1931-04-20

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 30, respecting the St. Lawrence River Bridge Company.-Mr. Rowe.
Bill No. 31, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Munn.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) advise the house how long the dismissals of employees is to continue in

Department oj Interior-Retiring Employees
the Department of the Interior, and what progress has been made, if any, in the way of reestablishing those who have been let out?
Hon. THOMAS G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):	Mr. Speaker, it would be
manifestly impossible to answer the first part of the question put by the hon. member, but with regard to the second portion of his question, namely, as to what steps have been taken by the government to provide for these employees, I would say that that has been more or less answered already.
Possibly it might not be out of place at this time to say something in regard to this matter. The former Minister of the Interior has put certain questions to the house in regard to it and has expressed his solicitude for these employees. Pie feels that the government should make certain provision for these civil servants who have been retired or who have received notice of dismissal. It is not a pleasant position in which I find myself at this time. Because of the transfer of the natural resources to the prairie provinces many people have for the last eight or nine months found themselves to be without a position. However, that is not a matter for which I can accept full responsibility because these resources were returned to the western provinces before this government assumed office or before I had the honour of administering the affaire of this department. It is a little unusual to hear the ex-minister express such solicitude in view of the fact that no provision to take care of any of these employees was made in the agreements transferring the natural resources to the western provinces, or in the legislation confirming those agreements. It might well have been made the subject of more than discussion; some steps might have been taken to see that these employees were looked after. However, a search of the agreements and legislation discloses nothing providing for these people.
The services of some 591 employees formerly employed in what might be termed the outside services have been dispensed with. Some of them have been taken over by the provinces but there is nothing in the records to show that the former government attempted in any manner to provide for any of them The only thing on the files is a letter written by the former minister expressing the hope that something might be done. [DOT]
Owing to this transfer there is no work for those previously employed in many of the branches of the department. Speaking on this very question on May 1, 1930, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said:
I might answer my hon. friend as to the reasons why the government did decide not to
await the answers by the courts before transferring the resources. It was perfectly apparent to the government that the agreements with Manitoba and Alberta would pass, which would mean that so far as the Department of the Interior was concerned that department would more or less pass out of existence.
Mr. Bennett:	Functus officio.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Yes, it would practically pass out of existence, t%vo-thirds of it at any rate, and we would be keeping on a department of the government, simply for the purpose of awaiting the answer by the courts. That was one reason.
On May 2, 1930, in replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), the hon. leader of the opposition said:
I think I can promise my hon. friend that the number will not be increased. As he is aware, in this house we have passed to-day enactments under which the natural resources of the three western provinces must be transferred to those provinces, as well as certain lands to the province of British Columbia. When that transfer is effected it should be possible to do away entirely with the ministry of the interior. Some reorganization and consolidation will be effected as respects the Department of Immigration, the Department of Indian Affairs, the forestry service and allied branches of the public service.
Those remarks would show that there existed in the minds of the then government an intention to curtail to a great extent the activities of this department. As I stated before, having that in mind, they took no steps whatever to make any provision for these employees.
When the present" government took office this was the first question brought to my attention. Knowing that a great many of these employees would find themselves without employment when the reorganization took place, I addressed a letter to each of my colleagues in the cabinet, asking them and their departments to take care of as many as possible of those employees of the Department of the Interior who might be retired. This letter is dated October 2, 1930, and reads as follows: My dear colleague:
The transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces will render surplus to the future requirements of this department a large number of well-trained and highly skilled officials of extensive departmental experience.
All of these employees have confidently expected to work out their full period of service with the federal government, and have predicated their domestic arrangements on this understanding. If no place can be found for these in the federal public service, the Dominion is obligated to grant pensions or whatever other consideration has been earned under the act under which the employees have been contributing. Those affected have already filed a petition asking for consideration beyond that provided in the existing Superannuation or Retirement Acts.
718	COMMONS
Department of Interior-Retiring Employees
From this you will see that it is distinctly good business to give precedence to those employees when assistance is required. New work is being undertaken by certain branches of the public service, and in some cases the permanent positions have not been provided in the estimates so there is no vacancy in the establishment to which permanent employees could be transferred. In order to overcome this difficulty I am prepared to authorize a loan of surplus permanent employees of the Department of the Interior up to the end of the present fiscal year, that is until the 31st of March, 1931, the date to which their salaries have been voted, provided, of course, your department undertakes to create positions for their retention after that date. The Civil Service Commission is aware of this and is ready and willing to facilitate such transfers.
If your department needs any assistance might I suggest that you nominate an official to confer with a representative of this department in order that the situation may be carefully analyzed with a view to promoting the transfer of suitably qualified employees from the Department of the Interior.
I have not had a great deal of experience in the public service of Canada, but I find that it is not easy to transfer an employee from one department of the government to another. Many things militate against this being done. First, there is the natural ambition of individuals in other departments; if a position becomes vacant and they are in line for promotion, naturally they wish to secure that position. That applies right down the line until the lowest paid position is the only one available, and an employee, say in the Department of the Interior, who has been receiving a certain salary, is a little loathe to accept so great a reduction. I am not arguing that should a vacancy occur in a department, an employee losing his position in another department should as a matter of course be put into that vacant position, but at least it might fairly be claimed that he should have an equal right to compete for that position with others in the other departments. That would put them on an equal basis, but the departments-and no government is to blame for this-are apparently run as closed institutions or, as one might say, closed competitive institutions so far as the employees are concerned. They are not willing to allow an employee from one department to transfer to another. Further, in many cases an employee in a department such as the Interior department, knowing of a vacancy in another department, prefers tc remain in his own department and to take his chance, rather than to transfer to the other.
This is not a new situation. In the Department of the Interior it had been known for some four years that this reorganization was

bound to occur, and the matter has been very much to the fore this year. I do not suppose any employee in any of the branches of the Department of the Interior has not been for the last year or for at least ten months, fully cognizant that this reorganization was coming.
I have given to the house the events as they have transpired until the present time. We have now entered a new fiscal year and the estimates of the department show that the appropriations are much less. Accordingly, we have to meet that situation. Certain criticisms have been levelled against the department to the effect that these employees have been dismissed in a very cruel manner. They received their notices, it is true. How else could the dismissals have been made except by giving notice to them? The Civil Service Act provides that when an employee's position is abolished or when his services are no longer required, he shall be given a certain leave of absence. Under the present situation in the Department of the Interior, that period of time will extend from two to six months. They are not cut off at a moment's notice; rather, they are given that two to six months' notice during which time their full salary will be paid. The following instructions were given to the various heads of branches of the department when this reorganization was to take place:
In effecting staff reductions to bring the salary list within the limits of the figure set by Treasury Board, the department will work m cooperation with the Civil Service Commission.
In the matter of retention on the staff, regard will then be had for preference in the following order, provided always that no employee will be retained unless efficient to perform the service required,-
That is, efficiency is the first test.
1.	Those w'ho enlisted in Canada and saw active service in any theatre of war and who have now domestic responsibilities.
2.	Other employees with domestic responsibilities.
3.	Those who enlisted in Canada and saw active service in any theatre of war and who have no dependents.
4.	Others with no dependents.
Generally speaking it will not be possible to retain any employee who has reached the age of sixty-five years or who has put in the full thirty-five years of service unless such retention is a matter of special necessity to the department.
Following that, conferences were arranged with the heads of the various services, and the matter was fully explained to them. Further, the names of those employees who have been retired or -who have received their notice of dismissal, are listed with the Civil Service Commission for reassignment to any other branch of the government when vacancies

Department oj Interior-Retiring Employees
occur. This is carrying out the law as I understand it and as it is laid down in the Civil Service Act, chapter 22, section 54, which reads:
Any employee holding a permanent position that is to be abolished, or which is no longer required, shall be laid off and his salary discontinued but his name shall be placed, in the order provided by the regulations of the commission. on the list of persons eligible for the class of positions from which he was laid off or for any other position for which he may have qualified.
That has been done in the case of each of the employees who have lost their positions.
I do not think I can add anything further at the present time, but if the question should arise again I am willing to make my position as clear as possible to the house.


Hon. CHARLES MARCEL (Bonaventure):: Will the minister allow me to ask him a question in regard to this matter?
I am glad to be interrupted at this moment by the entrance to the chamber of the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) with whom I have had the honour of sitting in the house for many years. I am glad to see him restored to health and strength.
I was about to ask the minister whether it is true that in certain branches of his department which remain under the control of the Dominion, a number of officials have been dismissed.


Mr. MURPHY:: I do not get the full purport of the question.
Mr. MiARCIL: A morning paper states that in certain branches of the Department of the Interior which remain under the control of the Dominion government, a number of officials have been dismissed. I refer to the hydrographic survey, geodetic survey and parks survey.


Charles Murphy: The hydrographic survey does not come under the Department of the Interior; that is under the Department of Marine. The other surveys, such as the geodetic, topographic and international boundary surveys are still under the department, but all branches of the Department of the Interior are to a certain extent affected.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I refrained from interrupting the hon. Minister of the Interior while he was speaking, because, in common with other members of the house, I felt it was a privilege to have an opportunity to listen to him and to hear what he had to say on this important matter.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: My right hon. friend will pardon me. On the orders of the day when a question is
asked and a reply made, that is the end of the incident.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the very point to which I was coming. I did not interrupt my hon. friend when he was speaking, though I might have done so on a question of privilege. My hon. [DOT] friend in speaking, whether consciously or unconsciously, did not confine himself to answering the question asked but entered into an argument in answer to a question on the orders of the day. That was wholly irregular, and I am going to ask the permission of you, Mr. Speaker, to be allowed the same latitude in making reply to one contention which was made by the minister- your honour may put it on the ground of privilege, if you will-but which I think ought to be answered immediately. Out of courtesy,
I did not interrupt the minister though I knew he was out of order at the time. I believe the house will take no exception to what I have to say when hon. members hear what it is.
Perhaps the acting leader of the government will not find fault if I venture at once to express our congratulations to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) upon his return to the house, and particularly upon his looking so well and strong. We all hope that he has completely recovered from the very serious illness through which he has recently passed.
The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is this:	My hon. friend the Minister of the
Interior (Mr. Murphy) in speaking, whether unintentionally or otherwise I cannot say, did seek to leave the impression by his remarks that this present situation with respect to employees of the Interior department had arisen out of some neglect by the previous administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If that was
the minister's intention I rise to a question of privilege, and I have the right to speak. I repeat, I do not say that the minister's inference was intentional. I wish to state the facts correctly, if I may be permitted so to do. What I wish to bring to the attention of the minister and of other hon. members is this:	The legislation respecting the transfer
of the resources to the provinces was not actually assented to until the day of dissolution of parliament itself and the time fixed for the transfer was still considerably in advance of that date. Obviously under the circumstances, no arrangement could have been made either at the time or prior thereto for the transfer of persons or their accommodation in other ways with respect to positions which were still necessary and which of
720	COMMONS
Department of Interior-Retiring Employees
necessity had to be continued for some little time to come. As a matter of fact, the resources were, I believe, not transferred finally, until the month of October, at least in the case of those of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and it was therefore absolutely necessary that clerks should be kept on until the actual transfer was made.
As to provision in advance, may I say that I recall that as early as 1926 the government of the day believed that it had made an arrangement with the province of Alberta for the transfer of its resources, but we found later on that for some reason the Alberta government did not desire to proceed with the transfer at that date, and it was some four years later that the ultimate transfer was made. We had at the last session of the last parliament reason to assume that all negotiations would work out satisfactorily so as to permit of the transfer but no guarantee that this would be effected the moment that parliament dissolved. Therefore the government of the day was restricted and very much restricted in attempting to make arrangements for the provision that might became necessary for those employees of the public service who might find themselves adversely affected by the transfer when it might actually take place. I want to make clear, that it was actually the month of October before the resources in the case at least of two provinces were transferred.
This fact also I think should be borne in mind. In the interval there was the period of a general election. In the nature of things it was inadvisable if not impossible, immediately prior to the election, for the government of the day to anticipate its result and make provision for employees in their positions as they might be after the election. I think that is quite clear. If, for example, the government of the day had provided for these civil sen-ants prior to the general election, it would immediately have been stated that the provision thus made had been made in the light of the forthcoming election, and very strong exception would have been taken to the making of such provision by the hon. gentlemen who are now objecting to our having refrained from making every provision. What we did was to go as far in the matter as we could go at the time, intending, immediately the elections were over to proceed further, if we were returned to office, or have hon. gentlemen opposite assume that responsibility if they were returned.
The exception that is being taken at the moment is not to the fact that many of these employees cannot be continued in their present 
positions, but to the summary manner in which many of them have been dismissed, and to the inadequacy of the consideration which has been shown them in the matter of time and in other respects in consequence of the loss of the positions they were holding.


Mr. SPEAKER:: May I say that the same reasons which actuated the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in refraining from interrupting the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) influenced the Speaker in not interrupting the hon. gentleman. Now that great latitude has been allowed to a member of the government in speaking on the orders of the day and similar latitude to the leader of the opposition, I think I cannot do 'better than to draw the attention of the house to the rule in that respect, which I am bound to say has to some extent been evaded at this session. I will read to the house what Bourinot says, as summarized by Beauchesne:
When the orders of the day are called by the Speaker and before they are read by the clerk assistant, it is the practice sanctioned by usage but not by any positive rule, for members to make personal explanations or ask questions of the government, in reference to an inaccurate report of their speeches in the official records, or in the newspapers; or in denial of certain charges made against them in the public prints; or in reference to certain remarks which had been misunderstood on a previous occasion, and which they had not before had an opportunity of explaining; or in respect to delay in obtaining returns or to the incompleteness of certain returns brought down under the order of the house; or relative to the state of public business, or other matters of public interest. But these remarks should be brief as they are only tolerated, there being no question before the Chair when they are made, and no discussion should be allowed when a minister has replied to a question nor after a member has made his personal explanation. In asking a question, a member must not attack the conduct of the government. If a member wishes to make personal explanations in reference to remarks which have fallen from another member, the latter ought to be in his place.
I would also refer to standing order 45, which is explicit:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given .... for placing a question on the order paper.
I think members will agree with me that the nature of questions asked on the orders of the day should be something altogether different from questions that might well be put on the order paper, and I would therefore ask the cooperation of the house in future in observing both the rule and custom of the house.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, April 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Max D.

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
Cormier for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: May I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to express my pleasure at seeing the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) again in his seat. During the progress of the session members of the house have missed the hon. minister very much indeed. I am sure that we all trust that he has fully recovered and that he will continue in good health. It is a pleasure indeed to see him again in his seat.
Before I commence what I have to say on the subject matter before the house, may I also take advantage of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) for his very kind remarks with reference to myself when he was addressing the house. May I assure him that they were very much appreciated, and I trust that he will accept my sincere thanks.
The House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, meets at the present time under very adverse circumstances. Not only every hon. member, but I think almost everybody in Canada will admit that we have never within the memory of any person now living had such grave conditions confronting this country as we are faced with to-day. It is quite true that we had a very serious time during the war; it is quite true that we also had a hard time during the deflation period following the year 1920; it is true also that we had certain conditions because of the war which made the deflation period following 1920 almost certain; but after a period of so-called prosperity lasting three or four years we are now suddenly met with conditions such as neither this country nor I believe any other country on the face of the globe ever had the misfortune to meet with before. Because of those circumstances we are not meeting under very happy conditions. Therefore in my judgment it is necessary for every member of the house to give his best attention to the great problems which lie before us. So far as I personally am concerned it is pretty well known in this house that I represent a purely agricultural constituency. With the exception of a small amount of coal mining there are no industries other than that of agriculture in the constituency of Acadia. Because of the nature of my constituency I am here primarily to represent agricultural interests.
During the Easter recess I had the opportunity to return to the west. I went chiefly to learn the conditions there. I must say that I did not expect any improvement because at that particular time no improvement was possible. I was very much surprised however to find that the western farmer had lost his usual optimism. I know of no class of people who during the last few months have lost their morale to such an extent as have the western farmers. The people who went out to develop our great western country were optimists and through all the hard years they have had to meet they have continued to be optimists. At the present time however I must confess they are far from being optimists; they see no lining to the cloud, no ray of hope, nothing to encourage them to expect better times. Western Canada is credited with being that part of our country which always hopes for better things next year. I must confess however that in the west to-day that spirit has gone and unless something turns up in a very short time instead of the optimistic spirit of the people in the west with which we are so familiar we will find that their morale has absolutely vanished.
The chief trouble of the farmer is the price level at which he has to sell his products. If there were a price level in agricultural products higher or equal to the price level of other commodities probably conditions in agricultural circles to-day would not be so bad. However, when we compare the tremendous disparity in price levels between agricultural and other products brought about by an unequal falling off in prices we may understand why agriculture is in such a bad condition. I am not one of those who believe that if price levels of other goods were to come down to equal the price levels of agricultural products as they are to-day a solution would be provided for the problems of the farmers. However, with that subject I shall deal later on.
I have before me a graph taken from the U. F. A., a paper publisher by our organization, showing very clearly the real reason why agriculture is in such a bad condition to-day. The graph describes the price trend and deals with price levels in the month of November in the years 1929 and 1930. In the case of this particular graph the figure of one hundred is taken as a basis of calculation. We find that from the year 1929 to 1930 the drop in the price of iron and steel products was only 4.3 per cent. In the case of certain classes of hardware it was 1.6 per cent. There was no change in the price of wire. The drop in the price of manufactured products was 11.1 per cent. In the case of flour and mill feed products the drop was 34.7 per cent. I would ask hon. members to notice that the greatest drop in commodity prices occurred where the raw material had been supplied by the farmers. Then we come to textiles and fibres. In the



The Address-Mr. Gardiner
case of those commodities the drop has been 13.7 per cent. However, the price of raw cotton has dropped about 37.5 per cent. May I at this time interject a question? Why is it that the price of cotton goods has not dropped to a greater extent? Is it because of the emergency legislation of last session that the price of the raw material has dropped 37.5 per cent but that of the finished product has dropped only 13.7 per cent? We go down the list until we come to farm products. Farm products generally have dropped 34 per cent; field grain show a figure of 47.7 per cent. Then we come to the real problem facing the
western farmer to-day. I refer to the fact that according to this graph the price of western grain has dropped 59.1 per cent.
On the other side of the graph I find a table referring to western grain. It shows the price level of western grains on December 15, 1929 and on the same date in the year 1930. In the year 1929 wheat was selling at $1.32 per bushel whereas on December of last year it sold for only 54 cents per bushel. With the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to put this graph on Hansard because. it illustrates exactly the condition of agriculture at the present time.



PRICE TREND

[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. Gardiner
I have another table which strikes at the root of the situation in a somewhat different manner. This table was prepared by the executive of our organization and it was presented to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman) when the hon. gentleman was touring western Canada in October last. I am going to read only one table to show the purchasing power of a bushel of wheat to-day in comparison with the purchasing power in former years of the same commodity.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that these price levels to which I shall refer are taken on the same date in succeeding years. On October 22, 1906, the cash price of a binder at the city of Calgary was $175. On October 21, of that year the cash price for No. 1 northern wheat in store at Fort William was 74i cents. The handling charges and elevator profits were 5 cents. The freight from Calgary to Fort William was 14.4 cents. The price to the shipper was 54.85 cents. At that time it took 319 bushels of wheat to buy an eight-foot binder complete. In the year 1913 the price of a binder was $190. On the same date in that year it took 318 bushels of wheat to buy a binder. In the year 1914 the price of the binder remained at $190 but the price of wheat had gone up and as a result it required only 194 bushels to buy an eight-foot binder. In 1926 the price of the binder was not $190 but $295. Yet the price of wheat had risen somewhat and it required in that year, despite the higher price of the binder, only 231.5 bushels of wheat to buy a binder. Now we come to last year, 1930. In that year the price of a binder had been reduced to $287. The price of wheat on that date was only 72f cents. Allowing 5 cents for handling charges and elevator profit, and 15.6 cents for freight the price received by the farmer was only 52.025 cents per bushel. It required 551.5 bushels of wheat to buy an eight-foot binder last year. To my mind those figures show clearly the story of conditions in western Canada. I have in my hand other tables dealing with other classes of implements. May I point out further that the comparisons on these tables are based on No. 1 northern in store at Fort William. The average grade of wheat is not No. 1 northern; No. 3 or No. 4 is the average grade the farmers deliver. That is to say, if you take the grades from the highest down to the lowest, the average of the whole will be between No. 3 and 4 northern. This means that it takes many more bushels of wheat to buy the implements that I have quoted than the figure that has been given to me. I make this explanation because I believe it to be necessary.
22110-*6J
Now, as I said before, the position of the western farmer is not a happy one. His liabilities are growing at a rapid rate. And many reasons can be given for this condition of affairs, but it all comes back again to the problem of the price levels of agricultural products. When we consider, for instance, the interest charges which the western farmer pays, more particularly the interest charges on overdue accounts, these are very burdensome, and consequently there is no hope of improvement, as far as I can see, unless we get some modification of the farmer's debts, or unless his interest charges generally are reduced; unless this is done I can see no hope of the liabilities of the farmers becoming substantially less in the near future. One of the weaknesses of our monetary system, or our medium of exchange, is that all governments seem to want to stabilize that medium at a certain level. Why governments should do the best in their power, in fact take the resources of the state for that particular purpose, I do not know. I am not aware of any reason why the state should put the national resources behind our dollar for stabilization purposes, any more than it should put its resources behind the stabilization of manufactured or agricultural products, as the case may be. Take the case of a farmer who in good faith buys implements or contracts a debt of any kind when the price of agricultural products is at a high level, and that of other commodities in proportion, and then try to realize what it means to the debtor during a deflation such as we are passing through at the present time. It means that the debtor's debts have increased, because through the reduction of the price level he will have to give more of his products to meet his liabilities. That practically is due to the fact that we do not permit the dollar to fluctuate the same as we permit the price levels of goods and services to fluctuate. And it is only fair to the debtor class that there should be a corresponding fluctuation of the dollar. My hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Coote) has plated before the house a proposal which I think hon. members should consider seriously, because it seems to me to be the most important proposal that has yet been submitted in an effort to remedy the conditions that we are passing through at the present time. I cannot see why we should be so fearful of the interests of the creditor class. The creditor class in this and other countries seem to be given all the privileges. No debtor class has ever been given any privilege in this country at all. Therefore I submit in all seriousness that the creditor class should be placed in exactly the same
The Address-Mr. Gardiner
[Stage Direction]
position as the debtor class, and that it should not secure any privileges by reason of the natural wealth of the country being put behind our dollar to stabilize the dollar whether it is worth stabilizing or not. I believe that is the biggest problem that confronts us today, and until something is done along these lines I am satisfied that we shall never begin to recover even the meagre prosperity that we have had during the last few years.
During these times of stress and trouble there is one class in this country that receives all kinds of gratuitous advice-the farming class. We are told in the speech from the throne that we must reduce production costs. I say to the government "All right." I throw out this challenge to the government: If they are sincere in stating that it is essential because of world conditions that the farmer reduce his production costs, then let the government show us how to do it. How can we do it? I submit to the house that to-day the farmer in western Canada is producing as efficiently as, and in fact more efficiently than, any other class of farmers in any other country in the world. The farmers of Canada use the most up-to-date machinery, they have the benefits of the scientific research of our experimental farms. I am satisfied of the fact that unless something drastic is done it is useless to tell them that they must reduce their production costs before they can expect to succeed. But I can see where perhaps the farmer may be able to reduce his production costs somewhat. If it is the intention of the government that in order to reduce their production costs the farmers of the west must accept a lower standard of living, then the sooner the government tells them the better it will be for the government and for the west. As far as I can see there is no hope of reducing production costs except by the western farmer reducing his standard of living. And if that standard of living is reduced, then hon. members can see what it will mean to industry in eastern Canada, because the western farmer is a good buyer when he has the funds, and his ability to purchase means a good deal to eastern industry.
If any evidence is required as to whether the western farmers is, for instance, producing grain at a cost comparative with the cost of production of similar grain in another country, I have the information before me. It is the report dated March 4, 1924, made by the United States tariff commission to the president-. Hon. members may say that this is an old report and that conditions may be somewhat different to-day from what they were then. True, there may be a slight change, but it is slight only. Anyone who remembers

the price levels in 1924 will recall that manufactured goods were selling at about the same level as they are to-day, maybe a little lower, but not much. This report is the result of an investigation undertaken by the United States tariff commission for the purpose of determining wdiat duty should be placed on wheat importations. The commission realized that the greatest competitor of their wheat-producing states was Canada, because in Minnesota, South and North Dakota and Montana the quality of wheat produced is nearly as good as that produced in the Canadian prairie provinces. The commission found that the average cost of producing wheat at thirty-six points in those four states, after taking into consideration land, interest and other charges, was $1.44 a bushel. In order to ascertain the actual conditions in Canada the commission made inquiries in our three prairie provinces at forty-three points, taking evidence from eighteen to twenty farmers at each point. As a result of their inquiries the commission found that the average production cost of wheat in western Canada was 93 cents a bushel, as against the average cost of production in the four wheat-growing states of $1.44. That is why the high duty of 42 cent3 a bushel was imposed on grain entering the United States-to protect the United States grain-grower against his rival in western Canada. I think that shows fairly conclusively that the eost-of-production bogey has been over-worked. May I say in passing that it is useless for the government, it is useless for armchair farmers, it is useless for other wouldfoe advisers to say that the only hope of the grain-grower of western Canada is in lower costs of production. In my judgment that is almost an impossibility under present conditions.
Now I am going to discuss another phase of the situation, with regard to the price levels of different commodities. I have studied this problem for some time, Mr. Speaker, and I have come <to the conclusion that the most important cost, or the most important element in the cost, of producing any commodity is the labour time element. The labour time element is the most important element in the cost of producing commodities, whether they be agricultural commodities or manufactured goods. I am not going to take a back seat to any one in respect to the value of the labour time of the farmer in comparison to that of other classes of producers. The farmer is absolutely essential to the welfare of the people; we cannot get along without him, because he provides the food which is essential to life. Therefore I say that the labour time element

The Address-Mr. Gardiner
entering into the cost of production M all goods should be given very serious consideration. In my judgment it is the most important element of all, and consequently should be given its rightful place. What is the condition to-day? If you analyze the price levels, as you may analyze them, you will find that probably the farmer will have to put in three hours or more in producing an agricultural product which, when exchanged for manufactured goods, will bring in exchange a product which only contains one hour of labour time, and this problem is being understood more and more by the western farmer. The time is coming when he will accept no other form of exchange than that which contains the absolute labour time element on the average. I think just now the western farmer is realizing this important element in the production of his goods, and as I said before as soon as he understands that principle thoroughly, and finds that it will explain to him very largely the discrepancy in price levels, I am satisfied that no government and no class of people in this country will be able to stand against the demand of the farmer that his labour time be reckoned as being just as valuable as the labour time of any other class of producer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I find that I have far more material on my desk than I will be able to deal with this afternoon. Permit me to take a moment to deal with the policy of the banks in western Canada, and on this point let me congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) on the very sensible thing which he did some time ago, in suggesting to the banks that they should give better credit for spring work in western Canada. The banks say the farmers of western Canada are securing all the advances to which they are legitimately entitled. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, then I take it from the banks that western Canada is insolvent; that is what the statement of the banks would indicate. Of that there is no question. I had the opportunity of going home at Easter, and I made specific inquiry on that point. I drove for two days among men in my constituency whom I knew and upon whom I could depend in order to find out whether they were getting a reasonable amount of credit. Of course we do not expect to get the same amount of credit that was handed out when we were passing through more prosperous times but, sir, I did not meet one person in my two days of driving who had been able yet to secure one bank credit for this year's spring operations. Yet the banks say they are giving to the farmers of the west all the
credit to which they are entitled. Why do not the banks have the courage of their convictions and tell us that in their judgment western agriculture is insolvent, and then we will know what to do. I have no desire to see the banks place loans where they feel they have no chance of being repaid. That would not be good business either for the farmer, for the banks or for the people of this country, but I do object to this system, bonused and privileged as it is by legislation of this country, saying it is doing what it is not doing. Once more I congratulate the minister on his statement in this connection.
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).
Mr. MULLINS:: Is my hon. friend speaking for Saskatchewan only, or for the entire west?


Robert Gardiner: I say eighty per cent
of the farmers of the west would be insolvent if they were forced to liquidate. 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. That is a hard thing to say, but I say it in all seriousness and fully realizing the position which I occupy. There is no hope for western farmers unless conditions improve within the next twelve months. Their only hope is to get rid of their liabilities, and the only honourable course open to them, will be to do as the business man does when he is in that position, and go through bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is not a nice word to use. I never liked the sound of it, but it describes a course of action which it is sometimes necessary to follow. The word we use now to indicate that particular course of action is not so harsh as it used to be in years gone by. In the earlier years of financing through banks, instead of calling it bankruptcy the people used to call it bankrupture, or in other words ruptured by the banks. That just about describes the position of the people of this country.
I want to make one suggestion which may be of some value. Some of my colleagues have made other suggestions, but it is not my purpose to cover the ground which they have covered so well. In western Canada today we have a certain cooperative selling organization which does the biggest part of its business in selling the products of the farmers to outside countries. When they sell
The Address-Mr. Gardiner

these products, such as wheat, oats, all kinds of grain and sometimes live stock, and so on, they sell them in competition with the world. We in this corner of the house have been blamed for asking for compensation because of tariff duties which have increased the prices of the goods we have to buy. The tariff does not protect agriculture; we have had a very good illustration of that since the special session. Although duties were made higher the prices of agricultural products have gone lower and lower all the time, f make what I consider to be a fair suggestion to the government: in view of the fact that these cooperative organizations are selling farm products at competitive prices in the world's markets, I suggest that these same organizations be permitted to import into this country goods of equal value to those exported without any duty being imposed. The farmer would thus be put in the same position in his buying as he is in his selling, but only to the extent that he exports on a competitive basis. I believe this suggestion to be well worth the consideration of the government.
My time will soon expire, but I desire to deal with another matter. What we are debating is the amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, moved by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is not my business to criticize to any extent what this hon. gentleman does, but permit me to say this: as far as the amendment is concerned, it is wholly negative in character and does not get us anywhere. During the war we were obliged to form a coalition government in order to unite all the forces of the people. I do not suggest that we form such a government at the present time, but I do think that the parties should drop politics in order to consider the really serious condition with which we are faced at the present time. From time to time we have had a pensions committee operating in connection with this house, which committee has always operated without a display of party feeling. I would suggest that another committee should be appointed by this house to be conducted in a non-partisan manner for the purpose of examining into economic conditions and reporting or recommending to this house from time to time anything which they think would be of value.
We have in Canada a research council which deals with production. My judgment is that we should have such a council dealing with economic conditions. This council should sit all the time and be composed of men who have their finger on the economic pulse of Canada, and who would be at any and all

times in position to advise the government as to the best thing to do. It is said that we are to have a new tariff commission. I have no objection to that, but I believe that an economic research council would be a thousand times more valuable to the people of this country than any tariff commission which might be set up.
Unemployment in Canada is still rife. While out west, I had a rather peculiar experience in Calgary. The city of Vancouver ceased the supplying of relief to single men. They made up a nice parcel of food and told them to get out. I am told that they even assisted in the finding of empty box cars in which they could travel as comfortably as possible. These men arrived in Alberta, and upon reaching the railway yards of such places as Calgary, the railway police boosted them off the cars. Fortunately for these men who had no place to go, as soon as they were boosted off the cars by the railway police the provincial police came along and put them on again. That is a terrible state of affairs for a country possessing the wealth of Canada. All the way from Calgary to Ottawa we saw these men strung along the line. We heard that at Fort William they had to go and beg meals from the people of that good and hospitable city. That is not fair to the unemployed men.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we believe that the time has come for cooperation in the solving of these problems, and believing that the amendment now before the house is negative in character, I move, seconded by Mr. Heaps, a subamendment as follows:
That all the words after "that" in the amendment be stricken out, and the following substituted therefor,	.
This house fully realizes that there exists in Canada an economic situation whieh constitutes a national emergency, which can only be met by extraordinary measures;
This house is of opinion that the present situation calls for the greatest possible degree of cooperation on the part of all its members, and to that end, and that this cooperation may be given in the most practical and efficient manner, 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, with the view of suggesting such appropriate action as might best correct the present situation and relieve present suffering, and as might also render less probable the recurrence of such disasters in the future;
This house urges that the need is great and immediate, and that this committee should be appointed without delay, that it be given all necessary powers and authority, and that it be instructed to proceed with all expedition and to report to this house during the present session of parliament;	_
While the above suggested action should assist in the ultimate solution of these great

The Address-Mr. MacMillan (Saskatoon)
national problems, this house realizes that there are conditions in this country which require more immediate consideration and to that end this house is of opinion,
(a)	That the failure or inability of our hanks 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;
(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.


Mr. F. R. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to join with others who have spoken in offering my congratulations to you upon your elevation to the Speaker's chair in this house, and also to the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr Porteous) of the address.
I have noted in all of the addresses delivered by my hon. friends opposite, and more particularly by those who represent constituencies in Saskatchewan, a note of pessimism. In fact, one would almost think that the hour of death had arrived. I am not surprised at this attitude of mind of hon. members opposite-they are the party of divine right, and finding themselves in the shades of opposition, they paint pictures of blue ruin. I would remind hon. members opposite that prior to August last, the Liberal party had been the government of Canada for the past nine years, and if, as they have said, blue ruin faces our country and the province of Saskatchewan, then they must shoulder some of the responsibility for this condition of affairs. The government of the leader of the opposition has moulded the policy of this country during the past nine years, and if, as they admit, we are faced with blue ruin, whose fault is it? Let us ask ourselves that question. There can be but one answer: Out of their own mouths they condemn the policy which the Liberal government have been following during the past nine years. They go further, they condemn the leader of the late government in the policies which that government has been following.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, the late government have had as their supporters during the past twenty-five years, a Liberal administration in the province of Saskatchewan, ready to jump at any time at the crack of my right hon. friend's whip. We on this side of the house who represent constituencies in Saskatchewan know full well the ramifications of the Liberal machine in that province in both the provincial and federal fields. We know of the ramifications of the Jacques
Bureau and Bronfman affair; we know that as a result of the findings of three eminent judges, provincial and mounted police were used by the Liberal party as political workers to further the cause of Liberalism in Saskatchewan. Now our hon. friends opposite come to the house, stand up in their places just eight months after the Conservative government has taken over the reins of office, and tell the country that the government of the day is responsible for the conditions that exist. Was there ever a more ridiculous statement? Hon. members opposite are fooling no one but themselves.
A great deal has been said about election promises. Permit me to quote an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on Saturday, September 27, 1930. The article goes on to say;
However far the discussion may range on the intrinsic merits of Mr. Bennett's tariff policy, there can only be general agreement on the vigour he has displayed since he took office, and on the speed and thoroughness with which he made his ideas effective in Canada's fiscal system. In six weeks Mr. Bennett has selected his ministers, formed his government, revolutionized the tariff schedules, made a drastic upward revision of the dumping statute, created a $20,000,000 fund and scheme in aid of unemployment, and in two weeks' time pushed through the house, with the forced approval of the opposition groups, a mass of the most drastic and contentious legislation ever brought down in a Canadian parliament. There is something heroic in these accomplishments, and Mr. Bennett deserves all the credit which his political feats entitle him to receive.
If his promise to give the country parliamentary action was perfectly sincere, his declarations of policy, it can also now be seen, were inspired by a sincerity equally deep. When Mr. Bennett was trumpeting his tariff doctrines on the compaign platforms it was natural to allow for a certain amount of exaggeration in the statements, and to assume that when they came to be reduced to practice an inevitable modification would take place. This was an entirely wrong assumption. . . . There is an intrepidity about his unqualified inauguration of his projects which commands respect entirely apart from other considerations. Whatever the future brings him it can never be said that he displayed either weakness or doubt when he became Prime Minister.
This is what the greatest Liberal organ in western Canada has to say about the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) It is a conclusive answer to the leader of the opposition when he speaks about broken promises. I would like to congratulate the government of the day on calling the house together for the short session in September last. The unemployment relief measures passed on that occasion have helped thousands of our people through the past winter, and have relieved hardship and suffering. I desire to quote some figures as to the relief work done in the con-
728	[DOT]	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacMillan (Saskatoon)
stituency which I have the honour to represent. I quote from a letter written by the city engineer of Saskatoon under date of March 6, 1931. It goes on to say that as a result of the unemployment relief measures passed in the House of Commons during the short session the city of Saskatoon was able to give 287,576 men hours' work. It spent $136,895 in wages prior to the 6th day of March, and gave employment to 1,826 different married men.
I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the Prime Minister on his contribution at the Imperial and economic conference held in London last fall. As a result of these deliberations the Prime Minister succeeded in bringing about a continuance of the deliberations of the economic conference to be held in Ottawa some time during the coming summer, and I look forward with confidence to the result of these deliberations.
In western Canada we are confronted with unusual conditions and my hon. friends opposite, by their continued blue ruin talk, their whispers of death, are not contributing anything looking to a solution. This is no time for that sort of idle talk. I have heard laboured arguments trying to place the responsibility for the low price of wheat at the door of the government of the day. I am going to read an article which appeared in a British journal, and there were many such articles. The article in question is copied by the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix in an editorial mder date of March 5, 1930. It reads:
Those who deny that there is hostility to the_ w'heat pool in Great Britain would have difficulty explaining a front page article in a recent issue of The People, a popular British paper. It is headed: "Vast Gamble to Hold Prices Up At Our Expense: How Canadian Pool Stored Its Grain to Squeeze Money Out of Our Pockets." These headings are in large type and are followed by a two-column article from a special "city correspondent." The following are typical paragraphs:
Now, since Canada is the greatest wheat-producing country in the world, what the wheat pool has really been trying to do is to make a corner in wheat. And now it looks like being beaten, exactly as every private wheat gambler has been beaten in the past, by the visible supply.
For wheat is a commodity which can never be really cornered. Vast though the Canadian crops may be, wheat is growing in other countries all over the world. And last year the Argentine stepped in and sold us quite enough grain to make up for what Canada was holding back.
In this connection I am amazed at a piece of impudent "special pleading" in the prowheat-pool press. Let me give a quotation:-
"The Canadian farmers, through their wheat pool, declared: 'We ask a fair price in keeping with the general standard of living in Canada.' "

I ask this question: Had the present government anything to do with such propaganda as this? These articles appeared during the term of office of the late Liberal administration. I wonder if any hon. member sitting to your left, Mr. Speaker, who is a farmer from Saskatchewan and a member of the wheat pool, took any action as a result of such articles as the one I have just read? If they did, no one ever heard about it. The country is looking for constructive criticism and not the vapourings of theorists. I am not speaking for or against the wheat pool, but it is only a waste of time to try to make out that the government of the day is in any way responsible for the low price of wheat.
A great deal has been said about the effect of the tariff changes made during the short session, and hon. members opposite have tried to establish that commodity prices are going up as a result of these tariff changes. I am going to read an article which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix on December 11, 1930, and I do not think any hon. member will be guilty of saying this is a Conservative paper, because it is one of the Sifton string. The gentleman who gave this interview to the press is a strong Liberal supporter, and therefore his remarks in this connection should have some weight with his colleagues on the opposite side of the house. This is from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, under date of December 11, 1930:
Price cuts in many commodities, some as great as 35 per cent, will do much to bolster Christmas retail trade in Saskatoon and the province generally, in the opinion of \V. L. McQuarrie, provincial secretary of the Retail Merchants' Association.
According to Mr. McQuarrie, prices in nearly all departments of the retail trade have been dropping steadily for several months. Groceries and other foodstuffs have been sold at a very close margin for some time, investigation has shown, and at the present time many varieties of canned goods are being retailed at production costs. The retail prices of all groceries have been reduced, Mr. McQuarrie points out, with the possible exception of jam. The reductions for the most part range from 10 to 15 per cent, and sugar is being retailed at a figure very close to wholesale cost.
Cuts have also been recorded in men's and women's clothing, 20 to 25 per cent; furniture, 15 to 25 per cent; hardware, 10 per cent, with a few articles down 30 per cent; meat, 20 to 35 per cent; jewelry, 10 to 15 per cent, particularly silver hollow-ware and English china. While these reductions apply particularly to retail stores in Saskatoon, it is believed that prices have taken a corresponding drop in the trade in other cities and towns of Saskatchewan.
A survey of prices showed that articles of men's and women's clothing, such as overcoats, shoes, silk and woollen dress goods, ladies' ready-to-wear and millinery had dropped 20

The Address-Mr. MacMillan (Saskatoon)
and 23 per cent during the past four months, in ladies' furs the reduction runs from 20 to 30 per cent, and in hosiery-
Such as my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) displayed the other day, the reductions according to the secretary of the Retail Merchants' Association, have been from 15 to 20 per cent.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the date of
that?


Frank Roland MacMillan: I am
quoting from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of December 11, 1930.
It is a strange picture, Mr. Speaker. We have Liberals in the House of Commons stating that these very articles are higher in price as a result of changes in the tariff, while at the same time their supporters in the field, whose business it is to know, are giving the country actual data as to the reductions in prices that have taken place on a large scale. Consistency, thou art a jewel!
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that the appointment of a royal commission to look into the effect which trading in futures on the Winnipeg grain exchange has upon the ultimate price which the farmer receives for his grain is a move in the right direction. I am of the opinion that the commission should be able to decide this question in a satisfactory manner.
I should like also, notwithstanding the remarks of some of my hon. friends opposite, to convey my thanks to President E. W. Beatty, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and those associated with him, for coming forward at this time with a constructive plan looking to the gradual diversification of farming in districts in the prairie provinces where mixed farming can be carried on successfully. Some hon. members opposite from the province of Saskatchewan have belittled the Beatty proposal to loan money to western farmers at low rates of interest in an endeavour to help solve certain aspects of our economic situation. This proposal did not in any way suggest that the farmers of Saskatchewan should all diversify their operations. Far from it, but my hon. friends opposite well know that there are great areas in Saskatchewan where more diversification is desirable. Would my hon. friends opposite be prepared to go back to Saskatchewan and tell their constituents that they do not want cheap money? Why confuse freight rates with the Beatty proposal? Perhaps something might be done towards lowering freight rates. Certainly
it is desirable, if it be possible. But that has nothing whatever to do with this farm loan scheme.


Mr. DONNELLY:: When shall we be able to get this money?


Frank Roland MacMillan: After you fellows stop barking so much.
I wish to quote a few figures in respect to the development of the live stock industry in Saskatchewan and the farm situation generally. These figures are taken from the report of the Saskatchewan Royal Commission on Immigration and Settlement, which report was submitted to the government of Saskatchewan on September 10, 1930, and therefore is the latest reliable authority available. Turning to page 95 of the report I find that the total capital value per farm in Saskatchewan is given from 1901 to 1926. I shall not read all the figures, but I find that the average value of farm property per farm in Saskatchewan in 1916 was $10,603, and in 1921, when the late government came into power, $13,814. In 1926 the value had gone down to $11,405, and it is down still further to-day. I will now give the figures of the land value per farm, as given in this report. In 1921 the land value per farm was $8,878, and in 1926, $6,951.
Let us look at the picture so far as buildings are concerned. The value in buildings per farm in 1916 was $975; in 1921, $1,812, and in 1926, $1,825. Implements and machinery had a value per farm in 1916 of $855; in 1921, $1,479, and in 1926, $1,439.
Now let us get a picture of the live stock business. The capital invested in live stock per farm in Saskatchewan was as follows:
Capital invested in live stock,
Year	per farm
1901	 $ 931
1911	 1,218
1916	 1,851
1921	 1.645
1926	 1,190
It will readily be seen from the figures which I have just quoted that the capital investment in buildings, implements and machinery has practically doubled since 1916, while the capital investment in live stock has decreased by $700, or nearly 40 per cent between 1916 and 1926; and if the figures were available for the year 1930, I am satisfied that the capital investment, so far as live stock is concerned, would just be half what it was in the years 1916, and would be down to the amount of capital investment in live stock for the year 1901, which was $931 per farm. Surely the Department of Agriculture of the
730	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. MacMillan (Saskatoon)
late administration has some responsibility in this connection. These figures were readily available to the department at any time.
The capital investment in what might be termed frozen assets has doubled, and the capital investment in the productive end of the business, so far as live stock is concerned, has dwindled until it is now about the same as it was thirty years ago. In view of these figures it is amazing that some hon. members opposite speak belittlingly of a scheme advanced to right this situation.
I believe that the government should seriously consider the question of building a packing plant in western Canada. I am of the opinion that closer cooperation between the departments of Agriculture and Trade and Commerce is long past due. The operation of a government packing plant as a promotional propaganda instrument on behalf of the live stock industry looking to the opening up of the British market, and working in close cooperation with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce, would ultimately find markets for our live stock and more particularly pork products.
Some will say that such a plant would not pay. Perhaps it would not. The idea of such an innovation is to get into the British market, and once properly established in that market, with the assistance, in the field and on the farms, of the Agriculture departments, both provincial and federal, I believe our farmers would soon supply the regular flow of uniform and standard products required by the export trade. Such a plant would be in the interests of the packer as much as the farmer, and is not meant in any way to supplant the packer. Opening new markets is a costly affair and with our over-capitalized packing industry in its present condition, I do not look for much relief in that direction.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, the mover of the subamendment has this afternoon dealt with agricultural conditions. In the time at my disposal it is my intention to deal with industrial conditions as they prevail in the Dominion. Before doing so, however, I wish to make some brief comments on the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) has referred copiously to statistics to show how well off are the farmers in the province of Saskatchewan. Those same statistics could be utilized to show the fortunate position of the average person in the whole Dominion. According to figures which I read recently I find that the average wealth per person in Canada amounts to S2.995. On the basis of those figures my hon. friend from 
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who happens to be the father of six children, would be worth about $24,000. The greater the per capita wealth of the individuals in a province the greater is the indebtedness of those individuals who happen to live there. The per capita wealth of the farmers of Saskatchewan is represented by mortgages and loans on their property owned by the wealthy financiers of eastern Canada. The greater their debt, or the greater their per capita wealth, just that much greater will be their difficulty to meet their obligations. So far as the speech of the previous speaker is concerned, that is all I wish to say.
My purpose in seconding the subamendment to-day was, if possible, to bring home to the government the gravity of the existing industrial situation as it affects the workers of the Dominion of Canada. So far this session the attitude of the government has been somewhat disappointing. We have had very little opportunity, in fact no opportunity at all, to obtain from the government a declaration as to what its policy may be on the question of unemployment. In the special session held last September there was a great rush to finish the work in hand because representatives of the government had to go to England to attend the Imperial economic conference. Then, some months after the conclusion of the special session we met in regular session. We experienced a similar difficulty when before the Easter adjournment we tried to discuss the unemployment problem. Again we found it necessary to rush through the estimates. A few days ago we tried once more to raise the question of unemployment but something stood in the way of allowing parliament to discuss a matter which after all is the most important problem with which we have to deal.
There has been very little said by hon. members on the opposite side of the house with regard to the unemployment situation. The few hon. members who have spoken and have dealt with labour problems have at times gone out of their way to attack the small labour group in this house. If hon. members on the Conservative side of the house wish to lodge an attack I have no objection. However it is well that we should know exactly how they stand on this question of unemployment. We have been told that the party in power assumed office with a mandate to do certain things. That is perfectly true. The mandate on which they were elected was, first of all, to remedy the agricultural condition existing throughout the country and secondly the unemployment condition which

The Address-Mr. Heaps
prevailed last year. May I say that the party in power did not gain office because of its virtues. As a rule no party which attains office does so because of any particular virtues it possesses. As a rule a political party defeats itself. Prior to the last election the Liberal party managed to defeat itself either through lack of action or through not being cognizant of some of the problems which at that time were agitating the people. In July last when the Liberal party appealed to the people they were rejected because they had not dealt with those important problems with which the people thought they should deal. As the Conservative party was the only alternative naturally it came into office. They did so bearing a definite, fixed program. As stated from many platforms they assumed office for the purpose of ending unemployment. In the city of Winnipeg there was emblazoned on many a panel the statement "Vote for the Conservative party and banish the spectre of unemployment." Such statements as that had quite an effect upon the people of Winnipeg. As they affected the workers of the city of Winnipeg so they affected the workers throughout the length and breadth of Canada. As I have said the people of Canada rejected the Liberal party and placed the Conservative party in power. I would ask hon. members to 'bear in mind that human beings have elected us to parliament. However after my hon. friends opposite were elected apparently they thought that human beings did not count and the only things which counted were the moneyed interests. They have forgotten all about the human beings. Parliament should be an instrument to redress the grievances from which the people are suffering. Unless a parliament does that it must lose its hold upon the people of a country. The people of Canada look to this parliament to redress their grievances. The unemployed and the farmers look to this parliament for assistance and expect action from us in dealing with the questions which concern them at the present time. Has parliament functioned in that manner? Is there anyone in this house to-day who will say that up to the present time or during the past eight months this government has been in power it has functioned in redressing the grievances from which hundreds of thousands of Canadian people are suffering? I venture to say nobody in this house would be bold enough to assert that parliament has even attempted in a proper way to redress those grievances. We have heatd it stated on many occasions by my hon. friends opposite that the government has carried out the promises which it made during the last election campaign. May I
say Mr. Speaker, that up to now nothing of the kind has happened. It has attempted to deal with these questions. It called a special session of parliament and introduced legislation but that legislation has been entirely inffective and insufficient to deal with the problems of the day. As many of our hon. friends opposite have said, it is quite true that the government of the day is a government of action. To be merely a government of action, lowever, is not necessarily of supreme importance. The important point is that we must have action of the right character and if we do not have such action it would be far better if we had none at all. I am inclined to think that some of the remedies suggested by the government to deal with present problems have proved to be no remedies at all. Because of that fact and because of the fact that to-day this parliament is not attempting to deal with those fundamental questions, parliament is losing its hold on the people. I am anxious to see this parliament assume its rightful place in the affairs of the nation. However we have now been in session since March 12, five weeks, and nothing has been done. There must be something wrong with our parliamentary system when we cannot get down to fundamentals and deal with problems with which we are supposed to deal.


Mr. COTNAM:: The hon. member is talking too much; that is the reason.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the hon. member rise in his seat who made that statement?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I say that the hon. member is 'talking too much; he takes up the time of the house and does not allow parliament to function.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Now we have the reason parliament has not functioned. We met on March 12 at which time we were told, in the speech from the throne, that we were faced with a grave situation. Yet although we should have met two months earlier we are told we are talking too much. If my hon. friends opposite were sincere in their desire that this parliament should do something on behalf of those in distress, we should have met in the middle of January instead of in the middle of March. What have we been doing since we came down here? For my own part, I have been trying to get some action from the government, and every time I have risen in my place and asked for action I have been met with a blunt refusal; yet we are told that this is the government of action.
Now, I spoke for a few minutes on redressing the grievances of those who are down and out-the men who are out of work, the
The Address-Mr. Heaps

men on the farm who are in a desperate situation. What is the attitude of the government in redressing the grievances of those who are wealthy? When our industrialists and financiers come down to Ottawa to meet the government they are given everything they ask for, and in some cases we were told during the special session that they were given even more than they asked for. What is the attitude of the government when we ask for redress for the grievances of the great masses of the people? We are told that we are talking too much, that we are wasting time. The very fact that we have been in a position almost of stagnation has tended to discount the term "politician." When you go on the street and meet a man and say you are engaged in politics, you find that the term has almost a stigma attached to it, instead of being regarded with honour. This change in the attitude of the people towards politics is owing to the fact that we sit here day after day, week after week, month after month, and, as I said before, do not attempt in a fundamental way to deal with the pressing and urgent problems that now confront the country. When the wealthy man comes to this city and asks for redress of his grievances, we almost cringe before him; but when the poor man comes here for redress of his grievances we spurn him and tell him to go elsewhere. The other day the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) told the delegation who came to see him that he was opposed to giving the dole to the workers of Canada. Certainly we are all opposed to giving men and women something for nothing. But to-day the wealthy classes of this country are receiving doles at the hands of the government, and there seems to be no limit to their desire for more of this favourable treatment. Probably when the budget comes down we shall find that a few more doles are to be handed out to our industrialists. To-day masses of our people are unemployed and suffering abject poverty, while side by side with that abject poverty we have a tremendous accumulation of wealth. I submit there is something wrong with any economic structure that forces hundreds of thousands of our kith and kin to go into the bread line or the soup kitchen in the face of all this wealth.
Now, sir, the question is, have we under these circumstances got to admit our helplessness? So far nothing has been foreshadowed, either in the speech from the throne or by any hon. minister, as to what is going to be done to meet this emergent situation. The existing economic crisis, both as it affects the farmer and the labourer in the city, constitutes a challenge to parliament, fMr. Heaps.]
and unless we are prepared to meet that challenge I am afraid to predict what the consequences are likely to be. Day after day we receive letters of a kind that I would hate to read to hon. members. People whom we do not know, people whom we have never seen, are sending us most pathetic appeals- appeals of a character, as I have said, that it is hardly possible for one to read to the house. Yet what are we doing under the circumstances? Very little. In fact when my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) rises in his seat and begins to deal with our economic problems and tries to state the viewpoint of his party, he is continually met with the cry, "Russia, Russia." There seems to be a holy horror of that country on the part of certain hon. members. Russia is not causing me half as much anxiety as it seems to be causing some hon. members opposite. I have never heard any of those hon. gentlemen shout, "Italy, Italy," when my hon. friend is dealing with economic ques-itons. If they are opposed to a dictatorship-* and I certatinly am myself-then I think it would be just as logical for them to be opposed to the dictatorship now prevailing in Italy. But I have not heard suggested in this house any tariff action against Italy because she happens to be in her present political condition. I have no need to go to Russia or to Italy to find a dictatorship, for I believe we have in this country a mild form of it. During the past few months things have been done by order in council and by individuals which really constitutes a usurpation of the prerogatives of parliament. We are having far too much government by order in council. When the whole question of dealing with tariffs, both as it affects imports and exports, and, what is more important, as it affects our relations with other countries, is dealt with by order in council then I say we are really under a mild form of dictatorship. When Denmark recently sent to this country a limited amount of bacon she was told to take it away, she could not leave it here. The attitude of the Prime Minister at the Imperial conference in London last September in regard to trade relations was to make an offer to the British government and say, "You can take it or you can leave it." We tell Russia that we will not take any of her goods, nor can she leave any. All this is being done, may I remind the house, by order in council.
May I deal briefly with the Russian situation? Twelve days or so before parliament met the government promulgated an order in council barring 'from this country certain

The Address-Mr. Heaps
goods produced in Russia. For the moment I am not questioning whether that was a right or wrong action. Personally I am opposed to it, but my time will not permit me to go into the question fully. But I do say this, Mr. Speaker, that if the cabinet is going to take steps which so vitally affect our relations with another nation, such steps ought not to be taken by order in council, but by parliament. Then we are told with regard to dumping by other nations, and particularly Russia, against which this action was taken, that such action was necessary because Russia is dumping her goods into this country as well as into the other countries of the world. But before we condemn Russia I think we might as well look at our own doorstep. Comparatively speaking, probably no country is a greater dumper than Canada itself. I think we have already realized that fact. Every bushel of grain that we export is being sold on the markets of the world at less than the cost of production. In other words, we are selling it at dump prices. Do our government take any action to prevent the dumping of Canadian goods abroad? All they say is, "We will not allow other nations to dump their goods here." I am interested in the attitude the government have taken towards Russia. When they conceived the policy of no truck or trade with soviet Russia there were a great many hon. gentlemen opposite who thought it was an act of statesmanship on the part of the government, and they applauded the action of the government very loudly by speeches and in other ways. No congratulations were too extravagant to give to the government in connection with the action they took in having nothing to do with the soviet republic. I wonder what hon. gentlemen opposite thought-because they have said very little since-when within a week or two after the order in council was passed we invited these same people to be our guests in Ottawa. Should we not have some consistency in the actions of a government? One minute they say, "No trade or truck with Russia" and the next minute our representative at Rome says, "Come over to Ottawa and let us discuss together the commercial relationship between the two countries." Our action in connection with Russia has been answered in the dispatches which appeared in this morning's papers, in whicli it was stated that soviet Russia has determined to keep out the commodities which are produced in Canada.
If retaliation is the policy of the government let them remember that it can be used by both sides; it is a double-edged weapon.
I think it was once described by the late Mr. Asquith as cutting off your nose to spite your face, that is evidently the policy of the government. They are merely cutting off their nose in order to spite their face, and the result of that action will not by any means improve the economic conditions of this country. We say we will not send machinery to Russia because the agriculturists of that country then will be able to compete with the agriculturists here in Canada. Well, if we do not send the machinery to Russia, is it not a fact that we are sending it to the Argentine, whose wheat is in competition with ours? Further, if Canada is not willing to supply machinery to Russia, are there not a dozen other nations in this world quite ready and willing to supply those articles? My hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) says that dozen includes Great Britain, but who is going to be the ultimate loser? We will lose both by reduced imports and reduced exports.
However, perhaps the most interesting as well as the most amusing thing in this whole procedure was the fact that a certain gentleman residing in the city of Montreal came out as an upholder of the action of the government. This gentleman was very much elated over the action taken by the government. He thought the government had done _ the proper thing; he was opposed to cheap labour, to slave labour, and he thought the action of the government should be commended. I am referring now to one of our great financiers, a gentleman who may be a very great altruist, Sir Herbert Holt, who supported the action of the government. Of course he naturally thought it was wrong to allow the cheap labour of Russia to come into competition with the well paid labour of Quebec, of which evidently he knows a great deal. But the other day the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) and one of the members from the Montreal district dealt with labour conditions affecting one or two industries, and apparently the labourers are not so well paid as one might suppose. However, in view of the attitude which has been taken by the hon. gentleman who is now occupying the Speaker's chair (Mr. LaVergne) and in view of the fact that so much has been said about slave conditions in Russia I propose to confine myself to conditions in Canada. As I said before and as I want to say again, I am far more interested in the conditions which exist in Canada than in conditions in soviet Russia, and if we are to improve conditions anywhere I want to see them improved here in Canada.
I have in my hand a little booklet which was sent to me by a well known gentleman
The Address-Mr. Heaps

who belongs to the Conservative party and who is a supporter of the Prime Minister, and of the Deputy Speaker as well. This gentleman spoke in the Quebec legislature and evidently thought his speech was sufficiently important to be reprinted and sent out to those who might be interested. This speech was delivered in the Quebec legislature on April 2, 1930, and one of the subheadings is, Economic Slavery in Quebec. The author of this pamphlet is Mr. Aime Guertin, member of the legislative assembly for the city of Hull. I think before we start pointing the finger of scorn at other nations who may be accused of having conditions bordering on slavery in their countries, first of all we should look into our own affairs in this country and should see that our own house is in order. This is what Mr. Guertin says:
When I speak of economic slavery in our own province I am in a position to prove its existence. . . . May I say that much has been claimed in favour of the industrialization of Drummondville; yet, if my information is right, in Riviere du Loup the average is 20 cents and in Lake St. John district, it appears to be 25 per cent, including the lumber camps.
. . . Right here in the city of Quebec I have made my own inquiry and questioned the men employed in the streets. To my great surprise I have learned that the prevailing rate is also 25 cents an hour; while in the city of Hull , the International Paper Company has taken advantage of the unemployment situation this winter to lower the rate of pay to 20 cents per hour and, on March 6th, the central executive of the Syndicate Nationaux Catholiques of that city deemed it its duty to protest publicly against the prevailing wage rate of 25 and 30 cents per hour. This winter, in Montreal, certain companies are paying as low as 15 cents an hour in certain eases, with the result that the unfortunate workers, driven by hunger and privation, are compelled to accept such a treatment lest their families will be ruined.
Then he goes on to say:
What about the wages paid bv our own government; the Department of Highways, of Colonization, of Public Works? The average rate paid is 15, 20, 25 and 30 cents for labourers working on roads and bridges as well as at the Quebec City court house construction.
Then he goes on to point out the condition at Sorel, in the shipyards:
I have yet a word to say, having kept in mind a very typical case, that of the city of Sorel where the most scandalous slavery is flourishing; yes, Sorel, the kingdom of misery and the paradise of speculators, as I have had occasion to say. Do you know that in a city of such importance, and in a regular way during the winter, a rate of $1.50 for unskilled labour and $1.75 for carpenters is paid for a ten hour day?
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, and give you some facts in connection with the textile industry in the city of Hamilton. I have in my hand communications from men em-

ployed there and from people who are in a position to know, and this is what they tell me: Since the new tariff has gone into effect there have been great reductions in wages in those industries. We in this corner who belong to the Labour group certainly are not satisfied with the conditions which exist in Canada at present. So far we have not been satisfied with the actions taken by the government. They started off as a government of action; then they went to reaction, and from reaction they have gone to inaction. We are now trying to force the government to take such action as will meet the existing situation.
I could have gone on at greater length and dealt with conditions existing to-day. I would have liked to show how the policies of this government, instead of improving the unemployment situation have in reality affected it most adversely. It may foe true that some industries have benefited as a result of tariff changes, but probably for every one which has benefited two or three could be found which have suffered as a result of these changes.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Why not give them to the house?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would be quite willing to do so if I had the time at my disposal.


Peter McGibbon: The hon. member should take part of his time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am forced to curtail considerably my remarks because of the limitations imposed upon us by the forty-minute rule.


Peter McGibbon: The house might have been more interested in that part of the hon. member's remarks.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have been accused by hon. members opposite of speaking too much and thus wasting the time of the house but now the hon. member wishes me to speak at greater length. I do not know which course I am to follow although I would have liked to satisfy both sides.
We find to-day a change of feeling. We find that throughout this country men and women in all walks of life are beginning to consider seriously the economic situation facing us at the present time. A great many people believe that it is time for a change. I do not refer to a change of government, although I believe there are many people who voting as they did last year feel to-day that a change is needed. I find it so in my constituency, and I suppose what prevails in my constituency will be symptomatic of other constituencies.

The Address-Mr. Lawson


Peter McGibbon: Do they want the hon. member to move over to this side?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, they do; they want our party to be the party in power.
Many people think that something is wrong with our whole economic structure; they believe that it has become top heavy and is unable to function properly. They believe the people of the country are not receiving that to which they are entitled. They find that amidst the ever-increasing wealth produced by the toil of the workers in the cities and on the farms, they are daily becoming more poverty stricken. The poverty from which the people in this country are suffering at the present time does not come about because of any shortage of commodities; it is because we happen to have too much of everything. The problem confronting us today is that of so adjusting our economic system as to give to every man or woman that to which he or she is entitled, that is, food, clothing, shelter and security of life. To-day they have neither clothing nor shelter, nor have they that security of life.
Unemployment now is considerably worse than it was twelve months ago, and, goodness knows, it was bad then. The seasonal employment which usually offers at this time of the year has not manifested itself. People who usually find employment in the month of April or May are still out of work. Men and women of western and eastern Canada who usually go to the farms at this season and are able to secure their livelihood, still have no work. The men on the farms will not have sufficient work and will be coming into the industrial centres and thus helping to aggravate an already difficult situation.
With the enormous wealth which we have, surely no one will deny that there is sufficient for all. If we are suffering to-day because we have too much of everything, is it beyond the possibilities of the intellect of this parliament that we should get down to business and find ways and means of overcoming the existing economic situation and thus prevent a continuance or recurrence of the conditions which exist to-day?
That is what we ask for and the government will be tested on that basis. The mere fact that it has attempted to put into effect certain changes in our tariff or has prevented the dumping of commodities into this country means very little in so far as the labourer is concerned. The real test of any government is the condition under which the people happen to be living. The test of any government is the contentment, the happiness and well being of the great masses of the
people. Here in Canada the great masses of the people are to-day worse off than they have been for many years. We ask that the men, women and children of this country be given an opportunity to live a happy, decent and honourable life. I would like to see this parliament drop some of the petty, party warfare which has been carried on at times and attempt to grapple with this situation in such a way as to permit us to say that parliament has not been deaf to the pleadings of the poor people. When we leave this house at the end of the session I trust that something will have been done to remedy the existing economic conditions.


Mr. J. EARL LAWSON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed surprised to hear the confession made by the hon. member who has just preceded me (Mr. Heaps). He stated that he has ascertained from a survey of his constituency that many of that majority which sent him to this house have since the last election changed their minds and would now vote otherwise. I listened very carefully to the speech which the hon. member delivered, but like most of the speeches emanating from the group of which he is a member, I find that it contains not one practical suggestion upon which legislation might be based for the relief of the unfortunate conditions with which this country is now confronted.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) said:	We have had no opportunity
to ascertain from the government its policy with respect to unemployment. If by "we" he meant those hon. gentlemen who sit to the left of you, Mr. Speaker, I think he would have made a more accurate statement had he said:	We have given no opportunity during
this session to the government to outline or define any policy with respect to unemployment. I am not criticizing any of those hon. gentlemen in opposition who have spoken during this debate because of the fact that they have spoken; this is the time and the place to express the views which they may have with respect to the problems confronting either their respective constituencies or this country. However, I do say that it does not lie in their mouths to complain because this government has not brought down those measures which they allege they desire to see brought down. Since the opening of this session, they have made on an average of four or five speeches to each one delivered from this side of the chamber. I was indeed surprised to hear the hon. gentlemen say that Conservative speakers have not discussed unemployment but have attacked the Labour group in the house. I have listened to most
The Address-Mr. Lawson

of the speeches delivered; those to which I have not listened, I have read, but I have not observed in any of them an attack upon the hon. member for North Winnipeg or his colleagues. I would like the hon. gentlemen to remember that they cannot expect to rise in their places and make attacks upon the government and at the same time to remain immune, because they represent some particular class in the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would refer the hon. member to the speech made in the house by the Deputy Speaker.


James Earl Lawson: If time permitted I should be glad to enter into a discussion with my hon. friend concerning the excellent speech made by the Deputy Speaker, but at the moment, particularly in view of the speech just delivered by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, I should like to have something to say with respect to labour and labour men in this country.
Before doing so, however, may I digress for a moment to take the opportunity of congratulating my former classmate, the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor), upon his maiden speech in this house. He gave ample evidence of intellectual capacity and fluency of speech. I was indeed surprised when I heard him, in referring to the address of the right hon. leader of the official opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) use such adjectives as "inspiring" and "masterly", while in that of the right hon. Prime Minister of this country he found only "activity" and "capacity". I was indeed surprised to ascertain that since those happy days of scholastic association he had entitrely lost 'his sense of humour. I hope, however, if he perseveres in listening to some of the speeches of his colleagues, he may again acquire that sense of humour, even though it be only for the incongruous and the absurd.
For example, when the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. McPhee) was speaking, I could not help noting that he went out of his way to make an odious comparison between a little animal called the gopher which is found in western Canada, and what he called a good Tory. He said:
For the benefit of those hon. gentlemen from the east who might not be particularly acquainted with the little animal, I may say that in many respects there is similarity between a gopher and a good Tory. The gopher is a sleek little animal and he pilfers the farmers' grain. In the day of his greatest pilfering he develops a paunch and I would say that gopherism and Toryism might be synonymous terms. They are synonymous because both are pests and humbugs.

As I sat in my place and gazed at the hon. gentleman as he uttered those words, there came back to my mind two lines from Bobby Burns' "Ode to a Louse":
Ah wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us And foolish notion.
The hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Maclnnis), early after his entry into the house, spoke in condemnation of the procedure adopted by the house. He condemned both the right hon. leader of the official opposition and the right hon. Prime Minister because they failed to agree within a very short time upon a panacea for Canada's ills. Yet I noted that the hon. member took forty minutes to convince us that he disagreed with both, and so we were not advanced by that contribution. I would like to remind the hon. gentleman who comes *here as a new member, that the standing orders and rules of the house are the result of the collective wisdom of statesmen through centuries of responsible government for the purpose of giving free but orderly expression to all phases of political thought.
The hon. member for North Winnipeg today has reiterated what has been said by some of his colleagues previously, namely, that we of the Conservative party now take a different position with respect to unemployment in this country from what we did when we sat in opposition in 1930. I believe my hon. friend fails to distinguish between the issue before parliament in 1930 and the issue as it is to-day when he seconds the subamendment. Let me ask him to go back for a moment to the session of 1930. At that time unemployment was developing and had developed in Canada to an alarming extent. That development was apparent to all of us in the house except the then government who could not or would not realize the condition which then prevailed. We of the other side believed there was a national emergency, and with a view to procuring some action during that national emergency, the hon. member for North Winnipeg moved:
"That in the opinion of this house the government should take immediate action to deal with the question of unemployment."
Every Conservative member voted in favour of that resolution. What was the situation at that time? Liberal speakers, one after another, then on the government side, endeavoured to minimize the national emergency which then prevailed in this country. The then Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) spoke on that resolution, but he proposed not a single measure to relieve the situation. He

The Address-Mr. Lawson
told us that the then, government was proceeding with public works and was encouraging the railways to go on with further construction. Our friends the Liberal government were always strong on encouraging somebody else to do something. I well remember the speech of the present leader of the official opposition. He took some pains to tell us the extent to which the government desired to encourage the provinces and municipalities to deal with the then emergent situation, not by a contribution, oh, no, but by cooperation in any discussions they might desire to have upon the question. I was reading just the other day the speech made at that time by the leader of the official opposition in order if possible to extract therefrom a definite pronouncement, if he made one, on that occasion with respect to this problem. I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I found it a very difficult task. The right hon. gentleman seldom if ever made a definite pronouncement. The most definite one that I remember during my short time in this house was the famous, "not a five cent piece to a Tory government," and that has become the epitaph on the tombstone of the late Liberal government. I did find, however, that the right hon. gentleman made this statement:
I can see nothing arising out of a recognition of this problem-
That is, of unemployment:
-as a national problem which obliges this federal government, having regard to our constitution and the division of powers under it, to collect taxes from the people generally in order to meet a situation which affects only a certain group of people in some municipalities in this country, but which does not adversely affect the country as a whole.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, at that time the federal government failed to recognize that there was a national emergency in this country, and, equally obviously, from that statement, it was not their intention to take any useful action with respect to the emergency. Under those conditions we of the Conservative party voted unanimously in favour of the Heaps resolution.
Let us consider -for a moment the situation in 1931. Within six weeks after being elected to power this government called a special session. We voted $20,000,000, resulting, with the provincial and municipal contributions, in the expenditure of $60,000,000 in this country. We made some tariff changes for which we were condemned, but will any hon. gentleman attempt to prove that by reason of those tariff changes we have not created more jobs in the textile industries and in some others which I could mention? In view of that record of 22110-47
quick action, in view of the intimations in the speech from the throne of further action on the part of this government, do those hon. gentlemen who represent labour in this house, and who have accused us of changing our attitude, expect us of the Conservative party to vote against that government which has done so much to relieve the conditions with which we were confronted in this country?
The hon. member for South Vancouver like the hon. member for North Winnipeg, when he made a speech with reference to the unemployment situation in this country, told us at the outset that he was going to deal with the extent and seriousness of the present conditions; what steps should be taken to meet the situation; the desirability of federal investigation as to the causes, and lastly, what permanent steps should be taken to meet the situation and to provide against these ever-recurring periods of depression. I also re-read the speech of that hon. gentleman to see if I could find therein any constructive suggestion for relief of the situation. I find that he spent a great deal of time telling us of the seriousness and extent of the unemployment situation in Canada, of which the members on this side of the house are fully aware, but I could not find one practical legislative suggestion. His speech was filled with innocuous generalities. It is very easy in times such as these to be a crusader and ride the fiery steed of socialism, clad in the glistening armour of glittering generalities, but when we examine that speech we find that he made only one specific proposal, and that was when he said that the cause of unemployment was the private ownership of the means of production. To prove his case, he asked us to assume that we had all the people in the world assembled in this chamber, which by the way according to his own statement he found such a very dreary place. Then he asked us to imagine if any would go cold and hungry if we had the wealth of the world herein contained with us.
My hon. friend from North Winnipeg today has referred to Russia. Might I suggest to my hon. friend from Vancouver South that he need not take a hypothetical case, which never conclusively proves anything. He has a concrete case of the very doctrine he is proposing in that country which he has compared so frequently in this house with Canada, namely, in Russia. There you have all the means of production owned entirely by the state. Russia is the world's most gigantic corporation and monopoly. True, the individual there may own his boots or his underwear, if he is lucky enough to be able to procure any, but all the means of production are owned by the state, and yet let me remind

The Address-Mr. Lawson

my hon. friend that in Russia to-day both the labour man and the agriculturist go cold and hungry, and if the labour man is not hungry, it is because he has partaken of that limited diet of black bread and a sour pickle which would not be tolerated by the labour man of this country.
I am frequently amused, and sometimes I must confess made impatient, by some of my hon. friends who represent a particular class in this house, and who seem to think that none of us in the Conservative party, simply because we were elected to represent the citizens as a whole, have the interests of the working men of this country at heart. There are many of us on this side of the house who have laboured in many activities of life. So far as I am concerned, I was born in the labouring classes. My father was an iron moulder and at one time president of the local union of the city of Ottawa. I, as a boy, have known what it was for the family to endeavour to exist on the then strike pay of seven dollars a week. I have pounded sand in the foundry. I have swung a sledge on steel in the mica mines of the Gatineau valley. I have worked in several fields of activity and endeavour, and I think I know something of the problems of labour and of the labouring people in this country. I want to say to my hon. friends who purport to represent labour in this house that if they will but advocate in this house measures which are practicable, measures which are within our legislative competence, they will receive a tremendous support from the ranks of the Conservative party. But if they merely persist, as they sometimes do, in making inflammatory speeches devoid of practical suggestion, they will not advance the cause which they purport to espouse.
The hon. member for Vancouver South, who purports to represent labour, during his speech asked a question of the labouring men of this country. The hon. member for North Winnipeg has stated in his speech that we constantly talk of Russia. I would remind him that it was in dealing with Russia and comparing it with Canada that the hon. member for Vancouver South, after detailing the unfortunate emergent conditions prevailing in this country at the present time, asked a question of labour in this country. I cannot quote the exact wording of the question, but it was to this effect: "Would not the labour men of Canada prefer the enforced labour of Russia to the enforced idleness of this country?"


Mr. MacINNIS:: May I rise to a point of order? My hon. friend has paid a good deal

of attention to what I said, but I would ask him to quote me correctly, if he is going to quote me at all.


James Earl Lawson: Does my hon. friend deny that during the course of his speech he put the question: Would not the labour men of Canada prefer the enforced labour of Russia to the enforced idleness of this country?


Angus MacInnis: Evidently the hon. member does not know what I said. I said that in Russia there was enforced labour and that in Canada we had enforced idleness. Doe3 my hon. friend deny that?


James Earl Lawson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not deny it because I did not make the statement. At my leisure, I shall consult Hansard on the point, but my recollection is that my hon. friend from Vancouver South put such a question to the labour men of Canada. I say that the question in the form in which it was put by the hon. member was not a fair one to be placed before the working men of this country nor was it one that the working men could answer. The putting of it does not in the least benefit the cause the hon. gentleman professes to espouse. A fairer question to have asked labour in this country would have been whether they desired the enforced labour of Russia at the prevailing average rate of wage of $31 per month for unskilled labour and $41 for skilled labour, or the opportunity of collective bargaining which they have in Canada. It would have been fairer to ask if they preferred the standard of living in this country with its varied diet or the black bread and sour pickle of Russia. To my mind even the varied diet of the soup kitchen in times of emergency is preferable to the conditions under which labouring men in the country to which my hon. friend referred must work. Lastly I would ask labour if they preferred the living quarters, limited as they are to some sixteen square feet and treble the rental for each extra square foot, of Russia or the opportunities for home and family ties which they have in Canada. So far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I want for the working men of this country the maintenance of the system of collective bargaining, the maintenance of family life and our fairly high standards of living. I want for them an opportunity to rear their children in the belief of a Creator and in the immortality of the soul. I want for them the maintenance of free clinics, hospitals and homes for the infirm, even though I must have them at the hands of the alleged much despised capitalistic system. I want for the labouring men in this country a continuation

The Address-Mr. Carmichael
of progressive and practical legislation which will give labour a larger share of the profits of production to which my hon. friends so frequently refer.
In conclusion I would like to say to my hon. friends that as one who sprang from and still considers himself as part of the labouring class I regret exceedingly the suggestion by hon. members opposite that because some measure is not brought down and passed before we have the opportunity of taking the ordinary parliamentary procedure labour in this country or the unemployed in the ranks of labour will proceed to riot and insurrection. I have great faith in the common sense of the Anglo-Saxon-and that most patient of men, the French-Canadian-worker. I do not believe that they will be in favour of conditions of riot in this country unless they do so under a momentary spell of emotion resulting from speeches delivered by some demagogic leader who is more anxious to express his own views than to advance measures which are most in the interest of labour. If hon. members would content themselves for a short time and give this Conservative government an opportunity to work out the problems of Canada, as our brilliant and honoured leader indicated prior to the last election he would do, wTe will make, as requested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North at the conclusion of his speech, this Canada a happier place in which to live.
May I say that I believe the labour men of Canada will express their will and their views, as they have in the past, not by riot and insurrection, but by ballot. When the time c-omes that they determine by their ballots that this Conservative government has outlived its usefulness, we shall bow gracefully to their decision but will carry on, in an united effort, whether it be in government or in opposition, to enact legislation not beneficial solely to one particular class but in the interest of all our citizens.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) in his speech this afternoon outlined conditions in our western country so ably and so fully that it is scarcely necessary for me to dwell at any extended length upon those conditions. True, he might have gone further than he did and not enlarged upon the truth in any particular. He might have 22110-47)
described the terrible dust storms that that country has experienced this spring; he might have stated the conditions existing there under the present trying weather, and he might perhaps have made his description a little more dramatic. I also had the privilege of being home for the Easter recess, and for two days out of the nine I experienced the worst dust storms that I have ever seen in that western country, and I have been there for a period of some twenty-six years. If hon. members can imagine houses being dark in the middle of the afternoon, automobile drivers having to turn on their lights in the middle of the day and even then not able to see the road, and the impossibility of one who was walking along the street seeing very large buildings more than 150 yards ahead, they will have some idea of the extraordinary weather.
In my immediate district during the past year we had a good crop so far as yield was concerned, and yet the farmers after paying their threshing expenses and their hired help had nothing for their store bills, their garage and other accounts, they had nothing left to pay their indebtedness to the banks and mortgage companies, they had nothing left to pay their taxes. Indeed, in my own municipality there was but 38 per cent of the taxes paid during the past year. And what did the agriculturists have to live on during the winter and meet their operating expenses during the ensuing year? They had nothing left, not even in the districts where there was a comparatively good crop. From what I have said hon. members will readily understand what the conditions are like in other parts of the west where they have had little or nothing in the way of crops.
Last fall the farmers out there in their dire extremity looked to Ottawa to do something. There was an almost universal demand for a pegged price of wheat. Municipalities, wheat pool committees, united farmers' locals, farmers' conventions, and even our three western premiers, were unanimous in asking Ottawa to do something towards helping the struggling farmers. Their idea of what should be done to meet the situation was to peg the price of wheat at a minimum of 70 cents a bushel. Ottawa in its wisdom did not see fit to grant that request. Others thought we should have a set price on our wheat consumed in Canada of at least SI a bushel. That did look like a reasonable request, it did look as though we had control of the wheat used in our own country, and that it would not be asking too much to set a minimum price on such wheat. But no price was set. Some wise thinkers in my own district got it into their heads that a

The Address-Mr. Carmichael
reasonable request would be to have a bonus paid by the government based on the number of acres that had been seeded in 1930, and that this would be a fairer method than to set a price on wheat milled for domestic consumption, inasmuch as it would give something to those who had no crop. But nothing came of that proposal. The latest request that I have received from my district is that a bounty should be paid on all grain exported ; that is, so much per bushel on wheat, barley and oats. But up to the present time nothing has resulted from that request either.
Thus we have to look to the speech from the throne for any intimation of how these unsatisfactory conditions may be remedied. There is one short passage in that speech which may contain considerable hopes for us or it may not contain very much. It is this:
It will be your privilege to consider certain measures designed by my ministers to ameliorate existing conditions, to provide further means by which our people may go forward to achieve a prosperity heretofore unattained and to furnish them with all possible safeguards against a recurrence of the present subordination to world forces.
This may mean that the government intends to do something to remedy the conditions to which I have referred. We hope so. But, as I have already intimated, it may be merely a statement with nothing to follow in the way of action.
The amendment to the speech from the throne, as has already been stated in the course of this debate, contains not much more than a negative statement. In fact, if the amendment were condensed to read: "We regret that we are not sitting over where you are," I think this would represent its sum and substance.
In the subamendment-in which I am particularly interested, and to which I wish to address the main portion of my remarks-we have outlined to the house three major requests. First, a committee of this house to investigate conditions and report; second, to consider further agricultural relief; third, a further measure of dealing with unemployment. I choose to take the latter point first, then the middle point and the first point last.
It is true that at the special session last fall by the Unemployment Relief Act we did provide a measure of relief for unemployment. No person can say that the putting into circulation of millions of dollars towards carrying on public works is not going to help unemployment. It does in a measure. Then to further assist unemployment the date for the expiry of payments from the federal treasury was extended from March 31 to, I believe, June 30, That, too, does help. But, Mr. Speaker, the

portions of our country that are chiefly helped by that measure are those larger centres of population, the urban municipalities, so far as western Canada is concerned. During the Easter recess I found my own small town, with a population of a little over a thousand, was scarcely able financially to avail itself of the measure of relief afforded under that legislation, for the simple reason that municipalities are required to put up 25 per cent of the cost of the labour on any public improvement, and in addition to that, if a waterwork or sewage system is undertaken, which would require considerable piping, seventy per cent at least of the cost of such piping or equipment must be borne by the local municipality, and not more than 30 per cent can be charged to the federal or provincial government. This simply meant that a small town or village or rural municipality was practically precluded from taking any advantage under the relief legislation of the special session. They could not put up the 25 per cent of the labour plus the 70 per cent or more of the cost of the material.
I-would suggest, Mr. Speaker, as a further measure of relief, that we continue Dominion public works in the way of Dominion public buildings. We need public buildings through-our our western country, although possibly in our eastern provinces we are very well supplied. I know that that is not the case in the west. We need post office buildings in our large towns out there, and the undertaking of public buildings or public works by the Dominion government, in conjunction with provincial governments, still would keep money in circulation and give employment to those who are out of work. Then, as another suggestion. I would remind hon. gentlemen that the Conservative party of Canada is committed to a trans-Canada highway, by a vote in this house and by a preelection pledge given last summer. They are definitely committed to a trans-Canada highway, so why not undertake that scheme now? I know finances are low; I know it is difficult to make ends meet in our federal budget, but I also know a few other things in regard to conditions in this country. I know that if a war were to break out we would find money for that purpose, so why not find it for conditions which now exist in our country, for which something really must be done? As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, we have room for the expenditure of considerable public funds on the trans-Canada highway, if it were directed through the middle portion of the province. That would give a large measure of relief to agriculturists, who need it at this time.

The Address-Mr. Carmichael
Now I will leave that point and take up the question of agricultural relief. This is something which the federal government also has undertaken to remedy. So far as the province of Saskatchewan is concerned, some action has been taken to give some agricultural relief. I am not sure it is all that should be done, but something has been done. The provincial government have passed what is called the Rural Municipalities Relief Act of Saskatchewan. By that act municipalities are enabled to borrow from the banks, at a rate of interest not exceeding 7 per cent, sufficient funds to grant relief to their ratepayers for the purchase of flour, coal, wood, fodder, gasoline and motor oil. The provincial government may guarantee the loan and may reimburse the municipality, and the borrowing for these purposes does not curtail the borrowing power of the municipality for any other purpose. That looks very good; it looks as though the onus is placed upon the municipalities, and if they take action relief should be forthcoming. While I was at home I learned that some municipalities did take action and are granting this relief, but other municipalities have not taken action. Their councils met and, after consideration, they decided that the scheme was not a good one for them to undertake at the present time, and they turned it down.
Perhaps if we knew all the conditions that are imposed upon a municipality undertaking to pass a by-law for such relief we would not question the wisdom of the councils in what they have done. First, the municipality must pass a by-law; second, they must have the by-law approved by the provincial government; third, the municipality must issue a note to the provincial government for the full amount of the seed grain, due in the fall of 1931; fourth, the municipality must purchase the seed; fifth, the grain must be inspected by a government seed inspector, who will come around at his leisure and make his inspection before it can be purchased and used; sixth, the price is to be the price of grain at Forth William, less the freight, plus five cents a bushel for cleaning; seventh, the seller of the seed must wait for payment from the provincial government; eighth, a caveat is registered against the farmer's land and a promissory note is taken from him by the municipality, and ninth, the municipality must collect the accounts and bear 25 per cent of the ultimate loss. When all these conditions are imposed upon a municipality, with the time almost upon them for seeding operations, I do not wonder that some of them have turned down the scheme, when
you bear in mind the further fact that they carry liabilities running into many thousands of dollars in the way of outstanding taxes and other accounts which they are unable to pay. Schools are dependent upon them for further operations; telephone companies are dependent upon them as well, and there are other schemes which have been undertaken and which are dependent upon the municipal councils for their maintenance and upkeep. So we can hardly question the wisdom of a municipal council in turning down this scheme. It is unfortunate, however, for the poor farmers residing in any municipalities where the scheme has been turned down by the council. They have no hope; they are left stranded financially. I have here a letter from the secretary of the United Farmers' lodge in my own constituency. In part it reads as follows:
The farmers in this part of Saskatchewan are in very bad circumstances this spring. Our municipal council decided not to extend relief for gas, and so forth to farmers, and I know of two cases within five miles of my place that I do not know how they can seed. One man has an engine and only four horses with about GOO acres of wheat to seed; the other man has one section of land with an engine and only two old horses. Neither one of these men has any money and cannot get any and cannot get gas for their engines without money. Both these men have large families and it is quite apparent that unless conditions change quickly the country will have to feed these families.
That is just an illustration of conditions which exist in communities where the municipalities have refused or failed to grant relief.
Then as a further measure of agricultural relief I would suggest that something be done in connection with the price of gasoline out in our western country. I am going to mention in a few moments something that has been done already with regard to the price of gasoline, but it has not been for the benefit of the struggling agriculturists. First, however, I have here a letter from my municipal council protesting against the price of gasoline and the high freight rates. They say in part:
We find upon examination of freight bills of tank cars of gasoline coming to this point that they art billed with the rate figured on the basis of eight pounds to the gallon, and when a gallon is weighed out it turns the scale at seven pounds. The average car will run over 6,000 gallons so that the consumer pays freight as a rule on 3 tons of gasoline which is not carried by the company and never received by the dealer, which turns out royally at $50 per car.
Then further on:
In the present depressed condition of agriculture we are requesting the government of
The Address-Mr. Carmichael

the province and of the Dominion to give consideration and relief in the form of a half freight rate.
That is a suggestion which I pass on to the government, and here is another suggestion in the same connection, sent me by the secretary of a cooperative association:
We have to request that you protest in parliament against the difference in gasoline prices here and in Oklahoma where gas is reported to be selling as low as If cents per gallon in the field. In view of general conditions here it is held that gasoline prices should be much lower than they are.
I have in my hand a Canadian Press despatch clipped from a newspaper under date of March 26 of this year, which outlines the action taken by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). I wish he were here to listen to what I am going to say. In part the clipping reads as follows:
Values for duty purposes have been fixed by Hon. E. B. Ryckman, Minister of National Revenue, on refined gasoline entering Canada from the United States. In a bulletin issued to-day to customs and excise officers values for import purposes were placed on gasoline for various refining areas across the border. The new regulations come into effect immediately.
The next paragraph gives the values fixed by the minister, and the following paragraph reads:
The effect of the new regulations is that if gasoline is brought into Canada at lower than these figures, the dumping duty automatically applies. Price cutting in some parts of the United States, which in some quarters has been described as a "gasoline war." is understood to have impelled the Minister of National Revenue to take action to prevent Canadian refiners suffering from unfair competition.
It is too bad about our Canadian refiners. They might not be able to declare as large dividends if gasoline came in from the United States where a price war is in progress, but what about our struggling agriculturists who have no money with which to buy gasoline; what about the ones of whom we heard this afternoon, eighty per cent of whom are on the verge of bankruptcy? I wish the hon. Minister of National Revenue would put on a pair of agricultural goggles for a few days through which to look; he has been looking through the manufacturer's glasses so long that he has lost sight of the farmer's viewpoint. I am sure that the government has no desire to see this condition continue. Surely the agricultural industry is of as much, if not more, importance to Canada than that of a few refiners who are trying to make all the money they can. Let them make all the money they can, but they have no right to penalize the agricultural industry by means of protection received from this government. If 
there is price slashing going on in the United States we should have the benefit.
I have another suggestion to make in regard to agricultural relief, which is embodied in a resolution passed at a farmers' meeting in my constituency. The secretary advised me that there were 150 ratepayers present, and the resolution reads as follows:
Whereas both our provincial and federal governments have recommended an extension of live stock production on western farms, which lias resulted in an enormous increase in the number of hogs in the breeding pens in Saskatchewan, conservatively estimated at two to three times the number of a year ago and which can be still further extended,
And whereas the present high cost of processing and transportation prevents competition with Danish pork products on the British market.
Therefore be it resolved that we urge the federal government to give immediate consideration to

1st. "i he construction of two or more processing plants at western points.
2nd. Establishment of an outlet for quality pork products on the British market.	"
3rd. Strict grading of the finished product under governmental supervision to insure that a market once established may be held.
4th. Adjustment of freight rates to reduce the heavy charges now obtaining.
The matter of interest rates has been discussed quite extensively and it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon this question. Mv own personal experience with the banks is that they are willing to lend money whenever there is a possibility of its being returned. One bank manager told me that he could not see any possibility of the farmer repaying even the smallest loan out of his fanning operations of 1931. That is the reason the banks are not lending money to farmers. However, they are not the only sinners in western Canada in connection with the rates of interest. While I was home during the Easter recess I interviewed the manager of a mortgage company in the city of Saskatoon in connection wdth a mortgage which had been placed upon a farm in my home district. The amount of the mortgage was $1,500 and it had been in force some eight or ten years. I approached the manager with a view to having an adjustment made on the interest rate of 8s per cent, and the only concession I was able to obtain was that if the mortgage could be put in good shape through the payment of last year's interest, and a further payment of $7.50 made for the writing of a new mortgage, the manager would recommend to the board that the interest rate be reduced to 8 per cent. This mortgage is being carried by a widow with four young children. She is finding it almost impossible to make ends meet, and yet she is being forced to pay an

The Address-Mr. Carmichael
interest rate of 8i per cent. I could go on and enlarge in regard to land agreements, and the interest being charged. Many farmers have found it impossible to pay the interest. In some cases they have asked for a rebate and that they be allowed to continue the agreement for two or three years without the payment of interest. I hope that some redress will be made along these lines.
The next point raised in the subamendment is the formation of a committee to inquire into the economic condition. A few years ago many complaints were being received in regard to immigration. This matter was brought before the house and the government of the day very wisely referred the matter to the committee on agriculture and colonization. This committee was given a wide scope to investigate the matter; it was empowered to call witnesses, form a judgment and make a report to the house. That is what is asked for under this subamendment, that a committee of the house be formed and that this matter be turned over to it for investigation. It should have the power to call witnesses and to investigate and discuss the matter from every angle. Expert economists could be called in order that the committee might have the benefit of their knowledge.
Man's genius is great. He is able to travel on and under the water; he can travel at great speed upon the land in railway trains and motor cars, and under the land in underground trains. He is able to travel through the air at tremendous speed. He has girdled the earth with his voice by means of radio. He is able to telephone over thousands of miles and hear the voice of the person being spoken to. He is able to accomplish wonderful things through his God-given wisdom, but when it comes to a situation where there is an abundance of food-our granaries in many cases bursting with grain-and at the same time thousands of people are face to face with starvation, man seems impotent to solve the problem. We see men riding the freight trains from town to town, begging for something to eat and hunting for jobs. With an abundance of food, with vast numbers of people seeking work, we cannot bring the two together. What is the matter with us? Are the brains in this House of Commons not functioning properly? We come here from all parts of this Dominion and seek to do the best we can for those who have need of help, and surely at this time when people are actually starving, something can be done. I have seen men drop off the freight trains at my own home town and go from door to door begging a meal. I believe the majority of these men are willing to work if they can get something to do. The farmers
cannot employ them to any great extent, or if they could they cannot afford to pay very much because they would be unable to get it back from the land.
I noticed when returning to Ottawa that every freight train that passed contained its quota of men taking a ride. When these men get hungry they jump off and try to beg a meal. How long are such conditions going to continue? Surely a committee should be appointed by this house to investgiate these things. If there is any remedy we should know of it. Such a condition is nothing less than a national evil. Surely we do not expect to sit here for three or four months and pass only estimates and a few amendments to acts and then go home and shut our eyes to what is going on. Surely there is some way to get around it. In my opinion a committee of this house would be the best -means of inquiring into this question and I hope the government will see its way cleaT to adopt the suggestion.
The other suggestions that have been made as to assistance to agriculture and further unemployment relief are important, but they are not of as great importance as the appointment of a committee of the house to try to solve the problem now confronting us. Such a committee could suggest a remedy to parliament and we could then act upon it. Suggestions have been made in the house by different members. One hon. member suggested that deflation of currency would be a cure; another suggested that bringing down wages and the cost of living and tightening our national belt would be a cure. A number of splendid suggestions have been made. I hope some of them will be taken into consideration, and that we shall be able to act upon them. Therefore I strongly urge upon the government the idea of having a committee appointed by the house to take action at and report during this session. Such a committee could inquire into the cost of producing farm products, the selling price of the same, and the spread between the two. They could also inquire into the cost of manufacturing articles, the selling price of the same and the spread between the two. I notice from a report and I am informed by the Bureau of Statistics that the drop in the price level of agricultural products is much greater than that in the price level of manufactured articles. I have in my hand a statement showing that for the month of March, 1931, in comparison with the month of March, 1930, the drop in the price level of manufactured articles was 14 per cent, whereas the droo in the price of agricultural products wa*
The Address-Mr. Carmichael

35 per cent. Why is that? Are we as agriculturists to be forced to pay more than we should? A committee could inquire into that and get at the facts of the case. There are many other matters concerning which they could form a judgment and report to the house.
As a last thought to leave with the house I am going to read a quotation from a statement made by a man who is considered an authority on finance. It represents very largely my own thought, but if I gave my own thought it might not be accepted quite so readily. This is a statement by Roger Babson, of the Babson Institute, who is an authority on finance. He has this to say in regard to present economic conditions:
Apparently people to-day are not only tired out physically, but are discouraged. They lack the faith which is essential to personal or national progress. Accompanying this lack of faith is a disrespect for law, order, and experience. Faith, to be effective, must be backed up by righteousness. Faith cannot be bought and quickly obtained when in trouble-like medicine. Faith must be acquired slowly before it is needed-like education. Faith comes through patient devotion, right living, and service to others.
A great mass of wage earners, executives, and young business people have never before witnessed a severe business depression. Ever since Germany declared war in 1914-with the exception of a very short readjustment period after the war ended-there has been a constant demand for labour.
In view' of the steady work and easy profits.
. . . this new generation has felt sufficient in itself. Sabbath schools and churches have been neglected; family prayers have been given up, and Sunday has been made a common holiday. Hence, unlike previous generations, a large percentage of the people now unemployed, or losing money in business, have no faith upon which to fall back. When employed or making money, they did nothing to store up spiritual reserves, and hence have none to draw upon now that employment and profits have vanished. As a result great masses of people are discouraged and know not where to turn. The material w'ealth upon which they solely depended has gone. They have no spiritual wealth upon which to draw, and they are tired out physically. What is true of individuals is also true of nations.
He goes on to say:
More religion-rather than more legislation -is the need of the hour.
I agree with Roger Baibson. By legislative enactments we can cure some of our ills, but as this economist has pointed out, we can perhaps help ourselves also to cure some of our individual and national ills.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainv River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to avail
myself of this opportunity to make a few observations before the debate closes. First

I should like to say how glad I am that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has returned from Great Britain safely and in good health and that he is now engaged in administering the affairs of Canada in a manner at least pleasing to himself. Some people are very hard to please. I recall that the present Prime Minister, when he was leader of the opposition, advocated the repeal of the New Zealand treaty, a higher tariff against the United States, and a greater trade preference to Great Britain. When the King government put the whole three into effect, he then took the position that the then government had forsaken the country. From that it will be seen that it is very hard to please the hon. gentleman.
The Prime Minister, before he returned to Canada, took the time to visit old Ireland. I know he would be received with the greatest respect in the emerald isle, both in the north and in the south, because the Irish people have always shown the greatest respect to Canadian public men. So I hope that when the Prime Minister met the President of the Irish Free State, he assured that gentleman that the Hon. Howard Ferguson, who was then Premier of Ontario, was not representing the views of the majority of the Canadian people when, during the last federal election, he referred to that gentleman in such a contemptible manner. I hope the Prime Minister assured the Irish people that it was not because of that contemptuous reference that Mr. Ferguson was afterwards appointed to the high position of the representative of Canada in London.
I mention this because, when I read the statement in the press, I thought at the time it was a peculiar position for a gentleman who was contemplating that in the event of a change of government he would go over to England to unify, or "cement," as he himself said, all the countries which comprises the British commonwealth of nations.
During the last election, however, Mr. Ferguson made many statements which were not in accordance with facts. Hon. members will all have read how, for instance, he said that three of the Ontario Federal cabinet ministers would be defeated. Everyone knows now that they were all elected. He repeated time and again that the then Minister of Labour was bound to be defeated, and hon. members all know now that that was not in accordance with the facts. He also stated that he had seen train loads of immigrants being brought to this country from Europe at the public expense, and he said that he had protested to Ottawa with regard to the matter.

The Address-Mr. Heenan
When he was challenged from the public platform, he said that a station agent had told him so and his protest to Ottawa had been to Sir William Clark, British representative in Canada. It is a peculiar incident that just at the time Mr. Ferguson was complaining about too many immigrants coming to this country, I had sent to me an English newspaper showing the Ontario government advertising for more immigrants and, indeed, guaranteeing them free passage to Ontario.
I am sure hon. members will not forget, when Mr. Ferguson returned from Europe in 192S, the criticism that he levelled against the Immigration department. Hon. members will not forget, I am sure, how he pointed out that as long as the Immigration department used red tape, denying, as he said, the entrance of men with cauliflower ears, bow legs and squint eyes, Canada was not going to get the full complement of immigrants she was entitled to receive. I mention that just to show that Mr. Ferguson is given to misrepresentation, and those who know him best do not take all he says seriously.
I have not time, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the whole speech from the throne in forty minutes, but I can, however, agree wholeheartedly with its first sentence, which says:
I welcome you to your duties at a time when the nations of the world are passing through a period of great economic depression.
I would like hon. members of the government to explain how it is that economic conditions have changed so rapidly and have now become world-wide, because both before and during the election the Conservatives emphatically stated throughout the country that it was only Canada that was passing through a period of depression, and that because of the fiscal policy of the late administration. I am sure that the people of Canada will accept this confession of misrepresentation, and at the proper time deal with it.
Many hon. members who have spoken have already shown very clearly that the government has failed to fulfil its election promises, especially with respect to unemployment, and as yet there has been no answer from the government benches. I think I am safe in saying, Mr. Speaker, that the views of the members of the opposition have so far been treated with an indifference which I feel sure has not been equalled in any parliament since constitutional government has been established.
I listened with a good deal of interest this afternoon to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) and was struck with the ability
of that young gentleman in presenting his views to the house. I was sorry, however, to see him devote so much of his time to a criticism of the three Labour members in the far corner of the chamber. He seemed, as I listened to him, to leave the impression that the three labour members had not offered any constructive suggestions with respect to the unemployment situation. I would remind him that the government of which he is a supporter was elected to end unemployment, without any suggestions from other members of the house. I would also remind him that when the members on this side of the house asked what was the policy of the government with regard to ending unemployment or for unemployment relief, they received no definite answer. The hon. member for West York sought to leave the impression that about all the three Labour members of the house did was to indulge in inflammatory speeches. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have listened to these three members representing labour both inside the house and outside, and I can safely say that for violence, and any inflammatory tendency, their speeches do not begin to compare in the slightest degree with those that were made by leading Conservatives throughout the country during the last election campaign
I fear that the hon. member for West York this afternoon did not correctly represent the position of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis). The hon. member for Vancouver South, as I heard him speak the other day, was simply answering the arguments that had been made by the deputy speaker (Mr. LaVergne) as to conditions in Russia. He pointed out that it had been stated that there was forced labour in Russia, and he went on to show that while there was forced labour in Russia, there was enforced idleness in Canada, and I think every hon. member will agree that that is true. Anyone can read the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South as they appear at page 187 of Hansard, and I am sure that the hon. member for West York, if he will read them, will agree that he did not correctly represent the position taken by the hon. member.
The hon. member for West York also complained of the lack of constructive suggestions from the Labour members of the house. Let me remind him that the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has made many suggestions in this house which have been of a constructive nature. If hon. members will look at the order paper they will find a constructive suggestion standing there in his name. At the last regular session of 1930
The Address-Mr. Heenan

The Address-Mr. Heenan
out and given jobs on Ontario government highway construction while many of our own settlers in that district were denied work. This mind you, was done in the name of the Conservative party, and I ask, is it any wonder there were many decent minded Conservatives who expressed contempt [DOT] with such tactics, and I am sure voted accordingly?
I could go on and tell of other tactics equally as contemptible, but I will only refer to one other. A leaflet was circulated in parts of my riding with reference to a certain fraternal society. It is so base, so vile and indecent that I will not take up the time or insult the intelligence of hon. members by dealing further with the matter at this time. The good citizens of my riding, characterized it for what it was-an infamous falsehood.
Propaganda such as this cannot help but fail in a country such as Canada, where we have broadminded, sensible, intelligent and tolerant people. It failed in my riding during the recent election. It failed because the people have known me for the past twenty-nine years. The business men knew that I had fought for the rights of that district in regard to its industrial development against great odds. The farmers did not forget that while I was a member of the legislature, I secured for them many miles of roads and highways, financial assistance for schools, and community halls, and therefore they accepted this propaganda with the usual grain of salt. The workers know me because I represented them for many years in the industrial field before I entered public life, and they did not forget that I had a hand in securing valuable legislation in their interests.
On Friday last the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) referring to the member for Kenora-Rainy River, suggested it would be an excellent act if some one introduced me to the Minister of Labour from 1926 to 1930. He sought to leave the impression that I was not consistent in my attitude towards certain reforms. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am ready for the introduction, because the workers know (1) that I had a hand in securing increase in wages for settlers and workers on Ontario government work in my riding; (2) I had a hand in securing valuable amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act; (3) in securing the establishing of the Mothers' Allowance Act; (4) in securing the establishment of the minimum wage for women and girls; (5) that I secured an undertaking from the railway companies to place men in positions after being injured in their employ, when they could not follow their former ocsitions; (6) that I moved and 
had passed in the legislature on April 14, 1924, a resolution to provide fair wages in industries using the natural resources of the province; (7) that I advocated in the Ontario legislature the establishing of a system of unemployment insurance; (8) that on April 14, 1924, I moved a motion in the Ontario legislature to provide an eight-hour day on all public and private industrial undertakings.
(9) The workers also remembered that after the change of government in 1023 the Conservative government introduced a measure in 1924, designed to destroy the Workmen's Compensation Act, and they knew that I, as their watchdog, raised the whole Labour forces of Ontario to protest against this measure, resulting in having the bill withdrawn on its second reading. I happen to have a copy of the Toronto Evening Telegram, of July 22, 1924, which comments upon tins action at that particular time. It says:
The bill was withdrawn, although the government was. even at the time it withdrew the measure, mystified at the sudden manifestation oi opposition. Then it was learned that Peter Heenan. who is a member of the railway brotherhoods had sent out frantic wires to the various lodges within his reach, asking them to oppose the bill.
The Toronto Telegram stated further,
There is little doubt but that the provincial government will at the next session of the legislature again bring in its bill to reconstruct the Workmen's Compensation board by creating a board of review.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, let me point out that although the Toronto Telegram, which paper is very close to the Ontario government, prophesied that the measure would be introduced at the next session, seven years have passed, and I am glad to say the measure has not been reintroduced since, and I doubt if it ever Will be.
Now, coming to federal affairs, I want to introduce the member for Kenora-Rainy River to the Minister of Labour from 1926 to 1930 for the benefit of the member for East Algoma. It will be found that during that period there was passed, in the interests of the workers, such legislation as (1) the Union Label Act; (2) the extension of fair wages policy to the industries using our natural resources and coming within the jurisdiction of the federal government; (3) the passing of an order in council to prohibit the bringing into Canada of labour under contract; (4) the establishing of the eight-hour day for government employees who were required to work longer than eight hours, without any reduction in wages; (5) the inauguration of a national council for the Civil Service; (6) the passage of an act to give a measure of justice to postal

The Address-Mr. Heenan
workers in western Canada; (7) the passage of a bill to provide pensions for all Canadian National Railway employees; (8) an act to provide an eight-hour day and fair wages on public works and on all public contracts; (9) and the passage of what I consider the most humane of all measures, an act to provide an old age pension system for Canada; an act, by the way, which, although declared by many Conservatives as unworkable, is to-day paying out pensions to approximately 60,000 Canadian aged citizens.
(10) The workers also know that the King government referred the question of unemployment insurance to the provinces and that seme provinces have declared in favour of legislation to this end.
The workers knew also that during the four years I was Minister of Labour I endeavoured to the best of my ability to give them a square deal, and a square deal is all the workers of Canada ask for. They also knew that during that period the wages of the workers increased on an average of over 15 per cent; and by the way, although the Conservatives promised during the election higher wages, the wages of the Canadian workers to-day are being reduced. Yes, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member for East Algoma, I consistently advocated a permanent system to deal with unemployment before I was a member of the cabinet, and while I was a member of the cabinet, and that I intend to persist in advocating the establishment of such a scheme.
The members of the Ontario government who were opposing me during the last election, and their henchmen, knew that the workers in my constituency would not forget those things, and so they attempted to misrepresent my position with respect to the national highway. In order that the house may understand the matter I propose to give a brief history of this proposed highway. My first official connection with it was at the formation at Dryden, Ontario, in the month of November, 1919, of an organization known as the Central Canada Colonization and Highway Association. Let me say that at the formation of this organization, with representatives from Manitoba to east of the head of the lakes, no suggestion was made that the federal government should contribute towards its construction. In March, 1920, the executives of this organization, with a prominent Conservative as its president, presented a memorial to the Ontario government, requesting the construction of the highway, and not one word or suggestion was made as to a contribution of one cent from
the federal government. I was the Member for the Kenora district in the Ontario legislature. I urged the government to send surveyors out, which was done, and in 1921 contracts were let to stump and grub the section from Kenora to the Manitoba boundary line, and some grading was done between then and 1923.
The government changed in 1923 and the work was practically closed down. I urged the new government to continue the work which had been started. In 1921 Hon. James Lyons, then - Minister of Lands and Forests, made a statement at a public meeting at the head of the lakes which can be found in the Fort William Times Journal of May 30, 1924. He definitely promised that the highway to the Manitoba boundary would be completed within three years and that the road eastward to the Sault would be undertaken at once and completed within the next seven years. Again there was not a word of suggestion that the federal government should contribute anything towards the cost. The work was not proceeded with, except in a very small way, notwithstanding the fact that the promise was repeated many times afterwards. During the 1926 provincial election the Ontario government again promised the highway, but after the election the people were again disappointed.
In 1926 I had the honour to be taken into the federal cabinet, and it was after that that a few politicians thought it would be a good political move to raise the cry of federal contribution. They thought that this would serve two purposes; it might have the effect of embarrassing the King government, and at the same time of making the citizens in that part of the country forget the definite promise made many times, and it would serve as an excuse for not fulfilling of those promises. We find that in the Kenora Miner and News of June 4, 1930, the Minister of Lands and Forests is reported to have said at Sault Ste. Marie, on June 3, 1930, that the prosecution of this work depended to a large extent on the attitude of the Dominion government. He said that the Dominion government had not yet accepted the proposal of the province to undertake the work on a 50-50 basis. The citizens of my part of the country have been hoodwinked, betrayed and disappointed by these political gentlemen, but in spite of all this I was elected again.
I want now to make these gentlemen swallow their deliberate misstatements. I hold in my hands sessional paper No. 96, which was brought down upon my motion for the return of all correspondence between the two governments in connection with the highway. I
The Address-Mr. Heenan

have here the answers from all departments of the government, showing there was not one line or one word of correspondence from these departments making such an offer as Mr. Finlayson stated, or even a request for any assistance. However, I am glad the question has been raised, because it is quite evident that the Ontario government never intended to do much but play politics in connection with this highway, but now we have a definite promise, made by the present Prime Minister during the last election, that the federal government would construct a national highway, and I am glad to have been elected to remind the government of that pledge.
The people in northern Ontario want action, Mr. Speaker; we want a highway built. We do not want any more political trickery, and let me say that no matter how much money is asked for this highway, it will have my support and vote. No matter how much a Conservative government spends on this highway it will not compensate the people of northern Ontario for the many years they have been deprived of it, because of the political manoeuvring of a few politicians.


Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: Mr. Speaker, we have had rather an unduly protracted debate, and were it not for the fact that I made certain specific promises to certain of my people, in the province of Nova Scotia I would not for one single instant prolong this debate.
It is customary on an occasion of this kind, Mr. Speaker, to convey congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address. May I mingle my felicitations with those already offered by hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house on the very high degree of excellence to which each of these speakers attained in his maiden speech in the House of Commons. To those of us in whose veins pulsates French blood it was a matter of great satisfaction that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett) should have selected to move the address in reply a French speaking member of the House of Commons. He has thus exemplified his high regard for the language of that cultured race and his determination to see that language given its proper position at all times in the parliament of Canada. To those of us who come from the maritime provinces it was particularly gratifying that the French speaking member who moved the address was a member of the French Acadian race. The achievements and sacrifices of that splendid race are written large upon the pages of maritime history. They constitute to-day a very large percentage of our population, and they make 
a notable contribution to all that is best in our economic, social and intellectual life in the maritime provinces. Coming as I do from a constituency which is thirty-five per cent French Acadian I wish to thank publicly the right hon. Prime Minister for the signal honour which he has done to this great race by selecting for the first time a French Acadian to move the address in reply to the speech from the throne.
As I listened to the marathon effort of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), there was brought to me as never before the full realization and significance of that ancient but pithy expression, ''The mountain laboured and brought forth a mouse." In extenuation of his four and a half hour speech my right hon. friend said that for months he had maintained a stoical silence, that he had locked himself up in the fastnesses of Kingsmere in order that he might not embarrass the government. Well, Mr. Speaker, does my right hon. friend suppose that at a time of economic necessity like this, the sole function of a leader of an opposition is to embarrass a government which is tiying to carry on the business of a country? Surely he would not suggest that for a moment. In regard to the stoical silence that he maintained, may I say that the right hon. gentleman is leader of a certain section of public opinion in this country. He' is the leader of what was once a great political party, and the people of Canada had a right to expect a constructive contribution from him. If there was anything of constructive nature that he could offer as a solution for the problems which confront the Canadian people at this time, I think he did not do well to remain silent during those months.
My right hon. friend's speech dealt first with the record of his administration. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no need to take up the time of parliament in following my right hon. friend there. That record was discussed in every constituency in the Dominion of Canada from Cape Breton to Vancouver, and on that record my right hon. friend and his administration were judged by the people. A great majority of the. people of Canada judged that as a result of that record my right hon. friend henceforth should sit over there rather than over here. So there is no necessity to follow my right hon. friend when he talks about legacies, though I did notice that when he spoke about the legacies left by his administration he rather conveniently forgot to mention that during the time his administration were in power they brought about an increase of 8500,000,000 in the funded debt of the Canadian National Railways. That was

The Address-Mr. Macdougall
one legacy which his administration left to the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada, but he did not mention it. However, after all, as I have said, my right hon. friend has been tried upon the record which he paraded in that four and one half hour speech, and on that record he has been condemned, so why resurrect a political corpse? Why should we flog a dead horse?
Now I wish to take up some of the other points in the speech of my right hon. friend. He then proceeded-I make this statement very candidly- in a manner which I think was unworthy of his culture and his high intellectual attainments, unworthy of the very important position which he holds in the public life of this country. He tried by subterranean methods to create in this country the impression that the right hon. gentleman who is leading the government is a czar or a dictator, that in him the ego is exaggerated. I think that was very unworthy of my right hon. friend. It offers nothing of a constructive nature either to the people of Canada or to this parliament. The leader of a great political party should not in this house stoop to the use of what cannot be otherwise described than as cheap, demagogic language.
Continuing as to the use of the personal pronoun, he attributed autocratic tendencies to my right hon. leader, but may I suggest that if any hon. member of this house will take the trouble to read the speech made by my right hon. friend he will find that the personal pronoun " I " is used in such statements as, " on such and such a date I said this," or " on such and such a date I argued this " exactly 797 times. When my right hon. friend accuses the Prime Minister of egotism l would suggest that he first " cast the beam from his own eye."
My right hon. friend had something to say about the embargo which has been placed against importations from Russia, foigetting, with that lack of consistency which has ever been the dominating feature of his public life, that in 1927 he did exactly the same thing. One of the reasons why we have a disturbed economic condition throughout the world is because of the tactics adopted by Russia. What is the philosophy behind the Russian five-year plan? Some hon. gentlemen may not like my saying so, but the philosophy behind that plan is to depress wages in Russia to a point where production can be carried on at the cheapest possible rate and to dump the products thus produced on the markets of other countries so that they in turn will have to depress wages, thus causing industrial stress and turmoil leading to revolution in
other parts of the world. Let me read a statement made by the right hon. gentleman when he was far removed from the passion and prejudice of politics. I quote from Industry and Humanity, where he says:
Where consumers extend their patronage to. unscrupulous competitors, a handicap is immediately placed upon those who are preserving peace in industry and securing the welfare ot working people.
That is what motivated the action of the right hon. the Prime Minister. He was trying, to preserve peace in industry in Canada and other countries of the world when he placed an embargo upon importations from Russia^ However, there is another phase to this Russian question, and I think the house and the country are indebted to the hon. deputy speaker (Mr. LaVergne) for bringing it to their attention. Some people may not wish to speak about it, but there is a philosophy behind bolshevism. It is not only an economic theory. The churches in Russia which were built to render adoration to an eternal God' have been turned into places of amusement. The marriage contract is no longer recognized. The sanctity has been taken from that which has been the very bulwark of western civilization. What is the position of woman to-day in Russia? She is used merely as an instrument to satisfy the worst animal passions of man. That system which strives to drive out of the human heart the love for an adoration of an infinite God, R. B. Bennett says shall not prevail in Canada, in spite of what the leader of any other party in this house says.
I notice that my right hon. friend did not spend very much time in discussing unemployment. That is a very delicate question with him. He attempted to criticize my right hon. leader because he had made available to the unemployed people of this country a sum of $20,000,000, which in turn permitted of an expenditure of some $80,000,000 by the different provinces and municipalities. What is the record of my right hon. friend on this question of unemployment, and what is the record of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his-seat (Mr. Heenan)? I remember standing in my place here before the dissolution of parliament and asking the hon. gentleman, who at that time was the Minister of Labour, how many unemployed there were in 'Canada, and as I asked that question I knew that at that time there were 200,000 Canadians out of work. My hon. friend would not reply to that question because he said that it was not a gentlemanly question to ask in parliament. That was his contribution to the unemployment problem. Then we have the famous speech of my right hon. friend, which, speech h a -

The Address-Air. Alacdougall
gone down in political history and will remain there as perhaps one of the most shameful public utterances ever made by a public man in a high place in the parliament of Canada.
My right hon. friend then dealt at great length with the Imperial economic conference. As I said before, my right hon. friend has not the greatest reputation for consistency, and when one makes a speech of - that length it must be very hard to be consistent. It is said that the devil gets into a long prayer; he certainly gets into a long speech. As an example of the inconsistency of my right hon. friend, I would mention his criticism of the Prime Minister for not making known at the special session what he was going to say at the Imperial conference. The words of the right hon. gentlemen appear on page 29 of Hansard, as follows:
I want to say to my right hon. friend that ho did not treat parliament fairly in his attitude with respect to the Imperial conference. I asked him politely at the beginning of the special session to give us a statement of what he intended to do at the Imperial conference. to make known his policies. He was also asked by, I think, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) to advise parliament along those lines. He spoke on the Imperial conference two or three times, but he never told this house what he had in mind. I say that was not fair to parliament and it was not fair to the country.
Then on page 31 he said:
I say he should tell us very plainly what his particular policies are going to be, and his attitude with respect to the questions which may come up at the Imperial conference.
The house then rose for dinner, and after recess my right hon. friend took up again the question of the Imperial conference. He spoke about the atmosphere that should be created, the method of approach that should be followed and said, as appears on page 33:
It is important to keep in mind that conferences are exactly what they are termed to be -they are conferences. They are neither cabinets laying down imperial policies, noi are they parliaments in which members meet to discuss in public matters of mutual concern. Unless it were understood there was to be a certain method of approach and a certain amount of privacy thrown around the proceedings at the outset, it would be impossible to get governments to go into conference with each other. If my right hon. friend says that all that is to be discussed at a conference ought to be proclaimed from the rooftops right from the outset, that all should be made known, I would say that if that is to be the known procedure, governments will refuse to go into conference with each other. They must be secure to a certain extent at least until all positions are known against having their positions publicly criticized.
Yet for half an hour he criticised my right hon. leader because he did not tell, at the [Mr. Macdougall.l
special session of the House of Commons, just exactly what he was going to say at the Imperial conference.
There appears to be in some quarters an impression that the Prime Minister of Canada should have gone to the Imperial conference bearing in one hand an olive branch and in the other alms for the British people. Why should any prime minister of Canada have to go to England bearing an olive branch? In 1914, 500.000 Canadians went overseas each bearing an olive branch of good-will towards the empire, and in bearing it aloft, 50,000 of them died. hy should there be any estrangement between Canada and Breat Britain? To talk about estrangement and strained relations is the merest nonsence. No matter what government may be in power, whether it be Liberal or Conservative, the heart of Canada is British to the core, and there will never be strained relations between Canada and our great motherland. As regards going overseas, offering alms such as my right hon. friend was going to offer in the Dunning budget, may I say that the honour, glory and reputation of the British people, the British spirit itself, were never built up on the basis of special privilege or on the receipt of alms. The British people do not want anything of that kind.
I fear there is a motive behind all this talk about strained relations with the motherland. At the Imperial conference the Prime Minister achieved a personal triumph never achieved there before by any other prime minister in the history of Canada, a fact attested to by the better press of England. Another thing that I believe, never happened before in an Imperial conference is that the Prime Minister gave a lead to all the other British dominions and was followed 100 per cent by the premiers of those other dominions. But apart from all this, the central point to remember about the Imperial conference is that it is not over. No one on that side or this side of the house or out of it can say that the Imperial conference has been a failure. Why all this talk by my hon. friends opposite about strained relations with England? Because they know the Imperial conference is meeting in August for the first time in Ottawa, the capital city of our country, and they are trying to create an atmosphere of prejudice, because they are afraid, not that the Imperial conference will fail, but that it will be a success. I say to the representatives of the once great Liberal party: if that be their attitude-and no other explanation of their conduct is possible-in regard to this matter-

The Address-Mr. Macdougall


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: We want to prevent further mistakes.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The hon. member ought to repeat that to the people of his constituency. I think they will prevent any further mistakes.
That is the position with regard to the Imperial conference, and I say to the leader of what was once and may yet again be a great party in Canada, the Liberal party, that to take an attitude of trying to create a prejudice about the conference before it sits in Ottawa, is doing poor justice to himself and none at all to the great party which he leads and the great Dominion to which he belongs.
There are a few matters of a provincial nature to which I wish to make reference. Some time ago-and this is why I have participated at all in this debate-I gave a promise to the representatives of 13,000 coal miners in Nova Scotia that I would try to see that in the budget to be brought down something would be done for steel and coal in that province. My right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) is not in his place to-night, but I want to convey this message to him now, that the people of Nova Scotia are intensely sincere and in earnest about this question. There is no need to elaborate it. The arguments in favour of a national fuel policy were presented to my right hon. leader and the members of his cabinet by a man whom I consider to be the ablest man who ever entered public life in Nova Scotia since the days of Sir John S. D. Thompson. I refer to the present Premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Gordon S. Harrington. Nothing can be added to that case. The arguments were presented and the cabinet have the matter before them. I wish to say frankly and fearlessly to my right hon. leader and his associates in the cabinet that if, when that budget is brought down, there is nothing in it for steel and coal, I certainly, on account of the promises I have given to the miners in Nova Scotia, will not be able to vote for the budget unless it makes some provision for the steel and coal industries in my province.
Another question of great importance to the province of Nova Scotia is one that has been much dismissed by our people; it is one upon which there is practical unanimity, and it is that the people of Nova Scotia feel that they should have the Canadian Pacific railway extend into that province. They feel that they ought not be the only province in Canada to be denied the public service that can be rendered by this great Canadian institution. I make that statement not to 22110-48
deprecate in any way the splendid work being done by the Canadian National Railways in Nova Scotia and throughout Canada. We feel it would be of great economic benefit to Nova Scotia if the Canadian Pacific Railway could be induced to enter that territory. Nova Scotia needs the Canadian Pacific Railway; the port of Halifax needs its ships, and I suggest to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) that he should take under advisement the question of calling a conference between Sir Henry Thornton, president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific, all the members of parliament from Nova Scotia, Liberals and Conservatives alike-for this is not a political matter-and representatives of the city of Halifax, to see if satisfactory terms cannot be arranged for the entry of the Canadian Pacific into Nova Scotia.
One other question in which we in Nova Scotia are all interested is that referred to by the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan). the matter of old age pensions. Certain specific and definite promises have been made in that regard, and the people of Nova Scotia, who were unable to participate under the old act, because it would cost them $2,000,000, and the drain on the treasury would have been too great, expect that this government will substantially increase the federal contribution for that purpose. I hope that will be done. I know how difficult the financial situation is, but I hope the people of Nova Scotia will be enabled to take advantage of an old age pension scheme under which the federal government will pay the major portion, because the finances of the province do not permit them to take advantage of the act as it stands at present on the statute books of Canada. Those for the moment are the matters in which we are particularly interested in the province from which I come.
Canada to-day is passing through a period of depression. We have been caught in the backwash of a world-wide depression. There may be a disposition on the part of certain sections of our population to be pessimistic, ;to think that the future of Canada lies behind us, to think that we cannot emerge from the difficulties that confront us. Let me say, sir, that this is no time for a spirit of pessimism, this is no time to peddle pessimism or to spread gloom. This is a time in our country's history for courage and vision and for constructive statesmanship such as is being offered by my right hon. leader. It is a time for cooperation between political parties, and if we do cooperate, if we have confidence in ourselves and in our country, confidence in

754	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
our resources and in our illimitable possibilities, Canada will emerge triumphantly from this period of depression, and emerge sooner than any other country in the world. To those who are gloomy about the outlook may I quote, in closing, the words of the poet Lowell, applied in a different direction but I think equally applicable to Canada to-day, "Her mirror is turned forward to reflect the promise of the future, not the past."


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, in the short time at my proposal to enter into any attempt to analyze the statements that have been made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Macdougall). I congratulate him upon his eloquence and upon the extraordinary ability he has displayed for debate, even if it be debate of a political character. I would submit, however, that in his latter sentences he discussed the necessity of abandoning what he called pessimism. I agree with him. He offered as his substitute for realism that amazing outworn, useless trash and balderdash known as having faith that we will somehow or other in the future because of our inherent resources, and so forth, pull out of the present depression. We have heard that in every depression; but it has not prevented their recurrence. A thing which this house and all members even like my hon. friend should be interested in is rather the permanent solution of the situation such as has recurred now for at least the fifth or sixth time in the history of this country.
Before I get down to the material that I wish to discuss to-night, may I felicitate His Honour the Speaker upon his elevation to that position and convey my congratulations to all those-I include them all-who have taken part so earnestly and so sincerely in this debate.
I also wish to tender my heartiest welcome to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) on his return not only to health but to us in this house. I have sat with him for some time, and I have always found him to be a very fair but a very vigorous political debater.
Much has been said about agricultural conditions and the depression in agriculture. I intend to refer to this later, but first I feel it my duty to deal with another problem which is also of interest to my constituency. We have thousands of miners who are dependent on the coal industry. The conditions in those districts this year were positively deplorable. I could if I would, but I have no desire to do so, harrow the very heart of every man and woman in this house, with actual stories of
IMr. Macdougall.]
the misery and suffering that these people have had to endure as a result of the conditions under which they are now placed because of unemployment. I could tell them of children fainting in school for lack of food, of men who dropped over on the streets because they had given everything they had to their families. I could tell them of men without a day's employment for months on end, and without a cent of income. I could also point out that these municipalities in many cases are so poverty-stricken as the result of long-continued depression in the industry that they are not even in a position to cooperate with the federal and provincial governments in providing the direct relief necessary. I have in my hand a letter from one of those districts, the Rosedale district, in which there was temporary employment this year. I am informed that this letter was written following a meeting of the Rosedale local of the United Mine Workers of America, in full session of 310 members. They respectfully wish to bring to my attention the fact that they have had only twenty six day's work in three months. Only twenty-six day's work in three months, and only a part of the population actually working. The letter continues:
We are sadly in need of work of suth a nature as will enable us to carry on. Partial relief together with the odd day's work in the mines would keep us going. This of course does not include the Star mine of about 150 miners, who are in a similar position.
I have other letters here much to the same effect, pointing out that even in the town of Drumheller where an attempt has been made to meet the situation, on March 17th last provision had been made for only $3.25 pgr week per family of five persons. In all humanity and decency, how ran we expect a family of five to maintain themselves even in food alone on a sum of $3.25 per week? Fortunately that did not endure too long. I find by a subsequent letter that the married man on unemployment relief is now allowed $6.40 a week. No provision has been made for the single men; the municipality apparently is not in a position to make provision for them. In inviting the attention of the house to these facts, I would urge the government to make some real effort tc solve the problem of the coal miners in my province. It is a problem that has been enormously hampered by the over-capitalization and overdevelopment of the mining industry. This ministry is not itself directly responsible for the problem. Previous ministries have helped to create it. I remember that my hon. friend from Maeleod (Mr. Coote) and others of this group visited the exJMinister of the Interior

The Address-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
(Mr. Stewart) time and again and suggested that all leases should be cancelled that were in arrears, that no new leases should be given to others, that the entire industry should be limited to the then existing development. Our representations were apparently in vain. The transfer of the resources has now taken place, and cooperation between the two governments may be necessary. Legal aspects will be involved which may complicate the situation further. But irrespective of all that, I do urge upon the ministry with all the strength I have that they make some effort to solve the problem of many thousands of miners in my province who are without a futurp.
We heard much during the last election campaign of a fuel policy. I have waited patiently for some pronouncement from the ministry, either during the recess since September or during this session, with respect to that matter. None is forthcoming. I do not know what the government is going to offer to the coal industry in Canada, but I am almost despairing of any action because the right hon. the Prime Minister on his return from England gave an interview to the press, which I find reported in the Morning Albertan of January 23rd last, as follows:
The working out of a national fuel policy is an easier matter on paper than in actual practice. His own view was that the fuel problem would probably be solved by chemists and scientists.
What a ghastly come-down from the brave words spoken at the time of the election! Then all that was necessary was to elect the right hon. gentleman and his party, whereupon at once some mysterious and magic fuel policy would emerge that would rehabilitate the industry', give it full working time and ensure its progressive growth. On top of that my hon. friend the Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon) quite intelligently but quite depressingly made a speech in Toronto on February 16 in which he intimated, by implication at least, that because of the tremendous cost of moving coal from the west down to the central provinces where it is required- $53,000,000 annually-the difficulty was apparent. I agree with the hon. minister, but that does not absolve the administration from the responsibility placed upon it in connection with the opening up of all these mines and permitting the over-capitalization and overexpansion of the industry without regard for markets. However that is a problem this government has inherited; I wish them well and will give them all the cooperation I can in ts solution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one further remark in connection with the local 22110-48J
situation. Hon. gentlemen opposite are sometimes inclined to discount some of the descriptions of conditions recounted by hon. members in this corner of the house. Particularly do I notice their interjections and expressions of disgust, at least of disapproval, of the utterances of my hon. friends in the Labour group. It is claimed that even I exaggerate at times.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Edward Joseph Garland: