1931-03-25

Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. The right hon. gentleman is aware that since the signing of the armistice all parties in parliament have granted ex-service men preference in civil service appointments. Will the same preference be extended in regard to the retention of positions as has been extended in regard to employment? I ask this question in contemplation of the rumoured dismissals from the civil service.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: So far as I am aware the rights of ex-service men as defined by the civil service regulations will be observed.
rMr. Howden.]



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton):: I would like to ask the hon. the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) whether he has anything further to communicate to the house in reference to the St. Walburg-Bonnyville branch of the Canadian National Railways. ,1 understand the railway company is going to continue the building of the bridge. I wish to know whether there is any money for grading or work of that character.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I have had a number of telegrams and inquiries about this question. I stated some days ago that the government was taking the matter up with the railway authorities to see if they could not continue the work in view of the reported distress in that district. I am glad to state that the railway company has with the consent of the government from a financial standpoint- because that is necessary-agreed to carry on sufficient work on the St. Walburg-Bonnyville line to avoid unnecessary distress. Work is being done which under different circumstances would not be done.



MAFEKING CUT OFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: May I ask the Minister of Railways if anything is being done by the government or the railway board to implement the promises made by supporters of the present government concerning the construction of the Mafeking cut off.


Robert James Manion: I think the hon. gentleman will have plenty of opportunities to discuss that point upon a later occasion. So far as I know this is not the place to bring up a question of that character.



RAILWAY STATION AT LIMOILOU, QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: In the absence of my colleague the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) I wish to read a resolution passed by the council of the city of Quebec and to ask a question based thereon of the Minister of Railways and Canals. The resolution reads as follows:
(Translation) :
At a meeting of the city council, held on Friday. March 20, 1031, at the City Hall, it was resolved:
That this Council kindly request Sir Henry Thornton. President, and the members of the Board of Directors of the Canadian National

Canadian National Railways
Railways of Canada, to consider the great importance there is of making provision, without delay, for the rebuilding of the shops of said railways, at Limoilou, which were destroyed by fire and which deprived a great number of workmen of Quebec of their livelihood, most of them being heads of families. The rebuilding of said shops will, in the present unemployment crisis, be of great assistance to these people who will largely benefit by this important industry and who have lost in this disaster a precious source of revenue.
I wish to ask the minister if steps have been taken to make representations to the Canadian National Railways so that the wishes expressed in this resolution of the city council of Quebec may be carried out without further delay?
Hon. R. ,T. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I answered a question somewhat similar to this a few days ago, and at that time I stated I would draw the attention of the Canadian National Railways to the matter. The building of the shops at Limoilou is in the hands of the management of the railway. Already I have drawn it to their attention and will again do so.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right, Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):	May I ask my
right hon. friend in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there has been any correspondence between the government at Ottawa and the government at "Washington respecting the St. Lawrence waterway since the last session of parliament, and if so whether that correspondence could be tabled before the Easter recess.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the last communication was
laid on the table of the house during the short session of parliament. There has been no correspondence since.



ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I understand that a cable advice was received in Ottawa to-day to the effect that Sir Josiah Stamp will sail next week from London and that upon arrival in Canada he will act as chairman of the Royal Grain Commission. Will the Prime Minister confirm this report arid indicate to the house the scope of the proposed commission?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Josiah Stamp will sail for Canada
next week. I had intended to make a statement to the house at an early date, but I will do so before the house rises next Wednesday.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is this part of the Canada first policy?


Mr. McINTOSH:: It is going to be stamped all right.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. ROSS W. GRAY (West Lambton): I wish to call the attention of the Minister of National Defence to an article which appears in this morning's Ottawa Citizen concerning a military banquet which was held last evening. Major General McNaughton, chief of staff, is reported to have stated that it is the intention of the government to make serious cuts in the militia system and that information respecting the matter is to be tabled in the house at an early date. I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence if that statement was authorized and if not whether this official will be reprimanded. If it was authorized may we take it that henceforth government policies will be announced at banquets of this nature rather than from the floor of the house?
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: I would ask the hon. member to give notice of his question.


Mr. GRAY:: Do you take my question as notice, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The minister has asked that notice of the question be given and be put on the order paper.



WINNIPEG VETCRAFT SHOP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: I have received a letter from the province of Manitoba inquiring whether or not the vetcraft work shop which was destroyed in June, 1930, will be reconstructed. A question somewhat similar to this was asked yesterday, but I would like to know whether there is any further information in regard to the matter.


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The question was answered yesterday.
REVISE* EDITION
The Address-Mr. Ralston


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The hon. minister has no further information?


Murray MacLaren: No, I answered the question yesterday.



DOMINION CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (North Battle-ford) :: We are receiving daily numbers of requests from persons desirous of obtaining employment as census enumerators. May I ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) if it is the intention of the government to appoint census enumerators through the instrumentality of the Civil Service Commission or by the patronage committees of the various constituencies? May I inquire further if steps are being taken to preserve the preference in favour of returned soldiers as heretofore?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That does not call for an answer.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, as acting Minister of Trade and Commerce may I say that so far as I understand the census commissioners are being appointed in exactly the same way they were appointed at the time the last census was taken.
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	In view of the fact that no
Minister of Labour is sitting in this house may I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when we may have a full, correct and exact report of the expenditure of the moneys voted in September under the Unemployment Relief Act and also concerning unemployment throughout Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the report was laid on
the table a few minutes ago.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Max D. Cormier for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: In view of the fact that my address

begins near the time of the opening of the sitting I had hoped that the Prime Minister, (Mr. Bennett), who has just left the chamber, would have seen fit to listen to at least a part of what I have to say. Hon. members who have addressed the house have not often been favoured during the past few days with the presence of the Prime Minister. We know that he is a very busy man and that great responsibilities rest upon his shoulders, but he must realize that this debate deals with the state of the nation. This is a debate in which the house may advise His Excellency the Administrator whether conditions throughout the country are as set out in the speech from the throne, and express itself in regard to the measures which his advisors propose to take in order to remedy those conditions. But it does seem to me that it is a matter of some importance-whether the members of the government think so or not-that they should hear members from all sides of the house- I am not speaking of this side alone-with regard to the situation in every part of the Dominion to-day. I say it, and advisedly, that I do not think that at any session of parliament I have had the honour to attend have there been better speeches from all sides of the house than in the course of this debate, and I feel strongly that these representations are well worthy the attention of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in person.
After a careful perusal of the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, I feel that His Excellency is none too well informed in regard to national conditions. There is a passing reference in the address to conditions in the west, and my friends from the prairie provinces are given an assurance that the orderly marketing of wheat has been arranged for. That does not mean a great deal; it may mean that those who have received advances on their wheat will not be pressed to repay those advances. It does not mean anything so far as the solving of the fundamental problem of selling our wheat crop is concerned. But my hon. friends from the west ought to feel lucky that there is even a reference to the west in the speech from the throne; there is no reference to the primary producers in the east, none whatever. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister was down in the maritimes last July, and on that occasion he took hold of the situation with his characteristic vigour and upon public platforms there he said what would be done to solve the situation as he saw it. The east is still waiting for the national fuel policy which was promised in July, 1930. Conditions in the mining districts this winter probably have been as bad as or worse than ever be-

The Address-Mr. Ralston
fore, taking the reports sent out by the relief committee in Sydney. But not only has the promised national fuel policy not been put into effect; it is not even forecast in the speech from the throne.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The west
is also waiting for that policy.


James Layton Ralston: My friend from Bow
River (Mr. Garland) says that the west is also very materially interested in the so-called national fuel policy which was supposed to be promulgated immediately after the general elections. Down in the mining districts of the east, particularly, the promise of "work, not doles," has not been fulfilled, and unemployment is not ended. The action promised at that time-and it is on record in Hansard-has not yet been taken, and, as I said, not a single reference is contained in the speech from the throne with regard to the primary producers down east. The fishermen of Nova Scotia and the maritimes generally find themselves in the same position. They have been working strenuously in order so to organize themselves as to be in a position to place the industry on a firm basis, an industry which means their livelihood and which is well worth cultivating in the Dominion. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister in his election speeches poured out his soul in sympathy with the fishermen and bemoaned the fact that the United States tariff made it so difficult for them to market their product in the United States. Notwithstanding that expression of sympathy the government about five or six weeks ago gave the fishermen of Nova Scotia a deliberate stab in the back by imposing a dumping duty of 5i cents a pound on ten tons of rope which was being brought into Yarmouth. The first time the fishermen ever had the opportunity to buy the necessary implements of production in a cooperative way they found themselves throttled by this action of the government. Strenuous protests were made, two or three weeks were lost, and the time had almost come for the lobster fishermen to put out their traps before they were given any satisfaction, and even then there was apparently no direct response to their communications, but they learned from the local customs officer that the shipment would be released without the duty being paid. Evidently my friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) retreated from the position he took last September when he said he would see that the cost of the Canadian article was to govern the price of imported rope. I pointed out at the time, and I repeat now, that those men have to compete in the markets of the world 22110-194
in selling their fish, and therefore they are entitled to get their implements of production at the. most favourable prices. That has been and will continue to be the policy of the Liberal party.
I do not propose to-day, and time does not permit me, to go into other matters to which I should like to refer with regard to conditions in the maritime provinces. Full opportunity will present itself later, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the house will deal with those questions when the time comes. For the remainder of my time, in view of the fact that it has been laid down 'by different gentlemen, and in particularly Mr. E. W. Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, that it is axiomatic that prosperity cannot come to Canada in any marked degree until the western wheat situation is solved, I propose to deal with the remarks which were made last week by my right hon. friend the Prime .Minister about the Imperial conference to which he went for the purpose of selling Canada's wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Layton Ralston: Well, we always understood that he did. A gentleman by the name of Professor Swanson, who accompanied him, stated that the whole question of Canada's trade revolved around the marketing of the Dominion's wheat, and the best jnarket we could get was to be found in the British isles. If my right hon. friend was over there-


Mr. MacDOUGALL:: If my hon. friend will permit me?


James Layton Ralston: I have only forty minutes.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Was the Imperial conference called to deal with the question of marketing Canadian wheat?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Layton Ralston: I did assume that when my right hon. friend and his colleagues went to the Imperial economic conference their primary object was to endeavour to make arrangements for the sale of Canada's wheat.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That is not what you said.


James Layton Ralston: I am assuming that to be true and I think people generally considered that to be the important part of his mission. Let us see what my right hon. friend did in that respect. What did he say in his speech to the house last week? I was amused, Mr. Speaker, as I think were other members, and
The Address-Mr. Ralston

somewhat gratified by the fact that the right hon. gentleman attempted to justify his action at the Imperial economic conference last September by quoting as a precedent what Sir Wilfrid Laurier did at the conference of 1902. Let me assure my right hon. friend .that if he always follows the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier at Imperial conferences he will not go very far astray.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: If you followed it you would not go very far astray yourself.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend the would-be minister of fisheries will kindly permit me to continue. We have to bear in mind in connection with a statement of this kind the circumstances under which the conference met. My right hon. friend quoted from the proceedings of the 1902 conference. At that conference Sir Wilfrid Laurier proposed that Canadian agricultural products should be given preference in the British market. What was the situation at that time? Great Britain then had as a part of her general policy a duty on foodstuffs, and the proposal by Sir Wilfrid Laurier was that foodstuffs imported from Canada should be exempted from that duty. That was just exactly the opposite of the position in 1930, when my right hon. friend proposed Great Britain should change her whole fiscal system in order that it might be possible to give Canadian grain a preference in the British market. I say I do not think anything could illustrate that better than the statement made by Right Hon. Wk S. Fielding in a speech made in this house after his return from the Imperial conference of 1902. He says:
It was one thing to propose, as our opponents did in 1897, that the British government should tax the food of their people for our benefit, in order to grant an exemption on Canadian goods from taxation. It was too much to expect that the British taxpayer, in the then state of public opinion, would be willing to adopt the policy of preference. It was a very different thing, however, to propose to the British government not that they should tax the food of their people for the sake of the colonies, but that they should take off the taxation by granting a preference in favour of colonial products.
That illustrates much more succinctly than any words of mine the difference in the true situation, and it quite robs my friend of the opportunity of applauding the sentiments expressed by Mr. Richard Jebb who, he told us, stated that the offer of 1930 was exactly the same as the offer of 1902. I do not care whether my right hon. friend takes the statement of Mr. Jebb or the statements of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house; I leave the facts to the house. Mr. Jebb's statement

is absolutely incorrect. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's proposal was entirely different from that made by my right hon. friend.
But what do we find Sir Wilfrid Laurier saying at a time when fiscal conditions in Great Britain were much the same as they were in 1930? See if my right hon. friend will follow him there. Here is the statement of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1907, after the duty on foodstuffs had been taken off and the general policy in Great Britain had become free trade on foodstuffs. This is what he says- it sounds like Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I would refer my right hon. friend to this passage if he were here, but I hope he may read it as a passage perhaps expressing sentiments he might think it worth while emulating in connection with the Imperial conference:
The matter of mutual preference is altogether in the hands of the British people and if they think on the whole their interests are better served by adhering to their present system, it is a matter for the British electorate. I think the best way of serving the whole is by allowing every part to serve and recognize its own immediate interest.
That is Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1907, to whom I refer my right hon. friend when he is looking for precedents in connection with imperial conferences. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that you will search in vain the records of Imperial conferences from the very beginning to find any precedent for the action which the Prime Minister and his colleagues took at the last Imperial conference. What did they do?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: They acted as Canadians.


James Layton Ralston: His one remedy, and the one- remedy of my hon. friends on the- other side is protection. High tariff is the one medicine which they keep in their medicine chest, and that is the remedy always prescribed in large doses by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister as a cure-all. The Prime Minister expressed himself in regard to this policy in this way, and I have no doubt these statements will be applauded by my hon. friend who has just said the Prime Minister and his colleagues acted as Canadians:
If Mr. Mackenzie King thinks that on behalf of Canada I will not beg of any country to buy our goods; then he is right; for I will not. If he thinks I will not go, hat in hand, among the nations-so that I may not provoke them-and ask humbly if they will please exchange their goods for ours, then he is right;
] w-ill not. But if he thinks I will not so build up our agricultural and industrial life that its strength will drive our products into the competitive markets of the world, then he is wrong. For that I will do.
If he thinks I will not establish new markets for these products, strive with all my heart to retain them, drive our produce with all my

The Address-Mr. Ralston
power into new markets, into old markets, into reluctant markets, then he is wrong. For that I will do.
That is the mark of the pathfinder, to blaze the trail; through all barriers on the road to national development to blaze a way.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: I thought my hon. friends would cheer those statements. Now let us see how my right hon. friend goes about carrying out that policy in connection with this Imperial conference. He enunciates that as his policy, not to ask people to buy goods but to make them buy, to blaze a way over hill and dale, and to force Canadian goods into other markets. He is going to ask nobody to oblige him in any way whatever. He starts for the Imperial conference, to do business with a country which, in the fiscal year 1929, bought $290,000,000 worth of products from us, and from which we bought products to the value of $190,000,000.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Under what government?


James Layton Ralston: He goes to do business
with a country which in the year ending September, 1930 had bought something like $94,000,000 worth of products from us more than we bought from them. He starts out with this policy, to drive products into their market-what is his method? He first puts up the tariff against Great Britain 25 per cent or 30 per cent, and then starts out with his axe, or stick of dynamite; if he is blasting he will take dynamite, and if he is blazing he will take the axe. He starts for Great Britain in order to inaugurate his policy, and his offer, shorn of any unnecessary verbiage, is that Great Britain should undertake to buy Canada's wheat, but that there should be no corresponding undertaking from Canada to buy British goods.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Oh, yes.


James Layton Ralston: I will deal with that in a moment, if my bon. friend will just permit me to continue. Then the right hon. Prime Minister quoted the attitude of the different dominions, and I understood him to say that the dominions were all behind him.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: Here is what the Prime Minister of Australia was prepared to do, as appears on page 41 of the report of the conference:
I have spoken about the value of the Australian market and of the preferences we extend to British trade because the very fact that we already do so much makes it more difficult for Australia to find further methods of help compared with another country that had done less. Australia, is, however, willing as a part of a definite policy of Imperial economic cooperation, to examine every method of assistance. We will willingly consult with the representatives of your manufacturers to see if it is possible, without sacrificing any important Australian interests, to afford a greater degree of preference to certain goods and we will also sympathetically consider any representations which your manufacturers may desire to make in regard to the administration of our preferential system.
Compare that attitude with the attitude of my right hon. friend who puts the tariff wall up so high that British goods cannot get over it, and then wants to give a preference by adding another 10 per cent to that tariff against foreign goods. Mr. Scullin was ready to give a greater preference, and then he went on to say:
... .1 must definitely declare that tariff preference is, in our opinion, much the most satisfactory form of help.
In making this statement, I must not be considered as attempting any form of dictation. It is for the government and parliament to decide what methods, if any, shall be adopted. W'e will cooperate in any practical plan which may be jointly approved. I should, however, be wanting in frankness if I did not make our position clear.
Does that sound like supporting the Prime Minister of Canada? Does that sound as if _it were backing him up? Did our Prime Minister propose a greater preference? I say that the Prime Minister of Australia was here proposing directly the reverse of the proposition which the Prime Minister of Canada had made.
What about Mr. Forbes? My right hon. friend read an extract from his remarks, declaring that Mr. Forbes was behind him. Let us see to what extent Mr. Forbes supported my right hon. friend. In the extract which the right hon, gentleman read, and which appears at page 63 of Hansard, this is tvhat Mr. Forbes said:
As a second step, I feel that a tariff preference in this country in favour of empire products (including foodstuffs), accompanied-
Note this.

by increased preference in favour of British goods in the overseas empire-
And so forth. Does that sound like backing up the Prime Minister of Canada, who says in effect: "I will not permit any change 
in the policy I propose. We have examined all alternatives and this is the only one we can accept"? Mr. Forbes proposed a greater preference to British goods. The Prime Minister of Canada does intimate in one place that there may be a greater preference, but he proposes it by raising a higher wall against foreign goods and not by lowering the wall between Canada and British goods. He does it by putting up this mock preference a little higher.
My right hon. friend says, in his speech, "So you have New Zealand behind Canada." Well, these are two of the gentlemen who are said to have supported the Prime Minister of Canada in respect to that proposition. Let me read one extract more, which I regard as illuminating. It shows the position of the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I wish my right hon. friend the Prime Minister were here, so that I might ask him whether or not New Zealand was in the same position as these other countries in having an adverse balance of trade against her. I do not know, and I was not able to find out from a study of the Imperial conference report. But, as reported at page 229 of the report, these are the words with which Mr. Forbes left the conference:
We accept the position,-
That is, the position which Great Britain took, of not being able to put a duty on foodstuffs.
We accept the position, and we wish to make it clear that our regrets on this account will make no manner of difference in our attitude or in our policy towards this country. We shall return to New Zealand with the fullest determination to continue -our system of preference to British goods, and to increase it where possible, and we shall leave no stone unturned to maintain and strengthen the already existing sentiment in favour of buying in the British market. On our part we leave it to the good will of the people of the United Kingdom to purchase our products wherever possible. We value that good-will very highly indeed-we reciprocate it most heartily-and we will continue to do what lies in our power to strengthen it.
With what statement did the Prime Minister of Canada leave Great Britain? This is what he said:
But if her proposal is to be thus contemptuously rejected Canadians can only accept the rejection and act accordingly by embracing other means at hand of further strengthening her economic position in the world.
I put these two statements side by side. The Prime Minister suggests that Mr. Forbes backed him up. That is the way he backed him up, and that is the attitude he took on that occasion.

The Address-Mr. Ralston
Now for South Africa. They had an adverse balance of trade, and the representative of that dominion said that:
South Africa would welcome the extension of trade relations in the commonwealth by agreements providing for reciprocal tariff benefits, .... and we hope that it will be possible at this conference to devise means by which we shall be able to sell more of our produce to her-
That is, Great Britain.
-and also to be in a position to take more of her products.
That is the attitude of the Prime Minister of South Africa. Mr. McGilligan referred to the adverse balance against the Irish Free State and he expressed the hope that the exchange would rapidly extend in scope and value. Sir Richard Squires, the Prime Minister of Newfoundland, referred to the fact that his country was in a somewhat different position on account of her international trade, mentioning Greece and other countries.
My right hon. friend quotes these prime ministers as backing him up. Australia, South Africa and the Irish Free State all had adverse balances of trade against them whereas Canada had a favourable balance of trade. That is the first point to be noted. In the second place, Australia and New Zealand definitely suggested greater preferences, and South Africa suggested it in general terms. Not one of them approved of the Prime Minister's offer, with which I shall deal in a moment, and which is the really important thing, because it showed the practical application of his general suggestion. They spoke of reciprocal preferences, but not one agreed with the offer of the Prime Minister. Every one of them was flexible and accommodating, whereas my right hon. friend, on the other hand, was unbending and dogmatic. That was the difference in the presentation of their respective cases by the various prime ministers.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You don't know what you are talking about.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Layton Ralston: I am perfectly willing to be asked questions but I must object to such an interruption. I wish to point out more particularly that my right hon. friend, although he talked considerably about what was done at the Imperial conference, did not vouchsafe to the house the slightest explanation of the offer which he made and of the action which was going to exemplify how his general theory would be applied in practice. We must therefore take it that his offer was as has been frequently stated. This is the effect of it: Before leaving Canada he puts up the tariff
against Great Britain, and then goes to Great Britain and says, "If you will put a duty on wheat against Russia, the Argentine and everywhere else except the Dominion, we will raise our general tariff by 10 per cent; but we will not put that 10 per cent on the portion of the wall between us and you, which is already so high as to be prohibitive and unscalable by you with your goods."


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: May I ask my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Mr. Speaker,-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: If my hon. friend- Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I want to say-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Why? Have I not the right-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The	hon. member for
Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr.	Ralston) has indicated that he does not wish to pause in his speech to listen to questions. The hon. member will kindly allow him to continue.


James Layton Ralston: I must slightly correct that statement, Mr. Speaker. I indicated that in view of the nature of the interruption I did not propose to take up time answering questions.
Now, that is the offer which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister made to Great Britain. I do not yet know, and I do not know whether this country knows, whether there was to be a 10 per cent duty imposed by Britain on wheat. He later explained his offer by saying that this 10 per cent was not 10 per cent on the value of the goods, not 10 per cent ad valorem, but was only a 10 per cent increase in the rate of duty. In other words, if the rate were 30 per cent it would not be increased to 40 per cent but to 33 per cent. How that would apply to Great Britain I do not know. Great Britain has no duty on wheat. Whether she would start with a duty of 10 per cent and add a tenth to that, or whether she would start with a duty of 3 per cent, I do not know. The Prime Minister has not told us, but it looks to me as if what my right hon. friend was asking from Great Britain might have been that she should impose a duty of 10 per cent on her foodstuffs in return for a preference of 3 per cent
The Address-Mr. Ralston

given by us. My right hon. friend has not vouchsafed any explanation so that we do not know what his view is.
We have read this offer and we have wondered just who really was the author. Three ministers accompanied the Prime Minister to Great Britain. I know the judicial mind of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) and I know that he would be able to sift a proposition and decide whether or not it contained convincing argument and logic. In examining this offer I find it hard to bring myself to believe that the hon. Minister of Justice was consulted with regard to that particular offer. I know the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) but I do not believe that his commercial sense is such that he would consider an offer of this kind as being good business. I can hardly picture him sitting around the council board with the right hon. the Prime Minister, listening to the reading of this memorandum and giving it his approval as a proposal which would appeal to an already good customer. I know my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), who seems to be the only member of the cabinet present at the conference who is in the house at this moment. I know his grace and affability and the inborn politeness of his race, and I can hardly conceive of his making any such blunt and dogmatic proposal as this one. As for the Prime Minister, he is an adornment to the profession of the advocate and he knows what presentation will carry his hearers with him, and I sometimes doubt whether even he was the author and initiator of this proposal. I wonder sometimes whether the gentleman who is now the minister designate to the United States may not have been trying out his hand on state documents and practising for the work of ministerial notes and ambassadorial messages. If this was the case, brilliant though he is said to be, one could wish he had experimented on something less important and not so fraught with serious consequences to Canada. In any case, the Premier salesman for Canada is^ the one who is responsible for this offer. We do not make a personal complaint against him, but we do complain that in his official capacity he has not observed what would appear to be the ordinary principles of salesmanship, that is, first, the creating of an atmosphere of good will and confidence, and secondly, having the other party feel that he is getting a square deal.
Judged by these standards the question is whether my hon. friend has been successful. What has he done? First, through his insistence, his dogmatism and his attitude of 
excluding any form of bargain but his own, he has created an atmosphere of irritation and annoyance. Secondly, he asked and almost demanded that Great Britain change completely her fiscal policy; that country was to make a complete right about face in the taxation of her food. Thirdly, he proposes to pay for this with what a great many people believe to be an absolutely worthless gesture. I do not think he can blame the people of Great Britain if they looked a little askance at the proposal which he made. However, he seemed to be annoyed with some of the gentlemen over there. The right hon. gentleman prides himself on using plain and blunt language, but when those gentlemen copied his mannerism he complained. I read a moment ago the rather curt rejoinder which he made, that Canada would make economic arrangements somewhere else if her offer was to be thus contemptuously rejected. I wonder where he and his government propose to make these other economic arrangements.


An hon. MEMBER:: Washington.


James Layton Ralston: No, not Washington.
The right hon. Prime Minister stated the other evening that it was other intra-empire arrangements. I wonder how much wheat we will be able to sell to New Zealand or to Australia or South Africa. In 1929 we sold to the other dominions something like
854,000,000 worth of goods, while during the same period we sold to Great Britain $290,000,000 worth, and of this 54 millions only $15,000,000 represented agricultural products. How does my right hon. friend propose to carry out the threat which he made when he left Great Britain, about these other arrangements?
My right hon. friend also remarked that his attitude had been approved by all the newspapers in Great Britain with the exception of one. My time will not permit me to read the extracts which ll have from different journals in Great Britain, but the following appeared in the New Statesman on November I, 1930:
Mr. Bennett may have hoped but can hardly have believed that we should fall for his preposterous offer.
That does not seem to approve very warmly the proposal made by my right hon. friend. On October 25, 1930, the same paper stated:
The fact is that a Canada dominated by manufacturers who are determined to keep the home market to themselves cannot offer anything to British manufacturers which is comparable in importance to a protected position in the British market for Canada's wheat.
29;

The Address-Mr. Campbell
The Nation and Atheneum of October 18, 1930, contained an article strongly criticizing his olfer, which my time will not permit me to read. The following is a paragraph from the Spectator of October 25, 1930:
There is no doubt that protectionists are less in love with Mr. Bennett's proposal than they were at first sight. His first ambiguous language encouraged the belief that he was making a more generous offer than it now turns out to be. He was supposed to be offering a 10 per cent preference but it now turns out to be a three per cent preference.
The Round Table of December, 1930, contains the following:
Two months previously he (Mr. Bennett) had sharply raised the tariff duties on Great Britain's chief lines of exports to Canada, notably on textiles and now he was demanding a wholesale change in the British fiscal system without making any suggestion of a compensating diminution of the British preferential rates in the Canadian tariff, the present higher level of which can scarcely fail to cause a curtailment of British exports to Canada.
I commend these extracts to the attention of the house in view of what my right hon. friend has said as to the attitude taken by the British journals. I might mention also the very critical attitude taken by the Manchester Guardian and by the Herald.


Robert James Manion: Has the hon. gentleman
any extracts from daily papers other than the Manchester Guardian?


James Layton Ralston: I have here only the
extracts which I have quoted. I mentioned the Manchester Guardian and the Herald which both referred to the matter in a way which did not indicate a great deal of approval of the Prime Minister's proposal.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why does not the
hon. member quote the others?


James Layton Ralston: That is the situation which exists in Great Britain. My right hon. friend seems to think	that the
atmosphere today is better than ever before. If it is better than before, and if relations are not strained, it is not because of but in spite of what has been done by this government and by my right hon. friend. It is because of the proverbial self-restraint of our friends overseas. They are the ones to whom credit should be given, and all the more when we remember not alone the attitude taken by my right hon. friend but also the attitude taken by the gentleman who has lately been appointed High Commissioner to Great Britain, who took upon himself to state what he proposes to do in Great Britain. I will quote very briefly from his remarks before leaving Canada, as follows:
Now, I am not going over there to sell wheat.
I am going to London with the hope that I may be able to do something to remould or revive the contemporary spirit of the British people. My observations over there are brief and perhaps unreliable. In the old country patriotic fervour, British persistence, British traditions, have to a large extent broken down.
He speaks of unemployment, and continues :
I can assure you I never would have thought of leaving the happy hunting:grounds which I have enjoyed here for some time, if I did not think there was a real need for somebody to revive the old spirit of pride and self-respect for their country.
He then followed that up by a statement which appeared in the British newspapers to the effect that he deprecated very much the idea of the slogan, "Buy British goods made in England by British labour." Remember, Mr. Speaker, that this complaint is made by a gentleman appointed by a government which got into power on the slogan "Canda first", and the essence of whose policy is, they say, the welfare of the home producer. This is the audacious criticism made by our representative in the land of a customer who already .buys nearly twice as much from us as we do from her, and this gentleman is appointed by a government whose Minister of Trade and Commerce has spent a good deal of time and considerable of the country's money in sending out letters and getting Canadian consumers to subscribe to an illuminated creed pledging themselves to buy Canadian made goods.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I believe it will be readily admitted that the condition of agriculture in Canada is the most acute problem with which the house must grapple, and the success or failure of the government will be largely determined by their attitude towards this problem and the measure of success attending their efforts to solve it. Much gratuitous advice is being given to the western farmers, very largely by men who know least about the agricultural industry. The most common admonition in this regard is to get into mixed farming. With eggs selling on the prairies at ten cents a dozen in the middle of February, and at seven cents a dozen to-day, it is quite obvious that an increase in the production of mixed farm products will not help to solve our problem. In this connection it may be pointed out that the much calumniated western farmers, in addition to raising an enormous grain crop, produce more mixed farm products such as cattle, hogs, butter, eggs and dressed poultry per capita than do the farmers of eastern Canada.
29S
The Address-Mr. Campbell

I have in my possession some figures which have been handed to me by the Bureau of Statistics and which prove that statement. For purposes of comparison I have grouped Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces together as the eastern provinces, and Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta together as the western provinces. These figures show the average number or quantity on the farms of Canada in June, 1930, for cattle and hogs, and in 1929 for butter and eggs:
Eastern farms Western farms Per farm	Per farm
June, 1930	June, 1930
Cattle	
10.65	13.62Hogs	
4.44	5.85
The quantities of butter and eggs produced are for the year 1929, the last year for which figures are available. The table continues:
1929	1929
Butter	 345 lbs. 355 lbs.
Eggs are shown by weight rather than by the dozen.
1929	1929
Eggs	 291 lbs. 345 lbs.
Even these figures do not do justice to the prairie agriculturist, because there are in western Canada large areas that, owing to the shortage of water and other drawbacks that are not common in eastern Canada, are totally unsuited to mixed farming. Therefore, if we take those areas in western Canada where mixed farming is possible, the relative difference in the figures for production will be much greater than is indicated by the figures I have given. In this connection may I quote from a Regina paper of January 28 last. The article is headed:
Professor Howes advises thought before rushing into mixed farming.
Counselling farmers against stampeding into mixed farming on the broadcastings of advice from all parts of the country, Professor E. A. Howes, dean of the college of agriculture, Edmonton, Wednesday morning spoke to the delegates of the twenty-second annual convention of the Saskatchewan Dairy Association. The dean drew attention to sweeping arguments in favour of diversified farming which became prevalent with the drop in wheat. He recalled that the same shout had gone up in favour of grain, in other years. Stating that westerners had been guilty of illogical practices in the past, he said they should try to avoid making the same mistakes again.
I do not suggest that these difficulties are peculiar to Canada. We are facing a world problem and all that can be expected of Canada is that she shall take her share of responsibility and do her part in solving her share of the problem. I have under my hand nearly 100 resolutions of various kinds passed by farm bodies, boards of trade and

various public bodies in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, making recommendations to the government for the solution or the partial solution of the farm problem. Many of these advices are in direct conflict with others. Many I consider unsound and uneconomic, and if applied they would have disastrous results. Others again I consider practicable, but owing to the fact that public opinion is not ready for them I would not expect this government or any other government to apply them at the present time. Not only, however, do I consider others practicable, but I believe public opinion is ready for them and I propose to make to the government some concrete suggestions based on the latter class. These I will summarize under seven heads as follows:
1.	Necessary adjustments in the monetary system to enable it better to serve the purpose for which it was created.
2.	Elimination of (a) advertising, (b) salesmanship, and (c) collection costs in connection with the selling price of farm implements.
3.	Reduction in domestic grain rates to the level of export freight rates.
4.	Elimination of immigration activities on the part of our railway companies and the amount thus saved to be passed on to the farmers in reduced freight rates.
5.	Enforcement of the 7 per cent clause in the Bank Act.
6.	Governmental action towards amortization of existing farm mortgages in western Canada and reduction in interest rates.
7.	That every possible effort be made to secure a preference for our wheat in the British market at the coming Imperial conference and that we offer in exchange a substantial reduction in the duty on British manufactured goods.
With respect to number one, the time allotted to me, namely forty minutes, will not suffice to give a full expression of my opinion with regard to the monetary system, and a brief reference will have to do. Mr. C. E. Neil, President of the Royal Bank of Canada, in an address delivered some time ago. to the shareholders of that bank, said that if the central banks of the outstanding countries of the world were to adopt a common policy, they could at will stabilize, raise or lower commodity prices. That is not a new doctrine. It has frequently been expounded from these benches; it has often been enunciated by professors of political economy, but seldom before has it been put forward by an

orthodox banker and a banker of the standing of Mr. C. E. Neil. This means in effect that the banks really have in the hollow of their hands the power to create conditions of prosperity or depression.
May I be permitted to quote another distinguished financier? This is an article in MadLean's magazine of January 15 last, by Mr. T. B. Macaulay, President of the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada. Referring to the drop in the commodity price level, Mr. Macaulay says:
It has been the chief cause of the severity of this depression.
Then he goes on to say:
There is a fairly general agreement among economists that this drop in the average price of commodities has been caused by a lessening of the purchasing power of the dollar, which in turn depends on the amount of dollar currency and currency credits outstanding.
Then further on, he states:
It is admitted that in the United States the purchasing power of the dollar depends entirely on the amount of currency and currency credits which the federal reserve authorities may permit to be outstanding.
No statement could be clearer than that last one. This statement comes not from a political economist, not from a member of the group to which I belong, but from an outstanding banker, one of the most outstanding in Canada. His opinion should be convincing proof of the contentions put forward from these benches many many times in the past. In the address to which I referred, Mr. Neil placed the responsibility for the present depression largely on the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States because that bank in the fall of 1929 drastically deflated and curtailed credits. I think therefore it will be admitted generally that the price of commodities is very largely determined by the amount of money in circulation. Generally speaking I believe the statement will hardly be challenged that if you double the amount of money in circulation the price of commodities will double. That is a general statement. If the amount of money in circulation is reduced by one-half the commodity prices will drop to one-half their former amount. It is patent then that any sudden contraction in currency or credit will have a disastrous effect on business. Agriculture always suffers more than any other industry because of its unorganized condition. During a period of depression manufacturers are able to reduce their output by laying off their employees and perhaps by getting together and stabilizing prices. Our farmers are in competition and therefore they are not able to do that.
The Address-Mr. Campbell
The extent to which the industry of agriculture suffers in comparison with the manufacturing industry is clearly set forth in a bulletin issued by the Bank of Nova Scotia for the month of March. On page 2 of this bulletin there is a very interesting chart with a line indicating the relative drop in the price of various commodities. Taking the figure 100 as a basis of high prices in September of 1929 the chart shows that manufactured goods have dropped to only 85 while farm products have dropped to 54. The comment is as follows:
From September, 1929 to date the index of farm products has declined by 46 per cent, while that of manufactured goods is only 15 per cent lower.
Without at the moment considering any fundamental changes in the monetary system may I suggest that there should be one or more experts who would have power to supervise and in a measure control the whole banking system. These men should have the power to check any drastic action or anything in the way of inflation or deflation, except when those conditions exist only in very moderate degree. In this connection may I refer to a distinguished economist, Sir George Paish. In the spring of the year 1929 he predicted that we were facing the greatest financial crash in history. At that time his statement was not taken seriously by business men or economists and certainly not by the great majority of the financial class. The position of many of these financiers reminds me of a great many people who drive motor cars. We find thousands of men and women driving high powered motor cars who are quite capable drivers so long as nothing goes wrong with the motor. They are able to start and stop their machine, to apply the brakes properly and may be classed as reasonably good drivers. However they have no conception whatever of the mechanical operation of the cars under their control. They know nothing at all about the principle of internal combustion engines or how the power is applied from the motor to the car itself. When anything goes wrong they are absolutely helpless and must employ the services of a mechanic. It seems to me that a great many of our outstanding financiers are in the same position. As long as things run smoothly they can operate the machine very satisfactorily, and are able to make money by the operation. When something goes wrong, however, they do not know what is the trouble and it requires a man of the stamp of Sir George Paish to point it out. In all seriousness I would recommend to the gov-
The Address-Mr. Campbell

ernment the employment of such a man to advise and assist us in dealing with, existing conditions.
Very great hardships are imposed upon business people and farmers in periods of deflation by the change in the value of debts. Those who borrowed money in 1918, 1919 and 1920 actually secured a 50 cent dollar and were obliged to pay back in the deflation period following that at the rate of 100 cents on the dollar. Their debts were actually doubled. This applies to public as well as to private debts. As a matter of fact it is in these inflation periods that most of our borrowing is done because that is the only time money is plentiful, when banks are handing it out quite freely and mortgage and other financial institutions have an abundance of cash. Most of our debts, public and private, are created in those inflation periods, and it is because of that fact we are suffering at the present time.
Let me give the house a simple illustration of how, in my opinion, this system works. We will take the case of a baker whose responsibility it is to supply the community with bread. He bakes 1,000 loaves of bread daily, sufficient for the needs of the community. In order to secure financial support or something of that nature he makes an arrangement with a banking corporation and agrees to give the bank a monopoly of the issue of bread tickets and at the same time binds himself to sell the bread over the counter only in exchange for bread tickets. In the regular course of events 1,000 people present themselves at the bank and ask for 1,000 tickets. The tickets are purchased and those people are in a position to go to the bake shop and secure bread. As long as matters run smoothly the system works very well, and there is no disturbance whatever. One day, however, these
1,000	people present themselves at the bank; the banker shrugs his shoulders and states, "Why, bread tickets are scarce; I have instructions from head office to curtail their issue." The people in the community have the money in their pockets to buy 1,000 loaves of bread; the consuming capacity of the community equals the 1,000 loaves of bread. Yet that community must suffer privation because of what?-because of the scarcity of cardboard. That is about all it amounts to. I *know I will be told that the analogy is not correct; I will be told the trouble to-day is that we have not sufficient money. I want to draw a distinction between real money and the circulating medium. In this case the cardboard is the circulating medium; the real

money of the farmer is the wheat, cattle, hogs, butter and eggs which he produces. The real money of the workingman is the labour of his hands. The only function of a circulating medium is to provide means by which people can exchange their commodities for what they need. When the monetary system fails to do that I say it has failed-as ours has at the present time-in its primary function. May I quote from an article in MacLean's magazine of January 15 last from the pen of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). This is a thoughtful diagnosis of the present situation and does credit to the minister who wrote it. In part it says:
One is forced to admit that there is no overproduction, but on the other hand there is under-consumption and what is worse, maldistribution.
In summing up his argument in this regard the minister says:
That, to my mind, is the chief problem calling tor immediate consideration by all who would preserve our present-day civilization.
Those are strong words, and they must be taken seriously, particularly coming from a minister of the crown. I do not think they are a bit too strong. The minister says that we must solve this problem of mal-distribution if present-day civilization is to be preserved. In my opinion-and I think I can get a good deal of support for it-the faulty credit system is the biggest single factor in what the minister calls mal-distribution.
With regard to number two, Russia, our greatest competitor in the wheat market, today, is purchasing her implements at cost, plus f.o.b. factory. There are no advertising costs, no collection costs, no salesmanship costs in connection with the price at which Russia ^ is securing her farm implements. Those implements are going to Russian farms at prices far below those at which our farmers are able to secure them. I believe by the elimination of the factors mentioned these implements could be sold to our farmers at from 35 to 40 per cent less than the prices we have to pay for them to-day. I know those figures may seem extreme, it may be hard to credit them, but they are based on figures which have been quoted to me by responsible officials of at least two of our great agricultural implement manufacturers. The losses by bad debts, for instance, are immense, and under the accounting system of the companies those losses are charged up to collection costs. Of course, if we eliminated those factors it would mean that the farmer would have to pay cash for his implements. Well, he has

The Address-Mr. Campbell
been buying too much on time in the past, and I believe if the price is reduced he will be able to pay cash. Under the new tariff policy inaugurated last September the government is undertaking, to some degree at least, to set prices, and in so far as they have succeeded in doing so-and I must confess I have not been able to prove any instances where they have not succeeded-it proves that governments can set prices. I would suggest to the government that they undertake an examination of this question and use the legislative club, if necessary, to bring about a reform in that regard. A few days ago the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) made what I considered a very valuable suggestion to the house. He said that the question of the price of farm implements should be referred to the committee on agriculture. I commend and support that suggestion, and would suggest also that this particular angle of the elimination of the factors I have mentioned be taken up by the committee and that it make definite recommendations thereon. If we are to be able to meet the competition of Russia in the great markets of the world we must remove every possible handicap from the grain-growing industry, and while this is only one of the handicaps, yet to my mind it is a very important one indeed.
With regard to number three, the difference between the export and domestic freight rates on grain, the farmers in British Columbia and in the eastern provinces are obliged to pay about double the export freight rates on our coarse grains, and this has been a big factor in eliminating almost the only market we have for those grains to-day. Instead of quoting my own figures, perhaps I could not do better than give the house a few extracts from an address delivered by Dean Shaw of the Saskatchewan college of agriculture. It was published in the Western Producer of January 22nd last. He said:
Just how do these rates operate? For instance, a car of grain may be shipped from Saskatoon to Liverpool on a rate of 62 cents per cwt. or to Copenhagen for a few cents more.
However, if a Canadian farmer living in the eastern townships of Quebec, say Sherbrooke, wants to secure a similar car of grain from Saskatoon he must pay 574 cents per cwt. from Saskatoon to Montreal and 13 cents per cwt. from Montreal to Sherbrooke, or a total rate of 704 cents per cwt.
If he lives in Truro, Nova Scotia, it will cost him 74 cents per cwt. If he lives in central Ontario, say at Guelph, it will cost him a rate of 654 cents per cwt. Now let us ship this oar of grain westward, via Vancouver and the Panama canal, to Liverpool. To do this will cost about 57 cents per cwt. but if a
farmer in British Columbia, located at Langley, some thirty miles or so from Vancouver, wants to purchase a similar car of grain and ship it from Saskatoon, it will cost him just 504 cents per cwt. although the part of the export rate from Saskatoon to Vancouver is just 24 cents per cwt.
Take another instance. If I wish to purchase a carload of grain at Melfort, Sask., and ship it to Assiniboia, Sask., a distance of about 300 miles, it will cost 244 cents per cwt. The same car of grain could go to Fort William for 22 cents per cwt. from Melfort, or from Assiniboia to Fort William for 22 cents per cwt., although in either of the latter cases the distance is three times as far.
He goes on to say:
A direct result is that eastern Canadian farmers are unable to use western Canadian grain. Instead, they use large quantities of corn imported from the United States and the Argentine. It is not used because it is better, but largely because it is cheaper.
Now, in regard to number four, figures quoted a few years ago before the special railway committee were to the effect that the Canadian National Railways were spending annually upwards of $800,000 a year on immigration. It is reasonable to suppose that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would be spending a like amount. In my opinion the immigration activities of these two companies are not only unwarranted and unnecessary from a national standpoint, they are actually harmful to the agricultural industry, because by uneconomically putting more people on the land and increasing production they have lowered the standard of living of our farmers.
With regard to number five, bank interest, let me say that the farmers of the west are being charged from 9 to 10 per cent on past due bank loans. A 7 per cent maximum rate is provided by the Bank Act, but it is being evaded by technicalities. Governmental action in this regard is long overdue, and I appeal to the government to see to it that the original intention of parliament in this regard is carried out.
Now, with respect to number six, the question of farm mortgages. In my opinion the greatest single problem facing the farmers of western Canada to-day is the mortgage indebtedness against their lands. Undisputed possession of a piece of land is fundamental to everything else in the agricultural industry. Recently in the Saskatchewan legislature a figure of $215,000,000 was quoted as the value of the mortgages applying against Saskatchewan farms, and $32,000,000 as the Saskatchewan farmers' annual interest bill on all indebtedness-mortgages, bank loans, implement notes, and so on. The interest on farm mortgages is 8 per cent and in some
The Address-Mr. Campbell

cases 9 per cent. Recently I read a statement by, I think, Sir John Aird in which he referred to interest on bank loans in the west as being at 7 per cent.
I understand that in some parts of the province of Manitoba money is being loaned to the farmers on mortgages at 7 per cent, but in twenty-five years of residence in the province of Saskatchewan I have never known of a single instance where a farmer secured money from a mortgage company at less than 8 per cent, and in some cases I might point out that they are paying 9 per cent. Bank interest, notwithstanding the Bank Act, is from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. Implement notes, for the most part, bear an interest rate of 9 per cent. No industry can stand a tax of this kind, and I would suggest legislative action to put a limit of 7 per cent on all interest indebtedness. I am not at all concerned with the fear sometimes expressed that the imposition of any restriction of that kind on the banks or mortgage companies will create hardship to the farmers by limiting the amount of money available. Let me say that if a farmer has to pay more than 7 per cent for money he is better off not to get the money at all. We have had too much false development in western Canada, too much money put out indiscriminately to develop the country which, instead of doing good, has worked a hardship on the community and has reacted unfavourably.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Just for information
would the hon. gentleman tell me approximately what he considers the amount of mortgages given for the purchase of land originally?


Milton Neil Campbell: That, would be very difficult to tell, because a great many of these mortgages never have been paid off. A man buys land under a sale agreement; later on when the amount owing is reduced, he will be asked to get a mortgage company to pay it off, so that question would be very difficult to answer.
I have many resolutions under my hand suggesting that the government take over the farm mortgages. That is one of the things for which I do not believe public opinion in Canada is prepared, so I do not expect the government to go into that business and take over all these mortgages. I know at the present time, in the present state of public opinion, it cannot be done, but I do believe there are middle courses which might be pursued. I would suggest to the government that they examine the French system. Some years ago the French govern-

ment forced all the mortgage companies to amalgamate and they created one company that was given a monopoly of mortgage loans in France. I know we are all afraid of monopolies; I am just as much afraid of them as anj'foody, but if a monopoly can reduce costs and if those reduced costs are passed on to the common people, I say a monopoly of that kind is what we want, and I am not afraid of it. I suggest that if such a policy should be pursued, the practice followed in France should be adopted here and the interest rate set by the government I understand that the French government, through some official body, controls this mortgage company very much in the same way our railway commission controls the operations of our railway companies. I do suggest to the government that something along this line be taken into consideration.


Mr. GEARY:: Is any reason given by the banks for demanding such a high rate of interest?


Milton Neil Campbell: I notice Sir John Aird, in his statement which appeared in the press a few days ago, gives as one reason for the high interest rates the enormous losses which the banks took in western Canada. My reply is that if they are using poor judgment in lending money to men on land that should not be lent, then they have no right to penalize the whole industry. Let them use better judgment and be more careful about the loans they make.


James Arthurs: The banks do not lend money on land.


Milton Neil Campbell: As a matter of fact the banks have a great deal of money in land, it is loaned directly in the first place, and then it is secured by a mortgage later on. The banks are in the land game to-day almost as much as the mortgage companies are in it. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) suggests that the excessive interest rates increase the risks, and that is quite true. It is my opinion that unless something is done farmers as a class will disappear in western Canada, and a landless tenantry will take the place of the sturdy, self-reliant yeoman farmers who have brought that Country to its present state of development. This is too terrible to contemplate, and something should be done before it is too late.
With regard to my seventh point, recognizing the fact that Great Britain is almost the only market for our wheat, the future of the grain growing industry in Canada is depen-

The Address-Mr. Moore (Chateauguay)
dent upon our ability to make some arrangement with the mother country with regard to this commodity. I do not believe this can be brought about in any other way than by offering Great Britain substantial reductions in the duty on British manufactured goods entering this country, in exchange for a preference or something of that kind in the British market. If the government makes such an offer to Great Britain at the Imperial conference, and that offer is rejected, then no blame can be attached to the government. That, at least, is one way the government can square itself with public opinion, and I earnestly appeal to the government to make some such offer before it is too late.
Before I conclude I wish to extend my congratulations to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) for the moral courage he displayed in making a public criticism of the banks, while almost, as one of the newspapers expressed it, in the shadow of St. James street. In this connection I should like to quote part of an editorial which appeared in the Western Producer for February 26:
Hon. Robert Weir, Minister of Agriculture, has been making Canadian history by openly, and right in Montreal, criticizing the Canadian banks. Criticizing the Canadian banks is not an outlawed sport, but the number of cabinet ministers who have been known to indulge in it could be counted on the fingers of one hand of an armless man.
I think that is quite correct and not an exaggeration. Certainly I do not recollect a single instance in recent political history of a federal minister of the crown coming out and making a public criticism of these sacrosanct institutions. When I first read that statement in the newspapers I thought the minister had been misquoted, and I looked for his denial. When that did not come I looked for his resignation from the cabinet, but when that did not come I concluded that a new era had dawned. I have been sitting in this house for ten sessions, and never before have I seen members on the government benches get up one after the other and openly criticize the banks. They are not doing it because they are any different from the men who sat on the government benches for the last nine years, but simply because the Minister of Agriculture broke the ice for them.
Apart altogether from the merits of the arguments brought forward by the minister; apart altogether from whether or not the points he brought up were correct, I say it is an unhealthy condition of affairs when public men, business men and farmers speak only with bated breath of these institutions. During the last year I have had many cases placed in my hands to be taken up with the
debt adjustment bureau of the province of Saskatchewan, not only by farmers but by business men as well. I have found that these men had no compunction or hesitation in placing in my hands cases having to do with mortgage companies or with machine companies, but when it came to banks it was a different thing altogether. In scores of instances I have been given the facts in connection with cases where it seemed to me the rankest kind of injustice had been practised on these men by banks, but in only two or three instances would they permit me to take up the matter with the debt adjustment bureau. In the back of their minds they had the fear that to do so would mean that they would be black-balled in securing credit in the future. I say that is not a healthy condition. It applies to business men just as much as it does to farmers, but the banks are not private institutions. They are semi-public institutions; they secure valuable privileges from parliament, and I say it is not a healthy condition when farmers, business men and public men are afraid to criticize them. They should be subject to criticism just as much as our government, just as much as any other public body; and apart altogether from the question as to whether they are dealing fairly with the people or not, I say that there is a vital principle at stake. Therefore, I congratulate not only the Minister of Agriculture on his moral courage but the government on having in its ranks a minister who has the courage to take that stand.


Mr. J. C. MOORE (Chateauguay-Hunting-don):: This house, Mr. Speaker, has always accorded courtesy and indulgence to new members when for the first time they venture to present their views on current public questions, and that indulgence I would ask for myself.
No one regrets the distress of the agriculturists of the western provinces more than I, representing as I do a farming community. When the price of wheat is low, so are prices of all cereals and of many other farm products. Farmers in eastern Canada are not immune from unfavourable conditions now unhappily prevalent in the west, and speaking for my constituents may I say that most desirous are we that a brighter day will soon dawn, that measures of remedy and relief will be found possible by legislation. I may add that to this end vituperation, wailing and threatening should give place to concrete practical suggestions for amelioration. To destroy eastern industries by the medium of a low tariff will not add one penny to the price of wheat; to bankrupt the railways of Canada by lowering rates below the cost of service would be to court disaster and destroy the
304	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Moore (Chateauguay)
national credit. The one remaining bank having its head office and its operations exclusively in the west has been compelled to submit to absorption because credits extended could not be repaid by its customers.
Speaking of bank rates, I do not think it required the advice or the criticism of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to convince me that bank rates are too high for farmers-7, 8 or 9 per cent. I do not think any bank is justified in charging more than 6 per cent to any agriculturist. That, I believe, is the legal rate of interest in the province of Quebec. Money may be loaned without expectation of return. Such is not the business of banks. Financial relief may be extended by parliament through the agency of the government to tide over a period of distress, in conviction of recompense in the long run; to which means, it seems to me, hon. members from western provinces should address themselves.
History constantly repeats itself. Like all other parts of Canada, and as in all countries, the west has had bitter days before. It has had low prices for grain, poor crops and widespread penury. Out of these the west has emerged before, and out of these the west will emerge again. I would not say to a starving man, "Have patience; live horse, and you will get grass." That is not the way of this government. It manifests its sympathy by action. What can be done consistently with the general interest will, I am confident, be done; and in the doing, private enterprise, private means and private patriotism are already rendering aid.
I would point out to hon. members from the west that agriculture Is an~ important industry in the central and maritime provinces. But while we export many farm and dairy products our best market is at our door. Probably not less than 80 to 85 per cent of the farm commodities produced between Fort William and Halifax are consumed within Canada. The farmers' home market is their best market, and whatever contributes to the enlargement of the home market contributes to the prosperity of the farmer.
While at home I consulted one farmer as to the price of milk on the Canadian border. He is an agriculturist who is sending his milk into New York state. We hear from hon. gentlemen opposite that protection does not get the agriculturist anywhere. As hon. members know, the United States is a highly protected country; it has always been from its infancy. There is no richer country in the world than the United States; there is no country in the world where all the people
lMr. J. C. Moore.]
enjoy the luxuries they do in the United States. This man is Still sending his milk there. He is paying 76 cents duty on his milk per hundred, and in the month of February was receiving $1.46i clear, while the farmers who are keeping their milk at home and manufacturing it in the creameries are receiving $1 and less. Still hon. gentlemen opposite will tell us that protection does not get a country anywhere. For years along the border in the county of Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon they have been sending milk to the United States, and for the last ten or twelve years they have been getting very often from 75 cents to $1 more for their milk than they were getting in Canada, Why? Because they have a market and population. And can we have a population without industry? If we are ever to have a home market for our farmers we must have protection. If the tariff to-day were entirely swept away and free trade substituted, is there any hon. gentleman opposite who can truthfully say that he would find a market for our wheat? They know better. Still we hear from opposite benches a great deal about free trade and low tariff.
Industries are essential to the creation of a home market, and in the rural parts of Quebec and, I believe, of all eastern provinces, there are no more ardent supporters of a fiscal policy as a means of promoting industry than the agricultural classes. My colleague, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel), in his admirable speech, dealt fully with the injuries suffered by the farmers under the policy of the late government, more particularly in respect to the gratuitous extension to New Zealand of the Australian treaty, with the result that butter was becoming a lost art in Canada. I will not allude further to this particular industry other than to say that as with butter so with every product of the farm. The agriculturists of the counties which I have the honour to represent demand a fiscal policy which will reserve to them their home markets, allowing domestic competition to ensure the regulation of prices.
The farmers of the west will in time to come possess a large home market created by the establishment of manufacturing industries in that portion of the country. The history of the United States shows a time when political power in that country was centered in the south; Virginia supplied her presidents. Then came a time when the eastern states, by reason of the increased population caused by the growth of industry, became most powerful. Then the great west was thrown

The Address-Mr. Moore (Chateauguay)
open, a large agricultural population sprang up, which, as is now the case in many parts of our own northwest, clamoured for a low tariff. However, with increasing population and improved transportation facilities there came about the establishment of factories and mills, until at the present day not only the centre of population but also the centre of industry has moved west in the United States, and in no part of that country is the policy of fiscal protection more strongly advocated. In our Canadian northwest there will be a repetition of the experience of the United States. Important manufacturing industries already have been established there; others will follow, and nothing is more certain than that the day will come when the home markets of the prairie farmers will provide a profitable outlet for the products of mixed farming.
During this debate as well as during the last elections we had from the mouth of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) a multitude of figures illustrative of the expansion of trade during his regime. He has attempted to show increases in bank deposits, in the circulation of currency, in railway traffic, and has given other instances of growing prosperity. I do not dispute these figures or facts, but it is pertinent to ask: Why did not the government of the right hon. gentleman continue this prosperity? What caused it to alter its course and suddenly turn a deaf ear and display a mahble heart to the people of Canada? If his government made prosperity, why did it not continue that prosperity? That is a fair question. No government can attribute to itself credit for good times without incurring responsibility for bad times. That times were bad during the later months of the- Liberal rule nobody can deny. A great deal has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite about times being bad since the Bennett government came into power, but not one is ready to admit -in playing politics you can hardly expect them to do so-that the bad times started long before the Mackenzie King administration went out of power.
A few figures will prove this statement. In the five months ended August 31, 1930, the Dominion revenue was 826,380,000 less than for the corresponding period in the preceding year, while expenditures were $7,519,000 greater. During that brief period practically all the large surplus of 1929-30 had disappeared and the public revenue rapidly was running into the deficit with which the present government is faced. Foreign commerce, upon which the right hon. leader of the opposition laid so much stress, during the five months 22110-20
ended August 31, 1930, amounted to $788,241,000, being $267,835,000 less than the same period in 1929, a decrease of 25 per cent. No one can contradict these easily remembered facts. Why did the Liberal government permit of a shrinkage amounting to one-quarter of Canada's foreign trade if, as it has so often boasted, it had the policy and the power to extend that commerce? The only answer is that the boastings of hon. gentlemen opposite are nothing but pure bunk.
I question no man's patriotism, but I am bound to say that the revelation of it made by some is peculiar. There are-
Those steady patriots of the world alone,
The friends of every country but their own.
World-wide patriotism in matters material may suit hon. gentlemen opposite but it does not appeal to me. I have been amazed to hear apologies made in this house for the Russian soviet and its ways, and have been astounded at the fact that for a few shekels men in this house and in this country are willing to place in the hands of the bolshevists weapons which may destroy the industrial life of Canada, disrupt our social system and degrade our standard of living. Give me instead men of whom it can be said:
Such is the patriot's boast, where'er we roam,
His first, best country ever is at home.
The proclaimed policy of the Conservative party is "Canada first." To the well-being, the happiness, the prosperity of Canadian people, our efforts are devoted and our measures directed. The pledges of the Prime Minister made during the last elections were accepted by the majority of the people and already they have been very largely fulfilled. They are to be further implemented during this present session and I have implicit confidence that ere long every one of them will be redeemed to the great gain and contentment of the people of Canada.
I was rather disappointed in the speech of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I expected to hear a speech of much higher calibre, as he is one for whom I think the majority of hon. members have a good deal of admiration. He seemed to have deserted the high plane upon which he usually conducts his discussions of public matters and to have resorted to camouflage. It is not my purpose to discuss at any length the last Imperial conference, but the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition upon this subject reminded me of an interesting and amusing book recently published, entitled "If It Had Happened Otherwise," being the speculations of a number of authors as to the consequences to mankind if cer-

306	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Moore (Chateauguay)
tain titanic struggles had had a different termination. We all admit, I suppose, that if the conclusions of the Imperial conference had been otherwise, the consequences would have been different; but no one, I venture to say, will for a moment impute to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald or Mr. Philip Snowden partisan motives when they rejected the scheme of preferential tariffs, or assume that the views of those gentlemen were influenced by the fact that the Prime Minister and not the leader of the opposition represented Canada at the conference.
The reaction upon the minds of the people of Canada to the attitude of the Prime Minister at the conference was, as it could not well fail to be, most favourable. For what was the Prime Minister's proposal, in plain, understandable language? It was that the prime ministers of the British commonwealth of nations should sit down and earnestly endeavour to devise a means of promoting mutual trade to the advantage and strengthening of the British Empire. That proposal is to receive further consideration in this city at an early date. It has not been rejected; a decision upon it has merely been postponed. Wliether a favourable conclusion will come out of the adjourned conference is in the lap of the gods, but of this I am certain, that the people of Canada desire a policy of preferential trade Within the empire and applaud the clear, firm, understandable attitude taken by the Prime Minister in London. He at least spoke the voice of Canada, while beside him stood the representatives of every dominion within the empire, manifesting their support.
We have heard a great deal from lion, gentleman opposite who seek to make it a reproach against the Prime Minister that he holds two cabinet positions, even though this arrangement is oiily temporary. The present government has been repeatedly dubbed a "one man" government. I am sorry that those members to whom I should like to address this part of my speech are not in their places this afternoon. But I will say that people in glass houses should not throw stones. The members to whom I refer, who are not in their seats this afternoon, have repeatedly twitted the Prime Minister on this being a one-man government and on his holding several portfolios at the same time. What is the situation in Quebec, where the Hon. Mr. Taschereau runs the province? I come from that province and I happen to know something about it. The Hon. Mr. Taschereau is, as everybody knows premier, provincial treasurer and attorney general. If 
the Prime Minister of Canada is an autocrat -and my hon. friends have dubbed him that-what will they call the Hon. Mr. Taschereau? In comparison with the Hon. Mr. Taschereau, the Prime Minister of Canada is as mild and docile as Mary's little pet lamb.
Mr. ST-PERE: You refused to elect one of your own nationality in Quebec. That is why Mr. Taschereau had to take the position of treasurer.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay):: I see we have some of my hon. friends over there. I thought they were all moderates this afternoon. From what I notice to-day in an Ottawa paper in connection with election contestation proceedings in Sorel, one of the Liberal voters testified on oath that he had received S50 for his vote.


Mr. JACOBS:: It was a Conservative who took the money. If he had been a Liberal he would not have taken it.


William Henry Moore: Is that a joke? A Liberal would have taken it. This is perhaps a little out of the ordinary, but I should like to illustrate the matter.
Mr. ST-PERE: It is a poor illustration so far.


William Henry Moore: It seems as though these hon. gentlemen are getting bitter. As an illustration, it will probably be recalled that last September we had a provincial election in Huntingdon county. There was some talk of a saw-off by the Liberal party. I think they had it arranged between Huntingdon and Two Mountains. Being the federal member, I had a good deal to do with this. This is usual in such a case as the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin), who is sitting on the other side, knows.


Mr. CARDIN:: I am not ashamed of my name.


William Henry Moore: No one is ashamed of his name. During my election campaign my hon. friend came into my riding and spoke at Ste. Martine, w'here he spent a good part of the afternoon, and for the first time in the history of Ste. Martine we broke even.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The result might have been worse otherwise.


William Henry Moore: I am sorry I have to say this now, because it is to other members not in the chamber to-day that I should have liked to say it. Mr. Taschereau chose a provincial treasurer for himself.

The Address-Mr. Moore (Chateauguay)
Mr. ST-PERE:	A good Scotchman.


William Henry Moore: Yes, a good fellow. I told him that on the platform. He was sent into the county of Huntingdon as a bribe to the electorate of that county, but fortunately in my constituency there are a number of people of ordinary intelligence and they did not consider taking the provincial treasurer without giving him a little opposition. I might also say that an acclamation was promised by Mr. Taschereau, otherwise I do not think Mr. Scott would have been interested.


John Livingstone Brown: That would be the reason Mr. Taschereau is still provincial treasurer.


William Henry Moore: One of the reasons, the same as might apply to our own minister. We had one of the hottest contests we ever had, and this little article which I saw in an Ottawa newspaper about a Liberal having received $50 for his vote and making an affidavit to that effect, is interesting to me because they were spending thousands of dollars in the constituency, and $50 was a very ordinary amount to be paid for a vote. A certain class in the country were left somewhat better off than they were before the election. I think they were getting wise; they accepted money and voted the way they felt. However, Mr. Fisher was elected and we won also the county of Two Mountains. I think therefore we were wise not to saw off. The constituency of Two Mountains was won. by the son of our illustrious Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). The young gentleman is twenty-two years of age and already has shown that the ability of the father has been transmitted to the son.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) in his remarks ridiculed the tariff of the present government. I am amazed that some people do not like to hear the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier mentioned. At one time I was one of his admirers and on two occasions voted for him.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: Before the hon. gentleman had his eyes opened.


William Henry Moore: Yes, probably before I had my eyes opened. I voted once or twice for Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I will tell you the reason I changed. The chief reason is that the Conservative party has always been consistent in its platform.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: And with its promises.


William Henry Moore: The Liberal party had one platform when it was in opposition and another when it was in power.
Mr. ST-PERE: Why did the hon. gentleman vote for Sir Wilfrid Laurier?


William Henry Moore: I am not
ashamed of my vote.
Mr. ST-PERE:	We hope the hon. member will do it again. It would seem to be an instance of the conversion of a sinner.


William Henry Moore: I had the
pleasure of listening to Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1911 when he was speaking about the reciprocity pact, as he called it. I remember very clearly some of the remarks of the silver-tongued orator, on that occasion; I recall some of his statements particularly well because they were typical of the Liberal platform at that time. He said:
These Conservatives are telling you that if this reciprocity pact, as they call it goes through, this country will be ruined. They told you when we were in opposition that if we got into power the country would be ruined. Has it been ruined since we came into power? The prosperity of the Dominion of Canada has never been so great since confederation as it has been since we assumed power.	,
True, they had had a prosperous period. Sir Wilfrid Laurier told, but half the truth, however; he omitted to state that the prosperity had developed through the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald. He did not say that he had opposed that policy when in opposition. Some hon. members will no doubt recall that Mr. Fielding entered the Laurier cabinet as a free trader. Am I right?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


William Henry Moore: After touring the country and realizing the value of industries in this country Mr. Fielding brought down what was known as the Laurier-Field-ing tariff, which in many respects was higher than any tariff proposed by the Conservative party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Henry Moore: I am sorry
some of my hon. friends on the other side have not remained in the chamber, because some of the things I am about to state will not reach the ears for which they were intended. However, may I say that we have listened to a tangled story of unrelated figures and theories-a hopeless picture has been painted. These theories revolve in circles and arrive nowhere. My hon. friends opposite
The Address-Mr. Factor

advise free imports to build up a strong national constitution. They forget that from her infancy the richest nation in the world has imposed the highest duties against- imports. The lines of the present government, Mr. Speaker, have not fallen on pleasant places. It has inherited from its predecessor a legacy of extravagance, of indecision in matters of high importance, of a weak and vacillating fiscal policy, of a people begging bread, crying for employment, fed with platitudes and shadows from the tomb. It has come into office in a period of world-wide depression, of stagnant trade, of unprofitable commodity prices. Its task is difficult but its courage and capacity are great. By that capacity and courage, Canada, I am satisfied, will win through to a new era of progress, prosperity and contentment.


Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Toronto West Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as the lone and sometimes lonely voice of Liberalism in this house from the great city of Toronto, may I at this time be permitted to participate in this interesting and very informative debate. At the outset however I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your elevation to the high and honourable position you now occupy. I feel certain that I voice the sentiments of every hon. member of the house when I say that you have discharged and are discharging the duties and responsibilities of your office with diligence, dignity and distinction.
At this time may I also be privileged to extend my personal, sincere and hearty congratulations to my leader the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the inspiring and masterly address he delivered at the beginning of this debate. I believe, I express the unanimous opinion of all those hon. members who surround and support him and also the opinions of a great many hon. members who sit opposite-although they would not admit it-when I say that the speech of my right hon. leader will go down in history as one of the finest and most powerful presentations of a current political situation ever made in this house. I am sure it will prove a source of information and inspiration to all of his followers in time to come.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I also as a new member of this house and a young man express my amazement at and profound admiration for the capacity and energy of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government. W ho said this was a young
man's age? The activity and capacity displayed by the right hon. gentleman clearly refutes that theory; or it may indicate that although not young in years he is still youthful in spirit. I believe it is the wish of every member of this house-certainly it is the wish of those of us on this side, although we do not entirely agree with the right hon. gentleman's policy nor with some of his activities-that he may long continue to enjoy good health and to possess as much vigour and vitality as he has already displayed in his conduct of public affairs.
But, Mr. Speaker, allow me with all respect to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that action without thought is useless; that political action without political thought is often very harmful. He and his colleagues seem to be imbued with the idea-seem to labour under the impression-that action is progress, and progress success, and in their eagerness to act they fail to pause and ponder the significance of their action and the effect of their legislation. A striking illustration of this has been furnished to us by the now famous fiasco of the duty on glass, dr as one newspaper termed it, the "tragedy of effort." Another illustration has been furnished within the last two or three weeks. The government placed an embargo on furs from Russia, ostensibly to protect the Canadian fur industry. But lo and behold we find the same fur industry, every branch of it, sending a delegation to Ottawa to protest against the embargo. That is another example of political action without political thought.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I had intended to present to the house some choice morsels in the way of promises and pledges made by the right hon. gentleman who by virtue of those promises and because of those pledges now occupies the position of Prime Minister, but time will not permit me to go into details. May I summarize his pledges and promises by saying that the right hon. gentleman promised to end unemployment-to provide *work for all those who want work-to build highways, waterways, railways, canals and bridges-to bring prosperity to this country as a whole, to enable Canadian workmen to keep themselves and their families in comfort. And these promises were to be carried into effect to the last syllable or the right hon. gentleman would perish in the attempt. Well, I do not think he himself or any of his followers will contend that he has ended unemployment or redeemed any of those promises even to the first syllable. But what does the right hon. gentleman claim that he
[Mr. J. C. Moore.}

The Address-Mr. Factor
and his government have succeeded in accomplishing since assuming office? Their claims are contained in the remarks made by him on the 17th March, as reported in Hansard of that date at page 59. He said:
Let me ask my right hon. friend and this house this question: Where would this country have been had it not been for the session last fall which gave employment to upwards of two hundred thousand people? Study if you will for a moment the figures of industry. In eight months new factories cannot be equipped and built, but they can be commenced, and the numbers that have been commenced in this country during those eight months are more than those during any other similar period in recent years. New factories? How many men in the counties represented by hon. gentlemen opposite are now finding full time employment against the short days and poor rations preceding the 28th of July? How many of them? What about cotton mills? What about woollen mills?
Later on I find these remarks:
There had to be a session of parliament, as there was, and it gave employment to upwards of two hundred thousand people. So that, with the industrial life of this country stimulated, with improved conditions with respect to employment, with the added employment of hundreds of thousands in the way of unemployment relief, I say that conditions in Canada, bad as they are, are not comparable to what they would have been had we not taken the action that we did.
These are fine words and imposing figures, but may I be permitted for a moment to analyze the statement and scrutinize the figures. In the latest official information furnished the press on March 11 we find that 228,351 individuals have been given employment and 3,975,355 man-days have been afforded to them from the commencement of operations under the Unemployment Relief Act up to February 28, 1931. The figures for Quebec are incomplete. Even these figures appear imposing, but let me analyze them a little closer. I find the government has been in office over seven months, it is over six months since the special session, and I believe fully four months since the unemployment relief branch of the Department of Labour began to function. During that time about
230.000	individuals were given employment, according to the statistics I have quoted,
230.000	individuals obtained 4,000,000 man-days' work. I have added 25,000 man-days' work to complete figures from Quebec. In other words, each man during four months worked seventeen days or at the rate of four days work a month. Analyzing these figures in another way, I find that in the four months that the legislation has been in actual operation we had 100 working days, or 4,000,000
man-days' work. The result is that 40,000 men were given full time work during the four months. At what cost? I want to refer the house to the Senate debates of March 18. But before I quote from those debates may I say this, Mr. Speaker. The answer of the right hon. Prime Minister to a question put to him a few days ago by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that as regards the appointment of a member of this house as Minister of Labour the intention of the government would be manifested by its action, I think may be regarded as a diplomatic answer or the answer of a statesman.
I submit, however, that the country is entitled to have a Minister of Labour in this house. At a time wffien many of our problems are concerned with unemplojunent, and revolve around labour and industry, this house is entitled to receive information direct, instead of through an acting minister. For instance, the questions in regard to the garment workers' strike in Toronto were answered by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon). The Minister of Labour said that $69,000,000 worth of employment opportunities had been placed within reach of the people of Canada, and that does not take into account the employment opportunities furnished by the two transportation systems, which bring this amount to about 880,000,000. To summarize the situation, sir, under the initiative of this government, with the aid that all the provincial and municipal governments had provided some $80,000,000, furnished about 40,000 men with four months' work, or 230,000 men with work at the rate of four days per month during that period. Surely the right hon. gentleman and his government will not claim that they have ended unemployment. They have not even reduced it. Unemployment is just as acute now as it ever has been, and in fact it is worse. In the city of Toronto two weeks ago last Sunday we had 5,500 men shovelling snow, and those men were obtained within an hour or two. This will show that the unemployment situation in Toronto has not been ended. Unemployment never will be cured until we properly diagnose some of our social and economic ills and apply proper remedies, even though the application of those remedies may require the readjustment of the relationship between capital and labour, between employer and employee and between the production and distribution of wealth.
Let us further examine the statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister. How many men in the counties represented by hon. gentlemen opposite are now finding full time employment as compared with short
The Address-Mr. Factor

time employment preceding July 28th? What about the cotton and woollen mills? I want to refer the house to an official document containing the facts and figures, and in answer to the hon. member who preceded me I might say that this is not a mass of unrelated figures and theories. This document contains actual figures which will be admitted by every hon. member of the house; it is published by the Department of Trade and Commerce, under the authority of Hon. H. H. Stevens, M.P., Minister of Trade and Commerce, and it has to do with the February employment situation.
I should like to refer the house to page 5 of this document, which contains a table showing the index numbers of employment by economic areas, the average being based on the calendar year 1926, as 100. We find that on August 1, 1930, the index number of employment throughout Canada was 118.8, while on February 1, 1931, it was 100.7, showing a decrease of 18.1. I should have informed the house that these figures are prepared from data and information secured by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics from 7,431 firms whose payrolls aggregate 904,315 persons, so if the index number for February 1, 1931, which was 100.7, represented a payroll of 904,315 persons it is a matter of mathematical calculation to ascertain that the index figure of 118.8 for August 1, 1930, represented a payroll of 999,570. According to those figures there were 95,255 less men employed in the various industries of Canada on February 1, 1931, than were employed on August 1, 1930.
Hon. members opposite may say that this represents the seasonal drop. I would refer them to the chart on page 1 of this document, which shows seasonal drops for a number of years. This proves conclusively that the seasonal drop for 1931 was the greatest and most pronounced since 1924. This table No. 1 gives the index number of employment so far as Ontario is concerned. We find the same situation in the province of Ontario if we examine it separately. On August 1, 1930, the index number of employment was 115.7, while on February 1, 1931, it was 101.7, showing a decrease of 14. On February 1, 1930, the index number of employment was 117.1, while on February 1, 1931, it was 101.7 showing a decrease of 15.4.
Now I should like to refer the house to another very interesting table contained on page 8 of this document, showing the index numbers of employment by industries, and I intend to refer particularly to two industries contained in that table, textile products and iron and steel industries. Before going into 
these figures I might make the general observation that hon. members opposite and their followers in their usual reckless manner, have blamed the Liberal administration and Liberal tariff policy for the ruin of the textile industries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Samuel Factor: I hear some hon. members saying, "Hear, hear." I do not know whether that exclamation applies to my remarks that their criticism is reckless in manner or whether they mean that the industry has been ruined. That statement is not correct, and in order to show the facts I intend to quote some figures from the report of the textile industry of Canada for 1928, which has been recently issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. We find that for 1928 Canada's production of textiles was valued at over $100,000,000 more than the production was valued at in 1922. This happened under Liberal administration and with Liberal tariffs.
Referring to the index number of employment by industries we find that in textile products the index number of employment for February 1, I960, was 103.5, while the index number for February 1, 1931, was 99.7, showing a decrease of 3.8. Now I come to the iron and steel products, another of the industries which the right hon. Prime Minister fondles and protects. The index number of employment on February 1, 1930, was 115,5 and on February 1, 1931, it was 93, showing a decrease of 22.5. This table contains statistics concerning 63 industries, of which 56 show a decrease in employment on February 1, 1931, as compared with February 1, 1930. There are only seven industries jvhich show increases and among them are such industries as construction, building of highways and so on, which received artificial stimulation.
Now I should like to refer hon. members to page 6 of this document, which gives us some information with regard to Toronto. I almost said Tory Toronto, but this designation does not apply now. We find that on August 1,
1930,	the index number of employment was 115.4, while on February 1, 1931, it was 107.1, showing a decrease of 8.3 in Toronto. On the last page of this document we find the index numbers of employment by cities and principal industries, and in the case of Toronto in, say, the textile industry the index number on February 1, 1930, is given as 108.1 as compared with 97.5 on February 1, 1931. In iron and steel, February 1, 1930, the number is 110.3 as compared with 88.2 on February 1,
1931,	a drop of 22.1; while in only one industry is a slight increase shown from Toronto, namely, in the retail trade. This shows at

The Address-Mr. Factor
February 1, 1930, an index number of 122.3, and at February 1, 1931, an index number of 123.7.
I think that the statements of the right hon. Prime Minister as to industry being revived and stimulated are not correct. As a matter of fact industry has not revived under the policies inaugurated by the right hon. gentleman, and the revival of industry-will never materialize if he maintains those policies, as I hope to show in a moment. What was the situation when the late administration went to the country? The world was in the midst of unprecedented, unparalleled economic depression; inflated stock markets crashed, the flood of unemployment was becoming more widespread; the world was almost distracted trying to meet its economic and social difficulties. That was the situation. It was a situation known to hon. members opposite; and whatever unemployment, whatever suffering existed in this country was due to world conditions and not to the policies of the former administration. Our bon. friends opposite and their followers played politics, a cheap brand of politics. They blamed the former administration for world conditions; they took advantage of a psychological situation; they took advantage of the suffering of the people and handed them a plethora of promises upon which they came into power. But apart altogether from these world conditions we in this country had a national problem of our own as a wheat-producing country, a problem exclusively our own, and that was the finding of profitable markets for our surplus wheat. I wish to refer for a moment to the report of the debates, revised edition of Hansard, of the last special session. Even the right hon. gentleman realized that situation. He knew what the problem was and knew the solution. As quoted at page 29 of revised Hansard we find that the Prime Minister had said:
Recognizing that the marketing of our natural products is a foremost factor in our national welfare I pledge our organization and machinery, in cooperation with private and financial agencies, to permanently establish effective marketing organizations in the countries with which we trade. With these drastic adjustments and improvements to which you are entitled, and with the full employment of our great transportation system, you will have broader markets, and will have them for all time. You have known suffering and have been patient. Let us end it. Take heart.
Well, the people took heart and put the right hon. gentleman into power. And what do we find? I believe that apart altogether from world conditions this trouble of unsold
surplus wheat for which we are unable to find a profitable market has been the source and chief cause of our economic depression, because it immediately effected a tremendous reduction in the purchasing power of the nation, with the inevitable consequences of distress, privation and unrest in the prairie provinces. But Ontario and the other provinces were bound to suffer almost equally, because we must remember that the western provinces consume annually about $200,000,000 worth of manufactured products, and with this purchasing power cut off, the manufacturers in Ontario and in the other provinces were bound to suffer, with the inevitable result of economic depression, accompanied by unemployment and suffering on the part of the people. That was the situation when the right hon. gentleman came into power. We on this side of the house, recognizing the seriousness of the situation, and being very anxious that he should go to the London conference in order to bring back some relief to rescue the farmers from their suffering, and industry from its depression, cooperated in every manner possible at the last special session. We allowed all the legislation to be passed without proper discussion; allowed an upward revision of the tariff to be enacted without proper analysis; even allowed the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryck-man) to become a law unto himself and without consulting parliament to effect changes in the tariff of the country by the subterfuge of the dumping duty. We allowed all this because we realized the seriousness of the situation and wished to cooperate with the government with a view of affording the country some relief. We were also hopeful that the right hon. gentleman would return from the London conference, bringing that relief to our suffering people.
Well, the economic conference took place, and the results are known to this country and to the world. I have not the time to read some of the comments on this conference but I do wish to say in all genuine sincerity that I have spoken with a great many Conservative friends in Toronto-and I have some Conservative friends in Toronto-as to the policies of the right hon. gentleman, and find that even his warmest supporter will not approve of his policies; because a Toronto Tory may be protectionist to the extent of protection against the republic to the south of us but he is not protectionist against the British Empire, against Great Britain. He will not approve of any barriers being set up against the motherland.
The Address-Mr. Factor

As a new member I listened with a good deal of attention to the explanation offered by the right hon. Prime Minister as to why he came back empty-handed from the London conference. I must admit I was astounded, being a new member, when he compared himself to Sir Wilfrid Laurier as to the conference of 1902. The former Minister of National Revenue gave a full explanation of the difference. But I went to my room and carefully read his speech, and I want to say that the very quotation cited by the right hon. gentleman disproved that claim and that contention. There is no similarity, there is no comparison between the methods of approach, nor is there any similarity or comparison so far as the proposals are concerned. The method of approach of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1902, as I read them, implied no demand, no threat. Sir Wilfrid Laurier did not attempt to tell the motherland how to run its business; he did not attempt to dictate the domestic fiscal policy of the mother land. I repeat, that there is no comparison, no similarity even in the proposals. What Sir Wilfrid Laurier said was, "If you remove the tax on Canadian foods we will increase the British preference." The right hon. gentleman decreased the British preference. He put up the barriers higher against Britain and then said, "You tax foreign foods and in return we shall offer"-what? Not easier access to our markets for British products but to make access to Canadian markets more difficult for other countries; that is what he does. Surely there is no comparison; and with all due deference and respect to the right hon. Prime Minister, I think it would have been a finer and more statesmanlike thing for him to have got up in the house and admitted that he was unsuccessful in the conference, instead of beclouding the issue by comparing himself to Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Although there may not be full agreement upon the part of all hon. members, I desire to offer a suggestion for the betterment of our national progress. Commercial, industrial and even agricultural progress is impossible with our present small population. Our national progress would be accelerated, our national problems largely solved and our future more reasonably assured if we had a larger population. I do not advocate an immigration policy under the present conditions of unemployment, but when we consider that we have nine million people spread over such a large area it does not require much consideration to come to the conclusion that this country can support more than that number of

people and that it requires more than nine million people to support it. Now is the time for the hon. Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) in consultation with the heads of our two transportation systems, in consultation with the leaders of labour, finance, industry and commerce, to evolve some sane, sensible and orderly policy of immigration for the near future under which honest, healthy and hard-working people will be per-mited to come to this country and contribute to its national life and culture. I protest against these unreasonable and inhuman deportations and refusals to readmit people to this county. I attach no blame to the minister; on the contrary I think he and his officials are discharging their duties impartially, efficiently and as humanely as the laws of the land permit, but I do protest strongly against the silly and stupid laws governing immigration and deportation. The sooner these laws are removed from our statute books the better it will be for our national life and progress.
I appeal to hon. members on both sides of the house, irrespective of party and representing as they do all the people, to remove from our body politic that cancerous growth of religious bigotry and racial passion. We may differ in politics, we may differ in solving our economic and social problems, but we should stand united for the good of our country. English and French, Catholic and Protestant, Jew and gentile, rich and poor, labourer and capitalist, old citizen and new citizen, let us all stand united to make this Canada of ours a better and healthier place in which to live, so to build our civilization and our culture that we may be rightfully filled with pride. Let us get rid of this antiforeign complex, this attitude and frame of mind which considers only the native-born as a good citizen and looks upon the new citizen as being a foreigner. Let us get rid of that provincialism which considers it Canadian to ostracize and despise the new citizen. If we do that, in spite of the trying times, in spite of the tremendous problems which we have to solve, in spite of the policies of the present government, I for one will have unflinching faith and implicit confidence in the future of this country because our people have that inexhaustible strength and vitality with which to solve our difficult problems.
On motion of Mr. Sauve the debate was adj ourned.
On motion of Mr. Rhodes the house adjourned at 5.50 p.m.

Easter Adjournment
Thursday, March 26, 1931