1931-03-26

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime
Minister) moved:
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, the 1st of April, it stand adjourned until Monday, the 13th of April, 1931.
Perhaps before the motion is passed, Mr. Speaker, I might explain why the adjournment is for a longer period than we would wish. Our new Governor General sails to-morrow from Liverpool and is expected to land in Halifax a week from Saturday; it is essential that he should be met by the members of the administration when he lands; he is expected to arrive here on the succeeding Tuesday. Under those circumstances, if the house were to meet on Wednesday or Thursday, the attendance probably would be very limited, and therefore it is thought desirable that we should adjourn until the succeeding Monday. I make the motion having regard to all these factors. I state them to the house in order that hon. members may realize that we would willingly make the adjournment shorter if we could, but under the circumstances we see no way by which it can be done.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to oppose the motion of my right hon. friend, 'but because I think it is an opportune time to draw attention to the late date at which parliament was summoned for this session. As hon. members know it was well on into March-


Mr. BENNETT:: March 12th.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the 12th of March, and with the Easter vacation following so soon thereafter, it means that we will be well on into the year before we make much headway with the business of the session. Having regard to the fiscal year, I do not think parliament was ever before summoned so late. I remember that when the recent Liberal administration came into office in
192.1,	it was the month of March when parliament was called together, though not as late as the 12th of March. The government of that day, however, was formed at the end of December; the present government came into being in the early part of August. It should have been possible for the administration to have arranged for the meeting of parliament in the month of January, or at the latest in the month of February.
Speaking on this subject, I would suggest to whatever government may be in office at any time the wisdom of bringing members together in the month of January, and arranging in due course for an Easter recess of a reasonable length. There is much to be said for an Easter recess of at least ten days or a fortnight, especially where parliament has been sitting for two or three months prior to that time; the ministry needs an opportunity of the kind in order to keep abreast of departmental and sessional duties, and to hon. members as well a short interval in which to give quiet thought to matters under dis-,cussion is all to the good. Excepting as to the lateness of the summoning of parliament,
I have not any criticism to offer with respect to the adjournment now suggested in view more particularly of the circumstances which the Prime Minister has mentioned.
Might I say to my right hon. friend, however, that he will probably be asking for interim supply before the adjournment. We shall endeavour to accommodate him, blit I hope he will also at the same time accommodate the house to some extent. There are on the order paper, many notices for the production of papers. I would ask that when the rules are being suspended to permit of interim supply being passed, the government also ask for suspension to permit of these motions being passed upon by the house, in order that the papers may, if possible, be brought down before the Easter adjournment. It would be of assistance to us to have the material called for in the notices of motion to look over during the recess.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am sure
we on this side of the house are deeply appreciative of the spirit in which the right hon. gentleman has indicated his intention with respect to this motion. I desire only to point, out that when the Liberal administration was formed after the general election in 1896 a short session was held, supply was voted, a few statutes were passed, and the house did not meet until the 26th of March, 1897, and although a new tariff measure and a substantial body of legislation were enacted parliament as a matter of fact was prorogued on the 29th of June. That was the first real session of the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. So far as this government is concerned, I can only point out that I have been in Canada really about four months since the government came into being, those being the
Easter Adjournment

months of January, February and March, and the month between the forming of the administration and my departure for the Imperial conference. We have endeavoured so far as it was possible to expedite public business, and I think that my right hon. friend will agree that that is so.
So far as parliament meeting on the 12th of March is concerned, the unexpected appointment of Lord Willingdon as Viceroy of India, complicated the situation. We were hopeful that his successor might arrive before parliament met, but when it became apparent that he could not sail until March 27 we called parliament for the earliest possible date. I think the house should know that I took steps to ascertain the probable intention of the British administration, in connection with Lord Willingdon proceeding to India, and had the unexpected not happened action would have been taken to prevent the difficulties which have since arisen causing delay in the calling of parliament.
I am conscious of the fairness of the request of the right hon. gentleman with respect to the passing of motions for the production of papers, but I can advise him in advance that -we are working at those papers now as though the resolutions had in fact been passed, and it was hoped that during the recess as many of them as possible would be completed so that they could be laid upon the table immediately the house resumed its sittings. Unless it becomes absolutely essential-and I think if the house meets on the 13th or 14th of April it will not be-interim supply will not be required before we adjourn on Wednesday next; but it will be necessary to pass supplementary estimates for the year ending the 31st of March, 1931, many of them, I think, being matters over which we have no control, some of them being matters raised in the Auditor General's report, and others being matters connected with the railways. It was my purpose on the morrow to discuss *with my right hon. friend opposite the most convenient time for us to submit those estimates for the consideration of the house. They arise in almost all the departments- small balances in connection with over-expenditure and governor generals' warrants in connection with the care of disabled soldiers during the winter. That question I would propose to submit to him to-morrow when the last detail has been furnished. As I say, I think we can avoid interim supply until such time as the house reassembles.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might be
well if my right hon. friend were to table the supplementary estimates to-morrow. After seeing the estimates we could then discuss the question as to the appropriate time and the length of time necessary for their consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I was hoping to do.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That this house will to-morrow resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.
He said: I make this motion in order to enable the supplementary estimates to be laid upon the table of the house to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 16 to amend the Dairy Industry Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GOBEIL (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the purport of this bill is to increase the fine exacted against those who adulterate dairy products.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: In view of the fact that the grants made to the provinces and municipalities with respect to the relief of unemployment were conditional on payment of the prevailing rate of wages, or a fair and reasonable rate of wages, I should like to ask the government whether they will give me the assurance that if cases are brought to their attention in which the prevailing rate of wages has not been paid, they will take steps to remedy the matter.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Whenever a complaint is received from a dependable source that the prevailing rate of wages is not being paid, the federal grant will be withheld until inquiry is made, and if it is found that a fair wage is not being paid, the grant will be withheld until that is done.

St. Lawrence Waterway



ICE IN NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens):: I should like, to direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) to the ice conditions now prevailing in Northumberland strait, which have caused serious trouble with reference to shipments of freight to and from Prince Edward Island. At the present time over 1,100 cars of freight are, held up because of these ice conditions. I should like to know what action the Department of Railways has taken to relieve this condition.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The hon. member who has just spoken, and other hon. members from Prince Edward Island, have brought this matter to my attention for the past two or three days, and I have been taking it up with the officials of the Canadian National Railways, who handle the ferry business between the island and the mainland. Up to this morning it was the opinion of those whose views were authoritative in regard to the matter that nothing could be done. It was considered a question of the elements, and it was thought that only a favourable wind could sweep the ice out. This morning, however, the hon. member who has just spoken showed me a telegram from some organization, I believe it was the Potato Dealer's Association of Prince Edward Island, asking the Department of Marine to supply an icebreaker on the condition that the association would provide a steamer to handle the potatoes. We have taken up this matter with the Department of Marine, and the minister has agreed to have the icebreaker which is now in Nova Beotia, sent to Prince Edward Island at the. beginning of the week, as was requested in the telegram. We will be only too glad to do anything possible in this and every other way to relieve such conditions.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE DISCUSSION OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND REMEDIES FOR UNEMPLOYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. I. A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I should like to direct a question
to the Prime Minister. I understand a conference is to be held during the recess between representatives of the federal and provincial governments. Will this conference be restricted to the discussion of constitutional questions arising from the recent Imperial conference or will there be opportunity to discuss present economic conditions throughout Canada, and further remedies for unemployment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The conference is called for the purpose of considering constitutional matters which arose out of the Imperial conference. Doubtless representations of various kinds will be made by the premiers of the provinces, but no matter other than the one mentioned will be officially considered.



REFERENCE TO CONFERENCE OF QUESTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter Heenan: I would like to point out to my
right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) that at the last regular session of this house a resolution was adopted asking the government to refer to the next Dominion-interprovincial conference the question of unemployment insurance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may add that this is not a Dominion-interprovincial conference in the ordinary sense of the word; it is a special conference called to consider a single subject, and only that subject will be considered.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. F. HEPBURN (West Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) arising out of a speech delivered in the Ontario legislature a few days ago by Mr. Challies, Conservative member for Dundas. He made a very important pronouncement with regard to the St. Lawrence deep waterways scheme, which reads in part as follows:
"Upon such a scheme I understand the government of this province is willing to cooperate enthusiastically with the federal government in furthering the deep waterway project," he stated. "The consummation of the scheme at the earliest possible date is the unanimous desire of this assembly."
Bearing in mind that one of the promises made by the Prime Minister during the campaign was that he would take up this matter-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this sort of thing must
stop.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The right hon. gentleman promised to take up the question of the St. Lawrence deep waterways-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: You can howl all afternoon if you wish; I intend to ask this question. The Prime Minister promised to take
St. Lawrence Waterway

up the question of the St. Lawrence waterways and he said the scheme would be completed without delay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am compelled to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This house must not fall into the practice of having speeches made on the asking of questions. That has been made perfectly clear in the past, and I now ask for a ruling.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) seems to be extending his question a little beyond the usual limits. I would ask him to come to the point and put his question.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Having regard to the statement, we promised to take up the St. Lawrence waterways question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The question is this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Here is the article-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member-


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Mr. Speaker,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member might sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
not yet addressed the house in the present debate, and t'he proper means of putting before the house what he now wishes to say will be afforded him when he then speaks. The hon. member is not asking a question. He is perfectly aware that ministers do by courtesy answer questions at this time, but the house is not in a mood to listen to a long dissertation or speech, and it is against the rules to make one. The hon. member in his present very responsible position should understand that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Unless the hon. member
is prepared to ask 'his question-


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The question-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Unless the hon. member is prepared to ask his question forthwith I shall have to ask him to put it on the order paper.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I ask the indulgence of
the house to complete the question. I shall be brief. Is this promise more humbug-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I wish to put another
question. This is a question which is quite in order. In the Mail and Empire the other day-


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: On a point of order.
Those of us on this side of the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Those of us on this side of the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The Prime Minister is
never in the house-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask the hon.
member to comply with the rules of the house; otherwise I shall be obliged to take other measures. I deprecate the noise which is being made. I have given my ruling and I think the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) will comply with it.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I rise to a point of order. Those of us on this side contributing to the debate would like to have the Prime Minister in his seat, but he is never here. How can we ask questions?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask the hon.
member to abide by the rules of the house.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Mr. C. 0. Smith, Canadian representative-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: -special representative of the Southam papers in the United States, wrote an article which has a direct bearing upon this house.


Mr. COTNAM:: When did you get here?
You came only yesterday.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 25, 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.

The Address-Mr. Sauve
Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: Mr. Speaker, every Canadian who knows well the history of his country, who is attached to its traditions and its institutions, who has a comprehensive knowledge of the problems resulting from its vast territory, the abundance and variety of its resources, hardly developed, with a small population disseminated in groups at wide intervals from one ocean to the other, composed of many elements so different in race, education, sentiments, interests and aspirations; a true Canadian, I say, who pauses to consider the responsibility of this parliament, in view of the objective of confederation, what the union of our provinces represents now and what it may be to-morrow on account of the eventualities which will expand more and more in its midst by the influence of evolutions which happen in every part of the empire and even in the whole world; a good Canadian, I realize it, must feel an inexpressible emotion when, for the first time, he addresses this house.
That is why you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, in conveying to you my sincere congratulations upon the distinction and justice which characterize you in the fulfilment of your high functions of first commoner, to solicit the indulgence and attention which I surely need on account of the emotion that takes hold of me when I think that after having sat for twenty years in the legislative assembly of the old and cherished French province of my country, I have now to speak in this house composed of the most authorized representatives of all the provinces of Canada who, for the most part, like their predecessors at your right, as at your left, Mr. Speaker, command attention by reason of their ability, knowledge, eloquence and courtesy.
The presence in this house of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), the distinction of her demeanor and the attention I have given in the past to her speeches in which the art of saying things and the subtility of the argument mingle so well together, are not to embolden me but, on the other hand, would induce me to excuse her ' for -what she said recently on the opposition of my native province to women's franchise, and to accept this new right all the more, if I had completely succeeded in changing my idea of the Christian family and of the essential importance of the educational part played by the wife and the mother in the Canadian home, in order to safeguard us from the dangers of a foreign immigration of ideas and individuals, enemy of our most sacred institutions and of our young generations.
Accustomed to speak in one of our official languages, I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to excuse the imperfection of my pronunciation and to excuse me also for speaking English somewhat in French.
In accepting the mandate which was urgently offered me by the great majority of the constituency which I am proud to represent here, I have desired and I am determined to give, with my entire loyalty, a sincere contribution to the work that the legislators have to do specially in this alarming crisis the causes of which are many. I have never been, and I am not of those who are trying to make believe that all the misfortunes of the country must be attributed to the political adversary. I hate narrow-mindedness and fanaticism of all sorts. I am rather of those who are glad to see in every party composing this house, men disposed to face our national problems with broad-mindedness, and who, in the effort to solve them, are able to discuss questions with a view to the benefit of the country, rather than the advantage of any political party.
Indeed, I have sat too long in the opposition of His Majesty to ignore the importance of its role, and the respect it commands. I have too often in the name of my party, claimed government power not to endeavour to be worthy of it even in times of heavy responsibilities and, like my esteemed colleagues, not to give the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who honoured me with his confidence, all my loyalty and modest cooperation in the task he has assumed with such energy and in the work which he places at the service of his country, to which he contributes the strength of his character, the extraordinary power of his talents and the time which many others would prefer to spend in sunny places of rest.
In the extraordinary efforts undertaken by the Tight hon. leader of the new government to solve our national problems, efforts which amaze by the fact that they surpass the ordinary limits of human possibility, there is something more notable than physical endurance, far superior to character and temperament, greater than talent, finer than tenacity to the work; it is patriotism.
We know to what the public man is exposed who devotes himself entirely to the service of his country. The effects of the stress of public life are illustrated by the recent illness of my hon. friend, the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), whose recovery has brought joy to his fellow-citizens.
31S
The Address-Mr. Sauve

The fact that a good Acadian my hon. friend from Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier) so eloquently proposed the address, that the hon. Senator Bourque was the seconder -of the address in the Senate, that a French-Canadian from the west seconded the address last session and that my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) proposed it in this house should make my compatriots think-they who had been taught that the Conservative party by its reason of being, could be nothing else but the hated enemy of the French-speaking Canadians.
The statement, made recently by the new Conservative Prime Minister of Ontario recognized the fact that the province of Quebec reacted and will always react more strongly than the other provinces against the political and social penetration of Americanism, and he could have added with the Chief Justice of Ontario, Sir William Mulock, against the penetration of revolutionary ideas of Communist agents, induces us to consider as unfortunate exceptions those who still want to look upon the French Canadians as strangers in the country founded and opened by them to civilization. I sincerely thank the Prime Minister of Ontario and Sir William Mulock and others for their words of justice and bonne entente.
Another pleasing fact to note. May I be allowed to express the special delight that my compatriots have in sharing with their Englishspeaking fellow-citizens, the honour and the joy afforded them by His Majesty the King in appointing such a worthy representative of his crown in the person of the Earl of Bessborough, whose worthy companion will represent here a successful conquest for Great Britain and the benefits that bind the French Canadians to the British crown.
It is said that when the chain of hills that crosses the west of England approaches the sea, it presents a wonderful sight, resembling the cliffs of Normandy and the shores of Brittany, recalling that the descendants of Great Britain and of France were formerly united bj' the same blood and that they are physically divided only by a shallow sheet of water.
Will not the presence of the Earl and Countess of Bessborough on Canadian soil, under the most brilliant rays of our Canadian sun, give us a vision, an inspiration that will stimulate patriotic fervour and promote kindly feelings one for another.
Now Mr. Speaker, will you allow me with the consent of the house, to conclude my remarks in my mother tongue.
[Mr. Sauve. j
(Translation): May I. be allowed after the effort that I have just made, to express myself in my maternal tongue. I do not wish to be any more disagreeable to this house, and especially to my opponents, than I have been in the other language. However, they will probably permit me to emphasize my remarks by pointing out to the house some of the arguments which have been expounded by those on your left, sir, and although accustomed to opponents of the same stamp, I was not the less astonished at the views expressed.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: Hear, hear.


Arthur Sauvé: Our hon friends
that has often been stated in this country [DOT]-are fated to be an opposition party. The Liberals, it is said, are at their best when in opposition.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: You did your share in Quebec.


Arthur Sauvé: That is why
you consent to do yours in the opposition. The country will decide, I hope, that my hon. friend has not weighty arguments enough to say that it is him who will decide of the fate of Canada's future.


Joseph-Fernand Fafard: You will not even be saved (sauve).


Arthur Sauvé: Puns are cheap substitutes for arguments, and I admit my hon. friend's superiority on this score.. Our friends on the left, sir, rebuke tne government for not having brought down, since its recent advent to power, all the measures which could relieve the crisis that they themselves denied a few months ago.
I do them no wrong in saying-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	Oh,
no! We never denied it.


Arthur Sauvé: Hon. gentlemen seemingly look upon me as if I were born yesterday, if I had never read the newspapers, or listened to the speeches of my hon. friends on the other side. In fact, what have we heard from our opponents' side? A kind of debate on the budget which seemed to have been prepared to fan certain prejudices instead of offering useful suggestions, timely recommendations and expressing in conjunction with the address, the guiding principles which should guide the parties in a session where national problems are set up and must be discussed in a special manner, and in the best of spirit. They have prepared speeches on the budget

The Address-Mr. Sauve
-this does not happen in our Quebec legislature-before even hearing the budget speech by the Minister of Finance, and knowing the whole fiscal policy that the government intends to introduce for the welfare of the country. They have impeached in every way, all possible tone and with the oddest manner, this government already mischievous though still in its infancy and which, nevertheless, the very day following its advent, called an emergency session to relieve those who were suffering, to alleviate as much as possible under the circumstances, unemployment and the sufferings of the people, to protect the Canadian farmer against dumping which was ruining him; to negotiate treaties with a view of better protecting farm products, the Canadian producer on the whole, and to safeguard also our manufacturers by stopping a disastrous competition or by prohibting certain ruinous imports which were favoured by the Dunning tariff.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Oh, oh.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not
mind such protests coming from the other side of the house. Immediately following the emergency session, the leader of the government crossed over to England and France with the idea of finding some relief for the western farmer and negotiate exchanges in order to secure a market more advantageous for his wheat. Since then he has afforded protection both to the east and west of Canada by favouring the national industries, especially those of coal and pulp against the dangerous competition of Russia. This is, sir, what the government has done within the last few months. I ask why should the hon. members on your left, sir, be so harsh towards this government and demand from them results only to be expected from an administration long in power.
At the Imperial conference, the Prime Minister made a proposal which was of interest to the empire, although he considered Canada's interests first-that is probably what offended our opponents-a proposal which was supported, strange to say, by all the representatives of the dominions. To hear the opposition, one would think that the Prime Minister sold his country and proved a traitor in making such a proposal. Evidently this proposal could not immediately be accepted by the British government, especially by that of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald. It needed to be deeply studied. And there lies the reason for calling another conference this year. It is our hope, and we must all hope that the delegates of the Imperial government will
represent at this conference the wish and interests of the people of England. Why, in the course of this session, should the parties not seek to come to an understanding in order to protect Canada and prepare the country to reap the greatest benefit possible from this conference? Should not the country's interests, especially in these days of depression, pass before party interests? Each party would have to its credit the proposals which it would have had adopted by the house for the welfare of Canada.
Our opponents go so far as to criticize the government's policy with reference to Russia, and the right hon. leader of the opposition will allow me to express, with all due respect, the astonishment I felt, when, the other day,
I saw him give vent to his feelings and allow his friends to do so, with reference to the decision taken by the Prime Minister and the government in connection with Russia. The government does not intend to deprive Canada of markets necessary for^ the sale of her products. If we want to utilize the resources of the country, we must-and we have often stated it-we must have markets abroad. One must be blind not to see that the world no longer turns towards militarism for purposes of conquest, but is intent on increasing production and economic expansion. With the mass producing machinery that science furnishes the world, each country endeavours to secure the world's markets, but first to protect its own. One must not lose sight that we are going through an era of reconstruction and that the government's policy must help in bringing about the equilibrium needed after the great war which upset the world. At the same time this country adopted a high standard of living based on scientific principles, and rendered more exacting by the example of our wealthy neighbours. Thus it was that, while economic conditions were becoming harder, our producers had to put up with the competition on the home markets, of countries having hundreds of millions of men, of simple habits, and able owing to favourable climatic conditions, of producing on terms which defied all competition on our part. One must bear in mind, sir, that our local truck farming industry has been disorganized through the extension of motor car transportation.
As to Russia, hon. members of both sides of the house know that it is passing through a revolution, and it is carrying on in our country a dangerous propaganda, we were so warned by the most respected authorities in this country, not only as regards the economic viewpoint but especially the false theories

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
which it seeks to spread among the humble workers and the younger generation. That is an important point to consider when we discuss the new policy of the government with reference to Russia.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, may I first congratulate my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) on his membership in the House of Commons of Canada and on his speech this afternoon. I thank him most sincerely for his kind references to myself, and I can assure him that so far as personal considerations are concerned I reciprocate his sentiments to the fullest extent.
As to the remarks which my hon. friend has made in the English language, I am bound to say that I think I would agree with practically everything he said, with the possible exception of his reference to the question of woman sufferage in my province. Unlike him, I am in favour of the women having the full right to vote. As to his remarks in the other official language in this country, my answer will come in the course of my own address.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have not been able to attend all the sittings of the house since the opening of the session, but I assure you, sir, that I have read very carefully the debates which have taken place. I was somewhat surprised to find in the speech of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that he spoke again of the conditions throughout the country being due to the stagnation in industry which took place during the Liberal administration. This sounds pretty much like the pre-election speeches of my right hon. friend. I have noticed that since the election last July, hon. gentlemen opposite have been rather eager to invoke the world-wide depression as a most welcome alibi; and I could fill the pages of Hansard with quotations in support of that statement. But to-day, in the heat of debate, the Prime Minister comes back to the stagnation of industry during the Liberal administration. I must say that my good friend the Postmaster General, who has been very mild this afternoon, has also referred to that famous stagnation in speeches at political dinners. To the government speaking in the heat of debates I will oppose the government speaking in its sober mood through the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). I will oppose to Philip drunk Philip sober-of course speaking in a strictly figurative sense. In a book which has just been published by the Department of Trade and Commerce under the title of Canada 1931, bearing the imprimatur of the Minister of Trade and Commerce,

there is a foreword signed by him and then I find the following; I do not want to waste my time in quotations, and therefore I shall read only one sentence:
The volume of production at the peak of prosperity, reached in the early part of 1929, was greater in most lines than in any similar period in the history of tile Dominion. From the low levels reached during the post-war deflation culminating in 1921, productive enterprise steadily acquired momentum, the impressive results effected during the nine-year period being especially evident in the first six months of 1929.
On the next page is the following:
The rapid, long-term growth of the last decade is more significant than the current reversal, generally regarded as of a temporary nature.
Later the causes of the world-wide financial depression are given. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the policies of Ithe King government are not mentioned. But of course, this is far different from what we heard during the election campaign. Then my hon. friends opposite were busy turning a national misfortune into a sideshow of enraged partisans.


An hon. MEMBER:: War with India.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may keep his peace. I did nott refer to any war with India; I am warring with him just now. All the difficulties mentioned in the official publication that I have just quoted were capitalized to secure votes for my hon. friends opposite. The Tory flag was carried through all the country and hoisted (to catch every passing breeze. The government is the byproduct of financial depression. My hon. friends opposite are its offspring. Of course, they all made pledges; they were all going to end unemployment or perish in the attempt. They all prophesied that prosperity would come back. There they are, a row of phophets-indeed rows of prophets, major and minor. To-day they are only too anxious to forget all about it; instead of perishing in the attempt, they are asking for an extension of their promissory notes to the electors. Over in England a young aristocrat lost in the labour ranks, Sir Oswald Mosley, has become impatient with conditions there, and he is attempting to form a new part}'. He has issued a manifesto to the people in which he proposes the creation of an emergency cabinet of not more than five members, invested with plenary power to carry [DOT]through any emergency measure. Let me say to our cousins on the other side of the ocean that here in Canada we have done far better than what Sir Oswald Mosley proposes; we have virtually what is a one-man super-

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
cabinet vested with all (the power thaft a docile majority can give him. But this super-cabinet has not been able to solve our problems; instead those problems have been intensified. The only remedy which the specialist has applied to the body politic is a dose of high protection, and the remedy has had the effect of spreading the disease. Now we are threatened with an additional dose of that medicine. The apostles of high protection are availing themselves of their opportunity. Those additional fetters on trade would not have a ghost of a chance were it not for the argument that high protection will give to the working classes more work and increased wages. Patriotism and charity have been made the excuse for ficsal loot. The assertion that the cost of living would not be increased as the result of additional tariff duties is, to use a word dear to my right hon. friend, a deception. The people are not such fools as to believe that the cost of living will not be affected adversely by taxes on their trade. A British statesman who was an advocate of protection, but an honest advocate, the late Lord Balfour, once said that protection would not mean anything if it did not increase prices; and the late Lord Melcheitt, a high priest of protection, said it would be of no use if it did not have that effect.
As examples of what we may expect from high protection let me mention two countries with which Canadians are familiar, the United States and Australia. The tariff duties in those two countries have been raised so high that even this government would hesitate to go to such an extreme, and unemployment is rampant in each, even more so than it is in Canada. Some time ago the governing body of the international labour office appointed experts to study the question of unemployment. In the monthly summary of the League of Nations Journal for January I read that one of the causes given by those experts is this:
(g) The disturbances in international commerce caused not only by the development of new industrial areas but also by artificial barriers put in the way of international trade and by the difficulties said to be associated with the problem of political debts. .
The leading economists of the world share the same view, but our school of protectionists, our crusaders or musketeers, are scoffing at these principles of economic law. Our new diplomat, Mr. Ferguson, said in one of his numerous lectures to the British public that these are shibboleths and old theories, as if economic laws could be subject to a sort of old age limit. How can a policy of blind and selfish economic isolation be beneficial to 22110-21
a country like Canada? We have a territory as large as Europe, or larger, with a small population of 10,000,000 people. We have unlimited resources and opportunities; our people are ambitious to succeed. They are believers in the gospel of work, and are filled with courage, initiative and enterprise. How can a country like this enrich itself by erecting a wall around itself and refusing to trade with the rest of the world? The best way for Canada to end unemployment, and I think in this even my hon. friends opposite will agree, is to sell its surplus, and surely this cannot be done by a policy of economic isolation. One of the members of the government the other day took credit to the government because our imports from some other countries have been reduced, but he did not speak about the reduction of our exports. If to reduce imports we also reduce exports we are not increasing employment; we are decreasing it. The only possible result, occasionally, may be to transfer capital from one industry, which makes a commercial profit, to another industry where the profit comes from the taxpayer. The unemployment index of the government is the best evidence of the error of my right hon. friend's policy.
Many of those who believed in the changes effected at the short session of parliament are now doubtful and suspicious about the results. I hold in my hand the Financial Times, which is the mouthpiece of the high financial interests of Montreal, for Friday, November 14. I do not want to read it, because I have no time for that, but it states that the policy of the government has brought about a great deal of suspicion and doubt in the business interests of Canada, especially in regard to the stability of tariff which is threatened by the arbitrary powers which the government have taken upon themselves to change the tariff at will. All this is perfectly true, and those who were applauding in September last will be among those who will come and ask for the repeal of that arbitrary legislation. So far as we are concerned on this side of the house, we will do anything to get the power of taxation restored to parliament, where it should be.
Now I want to come to the subject which is really my reason for having addressed the house this afternoon. I refer to the Imperial economic conference.


Mr. HANSON:: That seems to be a sore spot.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend thought it was, and he is not altogether wrong all the

The Address-Mr. Lapointe

time. Before speaking on the economic conference, however, I should like to say a word with regard to the Imperial conference proper, though of course I will reserve most of my comments for another occasion, when the report is submitted to the house for discussion. I have a word for my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, whose absence I regret this afternoon. I came here with the intention of talking to him, and I am sorry he is not in his seat. May I say to my right hon. friend, who I hope at least will pay me the compliment of reading my remarks in Hansard, that I am pleased at his conversion. During the election campaign my good friend the Postmaster General-and this may surprise hon. members-was rather a supporter of mine on this question of the Imperial conference. Ait every meeting he said that as far as constitutional issues were concerned, and as far as the work of the Imperial conference was concerned, he was in agreement with Mr. Lapointe, and I am proud of his support. Apparently, however, our ranks are getting larger, because even the right hon. gentleman now is approving of the report on dominion legislation which was the work of the conference at which I had the honour of representing Canada. Last year my right hon. friend was rather of a different opinion, but apparently he does not think any longer that those departures will lead to the cutting of the painter, the letting go of the mooring and the drifting away from the little islands of the North sea, as he said so eloquently last year. My right hon. friend has realized that the best way of maintaining the association of the British nations is for every nation to be free, to be autonomous, and equal in status.
What about the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), whose vacant seat I am also looking at now? Last year my hon. friend, speaking on the changes which were recommended with regard to the Shipping Act and maritime laws, said with that moderation which he sometimes uses when qualifying the views of those who do not agree with him, that they were puerile, childish and infantile. Yet this report has been approved by the conference and by the government. Has the Secretary of State changed; have his views become childish, puerile and infantile?
Then there is my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) for whom I also have a word. I am sorry he is also absent.
I read in the report of the conference everywhere the words "British Commonwealth of Nations" as the apellation of our association. My hon. friend has subscribed to that, yet at the annual dinner of the Canadian Bar Asso-
elation last fall he went out of his way to protest against this name of the British Commonwealth of Nations. He said the old name of the British Empire was good enough for him. That view of the Minister of Justice was also expressed the other day in London by our diplomat, Mr. Ferguson, who always has been a colonial of the inferiority complex school, but I sincerely hope that over there he also will see the error of his ways and will see the light as the Minister of Justice has seen it.
As to the Imperial economic conference, I wish to associate myself with everything that has been said by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King). Indeed, I am going further than he went; I sincerely believe and am convinced that the proposals of the Prime Minister and the manner in which he submitted them have created a situation which is fraught with serious dangers. The British commonwealth of nations is an association of nations freely united under the crown. The empire is maintained because it is united and is based on allowing the freest and fullest opportunity of self-development to every part in the best way suited to its needs. Liberty in unity is the principle which has been received. Liberty in the fullest sense is the guarantee of unity, liberty for each dominion, for each part to shape its fiscal, military, defensive, economic or any other policy according to its ideas and its needs, and according to its wishes.
The British commonwealth is an idea; it is a soul. To base it on a mercenary foundation is to court disaster. The tie of sentiment is thin but^ it is strong. It may seem weak, it may be invisible to those who cannot see anything outside a ledger. But this tie has proved equal to the test to which it has always been put in periods of trouble and difficulty. I would not have it replaced by peddling agreements in which the interests of one dominion or another of the British Empire might be sacrificed for the purpose of making profits for other sections of the commonwealth. To force protection upon Britain, as the Prime Minister of Canada tried t'o do, was not only basing the empire on an economic fallacy, but it was interfering in the most direct way with the domestic policy of the United Kingdom.
None of the British nations has the right to instruct another on the policies which it should adopt or follow. This is a rule which no other Canadian statesman has ever broken. Well we all know that for the last twenty-five years some people in the old country have been trying to prevail on the repre-

The Address-Mr. Lapointe
sentatives of the dominions to interfere in order to have a certain trade policy endorsed by the people of England. But up to now there have been Dominion representatives who have refused to play that part. For the first time, owing to the conduct of the Prime Minister of Canada, the dominions have become pawns in the political game of the old country. And speaking in this Canadian parliament as a Canadian public man I say that Canadian liberalism and, I believe, the sentiment of the majority of the people of Canada are opposed to the policy which has been suggested'by the Prime Minister of this country. I will say further to the public men of Britain, and more particularly to those whom it has been my privilege to meet on different occasions, that if they come to Canada, whether at the coming conference or otherwise, and try to interfere and to dictate to this country some policy which has been a bone of contention, a point at issue between political parties in Canada, as the Prime Minister has done in England, not only shall we resent it, but their very interference will be the best means of defeating the purpose which they have in view.
If the present fiscal system of England is the one best calculated to make her greater, to make her prosperous, to make her a leader in world trade, it is in the interests of all other parts of the empire that that system should be kept and maintained; and with all due deference to my right hon. friend, I say that the people of Britain, the public men of Britain, are the best judges of that. They are, I should think, better judges on that point than my right hon. friend.
To make the dominions suffer disadvantages for the sake of Britain, or to make Britain suffer disadvantages for the sake of the dominions, is not the way to cement the empire. The introduction of that spirit would be certainly destructive of the ties which bind us. I have here the words of Mr. Asquith uttered in the British parliament on a policy similar to this:
To my mind, it is impossible to imagine a proposal seriously meant which would more certainly tend to engender friction, to foment quarrel, and in the long run to kindle disloyalty.
And he added:
It is introducing, as between the component members of this great partnership, the British Empire, a new and perpetual source of heart-* burning, rivalry, jealousy and discord.
Was not Mr. Asquith right? Can the empire be built on dollars and cents? Mr. Speaker, dollars and cents very frequently are the cause of family quarrels; brothers divide 22110-211
among themselves on questions of dollars and cents. Is it desirable that this should be the tie that binds us? In an imperial economic group, as suggested by the Prime Minister, momentous problems would arise. If food is taxed in Britain, as requested by our Canadian representative, is there not a danger that in times of depression and crisis the labouring classes would, with Mr. Lloyd George, think that their first duty was to get the protectionist mice away from the bread of the people? What would result? I know the Prime Minister is sincere. But I am telling him in all sincerity, as my firm conviction, that had anyone wished to introduce an element of discord and friction no better method could be devised than an imperial customs tariff. Indeed, bad temper has already been exhibited; heated words have been exchanged. And my right hon. friend has almost raised! a diplomatic incident on the use of an adjective by a good common sense minister over there, Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Speaker, there is danger ahead, and I think my right hon. friend will see it. We have granted a preference here in Canada. I am afraid I shall not be able to dwell upon it because the time at my disposal will not permit it. But may I say that conditions are altogether different. To grant a preference we did not make any change in the tariff structure of Canada; while what my right hon. friend is asking England to do is to abandon one principle and substitute another for it.
England is trading with the world. She has to buy from her customers. International trade is her life blood. Why, at this very moment eminent figures are touring South America for the purpose of developing trade relations with countries which in the natural order of things are competitors of Canada. And can we complain? When the figures are compared it will be seen that England is buying from us considerably more than she is selling to us.
I am opposed to this policy because I do not believe in economic imperialism any more than I believe in any other kind of imperialism. I am opposed to an imperial economic unit as I am opposed to an imperial diplomatic unit, naval unit, or military unit as is the dream of so many imperialists and whieh I believe would be the natural consequence of an economic unit. If our trade is an imperial trade its protection on the high seas will be the concern of every nation of the empire, as well as of the mother country. If the people of England are taxed on their food because the wheat from other countries is excluded from the British market; if they
The Address-Mr. Lapointe

have to rely only on Canada and Australia for their food supply, they will have the right to ask us to protect that trade on the high seas. I believe in freedom, I believe in eoonomy; let our associations be absolutely free in trade matters as well as in other matters and not such a compact as suggested by my right hon. friend. In speaking at the dinner of the Empire Parliamentary Association the Prime Minister borrowed a phrase from the Three Musketeers. He suggested that there should be adopted by the empire the motto:	All for one and one for all.
How can he reconcile that with his pretended policy of: Canada first? As a very shrewd Englishman replied at that dinner, each for all and all for each is very fine as an imperial device, but how can the Prime Minister of Canada reconcile it with the phrase:	Ourselves first and the others afterwards? Free will and cooperation is the only way to keep the empire together; coercion will not do it.
My right hon. friend has endeavoured to shield himself behind the noble figure of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The memorandum by Canadian ministers, presented at the Colonial conference of 1902, and which appears on page 37 of the proceedings, in part reads as follows:
From the beginning of the proceedings the Canadian ministers have claimed that in consideration of the substantial preference given by Canada for some years to the products of the mother country, Canadian food products should be exempted in the United Kingdom from the duties recently imposed.
At the conference of 1907, after a new government in Great Britain had repealed those duties, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said that it was for England to decide as to that policy, he had no suggestions to make. I am sorry I have not the time in which to read full extracts from his speech, but I would refer hon. members to page 441 of the proceedings of the conference held in 1907 and they will see that the stand taken by Sir Wilfrid Laurier was the very reverse of that of my right hon. friend.


An hon. MEMBER:: Time.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is ahead
of his time.
Why should my hon. friends endeavour to bring Sir Wilfrid Laurier to their defence? It is not the first time that they have tried to cast upon the shoulders of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the burden of their protectionist policy.
I came to this house in 1904, twenty-seven years ago, as a young man with all the en-

thusiasm of my age. I was then a Liberal as I am to-day; I could not be anything else by temperament, by aptitude or by conviction. My greatest incentive was an unbounded admiration for that illustrious leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I followed him to the last hours of his life and his memory is still the light which guides me in the solution of the difficult problems with which I have to deal.


An hon. MEMBER:: Time.


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


Ernest Lapointe: I will finish that speech
somewhere, some time.


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I think you will appreciate the difficulty faced by one so inexperienced in speaking in having to follow an oration such as that to which we have just listened. It happens that the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is one of the hon. members in this house who has almost always held my admiration. I wish he were always the splendid liberal he is to-day.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about yourself?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not speaking as a member of the Liberal party but as a liberal in the broad meaning of the word. Constitutionally the ex-Minister of Justice has always been a liberal; economically, not always. In opposition he is always a liberal and it is refreshing to hear the liberal speeches made in opposition. Good speeches are always welcome in this house; they are so rare.
In order to avoid having to repeat it, I say now: Between the parties in government there is no vital difference, but between the party in power at the moment and the party in opposition there is a great difference. That difference will disappear when at some future time they change places. However, in justice to both parties, I must say that there is a great difference in manner. I trust that the present government is not a fair sample of Conservatives in power. It has been very amusing to me to note the added touch of arrogance of practically every member of the government and particularly of the leader, (Mr. Bennett). They can go too far and they should remember that governments come and governments go but always the people and the people's representatives in the house remain. Courtesy and decent treatment should at all times be accorded. The reply of the Prime Minister the other day to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) was certainly not worthy of the genial and kindly nature of the Prime Minister in opposition.

The Address-Miss Macphail
The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has himself pointed out the danger-and there is a real one-of making speeches while in opposition, which may later condemn one. As has been so well demonstrated by his quotations from the speeches of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), the ex-Minister of Jus-tive, when again he sits on the government benches, needs to remember the speech that he so eloquently made to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: I can prophesy I shall.


Robert James Manion: He will need to have a long memory.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not so sure of that.
I want to express to the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) my appreciation of his courageous attempt to speak in the English language. In a few years he will be making in English speeches of such eloquence and beauty that he will put to shame those of us to whom English is the native language. I am always moved to admiration by the skill and rapidity with which French-speaking members who, when they first enter the house, speak almost no English, learn to express themselves fully in that language. What the Postmaster General was saying, I am afraid I do not quite know. Apparently his remarks had some reference to me. I am sorry that I did not please him, as apparently I did not, but in what particular I am not clear.
Forty minutes soon pass and I must proceed with what few remarks I wish to make. We are living in a day of high pressure salesmanship, of which we saw a very fine sample last summer when the Conservative party was out to sell to the farmer of Canada a gold brick, the gold brick of protection for agriculture, and the sale was made. The farmer bit. The farmer in Canada, like ourselves in the House of Commons, had heard the Conservative party during the depression of 1920 to 1924 tell again and again and again, eloquently and well, how they could cure the depression if they were only in power. They had the remedy; they knew how to cure the disease. So the farmer, feeling that another depression was upon him thought: Well, these fellows say they know how to cure it; let us see if they will. So he bought the gold brick of protection for agriculture and since then he has been wondering why, just as many another one has wondered when the well-dressed salesman left. The remedy proposed is such a simple one; it was and is: Keep out all goods that might enter our country to come into competition with our goods, but sell our surplus goods upon the world's markets. It is an exceedingly simple remedy: Refuse to buy, but sell.
I suppose many hon. members read the Canadian Forum. I am sorry that recently the editor Richard de Brisay died. His was one of the clear voices for sanity in Canada and in losing him Canada suffered a great loss.
I could have given many another quotation from also Canadian publications. I am quoting the policy of the government that was to save us, according to the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Shortly after the election he raised the buying of Canadian goods by Canadians to the plane of patriotism, and almost every newspaper or magazine in Canada carried advertisements, because advertisements they were, something like this:
Every time we buy an imported article-
Says the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
-when we might just as easily have found a Canadian article to serve our purpose equally well, we are helping to do some fellow-Canadian out of a job, and making the job of some foreign workman just that much more secure. Conversely, every time we purposely give the preference to a Canadian article, we are helping to create employment for Canadian workers, and doing our bit towards making Canada as a whole more prosperous.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The applause is not as loud as it once was. Even our women's institutes and other organizations of all sorts were urged by at least the provincial government of Ontario to stage a campaign: Buy Canadian-made goods. De Brisay in commenting on this said that the minister might have finished the quotation I have just given by saying:
Conversely, every time we give the preference to a Canadian article we are helping to do some foreign fellow out of a job. But it is these foreigners who buy our surplus commodities to the tune of $1,300,000,000 a year. If we do not buy their goods they will not or cannot buy ours, so that on the Bennett-Stevens plan we shall find in the long run we are doing one Canadian out of a job every time we make one for another.
As a matter of fact, the thing is so obviously fallacious that it passes my understanding that men of culture, education and brains should really believe it. At one time I thought those who led in advocating this policy did not believe it. Now I am convinced they do. I am not really sure whether this is a compliment or not. But at least the Prime Minister is obviously sincere. Immediately after the election we had a short session which was supposed to create employment or to relieve unemployment. But while it did that to a certain extent, that is, while people who.

The Address-Miss Macphail
had to get something to eat; were fed, it was a session devoted almost wholly to the raising of the tariff. Therefore, as regards the first part of the doctrine, the shutting out of goods so that they would not come into competition with our goods, the government moved into action rapidly, and because I want to be fair, although sometimes on this subject it is hard for me to be, I must admic the government has moved into action rapidly. The point that is most pleasing about the government is that they do act. We may not agree with the action, but at least there is action and to me that is a relief. So we started in the short session to shut out goods. During the campaign we had gone quite a long way towards offending Australia and New Zealand, or if we did not offend them, it is because they are certainly not supersensitive. Then during the short session we had a protectionist policy carried still further whereby we shut out to a greater extent than before the goods of the United States and Great Britain. Following that has come the Imperial conference which has not added to the good-will in Great Britain towards Canada. We are now shutting out Danish bacon, due supposedly to some foot-and-mouth disease, but really so that it will not come into competition with Canadian bacon. We also have an embargo on certain Russian exports so that along the line of stopping goods from entering Canada the government, from its point of view, has done very well. But when the question is one of finding markets in which to sell our surplus goods, the progress has not been so great.


An hon. MEMBER:: There has been none.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: There has been a lot less than none. All of us get this little bulletin from the Department of National Revenue. By it we see that the total trade of Canada in the first eleven months of the fiscal year 1931 fell over 26 per cent as compared with the total trade of this country for the previous year.
We have not found markets for Canadian products. When the Prime Minister went to the Imperial conference, if one is to believe press reports, which one of course does not always need to do, he went among other things to secure a market for Canadian wheat. I rather think he did go with that in mind since he took with him many experts on wheat marketing. He came back, all of us must admit, with regret and reluctance, without having obtained his objective. What the Manchester Guardian has to say with relation to the Prime Minister's action at the Imperial

conference expresses so well what I had in mind that I am going to quote it. The Manchester Guardian-I am quoting from a reprint in the Farmers Sun of January 15, 1931 -says:
There was no basis for any gain in Mr. Bennett's famous offer at the Imperial conference, and to have treated it as such might have done more harm to good-will within the empire than any brusque remarks by Mr. Snowden or Mr. Thomas could ever do.
It goes on to say:
When Mr. Bennett complains of the treatment his offer received at the hands of the government, and when Lord Hailsham attempts, as he did in the House of Lords, to make party capital out of Mr. Bennett's grievance, they seem to forget that Canada offered Great Britain nothing worth five minutes' consideration, and asked in return that England should reverse her whole fiscal system, increase the price of her food, and damage her foreign trade.
The article goes on to say some claimed that if Great Britain had followed the negotiations further, something really would have developed. To quote again:
But Mr. Bennett began the negotiations by declaring that he would not consider any proposal to lower Canadian tariffs on manufactured articles for the benefit of British industry. That being the one way in which Canada could have offered some substantial return for the tax he desired Great Britain to impose on herself, what but failure and irritation could have come from any pretence on the part of the British government to accept Mr. Bennett's proposals as a basis for negotiation ?
I think that every thinking person in Canada, regardless of politics, feels that in interfering or seeming to interfere with the fiscal policy of Great Britain, much as I believe in the autonomy of the dominions, the Prime Minister went too far. We all know how deeply we would resent any interference on the part of Great Britain with our fiscal policy, if she should tell us what it should or should not be. I believe that in this rapidly shrinking world nothing short of international economic cooperation is of any real use. It may be that while this epidemic of economic nationalism is sweeping the world there might be a short period in which some sort of agreement could be worked out among the component parts of the British commonwealth; but if that is to be, it must be done by a large tolerance, by a real determination to sacrifice immediate gain to attain the larger end in view. It cannot be done by dictating what Great Britain is to do.
May I pause here to thank from the bottom of my heart the Prime Minister for appointing the Hon. Howard Ferguson as minister plenipotentiary to the court of St.

The Address-Miss Macphail
James. It is rather hard on the court of St. James, but it is a great relief to the province of Ontario. When I read in the papers day after day Mr. Ferguson's speeches and saw his pictures and accounts of his career, and how proud that Canada should be that he had gone to London, and so on, and so on, I said to myself:	Has sincerity and honesty
wholly departed from our province? I at least am thankful that he has gone, but I am sorry to see that a man of his particular political type-not stripe-should be appointed minister plenipotentiary representing Canada in Great Britain.
Though I believe I said something about this in my speech last year on the budget, I feel that for my own sake I must say it again. We in Canada and the people of the world generally are rapidly bringing about an economic chaos that is going to land us in disaster. We have had experts set to work to see what could be done. I need not go into all the details. You all know that the World Economic conference was held in 1927. The findings of that conference can be summarized by saying that tariffs had already gone too high and a move must be made in the opposite direction if we were to save ourselves from difficulty. We know that Great Britain moved at the tenth assembly of the league to have a tariff truce, and that following upon her action some few countries, eighteen in all, I think, met in conference about a year ago and did agree to call a tariff truce for one year. We know that a thousand experts told Mr. Hoover in no uncertain terms, previous to his signing the Hawley-Smoot tariff, what they believed its results would be. Noted economists everywhere have pointed out the same thing. May I quote Gilbert Murray, from the Contemporary Review, speaking on protection:
Protection not only diminishes trade when we all want trade increased. It makes the fatal error of transforming the competition between economic groups into a strife between nations.
He goes on:
In pure politics the nations have given up their absolute sovereignty and independence. We have agreed not to go to war; not to act as judges in our own cause; to bring our disputes before some mediatory or arbitral body. But in economics we are still in the state of international anarchy which led to the great war. Any nation has the unchallenged right to do injury to a neighbour's trade. It may prohibit, it may refuse necessary exports, it may play tricks with its commercial treaties so as to' kill this trade and help that. It is all a "matter of domestic jurisdiction." The foreigner has no right to protest.
He adds;
As 1 look toward the future of our civilization I see ahead only two causes that may bring it finally to ruin; one is another European war between great powers; the other is a general resort to protection. And in essence these are not two causes, but one.
Yet we go on in this mad race, tobogganing towards the day of disaster. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen think that. I cannot think that the government believes it, because I think that the government i3 composed of as sincere-minded Canadian citizens as those who sit on this side of the house, and if they really thought that, I believe they would stop following the policy into which they have launched, and which evidently they intend to carry on. There is just this to be said about their policy. Since we are in a very severe depression and have in power now the party that knew how to cure it, it is to be hoped that they do carry their remedy as far as they may, just in order that we may all see that it is not the right one. I am hopeful that that will be done because we have always heard what good results protection will have. I must confess after listening to the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), that rapid-fire orator, I sometimes wondered, was he right? Now we shall see. It seems to me, however, that we are facing absolutely new conditions, and that the depressions which are becoming more numerous and more prolonged are not caused by one party or the other; the causes lie very much deeper. I think all of us will admit that we are in a new industrial age. We have had almost a complete mechanization of industry; machinery has ceased to be labour-saving and has become labour-displacing. We have not any social control over the mechanism, and so capital goes on earning for itself larger profits, more people are forced out on the streets, and so on. I have not time to develop the evils resulting from the private control of public credit. We have insufficient currency to meet our new conditions. I think everybody knows that, and we might just as well admit it. May I quote DeBrisay again:
For the new industrial revolution has brought us to the point where there is no longer enough money and credit in the world to enable us to consume the products of our machine-equipped labour.
The other day the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Maclnnis) described the condition so well, that while I cannot quote him I want to refer to his remarks. In effect he said that the workers in industry because of

The Address-Miss Macphail
unemployment and insufficient wages have not enough money to consume the goods they want to consume, and the capitalists have not the capacity to consume the goods which they have the money to buy. Because of lack of money to buy on the one hand and lack of capacity to consume on the other a surplus of goods piles up until the manufacturer can no longer find a market for his output and closes his doors, and this means more and more unemployment.
It seems quite evident that new methods will have to be found, for the old methods are no longer any good. One whom, I suppose, we would call a Conservative, the Right Hon. Winston Spencer Churchill, said that quite clearly in one of his Oxford lectures. I am quoting now from Toronto Saturday Night of January 31, 1931. He said:
The root problem of modern world economics is the strange disparity between the consuming and producing power. Have all our triumphs of research and organization bequeathed us only a new punishment,-the curse of plenty?
I think the "curse of plenty" is a particularly fine phrase. Churchill suggested that Britishers should create what he would call a "sub-parliament," or at least a committee of experts who should investigate all ways- even radical ways-of solving the problem; they should deal with the problem scientifically, not thinking "did we believe this in the past, or did we not," but in a non-partisan way looking for remedies for the present situation. It seems to me that is a suggestion which this government might very well consider.
Now, in the little time I have left I want to devote myself fully to agricultural conditions. Agriculture in Canada is in a bad way; there is no doubt about that. Not only does the farmer get little for what he sells, and pay a great deal more for what he buys, but this year, 1931, he has no surplus accumulated to carry him through the depression as he did when the depression of 1920-24 struck him, because that one followed the period of high prices after the war. The farmers then had a very substantial surplus, which, it is true, they had to use in the four years of the depression, but they had it at their command; this year they have not any surplus, as every member of this house knows. In my constituency during the last nine or ten months I have been asked for more loans- I am sorry I did not have the money to advance-than in all the other years that I have sat in this house. People are hunting for money everywhere because they have no surplus at all.

Some people say the way to better conditions is to bring the prices of the commodities the farmer has to buy down to the price level of the product of his toil. Well, that would be something, and I should be most happy to see it done. But with a government in power that has pegged the prices of the things that the farmer has to buy at the high level, it is unlikely. The government prides itself on not having raised prices-good heavens! did they expect to this year?-but having kept prices where they were they thereby increased the profits of the manufacturer. But even if prices did fall, the debts the farmer has contracted, his taxation, all his overhead, were contracted at the higher price level, and so he simply has not the money to meet his obligations. I think the government might very well take into serious consideration the suggestion made by the member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) to bring about the immediate depreciation of the Canadian dollar. Unless that is done there is no chance in the world of agriculture being able to meet its obligations.
Now, we. were to have agriculture protected, but out of the mouths of experts it can be shown that agriculture to-day is on a world-price basis, so how can it be protected? It cannot be, though 100 per cent protection were put on by this government. Let me quote from an article by Mr. J. H. Grisdale, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, in the Economic Annalist for February, 1931, entitled Farming as a Business Requires Economic Analysis. He says:
World competition is what we have to meet to-day and the class rather than the individual is the important factor to consider.
Mr. McOuat, general agricultural agent of the eastern lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway, says pretty much the same in other words. Let me quote him:
It is not what hogs or cattle are worth in Toronto, or wheat in Winnepeg, but, rather what bacon is worth in London or wheat in Liverpool that counts.
When the hogs, cattle and poultry on the prairies that are now being fed with cheap grain come down on the eastern markets of Ontario the farmer here will find his products hit the. worst prices he has seen in many years. Bad as is the condition now, it is nothing to what it is going to be. The whole market in the east will be demoralized when the western farmers, through necessity or the coaxing of the government, goes in for mixed farming. Before the government too widely advocates mixed farming for the west, let me say that when mixed farming is started in the

The Addiess-Miss Macphail
west in those sections where it can be carried on it will ruin the mixed farmer in the east. The same thing will happen to Ontario and Quebec in regard to mixed farming as happened in regard to wheat when the west became the wheat producers and the east ceased to be.
I read with a great deal of interest and some sadness Canada's new agricultural policy as set forth in MacLean's magazine of March 15th. The article is centred by a very speaking likeness of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). May I say that it shows the intelligence and good sense, of the hon. gentleman that he looks exceedingly sad. So would I if that was the agricultural policy I was putting forward for the solution of the problems of the industry. I would have all hon. members read the article.. Don't eat your dinner until you get a copy of MacLean s magazine for March 15th. All but one point in the new policy advocates more production, produce more efficiently. Of course, I agree it is best to produce, efficiently. But more production? If one increases one's efficiency to the point where there is increased production in all probability under present conditions the result will be lower prices. However, the one new feature is a national marketing board which may mean something or nothing.
There is one other thing which I am very glad is being considered by the government. It has been summarized by the writer, Mr Richard Churchill, in the words, "an increased effort to eliminate parasites." If that means the cut-throat as well as the cut-worm, it is all right; if it means they will take otl the backs of the farmers the bloated, protected manufacturing industry, the greedy banks, the railways with their high rates ot interest, the taxation weight, and so on; it those are the parasites, then I quite agree. On the other hand, if it simply means there will be fewer bugs, it might be as well to let the bugs have the wheat as not to be able to do anything with it.
I will not have time to develop, but 1 should like to outline, an agricultural policy which I respectfully submit to the Minister of Agriculture. All farm or agricultural colleges and experimental farms should to-day teach cooperative marketing of farm products as aggressively as in the past they taught, and are still teaching, greater production. As the central idea of their programs they should have cooperative marketing of farm products, and the government should lend its full moral support to any efforts made along the lines of cooperation. Those of us who are working in cooperative endeavour for farmers know that when we seek a manager for a
cooperative enterprise we cannot get a trained man. There is not a government from the Atlantic to the Pacific that has a school where people can be trained in the management of cooperative enterprises or in cooperative accounting, yet governments are looking for something to do. Do that. That is something which will mean more than growing two blades of grass where one grew before, when you can sell neither.
Then let the government start experimenting in processing farm products, in order to bring the cost of processing down to something like a reasonable figure so that when we come to put our processed agricultural products on the markets of the world we shall be able to meet the competition of other countries. I believe the present Minister of Agriculture does want to help agriculture, but his task in this government is difficult, and I think he knows it. And next thing the farmers of Canada will process their own products, and the sooner the better. The government should give them full moral support, and should lend them the sums of money required on long term loans at low rates of interest. Unless we do these things how are we going to compete with Denmark, where farmers process their own products cooperatively, or with Russia, where it is done by the state? We hear a lot about Russia. If the government of our country had the same initiative and enterprise in putting our products in the markets of the world that Russia is showing at the moment, it might not be a bad thing. It is cut-throat competition, of course, when Russia does it but not when our manufacturers do it. They have been doing it for quite some time, selling farm implements more cheaply in other countries than they are sold at home.
In addition, farmers should begin at once to buy their supplies through their own locally controlled cooperative units. These should have one central 'buying agency, and whatever help and support the government can give should be given. We know the farmers of Denmark and Holland buy their fertilizer more cheaply than any other farmers in the world, because they buy it cooperatively. The same thing can be done in Canada, in relation to everything the farmer buys.
I also believe in lower costs of production, and I would get those lower costs not only by greater efficiency in production but by very considerably lowering tariffs as well. In addition, I think an agricultural program which does not make mention of the modernizing of our financial system is not all it might be. I think there should be special

The Address-Miss Macphail
recognition of the requirements of agriculture. Mr. Beatty evolved a scheme whereby he would have $5,000,000 available for western Canada. That is like making a five cent payment on a hundred acre farm. What about the money the banks have spent on head offices during the last twelve months- financial cathedrals which are manuments to greed? If they had put that money in circulation for the benefit of agriculture in Canada they would be doing much better work for Canada.
Then again, if we are going to have an agricultural policy worthy of the name we must have a strong farm group of free men and women in the House of Commons who can speak, work and vote for the interest of agriculture. I also think we should immediately forsake the gold basis and should secure markets, both the home markets, and the foreign markets which will take some of our surplus if we in return take some of theirs.
One thing we very greatly need in Canada is a vital rural educational system, education that is alive and in close relationship with the lives of people. I notice that under the agricultural policy of this government experimental farms are to be used as educational centres. I hope it may be that sort of education which will stimulate courageous thought, and not just that education which moulds the minds of the people into the old channels.
I do feel that this is the very time for a forward push along the lines of cooperation and mutual endeavour; when conditions are very bad is the time to move forward. It was when the national life of Denmark was at its very lowest that the great Grundtwig came forward with his new philosophy and educational ideas, and from then on the farmers of Denmark made themselves what they are to-day, the wonder of the world, controlling their own products until they reach the markets of the world. We can do the same.


Mr. THOMAS HAY (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne let me, like preceding speakers, first of all congratulate the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous). The speech from the throne was delivered under unusual circumstances, at a time when this country and the world generally is passing through a period of depression. We on this side of the house believe the government have policies which, if put into effect, will bring about prosperity in this country. Hon. members 
opposite grumble and complain, and say the government of the day is responsible for the condition in which Canada now finds itself. Though we have been in office only for the short period of something like eight months, still the members of the opposition seem to feel that we are responsible for the conditions which prevail in Canada at the present time.
I should like to read from the amendment proposed by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, in which he says that-

His Majesty's government have not only failed to afford a remedy for employment and agricultural distress, as pledged by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, but have served further to prejudice the deplorable position of the agricultural interests, thereby causing additional unemployment and substantially reducing the national revenue.
That is the charge made by the leader of the opposition. Taking all things into consideration, I do not think he is justified in moving an amendment of this kind, because I am satisfied, as I believe he himself must know, that the present government cannot be held responsible for the conditions now prevailing in Canada. On the contrary, I feel that the government that went out of office on July 28 last had more to do with the depression than the present government, and during the course of my remarks I will try to prove that assertion.
Some hon. gentlemen on the opposite side have referred to the declining wheat prices, and there again they have endeavoured to blame this government. If those hon. gentlemen had given a few minutes' consideration to the subject and had looked up the facts they would not have made a wholly baseless assertion of that kind. I wish to direct the attention of the house, of the country and of hon. members opposite to this fact: The price of wheat quoted by the Winnipeg papers on July 28 last, that is, the cash price, was $1.78 a bushel. That was on the 28th of July. On the 1st of August last, or about the time the late government went out of office, cash wheat was quoted by the Winnipeg papers at 90 cents a bushel, or a drop in prices during the last year the late government was in power of 88 cents a bushel. In view of this fact it is unfair for the opposition to seek to create the impression throughout the country that this government is responsible for the decline in wheat prices.
I wish to be fair, and therefore I say that I do not believe the government that went out of office in July last was responsible for the drop in wheat prices. I do not think they

The Address-Mr. Hay
did anything to bring about that drop. Nor do I believe that the government now in power is responsible for it. So far as I can see, neither government has done anything that would bring about this fall in the price of wheat. We must be fair in discussion.
With respect to wheat prices, some people blame the western wheat pools for the decline that has taken place during the last year or so. I am of the opinion that the wheat pools had something to do with the drop in prices. I am satisfied that the policies they have been following have been instrumental in bringing about a drop in wheat prices in Canada, and I am not alone in this opinion. Let me refer to an article which appeared in Toronto Saturday Night of February 28. This article was written by the Hon. Frank Oliver, a gentleman who at one time was Minister of the Interior under the Laurier administration, a gentleman who has given considerable thought to conditions in this country, and whose opinion, it seems to me, must have some weight with the people of this country. The article to which I am referring reads:
The pool was in full operation in the marketing of crop from 1924 to 1930. Its advent had introduced a new principle into the marketing of Canadian wheat. Instead of a sales policy that followed the fluctuations of the market, with the object of clearing the crop of one year into consumption before the succeeding crop came on the market, the pool's avowed policy was to maintain or stabilize or increase prices by withholding supply. As it was the largest handling organization in the world, others followed its example.
Further on we read:
A declared policy of withholding Canadian wheat during the shortage of 1929 alarmed the consuming countries and turned their attention to other sources.
The article concludes:
Canada's most distressing problem is that of selling her surplus of this crop year, together with her accumulations of the two previous years. Had she sold, as she could have done in July. 1929, and the following month, the crop of 1929 and 1930, at a handsome profit, the problem of to-day would not exist.
That is the opinion of the Hon. Frank Oliver. He says that the pool is entirely responsible, so far as Canada is concerned, for the present depression through which we are passing. He is of the opinion that had the pools sold at the right time Canada would not have the present problem on her hands.
During the last session of parliament certain changes were made in the tariff. The manufacturing industries of the country have been given an increase in tariff protection. The Prime Minister and the government had at the time promises from the different manufacturing industries to the effect that they
would not take advantage of the increase in tariffs to increase their prices to the consumer. Now that was all very well so far as it went. But let me say, Mr. Speaker, that if I understand the mentality of the farmers of western Canada correctly they will not be satisfied with a promise that the prices of machinery will not be increased. I am satisfied that the farmers of the west are looking for a large reduction in the prices of farm machinery, and I am also satisfied that unless they receive this reduction the manufacturing interests of Canada will not long retain the protection which has been accorded them. I am sure, however, that the policy of the government will have a good effect in lowering the prices of farm machinery to the farmers of Canada.
I wish to refer for a few moments to the tariff. The last two speakers devoted considerable time to a discussion of the tariff, and I do not think it would be out of place for me to spend a few minutes considering the subject. When it came to making changes in the tariff, the Liberal party has always failed to make such changes as would meet the needs of the times. That has been the history of the Liberal party since its inception; all through the years it has failed to make such changes in the tariff as would be of benefit to the people of Canada. A tariff policy is nothing new to this country; it is the same old policy under which Canada has lived and thrived ever since its infancy.
The tariff policy of this government is to give a measure of protection to the manufacturing industries of the country in order that they may to a large extent retain possession of their home markets. Some people feel that the policy of protection is on trial at the present time and that within two or three years there will be settled once and for all the age old dispute between the disciples of high and low tariff. In making changes in the tariff the Liberal government has always failed to meet the needs of .the times, and on occasions disaster has occurred because of their refusal to make a change. I would like to give one or two instances which illustrate this theory. In 1873, when the Liberal government came into power, conditions prevailed in Canada similar to those prevailing at the present time. The manufacturing industries were languishing, people were out of employment, farmers were unable to sell the products of their farms, and the country was passing through a period of depression perhaps worse than that existing to-day. The manufacturers appealed to the government and asked for an increase in the tariff which would safeguard the young and
The Address-Mr. Hay

growing industries. The government steadfastly refused to take action, and the condition of the country was very serious. I wiould like to read an extract from The Story of Canada, by Hopkins, which shows what occurred during that period, how it occurred, and why it occurred. This deals with the period when the Liberal party was in office and when a low tariff, such as some of our Liberal friends advocate, was in operation. It reads:
Between 1873 and 1878 their goods poured over the frontier and beat down prices below what the small Canadian firms, with their limited production and market and capital, could hope to touch. Then, after the local industry had collapsed, prices were again raised and the American firm held its captured market in apparently secure shape. All over the country this was happening and even the farmer began to suffer from the inrush of A meriean wheat and other foodstuffs. From every side came demands for a change of policy, but Mr. Mackenzie and Sir Richard Cartwright, his Finance minister, were firm in their view that while a tariff might, and must in this case, be imposed for revenue and at uniform rates ....
Let me quote another paragraph from the same history:
Meanwhile, matters went from bad to worse in a commercial and financial sense. Whatever the value of the American market it was absolutely closed to Canadian productions in most of the important lines while American manufacturers and producers had a full sweep of the Dominion. American wheat, rye, barley, Indian corn, wheat-flour, oatmeal, coal salt, wool, pig-iron, iron and steel rails, bricks and flax had free entry into Canada, while similar Canadian products entering the United States were charged high duties.
That is what occurred between the years 1873 and 1878 under a low tariff policy.
The trend of the times is towards protection ; France, Italy, Germany, the United States and our own country are moving in that direction. In Great Britain, the home of free trade, the sentiment is changing, as it is in other countries. If we are to exist economically as a nation under present day conditions it is necessary to have a tariff which will protect our industries. Other nations are putting up tariffs to protect their own home industries. The ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) seem to feel that no good can result from a tariff, but I would like to direct their attention to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Tribune, being an extract from the London Daily Times, as follows:
British Tariff Policy Gains Much Support London Times Says Opinion Grows Steadily in Favour of System London, March 17-Though the Labour press, doubtless with Premier MacDonald's authority, 
denies the possibility that a revenue tariff of ten per cent will be the feature of the forthcoming budget, The Times to-day says that the number of influential converts to this policy is steadily growing in Britain.
It cites particularly Sir Josiah Stamp, economist and industrialist of world reputation, and Mr. J. M. Keynes, both of whom hitherto have opposed any general tariff system, but who now suggest that there should be two kinds of duties-one on goods generally, and one, much lower, on foodstuffs.
The article continues:
There is scarcely any feature in our financial, industrial and commercial situation that does not clamour for a policy of tariffs to raise revenue and restore confidence.
This article would seem to show that the sentiment of the peoples of the world is changing to a more favourable view of a system of tariffs. I cannot understand the mentality of some people who say that it would be wise to reduce our tariffs. They must know that if that were done we would have a similar condition to that existing in 1878, and Canada would become the dumping ground of the world.
I said before that the Liberal government when making changes in the tariff had always failed to meet the needs of the times. Let me refer to another change in the tariff made by a Liberal government. Many years ago I well remember hearing Sir Wilfrid Laurier speak in the town of Selkirk on the question of protection and free trade. I can recall his exact words; I remember his saying that the policy of the Conservative party was creating sugar kings and cotton lords in this country. Well, the change in tariff policy to which I now refer was made after Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power in 1896. I am sorry the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) is not in his seat, because I should like to have called his attention to the statement I am about to make. After he came into power Sir Wilfrid Laurier placed on the free list several articles, amongst which were coal oil, binder twine and barbed wire. The other day the hon. member for Lisgar was grumbling because an additional tariff had been placed on barbed wire coming from other countries to compete with barbed wire made in Canada. Ever since these articles were placed on the free list by Sir Wilfrid Laurier we have not been able to buy them as cheaply as we had done before. So again I say that when the Liberals attempted to make changes, the results brought about were not in the public interest.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

The Address-Mr. Hay
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Hay: When the house rose at six
o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was showing that whenever the Liberal party had made changes in the tariff policy of the country, disastrous results had followed. I had given one or two examples to show that depression had always followed changes in the tariff policy by the Liberals. I cannot quite understand the mentality of the Liberal party. They do not seem to be able to get it into their heads that it is possible for a high tariff to mean lower prices to the consumer. Hon. gentlemen opposite smile at that, but those of us who have lived in this country quite a number of years know that when we had a protective tariff on agricultural machinery amounting to about 33 per cent, we were buying our machinery for just about	the present prices. Of
course, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that good results are already in evidence following the tariff increase last September. Only the other evening an hon. member on this side of the house mentioned that a mill which had been lying idle for something like six years was now operating at full capacity and employing some two hundred men as a direct result of the tariff increase which was made last September.
I would like to give another instance of disastrous consequences when the Liberal party made a change in the tariff policy. I refer to the trade agreement made between Australia and Canada in 1926. You will remember, sir, that the Conservative party of that day opposed the agreement, pointing out to the then Liberal government how injuriously it would affect the dairying industry of Canada. But our representations, of course, went unheeded, and the Liberal government put through that agreement. Subsequently its provisions were extended to New Zealand. Speaking on the agreement, the then Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), as will be seen at page 860 of Hansard of 1926, characterized the speeches of the Conservative members against the trade agreement as mere propaganda. He said that they were trying to make the people believe that if the treaty passed, an avalanche of butter would descend on Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, that avalanche of butter did descend on the Canadian people, and it put a good many of our farmers practically out of business. Not only that, but the avalanche of butter which
descended upon us almost put the late Minister of Agriculture out of business politically, and certainly it smothered a number of hon. members who supported the treaty in 1926.
In opening my remarks I said that the speech from the throne this year was read under rather unusual conditions, read at a time when depression existed not only in Canada but throughout the world. The duty of governments of the day, not only in Canada but all over the world, is to find solutions for the problems which are facing the world generally. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the depression was created by over-production in all lines of commodities. It was impossible to sell our commodities in the markets of the world, consequently the depression through which we are now passing followed. It is the duty of government, I say, to find a cure for the prevailing world-wide depression. We know the cause; what is the cure? Doctors of economy are prescribing various remedies for the cure of our present ills. Some tell us that the acreage that is being sown to grain of different kinds in this country must, be reduced. Others tell us that we must decrease the cost of production, and still others that we must go into diversified farming. All this advice is very good in itself, but whether it will bring about the results hoped for, we cannot say.
With respect to reducing the acreage, I myself cannot understand how that can be done to any great extent by the farmers of Canada. In former years, when they were farming only from two to three hundred acres, they were able merely to make a living at the good prices that prevailed. How, then, would it be possible for them to make a living at present prices if they reduced their acreage? I say that that would be a dangerous experiment; and I do not think it would be wise to go to extremes in attempting to carry it out.
I am a firm believer in diversified farming. I believe that diversified farming has been the salvation of the province of Manitoba, where it is very largely engaged in, with the result, I believe, that conditions are better in that province to-day than in any of the other western provinces.
With respect to lowering the cost of production, it is to a certain extent beyond the power of the individual farmer to accept and act on that advice. The only chance we have of cutting down the cost of production-I am satisfied that we shall be able to do it through the policies of the present government-is by getting cheaper machinery, lower freight rates, and cheaper money-although I am not a very great believer in the latter, but it might
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

help to some extent. These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the remedies prescribed by doctors of economy in this country. Whether they will effect the cure that is predicted of them, we cannot say. I do, however, wish to reaffirm my belief in the protective policy of this government, because I believe that it will bring about prosperity.
Now, what is needed at the present time is a cure for our economic ills. Of course, no one can be expected to formulate a cure offhand. I believe that a considerable measure of relief would be afforded by the formation of a world credit association whose function it would be to arrange credits for the nations needing them.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that in Manitoba generally, and particularly in the constituency which I have the honour tio represent, our people of various nationalities are working together in harmony in an endeavour to bring about a prosperous and united country, and I firmly believe that only in this way can we hope to see Canada fulfil her glorious destiny.


Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: When, Mr. Speaker, about a week ago I decided to participate in this debate I hoped that I might be able to contribute some original thoughts, but so many very excellent speeches have been made in the interval that I am afraid my hopes are not destined to be realized.
I wish to congratulate the hon. gentlemen who moved and seoonded the address on the very creditable manner in which they acquitted themselves. I agree with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) that it is a very trying ordeal for a young member to address the house for the first time, and I am very much pleased indeed that my fellow member from the maritime provinces, tihe hon. gentleman from Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier) and the hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Porteous) were so successful in their maiden efforts.
This afternon we listened to a very remarkable speech by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). The hon. gentleman's speeches are always worth listening to, but it did seem to me that to-day he spoke with a fire and an intense earnestness more marked than usual, and I am confident that his words carried conviction to every member present.
I desire also to congratulate the lady member of the house (Miss Maephail) upon her very excellent speech. She stated that the former hon. Minister of Justice is a better Liberal in opposition than in power, but my recollection of his speeches in this house during the last few years does not bear out her statement.

His speech this afternoon, was, I think, along the same lines that he always followed when on the government benches.
I shall confine my remarks to a few sentences in the speech from the throne. It is there stated:
Although in the interval world conditions have changed but little for the better, this tariff legislation

That is the tariff legislation passed in the special session.
has resulted in a marked improvement in the domestic situation through the strengthening of established industries, and in addition many others, formerly exporters to Canada, have now become producers in Canada.
The articles which I have read in the press led me to believe that there had been considerable stimulation of industry as a result of the tariff legislation last September. It wfould be strange if that were not the case. The very object and purpose of protective tariffs is to stimulate certain industries. But I was surprised to hear from some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken in this debate that employment even in the highly protected industries is not as general as it was before the additional protection was given. And certainly if the effect on those specially favoured industries has not been beneficial, it can be definitely and positively said that the effect upon the other industries which are paying for the stimulation of the highly protected industries has been distinctly prejudicial. It is too soon to say from actual experience whether the tariff increases of September last as to be a success or not in any part of Canada. It must be remembered that after the tariff increases of 1879 there was a condition of considerable industrial activity for a few years, but it was succeeded by a reaction, so much so that in the early nineties a wing of the Conservative party advocated "lopping off the mouldering branches of protection." We may find this to be the case also with regard to the tariff legislation of last September.
Speaking as a member from the maritime provinces, I say unequivocally that I am opposed to those tariff increases. I contend that they constitute an aggravation of the condition brought about in the maritime provinces by the policy of protection, a policy which has resulted in their gradual impoverishment. I believe that if it is persisted in our future down there is dark indeed. The farmers and fruit-growers-of whom there are thousands in my constituency-are complaining bitterly about the result of the tariff legis-

The Address-Mr. llsley
lation enacted during the special session. Before I left for Ottawa an importer of spraying machinery was obliged on one shipment to pay about $2,000 additional in duties. Importers of apple-graders and fertilizers also have been obliged to pay greatly increased duties. We must never forget that if we are building up one industry by tariff increases, we are doing so only at the expense of the rest of the country. This is being done, just as surely, though not as visibly or equitably, as if the favoured industries were being bon-used out of the treasury. It may be that the increased tariff will benefit one section of the Dominion, what we are accustomed to speak of as the central or industrial section. This may be, but if this is a "central-Canada first policy it certainly is not a "Canada first" policy. The effect of this policy is disruptive and disintegrating rather than national or unifying.
The next reference in the speech from the throne is to the operation of the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, which is said to have proved equally beneficial. We on this side of the house at the special session did not disapprove of the principle of that measure, nor do we disapprove of it now. I want to point out, however, that certain definite pledges were given, which are embodied in the act and in the regulations, to the effect that the expenditure of this money was not to be on a political patronage basis. Speaking as a member from the maritime provinces I can definitely and positively say that in the part of Nova Scotia with which I am familiar the expenditure of these moneys has been on a political patronage basis. I may add that I made it my business to inquire into the expenditure of this money in my constituency, and I found that at all times from 75 per cent to 95 per cent of the men employed upon the works were members of the Conservative party, or those whom the foreman hoped to make members of the Conservative party by the distribution of these unemployment relief moneys. That is true in the maritime provinces, at least in the province of Nova Scotia. That was not only a breach, but an open and flagrant breach of the pledges made in September.
I wish to pass on hurriedly to the next reference in the speech from the throne, which is to the Imperial conference which was held in London last fall. The speech says that several constitutional questions arising out of the resolutions of the Imperial conference of 1926 were fully discussed and in principle approved. That matter was dealt with by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) very ably this afternoon, but let me say that
to those of us who during the last four years have always contended that the constitutional principles laid down at the Imperial conference of 1926 and carried out by the recommendations of the subconference of 1929 were right; to those of us who contended that these were the correct principles, that statement in the speech from the throne comes as a source of gratification, and affords us very much satisfaction. I remember, Mr. Speaker, the speeches that were made only last spring, particularly by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). The present Prime Minister indulged in a lot of loose talk about cutting the painter, about casting adrift from the motherland. Certainly I never would have supported that formula of 1926 if I had thought it was designed to disrupt the empire. It was because I believed-and I think we all believed-that that was the only basis upon which the British Empire could be kept together, a basis of the fullest possible autonomy to the constituent parts, that I supported it. Now the hon. gentlemen who ridiculed and opposed that position have come to our way of thinking.
I remember what the Secretary of State said about the merchant shipping legislation. The proposal with regard to merchant shipping is that hereafter each of the dominions is to have full power to make its own laws in respect to its own shipping, instead of shipping being governed, as at present, by one act passed by the Imperial parliament. We said that uniformity could be attained just the same; we said there could be agreements between the different dominions and there could be concurrent legislation, and let me say that the principles laid down in respect of merchant shipping, the recommendations of the subconference on merchant shipping of 1929, have been approved in toto by the conference of 1930. In fact, a long draft agreement between the various dominions and the. mother country is to be found in the report of the Imperial conference. The front benchers of the Conservative party have swallowed themselves completely on this constitutional matter, and let me say I believe it is the best thing they have done since they took office.
There is another side to the Imperial conference, and that is the economic side. The speech of the former Prime Minister, the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), was very comprehensive. It covered this matter of the Imperial economic conference in all its phases and probably anything I could say would not add very much to the matter. One thing I do wish to say,
;36
The Address-Mr. Ilsley


Mr. ERNST:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I know what the hon. gentleman is going to ask.


William Gordon Ernst: Would the hon. member
expect any prospective increase in the tariff to be announced publicly in the speech from the throne, or would he expect it when the budget is brought down?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The question of a national
fuel policy was not put forward primarily as a fiscal measure at all. It certainly should be foreshadowed in the speech from the throne; that is exactly the place wherein the people of Nova Scotia expect to find it mentioned. This is not a minor matter in the province of Nova Scotia or in Alberta. Recently the legislature of Nova Scotia passed a very sweeping resolution asking the government what its proposals were in reference to a national fuel policy.


Mr. VENIOT:: So did the legislature of
New Brunswick.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The legislature of New
Brunswick as well, the hon. member says. And delegations have come to Ottawa with reference to the subject. If, therefore, the matter had not been entirely absent from the Prime Minister's mind, it would have found a

33S
The Address-Mr. Ilsley

place in the speech from the throne. I should like to know where the members from the coal mining constituencies have been. Ever since I have been in the house the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) has advocated a prohibitive duty on foreign coal; the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) has advocated a duty of $1.50; and the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) has advocated as high a duty as practicable, although he did not think a very high duty practicable. Where have these hon. members been to have allowed this omission? And where is the minister from Nova Scotia? What was he doing when the speech from the throne was prepared, leaving out any reference to a national fuel policy?


William Gordon Ernst: Does the hon. member expect the tariff to be mentioned in the speech from the throne?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have already answered that question. Now there is another matter I wish to discuss. I refer to old age pensions. If the cry of a national fuel policy was the loudest in the province .of Nova Scotia in the recent election, the promise of old age pensions was, I should say, the most effective. I know that lists were made of all the old people who would be eligible for pensions. These people were canvassed by Conservative campaigners and were promised that very shortly after there was a change of government, if change of government there should be, old age pensions would be paid to them by the Dominion government in full. I have here what the Prime Minister said in Nova Scotia in July last:
I say to you, if the Conservative party is returned to power we will provide for the payment of old age pensions from the federal exchequer, so that the provinces will not be called upon to contribute a cent, and so that the provinces who now find the burden too great will be able to benefit with all the provinces of the Dominon. The constitutional point has been raised by the Premier. If it is constitutional to pay 50 per cent, would it not be constitutional to pay 100 per cent? We will pass a law to pay 100 per cent and it will be legal.
And the present Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) stated that if this were not done at the first regular session of parliament he would go out of public life forever. He is credited with having gone further-perhaps he will contradict me if I am wrong. I know that he said what I have just repeated, but in regard to what I am going to
LMr. Haley.]
cite I am not sure. However, he is credited with having said that if it were not dons within three months after a change of government he would go out of public life.


Mr. RHODES:: My hon. friend knows it is not competent for me to interrupt him in the course of his speech. I did not hear the first portion of his remarks with respect to myself, but I shall consult Hansard tomorrow to see what he has said. I certainly said nothing about three months. I cannot say anything as to the first part of my hon. friend's remarks.


An hon. MEMBER:: You were a little more careful than some of the others.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is quite all right if the hon. minister says he did not say that. I am very careful about the statements I make. He did make the first statement in my own town of Kentville.
It is intimated in the speech from the throne that legislation in connection with old age pensions is to come by progressive stages and as the state of the treasury will permit. Lately the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson), who is not in this house, has been making speeches and sending telegrams intimating that old age pensions will not be paid in full by the Dominion government, and that the Dominion government will not take over during the present year the administration of the act, but that there is nothing to prevent them from paying a larger proportion than is paid at the present time. This is different from the promises made during the campaign. These pensions are a very important matter to the people of the maritime provinces. If because of the state of the national exchequer or for any other reason this government fails to put into effect in toto its promises to pay in full old age pensions to the people of the maritime provinces, it will be considered as a rascally piece of business. It may be that they do intend to carry out their promises, but there are some very disquieting signs and rumours in that connection. I desire to bring this matter as forcibly as I can to the attention of the house and the government, because it was on the basis of these promises that they were enabled to win during the recent elections certain constituencies in the maritime provinces.
Apparently my own views as to the recent embargo placed against trade with Russia are not those of many on this side of the house. They may not be the views of my constituents but I think, in justice to myself, that I

The Address-Mr. Myers
should express them. It seems to me that this government has acted too hastily in its method of dealing with Russia. There is a very good prospect of the five-year plan succeeding in Russia. If the wheat industry of this country is to have a guaranteed future there should be a conference between the wheat-producers of the world with the idea of placing the wheat production upon the markets of the world in a rational, orderly and if possible non-competing manner, and it seems to me that the action taken by this government will not conduce to that end.
I read in the press, I think to-day, that Mr. Ferguson, representative of Canada in Great Britain, is attending the International Institute of Agriculture, which begins its sittings at Rome to-day. I understand that representatives of the soviet government will attend these meetings and that Canada is to adopt a policy of "watchful waiting." In all probability at some time in the future we shall have to confer with the representatives of Russia and it would appear that this order in council, very offensive in its terms and laying down the principle that we shall not trade with a country whose economic system or social conventions are disapproved of, was a hasty and ill-advised step on the part of this government. It was of no consequence at all as a protective measure for our coal industry because, as I said before, why shut out 300,000 tons to let in 18,000,000 tons? There may be some reasons for the passing of this order in council, but I think they should be made public. I know that many people disagree with its provisions and I think it is the duty of this government to give an explanation to the country before parliament prorogues.
I would like to comment briefly upon the general economic situation. During the closing months of the year, 1930 many prominent men of the world gave their opinions as to the causes of the present depression. Mussolini made speeches in which he blamed to a considerable degree the policies of the United States. Mr. Hoover made an Armistice day speech in which he attempted to diagnose carefully the causes of depression. Mr. Thomas W. Lamont made a speech before an association of economists in which he stated that the causes of depression were excessive production as compared to consumption of many commodities, the attempt in certain parts of the world to hold up prices artificially, the fall in the price of silver, the maldistribution of gold, political unrest in certain countries, and the spirit of rampant speculation which has been so evident in recent years, particularly in North America. In a 22110-224
speech which he made at Calgary, the Prime Minister of Canada blamed the economic depression upon his political opponents, and so fas as I can learn he is the only prominent statesman in the world, the only statesman in the world-


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: Amended.


James Lorimer Ilsley: -who did that. The people of Canada will not take seriously this attempt of the right hon. gentleman to fasten the causes of this depression upon his political opponents. Indeed, the government itself by its spokesmen is now attempting to attach the blame to world conditions. The people are not taking seriously attempts to play politics with the business depression, and that, sir, is one of the brightest signs appearing upon the political horizon.


Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I feel it my duty and I take great pleasure in following the time-honoured custom of congratulating the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address. I can more readily congratulate the mover, or perhaps I may be permitted to say that I can more readily sympathize with him, by reason of the fact that at one time in my own career I found myself in a similar position.
It was very pleasant indeed to listen to the mingling of the French and English tongues and to see the honours being divided between the two great nationalities. It gives me much pleasure to see the fine contingent which we have on this side of the house from the old, historic province of Quebec. It also gives me a great deal of pleasure, and I am sure it must afford the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) much satisfaction, to know that he draws his supporters from every province of the Dominion. That is as it should be. We want no division between races and no division from the standpoint of religion.
That is all I had intended to say in this regard had it not been for the fact that in perusing Hansard the other day I came across some remarks that fell from the lips of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot), and to those remarks I feel it my bounden duty to take exception. I find on page 13S of Hansard he is reported as saying that during the last campaign a circular of some kind, seeking to discredit the Liberal party in the eyes of a certain religious sect in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and to divide the people from the standpoint-
The Address-Mr. Myers

of religion, was distributed throughout those two provinces. There is not another man in Prince Edward Island from one end of iit to the other who knows that province and the people of that province better than I do, and I deny emphatically that such a circular as that was distributed during the last campaign throughout the province of Prince Edward Island, by either the Liberal or the Conservative party. We do not want such a circular as that distributed throughout Prince Edward Island, nor will we tolerate for one moment the mean, low spirit that would lie behind such an action.
During the course of this debate a great deal has been said with reference to the period of depression through which Canada is passing at the present time. In that regard we may say that misery likes company, and there is a certain consolation in the fact that we are not the only country that is experiencing depression at this time. Every other country in the world is passing through the same trying experience as we are in the Dominion of Canada. If we had in Canada at the present time an unusual period of depression and the whole world outside were prosperous, I would say that the fault lay with Canada; that there was something wrong with the government of Canada, something wrong with the people of Canada or with the country itself. But such is not the case. We are no worse off in Canada than the people in any other section of the world; in fact, I think we are not so badly off; and I have sufficient faith in the future of this Dominion with our vast natural resources, our great transportation systems and our mighty water-powers to turn the wheels of industry, to believe that Canada will be one of the first countries to recover and that she will recover very quickly from the present period of depression.
So far no one has been able to tell us exactly the cause of this period of depression, and I do not suppose an untrained farmer like myself would be expected to come to Ottawa and be able to explain what appears to be such a great mystery to others. I am, however, bold enough to venture the assertion that two things have contributed to the great period of depression through which we are now passing. Everybody knows that prior to about a year ago the whole world had gone stock crazy. Everybody who had ten cents in his pocket was buying stocks. It did not matter whether he was a millionaire or a bootblack, he was buying stocks. Hon. members all know what happened, the crash that came in that regard and how the purchasing power

of the people was wiped out in a few hours. Another factor-and it is something very few people care to talk about; they all like to slip around it-is the fact that we are living at a pretty fast pace. The automobile, the radio and the picture show all take their toll and somebody must pay the piper. If the depression through which we are now passing does nothing other than to teach us a lesson in good, sound, sensible economy, we shall not have passed through this period in vain.
During the course of the debate a great deal has been said with reference to agriculture. That is as it should be. Agriculture needs to have something said about it. It is the biggest and the best industry that we have in Canada to-day, and I believe it will always remain so. Three or four weeks ago I picked up one of our Canadian magazines, and in turning it over I noticed an article headed "What is wrong with farming?" I read the whole article through very carefully. Various reasons were ascribed, and various remedies suggested. After going carefully through the whole of that article I came back to the headline "What is wrong with farming?" and right then and there I made up my mind there was not a single thing wrong with farming. Farming is just as good to-day as ever it was, and the farm is just the same as ever it was. The same rain falls on it and the same sun shines on it. With the aid of the modern machinery that we have and with all the knowledge we have gained in recent years, from our agricultural colleges and experimental farms, we are better able than ever we were before to select, grade and treat the seed that is put into the soil in the spring of the year. With the machinery that we have ad our command and the knowledge we have of plant diseases, we are better able to look after our crop during the growing season. The same thing applies in the autumn; we are in a better position than ever we were before from the standpoint of machinery and equipment to harvest our crop expeditiously and safely. That is all we ever did; that is all we ever expected. But when we begin to put our crop on the market, when we attempt to turn the result of our season's labour into cash- there's the rub. But that is not the fault of farming. Nothing is wrong with farming itself, but something is wrong with business. The purchasing power of the public seems for some reason to be diminished. I am not able to prescribe a remedy for all these things, but surely there must be a remedy somewhere.
A great deal has been said about farming in western Canada. As I listen to the members of this house it would seem to me that

The Address-Mr. Myers
farming in Canada can be divided into two parts, east and west. I always had an idea in the back of my head that the people of Canada themselves can be divided into just two classes. Some think that there are lots more-English, Irish, Scotch, French and so on. But when the whole thing is summed up, there are only two classes of people in Canada to-day-those who will work, and those who won't.
I have never been in western Canada, I am sorry to say. I have been in the western United States, but I have never seen our own great Canadian west, though if my pass holds out long enough I am going to see it some day. I have, however, read a great deal about the magnificient wheat fields of western Canada.
I suppose that in the last twenty-five years billions and billions of dollars must have gone into western Canada in payment for the wheat that came out, and the western representatives here will pardon me if I say that I think some of that money should have stuck. The hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) said the other day that a great deal of it had stuck, that western Canada to-day is well equipped, with magnificent farms, fine homes, and a good stock of machinery. That goes to show that they have not spent all their money, that some of it has gone into property. Perhaps in western Canada the farmers have been doing what we have been doing in eastern Canada, going at a bit too fast a pace.
So far as wheat farming in western Canada is concerned, it is not so very different from potato-growing in Prince Edward Island. Any man, no matter who or where he is, who is engaged in what I term single-line agriculture, will always have his years of depression; he will have his good years and his off years. We notice that in Prince Edward Island. Until a few years ago in Prince Edward Island we were entirely a community of mixed farmers, but four or five years ago the potato craze hit our country. It is a wonderful business when properly handled, but when that craze hit the province a few of our farmers, foolishly, I think, abandoned mixed farming, disposed of their live stock, and went into potato growing exclusively. The same thing happens to them as occasionnally happens to the western wheat farmers. They have their off years, and, strange to say, some of them have their off year when the rest of us are doing all right. In the season of 1928, which was about the meanest potato year I ever saw in my life, with potatoes selling as low as 12 cents a bushel, while the potato grower did badly, the rest of us were getting along very nicely indeed. Hogs, cattle,
poultry, hay, grain and everything else that we handled that year brought good prices. We were all right, but the specialist who was engaged in potato growing surely met his Waterloo that year. In Prince Edward Island there is no excuse for a man going into potato growing exclusively, because it is a wonderful country for mixed agriculture. There is, I take it, however, an excuse for the western farmer engaging in the growing of wheat exclusively. I have talked with many of the western farmers during my stay in this house, and they tell me that out in the west there are large sections that are admirably adapted to wheat farming but are not so admirably adapted to mixed farming or live stock raising. That is their own problem; I am not here to offer any advice to them in that regard.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) this afternoon made one remark in which I heartily concur, namely that mixed farming will not be a cure-all for present conditions in western Canada. I quite agree. She also spoke of cooperative societies and cooperative marketing, and I believe that even the wheat pool came in for criticism as well as praise. We have all these cooperative organizations in their perfection in eastern Canada. We sell our eggs, our hogs and our cattle through shipping associations. We have in Prince Edward Island also the potato growers association, one of the finest marketing organizations in the whole Dominion of Canada. In a year when potatoes bring a good price the association is praised by all, but when potatoes are down to 12 cents a bushel-well, it is about the damnedest thing on earth. All these organizations are good and useful in their place if they are properly handled, but you can make all the rules and regulations you like; governments, provincial and federal, can pass all the enabling legislation they like, to help them, and still the fact remains that no parliament on earth ever yet was able to repeal or annul the age-old law of supply and demand. That law has reigned supreme all down through the ages, and it always will.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I may be pardoned if I say a word about potatoes, for wheat has been discussed by nearly every hon. gentleman who has	preceded me.	I	regard	theUnited States tariff against Canadian potatoes as very, very	high indeed;	75	cents	perhundredweight	seems to me	to	be an	unreasonable tariff. Our government has seen fit, and rightly so-both parties are as one in this because the Dunning budget provided for the same thing-to impose a similar tariff
The Address-Mr. Myers

against United States potatoes. But I think I can speak for the potato growers of Prince Edward Island and eastern Canada in saying that whenever the United States see fit to lower their tariff we shall be quite willing to meet them with a corresponding reduction in ours.
There is, however, one feature with respect to potatoes which I do not regard as quite fair. In Prince Edward Island and in eastern Canada we have what is known as compulsory grading of potatoes. The main grades of table stock are Canada No. 1 and Canada fancy. Every single potato in the bag must be perfect; if a potato is bruised, cut, scratched, or has any other blemish it must be taken out or the inspector will not pass the bag; every carload of potatoes shipped from Prince Edward Island must carry a certificate signed by a government inspector. We have imposed that regulation on ourselves in order to raise the standard of our product on the markets of the world. We are happy under these conditions and we live up to the letter of the law. If anybody finds that we do not, all he need do is complain about it; our numbers are on the cars, and the complaint comes right back to the individual farmer. I have been informed when the early shipping season begins our competitors across the line are allowed to ship their potatoes into this country without following the strict grading regulations that we have imposed upon ourselves. We do not wish to shut out their potatoes, but we contend that when potatoes cross the line from the United States into Canada they should be subject to the same grading regulations as our own potatoes.
A great deal has been said about the price of farm machinery. In my opinion the price is entirely too high, and undoubtedly something must be done. I was pleased the other night when the hon. gentleman whose constituency embraces all that part and parcel of land lying southwest of the north pole told us that the price of farm machinery and ploughs had been reduced in his riding. That was a very encouraging piece of news, and I only hope it was land ploughs and not snow ploughs that the hon. gentleman had in mind. I am sorry to say that as yet we have noticed very little, if any, reduction in the price of farm machinery in eastern Canada. I have no hesitation in saying that my advice to the farmer is to buy just as little farm machinery as he can get by with. Some hon. gentlemen may say that that is bad for business. I know it is; no one knows it better than myself, because when we cease to buy, implement dealeis cease to sell, and when

they cease to sell that is reflected back through the manufacturer to those who work in the factories. But, Mr. Speaker, I assert that self-preservation is still the first law of nature, and the farmer who allows himself to be over-burdened with debt, whether through the purchase of farm machinery, automobiles or anything else, is neither any good to himself nor to the community in which he lives.
As I have said, something must be done about the price of farm machinery. But do not misunderstand me. I have no quarrel with the manufacturer. He is doing the best he knows how, perhaps he is worrying over the situation just as much as we are. But I do say there is too wide a spread between the price of the commodities of the farm that we have to sell and the price of the machinery that we have to buy. Prosperity will not return to Canada until it first returns to those who are engaged in Canada's greatest industry. I am not here to offer the manufacturer any advice. I am not a manufacturer, nor am I a business man; I am a plain, ordinary farmer. Yet at times I think my own thoughts, and it often occurs to me that after all the trouble does not arise in the factory. I wonder how far I would be from the truth if I were to make this statement-that the sale and distribution of farm machinery, and for that matter a great many other commodities, costs more than the manufacturing. Step into any railway train you like, or into any hotel, and what do you see? You are tripping over commercial travellers and machine agents; they are chasing one another up and down the line, they are worrying the life out of the storekeepers for orders, and they are living at the beet hotels. Who pays the piper? In my estimation it is the man who buys the goods. The hon. member for Southeast Grey said she believed in cooperative marketing. I will go a little further; I would apply the cooperative system to the manufacturers themselves. Surely they will have to find out some cheaper way to get the products of their factories into the hands of those who need them.
I think that is about all I can say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the economic condition of Canada, but there is something else I should like to speak about.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hurry up.


John Howard Myers: Yes, I am sorry to note
the time has gone by so rapidly. During this debate we have heard a lot about promises. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke for four and a half

The Address-Mr. Myers
hours-a long time for a man to speak- and I believe he devoted fully half of his time to the subject of promises-the promises that the right hon. Prime Minister had made to the people of Canada during the last campaign. The leader of the opposition seemed to be worried about it, but I cannot yet make out what was worrying him, whether he was worrying that the Prime Minister would not fulfil those promises, or whether he was worrying for fear he would fulfil them, or whether he was worrying because the right hon. gentleman had made them at all. He went so far as to say that the Prime Minister had not even lived up to the promise of perishing. Well, I can tell the right hon. leader of the opposition that there is this difference between him and the Prime Minister, that if the Prime Minister perish at all-which God forbid-he will perish in an honest manly effort to do something for the Canadian people; while the leader of the opposition on the other hand has already perished, politically at least, in attempting to persuade the Canadian people that there was nothing to be done.
I have only a few moments more at my disposal, Mr. Speaker; I wish I had half an hour. This is not the first time the Tories have made promises; the present Prime Minister is not the first Tory who has made promises. Ever since the days of confederation; ever since we entered the union in 1873, we had been promised continuous communication with the mainland. Various attempts were made by all governments to carry out these promises, but so far as the trade and commerce of Prince Edward Island was concerned they all ended in failure. They tried icebreakers to ply between our island and the mainland for years, but you can easily see what a little bit of a steamer that was stuck in the ice for a month at a time could do in the way of keeping transportation open. Then in 1911 a Tory by the name of Robert Borden came down to Prince Edward Island. He spoke in the market hall in Charlottetown and made a walloping big promise. He said, "If you make me Prime Minister of Canada I will link up your railroad on Prince Edward Island with the railways throughout Canada." That sounded big, but what happened? He did not fulfil that promise in three months; he did not fulfil it in eight months or in a year, but when three years had rolled away that promise was implemented one hundred per cent.
There are other things in Prince Edward Island of which we are in need. Some sections of our province are still a long way from the railroad. We have in Rustico a village inhabited by sturdy Acadian people. It is one of the finest fishing centres on the Atlantic coast, but they are ten miles from a railroad. They catch cod, mackerel and lobsters as fine as you will get anywhere, and if they were in a position to place these products of their toil in refrigerator cars immediately on coming to shore so they could be shipped to the cities of central Canada, it would be a great thing not only for central Canada but for the people of our province as well. Likewise, on the south side of the island, the settlement from which I come is eighteen miles from a railroad. That does not sound very far to those of you who come from western Canada, but I can assure you that in the handling of such a heavy commodity as potatoes it is a terrible handicap indeed. Again, we are suffering for want of better roads. The Prime Minister came down there before the last election and made us the promise that if he were returned to power he would help us improve our highways, and we are depending upon him to implement that promise.
There is just one other thing about which I wish to speak, and I am glad the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) is in his seat. The gateway to Prince Edward Island is Tormentine, New Brunswick, and next summer we are putting on a new ferry which will be very different from the old one. At the present time when automobiles are brought across they must be loaded on flat cars and taken abroad the ferry in that way. The new ferry has an automobile deck; the piers have been widened, and next summer you will be able to drive in your automobiles right aboard the boat, and forty minutes later you will be on Prince Edward Island. However, in getting there you have to cross a number of railway tracks in Tormentine, with all the switching back and forth which is going on there all the time. My colleague and I have a resolution on our desks from the board of trade of Charlottetown asking for a subway so that this level crossing may be eliminated. I took up the matter with the Minister of Railways, who said he had not enough money at the present time to carry on this work. I very much commend the economy that is being practised by the government; it is the only thing to do at the present time, and it is very wise. I support the Minister of Railways in that, but I want to tell him that when finances get better, as they are bound to do, and when conditions are improved, we who represent Prince Ed-

The Address-Mr. Girouard
ward Island will camp on his doorstep until *we get that subway.
I believe my time is almost up, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion just let me say that I have faith in the present Prime Minister and those who are associated with him; I believe that if they are given time they will implement every one of the promises they have made to the Canadian electors, and they will not perish in the attempt but will win the undying gratitude and admiration of the Canadian people.


Mr. WILFRID GIROUARD (Drummond-Arthabaska) (Translation.):: Mr. Speaker,
there was, the day following the elections, great rejoicing among those who had given their support to the Tory party. Did not the pleasant prospects hinted at, and which were to become alluring realities with the advent of a new government, justify in some respect these manifestations of joy! Indeed, were not all these unemployed to find within three days a permanent job? The workman was to be remunerated, thanks to tariff concessions granted to high financial circles and that active and devoted agency of the Tory party, the Executive Committee of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association; the farm products were to be considerably increased in value, the sale of wheat was a foregone conclusion. In brief, when all the nations of the world had to face an economic crisis which deeply affected them, when everywhere in other countries depression and discontent were rampant, add to this, in many countries, revolutions and civil wars, the Conservative party gave their pledge, as soon as elected, to make of Canada the only country in the world where prosperity would reign and where contentment and satisfaction would link themselves to an everlasting and permanent felicity. There was reason to rejoice, and I thought myself, that the speech from the thrcfne, represented a program so alluring that it would be in some way a hymn of joy.
I feel quite certain that every member in the house has read Chanteclerc, by Rosland: Chanteclerc was that rooster which was master in his own poultry-yard, he suffered, however, from a delusion; he believed that it was through his crowing that the sun rose and spread its light over the world. One morning, the sun rose without his intervention and we know how great was his grief and sorrow. The right hon. Prime Minister suffers from the same delusion. He believed -or tried to make believe-that by raising his voice the sun would rise over our country, that it would suffice for him to make

pledges for them to become immediately realities, that he had but to speak and that, like the shadows of night disperse with the first rays of the sun, so the crises would give way to days of prosperity. Those who rejoice have witnessed the deception and the speech from the throne instead of being a hymn of joy, is a sad acknowledgment of incompetence.
' Those who drafted the speech, accomplished a toilsome and hard task; their efforts were spread over a period of many days; by making a complete recapitulation of their election pledges, they discovered that there was one which they forgot to mention to the electorate, they hastened to remedy this sin of omission; and this is why, at the very outset of the speech, they find nothing better to offer to the people than patience and fortitude. Indeed, the opening sentences of the speech from the throne is as follows:
I welcome you to your duties at a time when the nations of the world are passing through a period of great economic depression. Canada has not escaped it. But the Canadian people have met the trials of the moment with patience and fortitude, and are facing the future with the courage and faith which must triumph over every difficulty.
This patience and fortitude to face the future, where will the Canadian people find it? Does it behoove the government to speak of patience and fortitude, they who during the election period, and since, did all in their power to lower one and destroy the other. All admit, to-day, that the Tories' campaign, on the one hand, aimed at exaggerating the depression, alarming the people and creating a state of general pessimism, while, on the other, by pledges of immediately reestablishing business and bringing back normal conditions, they sought to create the impression that salvation rested with the advent to power of the Tory government. They succeeded, not in capturing the confidence of the people, but of surprising their good faith, and I am sure I am using a very mild expression when stating that the present government was elected under false colours. Moreover, they begin to perceive the danger of their tactics and to realize that the exaggerated pessimism which they spread, served but to paralyse business more and intensify the havoc of depression. They realized that since assuming power our commerce has dwindled in a most alarming way, that the country's debt has increased, that the value of farm products has further decreased, that the discontent of a deceived people Aas brought on a strong reaction against their policy.

The Address-Mr. Girouard
That is why they now endeavour to steer public opinion in another direction. After having tried ito throw the responsibility for the depression on the King government, the present administration wish to create the impression that the country is really passing through a crisis, but thait it is less felt than among the other nations, and that our country, being young and sturdy, will easily overcome this drawback. They would have shown more frankness had they made these statements previous to the elections, since the economic conditions in Canada are actually worse than they were then. Were we to belierve the Prime Minister, it would appear that he went to the root of the evil, to the cause of this depression, and he alone could remove them; therefore, if instead of improving the economic situation is the same or worse, it follows that the government, either have not performed their duty or must admit their incompetence. In both cases, the people will benefit little. I was speaking, a moment ago, of the change of opinion which took place as regards the government, immediately after they assumed power. The country certainly witnessed one of the most rapid feats of wheeling which can be performed by persons who wish to be considered as efficiency experts. First, it is the Minister of Labour who states, a few days after the elections that our situation was not the work of any government but the result of a world-wide crisis. The government's mouthpiece in the province of Quebec, the Gazette of Montreal, in its edition of September 10, stated:
Canada has passed ten or twelve months of commercial readjustment comparable to that which took place in the early post-war periods but not upon as broad a scale. The situation would not have been nearly as bad except for the non-movement of the grain harvested last year. When the grain is not sold for export, the country temporarily at least, must get along as best it can without this new wealth, and at the time of general depression both domestic and foreign, the deprivation is a very serious one. September, "say the Gazette," has shown improvement in the general situation of the country.
The right hon. Prime Minister, on his return from England, speaking to the newspaper reporters, at St. John, made the following statement:
I am delighted to find myself again here. This has always been my feeling on each return from my trips abroad. We are all back, and are very grateful for the warm welcome, unceasing kindness and hospitality of the English people. Canadians have no need to leave their country to recognize this fact, however it inspires you to find the proof everywhere that your brothers of overseas see
with open admiration the triumphant progress of Canada. They already grant her the place which it is destined to occupy in the Empire and the world.
I wish to specially draw your attention to the words "triumphant progress of Canada." The Prime Minister adds:
Our difficulties are less, for they are those which a young country is up against. In a sense they can be looked upon as an incident in the work of her development.
WThat he pictured before the electorate, as Utter misery and commercial and agricultural ruin has become a mere incident. An incident, the difficult period which we find intensified by the failures which have attended the carrying out of his policy 1 An incident, the continuous drop, and, the more surprising at this period of the year, in the prices of farm products! I think it would not be wise for him to hold this language before the farmers of the riding I represent.
Mr. Beatty, also expressed his views on the same subject to meet those held at present by his friend, the Prime Minister. The loquacity of the President of the Canadian Pacific Railway is extraordinary since the last general election.
On march 3 last, speaking in Toronto, the newspapers report the following:
According to Mr. Beatty, the west understands that the crisis is not the result of the market conditions of one country alone, and that it will not be solved by the measures, notwithstanding that they are judicious and timely, of one government alone. People over there are well aware that this crisis is the result of numerous causes which extend to all markets of the world.
Mr. Beatty would have been the object of more sympathy and shown certainly a greater spirit of independence had he delivered this speech previous to the elections. All these opinions show up well the government's confusion, its powerlessness to remedy immediately the situation, a very humiliating acknowledgment of the failure of its pledges and a feverish search of evasion and means to explain the poor success of the policy which it put forth and which resulted only in intensifying the economic crisis, and especially that of agriculture.
Further on, in the speech from the throne, we find:
It will be your privilege to consider certain measures designed by my ministers to ameliorate [DOT]existing conditions.
And still a little further...
The problems which stand between us and ultimate prosperity are manifold and great. To be effectually met, they must first be understood.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: Thanks for
your leave.


Wilfrid Girouard: I am
pleased to see that the hon. member is closely following my remarks. He certainly will appreciate the extract which I shall read from the Gazette, a newspaper which he must evidently read every day.
I beg of my hon. friend for Quebec-Mont-morency to listen. This is what the Gazette stated:
Upon the progress made with the work of the special session of parliament depends the fate of the Imperial conference, since it is obvious that if Canada cannot be represented by its Prime Minister the results of the conference must be partial and inconclusive.
If the Prime Minister had not left, we would still hear cries of indignation and malediction hurled at the Liberals. Imagine, Canada would have lost, through our fault, the sole opportunity of relieving the economic crisis 1
What statements would not the Prime Minister have made on deeds that he would have been able to accomplish, on the advantage that he would have obtained and on the benefits of all kinds that he would have bestowed on the Canadian people. That opportunity was not given to him, and the Prime Minister went to London. He was to blast open the English market. After he had delivered his speech in which he wanted to force the British government to tax food to the detriment of her citizens, there was, in-

The ,Address-Mr. Girouard
deed, a blast, but it gave us no markets. It simply had as a result to lower Canada's prestige. Her representative never recovered from the inevitable fall which his proposals had lead him into. Canadians who could have reasonably expected results more satisfactory, owing to the hopes which the Prime Minister himself had inspired, were the more so disappointed.
As early as November 12, 1930, the Gazette speaking of the Imperial conference stated: The Imperial conference is concluding its deliberations. Its members have succeeded in doing nothing in particular and doing it well	 Out of all the fine phrases that had been used at the conference, phareses expressive of the most exalted sentiments, there have come very few practical results. But the interest of Canadian people centres in the questions of empire trade development, no progress seems to have been made.
On the other hand, La Patrie of Montreal, of November 14, 1930, speaking of this conference, made the following statement:
The Imperial conference, to-day, will end its deliberations, without having realized the hopes which it had given birth to.
At present England and the Dominions have to solve a problem so urgent that they have set aside all the others. It is an economic problem, and they have in no way profited by the work of the conference.
And, for our country especially the result of the conference is extremely disappointing. It was given out that this question would be taken up again in six months time, but the question is of such importance that it cannot be put off.
The Devoir of October 16, tells us of an incident in connection with the Imperial Conference which might be looked upon as amusing were it not for the disastrous consequences to our country.
Speaking of the Prime Minister of Canada and his quarrels with Mr. Thomas, it says:
Over there as here, Mr. Bennett is abrupt, authoritative and assertive. He puts conditions, wants everything to more as rapidly as he wishes, hastens solutions, and urge's answers. Given the opportunity, he does not hesitate to lecture Great Britain's ministers. It is the London correspondent of the Citizen, of Ottawa, who cables to his newspaper, that on the event of a banquet given to the delegates by the Empire Marketing Board, last week-a banquet when the menu contained only products of the various parts of the Empire-Mr. Bennett rose and addressing himself to Mr. Thomas, chairman of the meeting, said: What good is all this publicity, all this advertisement, if you allow the foreigner to invade your market? To emphasize his point, Mr. Bennett pointed out that Russian wheat, because it sold dirt cheap, displaced Canadian wheat on the British market. Mr. Thomas accepted the uncalled for remark without flinching. He might very well have reminded Mr. Bennett, that this Russian wheat, is sown and reaped by farm implements made in Canada, and that Mr Bennett should not fMr. Girouard.]
mention the fact, since Canada also profits by trading with Russia. Must it be said that, what is good for Canada, is bad for London? Mr. Thomas was welcoming Mr. Bennett, and the host could not possibly be rude to his guest even if the latter's manners were at fault. Mr. Thomas kept to strict etiquette.
A few hours ago, Mr. Thomas made his reply, answering Mr. Bennett in a round about way. It was on Tuesday evening, in London, at another banquet, where the delegates met important business men of the United Kingdom. Mr. Thomas was present in his capacity of Secretary of State for the colonies. There were speeches-eleven all fold-and in the course of these speeches Mr. Thomas, incidentally made the remark: "if the Imperial Conference is to be a success, it will not be simply by passing resolutions, not even by listening to the eleven speeches which unfortunately they must be burdened with this evening." Mr. Thomas even went further. "There is nothing so dangerous, in times of depression, than to make use of drugs which have the flavour of charlatanism . . . And measures dictated by panic will not help us."
The Prime Minister has returned from London, and if he wishes to be sincere, he will admit with everybody, that he is responsible for the failure of the conference.
May I, sir, draw your attention to a point which must have astonished you. The sale of western wheat is certainly one of the most important problems to solve, yet, is the Prime Minister aware, and are those who accompanied him overseas aware, that there are in Ontario and Quebec a number of counties where cheese is made on a large scale? They know that the British market is practically the only opening where our farmers can export their cheese; how is it that the Canadian representatives failed to fulfil their duties and pledges towards the farming classes by not seeking to assure themselves of the British market, and not saying a word on what could be done to maintain this market for Canadian cheese.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): The English people do not want to tax food stuff, when-


Charles Napoléon Dorion: They can
accept our cheese as in the past.


Wilfrid Girouard: For the last ten years, England has been our best customer as regards to our cheese exports. Each year Quebec exported for thousands and thousands of dollars of this produce. This year the Prime Minister crossed over to England. By his attitude, he made a fiasco of the Imperial conference, and within the last year, the last six months and especially the last three months, our Canadian cheese exports to London have dwindled considerably. In my riding, our opponents gave their pledge to the

The Address-Mr. Laurin
farmers that should Mr. Bennett be elected, immediately the price of cheese would increase greatly. The cry was: "Put the Conservatives in power. You will see that Mr. Bennett will travel to London, and once there, he will find purchasers to activate your sales." What has taken place, sir, proves but too well that the pledges given to the farmers of my riding will have the same fate as those given to Canadians in general.
The government tell us that the Imperial conference of London will meet again, this year, in Ottawa. I believe I represent the views of my constituents in telling the Prime Minister that he holds to a policy which has already been found inacceptable; he will again receive a humiliating rebuff for himself and the country.
The Prime Minister's visit to England has already borne its fruits, but to the detriment of Canada. The leader of the Liberal party stated last week that his government had succeeded in lifting the embargo on Canadian cattle which had been put by the British government and that the farming class had considerably profited by it. The present Prime Minister returned from England and the only result of the conference was the enacting, by the British government, of new regulations which will be very detrimental to Canadian trade. The Gazette of Montreal of March 4, 1931, gives us the following information:
Exporters of cattle have to face a problem: the new British regulations are of a nature to hurt our trade. The establishing, by the British Department of Agriculture, of new regulations in connection with the shipments of Canadian cattle to England has created a problem for the Canadian exporters. The effect will be of raising the transport rates and completely wiping out the small margin of actual profit.
I wonder what will the Minister of Agriculture do in the face of these new regulations. I have but one word to add: I wish to draw the attention of the house to the last part of the speech from the throne. The government know so well that they cannot find grace with the Canadian people, that they end that speech by an invocation to Providence. They greatly need to implore Divine mercy. I sincerely trust that they will obtain it, however, I am convinced that they will not escape the increasing indignation of the ratepayers of this country.
Mr. GEORGE P. LAURIN (Jacques-Car-tier) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I feel deeply moved in rising in the House for the first time, as member for the riding of Jacques-Cartier. I also take this opportunity to express again my sincerest gratitude to my kind constituents.
In the past, we had the privilege of being represented, at Ottawa, by truly worthy public men, whose speeches and acts have been reechoed in the annals of this country. Distinguished men like Messrs Girouard, Monk and Decary, advocated in our riding the traditional policy of Cartier and MacDonald, the policy of common sense, fair play, toleration and mutual respect of the two great races which, on the soil of America, received as a mission the safeguarding of our rights and liberties.
Still a young man, therefore better fitted to learn by obeying in order to later lead, than to lead now, I shall make it a duty to try as much as possible to follow, at least at a distance, in their glorious footsteps, and to accomplish this, my only wish, at present, is to continue to be fair towards all those I come in contact with, moderate in my appreciations, loyal in my allegiance and especially to never lose heart. Before throwing oneself into the struggle, it behooves one to foresee and be cautious, but once in it, there remains but to show a courage that grows apace with difficulties until victory is attained.
It is, in my humble opinion, a discretion more estimable than all prosperities. Moreover, when one has the advantage of serving under a leader, whose authority is a pass-word, whose energy is unsurpassable and whose heart is open to all as the Right Hon. Richard B. Bennett is; when one has the great privilege of being favoured by ministers of the crown, senators for whom, each day, we feel a more ardent admiration, it is evident that one would be very wrong not to cradle the sweet illusion that one will unavoidably be useful to his fellow-citizens and foster the greatness of the common fatherland.
The province of Quebec is essentially conservative in character; the last Dominion election resulted in reviving this glorious tradition, and the future will show that the majority of the counties of Quebec will return to the Conservative fold as of old. The Conservative standard will long wave over the Dominion parliament and over the provincial legislatures at present Conservative; it is not too early to forecast that the same standard will soon wave over the legislature of Quebec.
As a member, I shall always bear in mind that I mingled with the common people, and witnessed their joys and sufferings; I shall not cease to love them sincerely, taking a real pleasure in helping and protecting them, while not forgetting above all that worth is acquired 'by self-denial and fulfilling one's duty.
The Address-Mr. Laurin

The time of election pledges is passed. We must keep our word and act. Our leader has fulfilled up to date almost all his pledges: emergency session for the unemployed, partial tariff revision, an essentially Canadian policy, "Canada First." He brought back joy in the farmer's home as well as that of the workman; his economic and national policy, the aim of our long cherished hopes, at last triumphs to the benefit of all Canadians.
The special session resulted in relieving the crisis of unemployment in my riding of Jacques-Cartier. Let it suffice to say that from the $20,000,000 voted at the special session, it was possible tfo carry out work in the city of Verdun for an amount of $166,000; in the city of Lachine for $75,000; in the city of St. Laurent of $18,000, in St. Anne de Bellevue, for $4,000 and finally in Dorval $2,000.
I had given a pledge, Sir, at the last election to do my utmost, if I were elected member for Jacques-Cartier and if the Conservative party came to power, to induce the government to contribute one-third of the cost of two tunnels under the Lachine canal at Montreal. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) who contended that the Liberal government had for ever so long pledged themselves to contribute to the constructions of these tunnels. Indeed, sir, the Liberal government had been making this promise since 1921, on the eve of each general election, and never had they fulfilled their pledge.
I am pleased to say that the construction of these tunnels will begin under the Conservative regime, and I wish to publicly thank, in the house," the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and the members of his cabinet, for having acceded to my request as well as to that of my distinguished colleague the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan) who co-operated with me in trying to convince our people that we were sincere.
I shall go further, the hon. member for St. James stated that the subsidies for the work which is at present being carried out through the agency of the Canadian National Railway, was voted by the Liberal government. I agree with the statement of the hon. member for St. James, he will, however, allow me to add that, since the Liberal government had the subsidies voted for this work, the people of Montreal had not profited by them under the Liberal regime. The expropriations of buildings only were carried out, but the work itself which interested the workmen of Montreal have begun only since the Conservatives are in power.

In the course of the last general elections, I came openly out as a protectionist, on many occasions, as I had always done previous to being chosen as Conservative candidate. At the last session, I gave my support to the partial tariff revision, and I hope that I shall have the opportunity of contributing by my vote in giving the necessary protection to our industries, our manufactures, our working and farming classes.
Without enlarging on the subject, I shall state that there was a noticeable improvement in my riding. The Dominion Textile Company which had almost closed its doors, previous to the general elections, now employ a considerable number of people of both sexes. The Dominion Bridge, whose shops I lately visted, is satisfied with the last tariff revision and, like elsewhere, a large number of people are employed.
I shall take the opportunity, sir, to thank the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) for the assistance he extended to the workers of the Canada Car & Foundry Company by suggesting to Sir Henry Thornton that he should help as much as possible that foundry. Thanks to the assistance given, the Canada Car & Foundry Company opened its doors again and more than 800 men are employed there at present.
I also, sir, stated that I was in favour of old age pensions. In the course of numerous meetings which I held in my riding, before considerable crowds, I spoke again and again on this very interesting subject. I cannot state that my victory is due exclusively to my stand on that question because the problems which were submitted to the people were numerous and important; however, I feel certain that it brought in a large number of the votes which I received. The people gave me their support, their encouragement and help to carry on the campaign which I was waging in that sense. That is why it is difficult for me not to revert to this subject and to tell the house with all sincerity what are my views in this respect.
Most of (he members of the house know the outlines and general principles of the measure enacted in 1927. A committee had closely studied it during a few weeks. It had called in witnesses, heard their evidence and elaborated a very extensive and pertinent report.
It was after this study that the bill took the definite form as we have it to-day. The general tenor is known: it provides for the payment of a sum of $240 per year to people over 70 years old. This pension is payable by quarterly instalments to British subjects

The Address-Mr. Laurin
who have been residents in this country for 20 years and whose income does not exceed $365 per year.
Of this amount, the Dominion government, who was in no way obliged to do so, pay, at present, half. The province where the pensioner resides must pay the other half. It is left to the province or rather provinces, to decide finally if this system of pensions to old people will apply within their borders. They must, indeed, adopt a measure similar to the Dominion one, agree to pay half the pensions, defray the costs of administration, submit for consideration and approval to the Dominion government the legislation that they have passed. Should they not care to take any action, nothing further will be forthcoming.
Two governments must, in a word, meet half way. The Dominion government has gone half way; it is up to the provinces to do the other half.
1.	The Finance Minister holds in his hands, ready to pass it over, half of the pension;
2.	The provincial treasuries have had to supply the other half and the amount of the pension is complete.
Since four years that the Dominion act has been inscribed in the statutes, five provinces, on different dates and for various motives, decided to take advantage of it. They passed concurrent legislation, created a special organization, consented to pay half of the pension, and to-day, their old people receive quarterly, a cheque for $60.
I must here point out, sir, that the Dominion government had no obligation in the matter. The British North America Act gave exclusively to the provinces jurisdiction in this matter. This comes under the heading of provincial rights. An interpretation of our great constitutional charter given in the course of the debates, in 1927, by the law clerks of the Justice department seems to me to establish this point. These legal advisers even stated that the Dominion act would be void if it included the payment of the whole pension and was exclusively federal.
Notwithstanding this difficulty, the Dominion wished to go ahead, do its share and show proof of its generosity.
While the bill was under consideration, very interesting points were raised. Certain members stated that the province whence they come, could not take advantage of the act and would never benefit by it, and this for a very simple reason, because it required from these provinces the expenditure of too large an amount. Their financial resources,
they stated, were too limited to burden themselves with such a load. Among these provinces, we noted the three maritime provinces, whose yearly financial statements often show deficits and whose budgets are not very large, in a word whose revenues are limited.
This objection was certainly a serious one, since after four years, we still find four provinces that have not thought fit to take advantage of the act.
This objection brought on another which is not less important. The taxes paid by provinces not subject to this act, would serve to the payment of pensions to old age in other provinces. So that taxes paid in Quebec and the three maritime provinces are used, to an extent, to pay old age pensions in the other provinces, they help the old people in other provinces.
Might I point out, sir, that this situation is radically wrong, that the objection was well taken. Some day, we must certainly pass remedial legislation; because in equity, it seems to me, I am on solid ground.
I shall not strongly dwell on this difficult point. The party to which I have the privilege of belonging is closely studying this question and it will have, I think, in the very near future, the honour of remedying this injustice and establishing a more equitable regime, by having the Dominion government assume a larger and more important share of the pensions. This will be on its part a most generous act as we must admit, but which will come in due time.
It is expedient to help the old people who worked through life for the welfare of the country.
The riding I represent in, this parliament, is both urban and rural. One meets in cities, numerous heads of families who have devoted the whole of their life to obscure tasks, nevertheless indispensable and necessary to the economic organism of this country. Often, they have had numerous offsprings to rear; often they have spent the whole of their wages on clothes, food, and lodging for those children and given them the necessary education. Sometimes they earned low wages and they were absolutely unable, notwithstanding all possible thrift, to set aside savings. Sometimes also, they had succeeded in depositing small amounts in the bank, but lean years came, they were out of work and had to withdraw these savings.
I shall not enumerate all the chances there are of being destitute at 70 years old, because one would have to mention sickness, infirmities, accidents and all kinds of unfortunate events which happen in families and of which men's lives are ever strewn. Let it suffice tc
The Address-Mr. Laurin

state, and everybody will agree, that in most, in the majority of cases, the workers showed good will, ambition was not lacking nor energy, but hazard and luck were against them.
However, during that time, they toiled for the general welfare of society, they were useful to the country.
I pointed out just now the fact that cities perhaps have more of such cases than the rural districts. The Canadian farmers have mostly all good farms or "un beau bien" as they call it. When old and useless, when they can no more carry on the work on the farm, they continue to live with their children, are cared for and peacefully end their life in humble comfort. Old people in cities are less fortunate. With old age indigence is also felt, often absolute poverty. Temporary jobs, too many hardships, shortage of bread in the home, unfortunately this is what too often takes place.
It is on behalf of these cast-aways that I wished to raise my voice, to-day and draw the attention of the house. I know that my constituents approve heartily of all I have said. My sympathy towards the poor old people is the same as their's, it took root in the midst of scenes of misery and sufferings.
I am not, however, the only one, in the house, to share these sentiments. Many of my colleagues have the same feelings. And I trust that by pulling all together, we shall be able to prepare for all old people in Canada a better and more peaceful future.
Almost the entire press of Canada, Sir, the morning following the great victory of the Conservative party, praised the achievements and long career of the statesman that the country had placed at the helm of her affairs. The conservative newspapers expressed their deep gratitude to the great leader whose program "Canada First" had opened up to our party in the old Quebec province an outlet to our national aspirations and given to our cause new life: they praised the benefactor and victor of this marvellous opening which he made throughout the country.
I state, in concluding my remarks, that I see in our party a greater assurance of a national, individual and collective life.
The weakness of governments, swayed by the fear of being considered unprogressive or that rousing the clamours of an adverse press, which, however, does not fear to frighten our wives and daughters by threats of war, existing but in their fertile imaginations, the fear of public opinion still holds, within bounds those whose ideas are the most opposed to our regime, but who, however, have felt the wrath of a nation which they deceived so often.

It is a consolation to think and observe that our honest electorate know how to choose those who truly serve them, which they treat with contempt and reject with horror those who servilely flatter to better enslave them.
The struggle to please a responsible majority, capable of carrying on the work of the Canadian parliament, ended in an imposing manner on July, 28 last.
In a period of great economic crises, and of dangerous political insecurity, the liberal party proved powlerless. Unable to act itself, depending on occasional friendship shirking its responsibilities, it was swept away at the last elections.
Since the voting took place, the Conservative party raised to power, endeavoured to present all financial crises or at least to cir-cubscribe it, and thereby avoid the danger which threatened those who suffered from the economic crises and unemployment. It submitted, at an emergency session, practical measures to meet first a considerable financial depression and to serve in raising the morale of our industrial and farming classes.
Its word of command "Canada First" has always had as necessary complement-not to put off till to-morrow, act-what the King government could not accomplish, the Bennett government took up on its own hook determined to bring it to a successful issue.
The people of our cities and country side will give credit to the party which, in a difficult period did its duty and did not shirk its responsibilities.
The Canadian people in all situations, showed that they can have willpower and the determination to impose a Canadian party capable of being equal to the task and to better serve their interests. They wish to live in peace and security, they want order, they are intent on reconstruction.
Mr. Speaker, this will end my first speech in the house, the first of my political career. However, I trust that I shall continue here, as I always have done in public, to support the Conservative party in all the just proposals which it will put forth, in all the measures which are of interest to my fellow-citizens and compatriots.
When in years to come, conscious of having fulfilled my duty as a straight Conservative, and as a citizen as well, my children will be studying the astonishing phase of our political history which we are to-day, going through, they will tell their comtemporaries: "Our fathers were there." This is the only reward I expect from this amending and reconstructing of our national policy.

The Address-Mr. Gershaw


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, in conformity with custom and also in sincerity I wish to congratulate the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) upon their eloquence.
In the few minutes at my disposal before eleven o'clock, I should like to tell the house something of conditions in western Canada and to make some observations thereon. In that great country those engaged in the farming industry are rapidly returning to primitive living conditions, travelling for miles to grist mills to have their own wheat ground into flour, mending their old clothing, repairing their own machinery, and in many cases burning their field crops because they are of no value in the market. How can a western farmer pay with 400 bushels of wheat a debt which when contracted represented about 100 bushels? The purchasing power of the people has gone because the prices of the things they require has not come down in proportion to the fall in the prices of their products. Statistics show that while manufactured goods have fallen 9 per cent in value, the price of farm products has fallen 50 to 60 per cent. Many farmers of the west are facing utter ruin unless they revert to serfdom or standards of life which we dread to contemplate. I believe members coming from the west have a mission to perform. They must convince the government and the house of the justice of their claim for more assistance for the producers.
These are some of the present inconsistencies. The textile manufacturer receives on clothing coming from Great Britain a protection of 35 per cent, plus a special protection of twenty-five cents per pound. Clothing from foreign countries must on entering Canada pay a tax of 40 per cent, plus a special duty of thirty-five cents per pound. On the other hand, the man who raises the sheep, who spends long days out on the lonely hills herding his flocks, receives little or no assistance, and I hope the plight of the sheep men will engage the attention of the government. In the iron and steel industry subsidies and bonuses have been given at various times. At the special session, for instance, the duty on many agricultural implements was raised from 7 per cent to 25 per cent. On the other hand, the man on the farm who uses those implements must take his chance on the markets of the world to sell his products. Under the provisions of the Bank Act the banks are given privileges that assure them a profitable return upon their money as far as government assistance can assure such profit. We have the railway commission, which acts as 22110-23
a judicial body in respect to questions arising between the railway companies and individuals. The commission does not expect the railways to do business at less than cost, and ait different times many millions of dollars have been advanced to save the railway companies from bankruptcy.
Secondary industries generally are receiving more and more shelter from outside competition, which gives them an opportunity to do business at a profit. In fact, the farmer is about the only one who has to take his chance on the markets of the world, and to-day he is selling his products at less than half the cost of production.
Early in the season the western premiers came to Ottawa and requested that the federal government fix a price of 70 cents per bushel for No. 1 northern, Fort William basis. This unfortunately was not granted. If it could have been granted it would have done much to mitigate the sufferings and hardships caused by the acute and uneven fall in prices, and would have brought hope and comfort to many of those who are now in despair. The transportation companies would have benefited; the manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the country merchant would have participated in the improvement. I would like just here to make mention of the unfortunate plight in which the country merchant finds himself to-day. Out of the goodness of his heart he has granted credit, and now, unable to collect his accounts, he is being hard pressed by his wholesalers for payment. While in Canada many other industries have received assistance^ we find that outside of Canada not only have industries been helped, but particularly has the primary producer received assistance. Australia protects her butter makers and her wheat producers. France has an import duty of 86 cents a bushel against Canadian wheat, Italy a duty of 90 cents, Germany $1.62. Many other countries of Europe have, by milling quotas and by import duties, assisted their agriculturists to a great extent.
I have here a pamphlet issued by the Cooperative Wheat Producers of Saskatchewan. It points out that Italy, Germany, France, Bulgaria, Spain, Greece, Switzerland, Norway, Poland, Finland, Belgium and a great many other countries of Europe have made arrangements whereby the producers of wheat are given a price very much higher than on the world market. I do not say that this is sound business. Perhaps we will agree that in the case of Canada it would not be; but Why should one industry fail to receive any assistance from the government while other in-



The Address-Mr. Gershaw
dustries get much? I agree that unwarranted cartels, unreasonably high tariffs, unwise artificial barriers, props and stays are damming the legitimate and normal flow of international trade and commerce, and consequently hampering sound progress and delaying our return to prosperous times.
I have one suggestion to make and one matter to bring to the attention of this government which I hope will be of a constructive nature. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent there are many thousands of acres of irrigated land. Discouraged by the prospect of low prices of ordinary farm products, these men are greatly interested in the production of sugar beets. With a little assistance, this industry could be established as a permanent agricultural structure. Canada has always imported more than 90 per cent of its sugar requirements at a cost of from $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 annually. Canada consumes nine hundred million pounds of sugar annually, and only seventy-five million pounds has ever been produced from raw material grown in Canada. There is one plant at Raymond, representing a cost of $1,000,000, and there is room for two more plants, one at Brooks, and one near the Vauxhall irrigation district. These plants would be built and operated if assistance could be given. They .vould support thousands of people. They would make work for the miners of coal and limestone. They would provide traffic for the railway companies and work for the railway employees. Man power would be required in the field and in the factories. The by-products would help to feed the dairy herds, and the secondary industries would be encouraged. British and- Canadian capitalists have spent-over $50,000,000 on irrigation schemes in Canada. Under present conditions, with prices of farm produce as they are, these projects must fail. The Alberta government is interested to a great extent in at least one of these projects. If the sugar beet industry could be encouraged, it would save the situation.
There is another particular reason why this is urgent at the present time, and that is because the price has fallen from $7 to $5.50 per ton, placing the growers in an unfortunate position. I believe that the present Prime Minister is interested in this industry, because at page 453 of Hansard of the session of last September he said that he had met the beet sugar growers, who had asked for a slight upward grading of the tariff to ensure stability of their enterprise. He said:
If I had had time, I have no hesitation in saying to this committee that I should have
Mr. Gershaw.]
endeavoured to meet that wish. But time did not permit dealing with that very complex schedule.
The southern Alberta beet industry is just in its initial stage, and deserves consideration in view of its potential greatness. In view of the over-production of wheat and the pending over-production of other products, I believe that joy would come, to many homes in the west if this assistance could be granted.
I have a resolution here from the Scandia local of the United Farmers of Alberta, which reads:
Resolved that in the interest of the sugar beet industry, this local goes on record as in favour of protection in the form of a subsidy for the benefit of the farmers and everybody concerned.
S. J. Bengtson.
This government has operated demonstration farms in different parts of Canada, and has shown that sugar beets can be grown successfully in this country and that the beets are high in sugar content. Here is a resolution passed by a large meeting attended by several hundreds of farmers in the irrigated district of Brooks, Alberta:
Whereas the Dominion government has successfully demonstrated through their stations located at Brooks the growing of sugar beets, we hereby request that the federal government take immediate action to relieve the greatly depressed condition of the producers on irrigated land in southern Alberta caused by the general economic situation at present, and aid the said producers by doing everything possible to further the sugar beet industry in Alberta, by either subvention or tariff, and further, the said industry would help to solve the unemployment by creating labour for about ten thousand people for each such factory as at present operating in Alberta.
I have. also. a resolution passed by the .egislature of Alberta, where the government is neither Liberal nor Conservative. This resolution was passed by a majority of 41 to 6:
_ That pending a general substantial revision downward of all tariffs this assembly recommends to the Dominion government that the agricultural industry of western Canada be placed on a parity with other industries of Canada either by stabilization of prices or by careful examination of the incidence of the tariff schedule in order to assure that the economic interest of the farmers be adequately and justly safeguarded.
There are those who are now urging less government aid to business, but corporations in Canada have obtained franchises, charters, tariff concessions, and special privileges. The time to stop this practice, to execute a right about face of policy, is not at the moment when those engaged in the great basic industry of the country are pressing their claim for similar support.

Supplementary Estimates
Canada is passing through a period of economic gloom, dark clouds hover on the horizon, but we still have the products of our great natural resources to supply our own market and the markets of the world. Our people have not lost their initiative, and we are not bankrupt in salesmanship. Canadians will carry on with courage and fortitude, striving to realize their highest ideals, striving to make Canada a better place in which to live, and to maintain peace, unity and harmony. With the poet we may say for Canada:
When from the winter of thy dark night Thine angels of sunlight call,
Oh! waken me to my highest, my best, Or waken me not at all.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 27, 1931