wish I knew. If my hon. friend could tell me that, he and I might be able to make a little money on the side.
I merely wish to say in closing that I take exception to some of the remarks made by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I believe that they were unwarranted by the actual conditions such as we know them to exist in western Canada.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I listened with amazement to the
Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett) speaking this afternoon. I wondered could it be just one year ago that we heard the unemployment debate in this house, a debate in which the government of that day showed a complete lack of understanding of conditions in the country. At that time the right hon. gentleman who is now Prime Minister was the leader of the opposition, and he and his colleagues told the house, and in many instances told very well, what the conditions were. Then we went through an election last July. We heard the moaning of the then opposition from coast to coast. The conditions were terrible. They were such that only God's anointed could save the country. There is no use in the Prime Minister now getting up as he did to-day and assuming the air of lecturing this house, particularly this corner of the house. I think the Prime Minister will find as time goes on that the speech which he made this afternoon was an exceedingly unwise one, and one which he will bitterly regret.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: He may not-he ought. The conditions since the unemployment debate last session and since the election held in July last year have not improved. On the contrary they have steadily become worse. Had the Prime Minister risen in his place to-day in the house and admitted that such was the case and that present conditions required the best efforts of every hon. member of the house he would have won the hearts of hon. members, because even this house has a heart. However he did not do that; he would not admit that serious conditions pre-

vail, conditions with which all working people are familiar. It might do the Prime Minister some good if he went out and became acquainted with the facts. I think it is most unfortunate and ridiculous that the Prime Minister has not seen fit to admit the present condition in Canada. I would think that during the next two or three weeks editorials in our newspapers would make the blunder abundantly clear, even to the ministry who now grace the treasury benches.
During the Easter vacation I happened to be out west. During my visit I had occasion to speak with an alderman of the city of Regina, and he told me that he had attended a council meeting and a meeting of the relief committee which had been working all winter. They were very desirous of closing up their relief measures but they still had 2,300 married men who were without relief or employment. He said the difficulty was that the men were determined not to work for $10 or $15 a month, and that that was all the farmers surrounding the city of Regina were in a position to pay. This gentleman was in a position to view both sides of the question, both from the standpoint of the unemployed and that of the farmer. He said that under the circumstances the farmers could not pay the high wages they had paid in former years. In the spring of the year it is expected that unemployment should ease up. The unemployed men are absorbed in the new spring work on the farms. I was not surprised to read in the newspapers about the riot in Winnipeg. When I was in that city walking along Portage avenue and Main street I saw badly dressed men with nothing to do, just milling around, moving up and down. They were going nowhere, they were not walking fast, but just killing time. They walked one way and then the other. By law they are required to keep moving and that is the way they did it. I am not blaming the Prime Minister for the unemployment and stress, but I am blaming him for not admitting that such a condition exists. Why does he not admit that there are such conditions? It is true that the farmers are not unemployed; they are unpaid. They have plenty of work to do. There has been talk about new wealth which was created in western Canada. Where did it go? It went to provide profits to the people who benefited from the tariff. It went to provide bankers with their large dividends. Hon. members laugh! It may sound amusing, but it really is not a matter to be treated lightly. The wealth of western Canada has gone to provide bankers with dividends, to build fine

The Address-Division

office buildings such as we see in the cities of Toronto, Montreal, Regina and Calgary. It has gone to provide a better living for other classes in Canada. When the farmer had paid out all these profits he had nothing left for himself.
For a moment or two I want to touch on the subject of immigration. This afternoon I directed a question to the Prime Minister when he was intimating-I hope I am quoting
him correctly-


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: -intimating that the excessive immigration into this country was the fault of the Liberal government. May I say to him that the Liberals have enough to bear without alone carrying that responsibility. I can recall, as can the veterans of this house, that for ten years the hon. members in this corner of the house have said, and never more clearly than in the year 19212, that it was a very foolish policy constantly to bring in immigrants to this country. Let me quote from a speech by the present Prime Minister delivered in the House of Commons on Monday, February 11. 1929. At that time he was making comment on the speech from the throne and complaining there was not enough money spent on immigration. He said:
' We have here one of the largest undeveloped areas of the world; we have a very pressing necessity for more people. There need be no misapprehension about that, notwithstanding what has been said from time to time to the contrary. It will be found that the increase of population in this country, brought about through bringing additional people in, will not only lessen unemployment for those who are now in it, but will increase all employment.
The quotation is much longer, but that is sufficient.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it again; that is good.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Look it up-I gave the date, but it is certainly interesting. The date is February 11, 1929. The statement is to be found on page 22.


Mr. BEALTBIEN:: That is my birthday.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: In the same debate the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) said at page 2746:
My complaint is not so much that the number of British immigrants is not larger, as that our immigration of all classes is much too small. I submit. Mr. Speaker, that we could take many times the numbers of people of all kinds than we are getting at the present time.
It would seem that the government learned. Its immigration policy of to-day is a good one, since it is not one at all. It is too bad hon.
members opposite did not take the same attitude ten years ago, and the Liberal government also. For the Prime Minister to intimate as he did to-day that his party had no responsibility in regard to immigration simply means that he does not think that hon. members in this house are intelligent. Strange, as it may seem, we are. I seem to have been directing the most of my remarks to the Prime Minister, but may I add something further. It may be true that because of membership in this house the words of hon. members are given more prominence and weight than the wisdom of their utterances merits; that statement applies also to prime ministers.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SPENCER:: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Allan Hall: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Stinson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions this house was told by the late Speaker that pairs are not recognized. If that is so, what is the use of hon. members taking up the time of the house by announcing with whom they are paired?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member will
find there is a rule covering the point.


Fizalam-William Perras: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

(The list of pairs as furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs:
Bell (Hamilton West), Bell (St. Antoine), Black (Halifax),
Boyes,
Cahan,
Edwards,
Gagnon,
Garland (Carleton), Gott,
Guthrie,
Hackett,

Mercier (St. Henri), Raymond,
Dubuc,
Deslauriers,
Rinfret,
Elliott,
Boulanger,
Goulet,
Rutherford,
Lapointe,
Perras,


Alexander McKay Edwards: I was paired with the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Finlay MacDonald: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Martin James Maloney: To save Your Honour any further trouble, I desire to say that I am officially paired with the hon. member for

Salaries Act
Weyburn (Mr. Young) in connection with every vote. If he is not here I do not vote; if I am not here he does not vote. Of course, I would have voted for the motion.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Dumaine). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Frank Boyes: I am paired with the hon. member for St. Mary (Mr. Deslauriers). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Paul Mercier: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Alfred Goulet: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SAUVE:: (Translation) I was paired
with the hon. member for PAssomption-Montealm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Administrator by such members of the bouse as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That, it is expedient to extend the time for the commencement of construction and completion of the lines of railway which the
22110-51i
Northern Alberta Railways Company was authorized to construct by section 11 of Schedule B to the Northern Alberta Railways Act, 1929-namely, an extension of the main line of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company from Spirit River, and a branch line of the Central Canada Railway from, at or near Crimshaw.
He said:	His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Government Employees Compensation Aot to extend the benefits of the act to all employees in the service of His Majesty excepting those for whom provision is made under other statutes, and to extend the interpretation of the term "compensation" to include any benefits, expenses or allowances that are provided for under provincial compensation acts.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Salaries Act to provide that the salary of the Solicitor General shall be increased from seven thousand dollars per annum to ten thousand dollars per annum as from 7th August, 1930.
He said:	His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to favourable consideration of the house.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
I notice that the members of the government are referring to His Excellency the Administrator. Should they not say His Excellency the Governor General?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: At the time these resolutions were submitted they were submitted to the Administrator. His Excellency had not then been sworn in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Customs Act

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow 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:	His Excellency the Adminstrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish
to raise mere technicalities, Mr. Speaker, but I do submit that there is no Administrator at the present time; His Excellency the Governor General is in office. These resolutions ought to be approved and recommended to the house by His Excellency the Governor General since there is no Administrator at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These resolutions were approved by
the Administrator on the dates they bear; therefore they were recommended to the house by him and are so marked. The resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Immigration was recommended by His Excellency the Governor General. Any resolution presented prior to April 4 was submitted to the Administrator and recommended by him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The ministers
have stated that His Excellency the Administrator recommended the resolutions. There is no Administrator at the present time. His Excellency the Governor General assumed all obligations that had been taken by the Administrator, and I should think, as a first act of His Excellency, this should be so recognized.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid the right
hon. gentleman has not quite followed. His Excellency the Administrator approved and recommended the resolutions on the dates appearing on the order paper. The Governor General then had not been sworn in. The Governor General cannot now go back; the recommendations have been made. If we
fMr Guthrie.]
had finished the debate on the address prior to April 4, they would have been thus dealt with. The fact that we did not so conclude the debate does not change the further fact that these recommendations were made by the then representative of the sovereign. The last resolution appearing on the order paper was recommended by the Governor General.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Soldier Settlement Act be amended to abolish the soldier settlement board and provide for the transfer of its powers, functions and privileges to an officer to be called the director of soldier settlement, who shall be paid such salary and at such rate per annum as the governor in council shall fix and allow.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in moving that you do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply I do so in order to enable the house to go on with its business on Thursday or Friday. When I was in the position now occupied by my right hon. friend opposite I suggested on many occasions that we should take up the estimates as early as possible in order to give ample opportunity for discussion. For that purpose Public Works estimates will be considered first, and if Mr. Speaker now leaves the chair and we discuss an item we will be in a position to go on Thursday or Friday with the estimates of the Department of Public Works. Accordingly I move that the house do now go into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Public Works-salaries, $698,925; contingencies, $90,000.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett, the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Privilege-Mr. Gardiner
Wednesday, April 22, 1931