1931-05-07

Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. I hold in my hand a newspaper of Quebec, dated yesterday which claims to have correctly reported the comments I made in the house on Tuesday evening. I find, according to this newspaper, that I opened my speech with the following remark: "I regret that the right hon. Prime Minister is not in his seat." Now, the words that I lid use were the following: "I notice that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is not in his seat" and they thus appear in Hansard.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) (Translation): What newspaper do you refer to?


Samuel Gobeil: The Evene-ment.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Was one Ephrem Renaud, of St. Eustache, Quebec, recently liberated on parole from the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?
2.	If so, what was the length of his sentence, and how long was he detained in said penitentiary?
3.	By whose recommendation was he liberated?


Mr. RINFRET:: With reference to this question, Mr. Speaker, I notice that when it was called yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) took the attitude that it was not a proper question to ask, stating that it had not been the practice in the past for governments to reply to such questions. I would point out briefly, however, that this question of mine is quite different from questions or demands of a similar nature made in the past. The last occasion on which a question of this kind was asked in this house was on March 12, 1930, when the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail) submitted a motion for a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents concerning a certain case of liberation. May I point out further that I am not asking for any confidential reports or documents; I merely wish to make certain of a group of facts where a certain person has been liberated-what was the length of his sentence, how long he had been detained, and so forth. These are facts; there is nothing in the nature of a demand for confidential reports. There is another point I would also make. When the Hon. Lucien Cannon, the predecessor of my good friend the present iSolicitor General (Mr. Dupre), refused to produce such documents, he made it very clear that he had examined the case, and he took the responsibility for refusing the production of those documents. In other words, someone must be responsible for cases of this kind. If the government does not desire to give to parliament information concerning cases of liberation, at least we should have a pronouncement from one of the ministers-and I think it should come from the Solicitor General-that he has looked into the matter and is quite satisfied that the case has been properly handled, and that for such reasons he does not desire to give the information. But the mere refusal to answer the question, without any acceptance of responsibility, is not, in my opinion, in conformity with responsible government. Someone must be responsible for any liberation on parole granted on the recommendation of the Solicitor General-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: -and if the government cannot supply the information-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: -they should take the responsibility.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has explained in sufficient detail the nature of his question.

Questions


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am sorry you did not call me to order sooner, Mr. Speaker. I am through.


Mr. BENNETT:: Yesterday I made certain observations with respect to this question. This is a matter that touches, not the Solicitor General nor the Department of Justice, but the conduct of government. The question as to whether or not information of this character should be given is a question that has engaged the attention of successive administrations, and the rule has been not to furnish such information. And until the matter is properly debated and another conclusion has been arrived at, which would involve making known to the public every case that is dealt with-for one means all-the government does not propose to depart from that rule. May I point out that the responsibility is that of the government, because it is His Excellency the Governor General who acts upon the advice of his ministers. They accept the responsibility; it is provided by statute; and as one case means all, then until this house, by proper notice of motion and subsequent discussion and debate, has arrived at a conclusion other than that which I have indicated, the government, I repeat, does not propose to depart from the rule.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: May I ask my right hon. friend if that applies to Nos. 1 and 2 of the question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: But they are merely questions of fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: They merely inquire
whether a certain man has been liberated. I quite understand the abjection that might be raised to No. 3-by whose recommendation he was liberated. This involves confidential reports, and in the interest of justice these confidential documents ought not to be given to the public. But as to the question whether a certain man has been in gaol and has been liberated, I think the public has a right to know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I may speak again wfith the consent of the house, may I observe that that has not been the rule. Indeed, this house on a previous occasion went so far as to sustain the judgment of those responsible, that even names should not be brought before the chamber; because the theory of the law is the exact opposite of that. If it is thought desirable that information of this kind should be given, and a notice is put on the order
paper, I am content that the matter should be debated, and that the fullest opportunity be given the house to determine what action shall be taken. But this would certainly involve a principle which I would appose-the production of names. If the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will consider the matter, he will realize that even the mere giving of a name involves the question of adequacy of sentence, the sufficiency of reasons, and the bona tides of the action taken. I have heard them impugned in the days of my hon. friend and I have never lent assistance to such criticism because I have felt that it was one of those matters with respect to which, once you have introduced discussion in this house as to whether or not political or other considerations have had an influence in the action taken, you destroy )the whole foundation upon which the provisions of the statute were built. However, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that if this house desires that the matter be discussed I shall endeavour to afford every possible opportunity to those who may put the necessary notice on the order paper to have it debated.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: But in the meanwhile-


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the meanwhile the practice that has heretofore prevailed will continue to be observed, and no information wil be given.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: In the meanwhile I would ask either the Solicitor General or the Prime Minister whether such information is available privately at the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will treat that as a question on the order paper and we will investigate and see what the practice has been. I know what the practice is in the Home Office, because there was a little volume issued last year in respect of the conduct of business there.


Mr. POWER:: You are Prime Minister of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad my hon. friend realizes it. He does so rather late in the day, but that is immaterial. However, the practice which has prevailed heretofore in this matter will, I repeat, be observed in this case.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I say further, with the consent of the house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The government declines to answer the question as it stands on the order paper.
Question stands.
.1330
Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-NEW CARLISLE WORKSHOP
Mr. MABCIL:: 1.	Is the Canadian National Railways operating a workshop at New Carlisle, Quebec, and if so, how many men are employed?
2.	If Campbellton, New Brunswick, is made the terminus of the Gaspe railways, will the workshop at New Carlisle continue to exist?


Mr. MANION:: *
1.	Yes, 14 men employed at present.
2.	Yes.


WHARFINGERS AND LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS
Mr. VBNIOT:: How many wharfingers and lighthouse keepers were dismissed between the 7th of August, 1930, and the 27th April, 1931, and what were the reasons assigned for such dismissals?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: (a) Number of wharfingers dismissed-Reasons for dismissals
1,	neglect of duty; 10, political partisanship; total, 11.
(b) Number of lightkeepers dismissed- Reasons for dismissals 8, neglect of duty; 1, in the public interest; 1, farming out duties; 36, political partisanship; total, 46.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-SESSIONAL CLERKS
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many sessional clerks are employed in the House of Commons?
2.	What are their names, and what salary does each draw?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	13.
2.	A. Aube, 84 per day; G. H. S. Campbell, $6 per day; W. A. Code, 84 per day; M. Cote, S4 per day; L. Coulombe, S4; C. Cour-eelle, S4 per day; E. Cvr, $4 per day; M. Diot-te, $4 per day; A. Drolet, 84 per day; E. Gourre, SI per day; T. L. Maloney, S4 per day; C. W. Meneilley, 84 per day; J. P. Rioux, S4 per day.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-FILE CLERKS
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	How many file clerks are employed in the House of Commons?
2.	What are their names, and what salary does each draw?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	4.
2.	Miss D. Bond, S3 per day; Mrs. M. Kloclc, $3 per day; Mrs. M. Lett, S3 per day; Miss A. Parizeau, $3 per day.
CMr^ Speaker.]


PORT HAWKESBURY, N.S., PORT PHYSICIAN
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has J. R. McLeod, Esq., M.D., C.M., of Port Hawkesbury, in the province of Nova Scotia, been dismissed from his position as port physician?
2.	When was he appointed to said position and how long was he in the service of the government?
3.	What, is the reason for his dismissal?
4.	Who recommended said dismissal?
5.	Was an investigation held and by whom?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	16th August, 1911. From 16th August, 1911, to 13th July, 1912. From 1st November, 1916, to 15th May, 1931.
3.	Political partisanship.
4.	Dr. McLeod was dismissed by authority of an order in council which was adapted on the recommendation of the Minister of Pensions and National Health.
5.	No, the established practice was followed of accepting the statement in writing of the member representing the constituency of Inverness that to his personal knowledge Dr. McLeod was guilty of political partisanship.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BONAVENTURE EMPLOYEES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCH,:
1.	Is it true that 18 employees of the Canadian National Railway shops at New Carlisle, Bonaventure county, Quebec, have been notified that their services will be no longer required after the first of May?	_
2.	Has a request been made to the Canadian
National Railway Company to suspend this order and give the men work for three days per week?	_
3.	If these dismissals are persisted in, will the said shops be kept in operation?
4.	If not, where will the work, done by these men, be done in the future?
Robert James Manion: In reply to the inquiry, Sir Henry Thornton writes the minister as follows:-
"We did lay off eighteen employees in the locomotive department and one in the ear department at New Carlisle on April 30th. This was on account of the reduction in traffic and general repairs to engines being made at Moncton. Regular train service on the Gaspe lines is daily passenger and tri-weekly wayfreight service between Gaspe and Matapedia. We originally had thirty employees in the locomotive department, and three in the car department, and the fourteen that we have retained on the force are all that are required under the present conditions.
"I might say for your information that whatever facilities there are at New Carlisle for the repair of locomotives and cars are obsolete

Quebec Harbour Commission
and inefficient, and arrangements were therefore made to transfer general repair work to Moncton where an efficient and up-to-date plant exists. We cannot transfer the surplus employees from New Carlisle to displace other men in the employ as they do not hold seniority, and the additional work which will have to be taken care of in Moncton will be done without increased staff.
"Following the taking over of the Gaspe lines, some of these men were engaged in dismantling old equipment and other temporary work, but the time has arrived when there is no work for them to do, and therefore it has been necessary to reduce the staff as indicated above."	:


POSTAL LETTER CARRIER SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARC1L:
When will the postal letter carrier service be introduced in Ottawa west, Westboro, Wood-roffe, Laurentian View and other parts of Nepean township?
Mr. SAUVE:: Not until economic conditions improve to such an extent as to warrant the department making extensions of this expensive service, and then only when and to that portion where local conditions under which such a service is given are satisfactory to the department.


AUSTRALIAN TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) be good enough to indicate to the house when he expects to be in a position to make an announcement with regard to the new Australian treaty.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this treaty is under negotiation at the present time; as soon as it has been completed and it is proper to do so, prompt announcement will be made.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). The newspapers publish an interview given by the Chairman of the Quebec Harbour Commission, Mr. O'Meara, to the effect that the
question of salaries paid to employees of the Harbour Commission is under the control of the Minister of Marine, and that he has,, no knowledge of the Minister's intentions. I wish to inquire whether that is the case and whether there is any truth in the rumour' that salaries are to be reduced.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker,. I have not read the report of the interview to which the exMinister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), refers. Although I intend to exercise a reasonable control over the harbour commissions, as regards salaries, I have not so far received from the Quebec Harbour Commission any request to determine or help to determine the salaries of the employees of that commission.


Ernest Lapointe: Any action taken should originate with the commission itself?


Alfred Duranleau: Unless we discover
that the salaries paid to employees of these boards are exorbitant, the Minister of Marine has no intention to intervene. However, we are of the opinion that the employees of the harbour boards should receive about the same salaries as are paid to civil servants.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Would the minister interevene if the salaries were too low? I remarked that he stated he would interfere only if the salaries were exorbitant.


Alfred Duranleau: I think that in such a case the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson) would step in.


BORROWING POWER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Gavan Power: Would the Minister of Marine be so obliging as to inform the house whether he has the intention of introducing, this session, a bill to empower the Quebec Harbour Commission to borrow money from the Dominion government? .


Alfred Duranleau: I am not in a position to answer this question at present; the commission must first make a request to borrow money.


Charles Gavan Power: Was such a request made?


Alfred Duranleau: When such a request is made, it will be given due consideration.
Radium Discoveries


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. T. LUCAS (Camrose):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his capacity as Minister of Finance, based on a number of protests I have received from borrowers under the Farm Loan Act, that undue pressure is being used at this time in making collections. We realize that the matter of repayment must be keipt before, the attention of borrowers at all times but these letters would indicate that the notices sent out are of a very peremptory and harassing nature and it would not seem that any consideration is being given to the unusual financial conditions which prevail at the present time. Is it the wish of the right hon. the Prime Minister that such a course should be pursued at this particular time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a misapprehension as to the relation of the farm loan board to the government. In view of that misapprehension I shall make a statement to-morrow bearing on the question asked by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas).


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the remarks of my hon. friend on my left (Mr. Lucas) were directed more to the soldier settlement board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he said the farm loan board.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I will repeat the question in regard to the soldier settlement board, which is directly under the control of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer in that regard will be furnished to-morrow by the minister. It is obvious that we cannot give an answer without looking up the records.


RADIUM DISCOVERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask
the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon) if the government has knowledge of the reported discovery of radium in the Northwest Territories, at Great Bear lake, if it is proceeding to investigate the value of those deposits and if it intends to take steps to secure the control of them for Canada.
[Mr. Duranleau.1	p; .1


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Mines):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the control of radioactive ores in Canada has not been considered very seriously by any government. As hon. members likely know, the main source of radium to-day is in the Belgian Congo. ' An attempt was made some years ago to extract radium from ores in the southwestern United States, but that was discontinued. A number of discoveries of radioactive ores have been made in Canada, some having been made recently in Ontario and others in the Northwest Territories at Echo bay. The department of Mines has lent some assistance by way of investigation and laboratory tests to those who are engaged in this work in order to determine the value of the deposits. It is not the duty of the department to certify as to the extent or possible value of these deposits, but the department is interested in assisting in the identification of these ores. As to the government taking over the properties which have been located and staked by prospectors, that matter has not been seriously considered by any government although it is one to which some attention might be given.


RANFURLY POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I have received a petition signed by fifty-five petitioners in the village of Ranfurly, protesting against a ruling by the Post Office Department ordering that the post office lobby be closed on Sundays. I would like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) whether that ruling is in accordance with some recent regulation of the Post Office Department to be applied generally in Canada, or whether it is to apply only in the case of Ranfurly post office.


Arthur Sauvé: Will the hon. member be good enough to put that question on the order paper and I will then give an answer.


DEPARTMENT OF MARINE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). About a month and a half ago, on March 23, to be exact, the hon. Minister of Marine laid on the table the 63rd annual report of the Department of Marine, for the fiscal year

Ocean Rates on Cattle
1929-1930. On many occasions since that date, and to-day also, I inquired at the Distribution office for the French version of that report and the answer has always been that they only had the English version. May I inquire from the minister how long must we wait for this French version to which we are entitled?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond) chooses to direct a question to a minister or to the government, he has a right to do so, but he should not make a speech at this period.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: I think,
sir, if what I have just said had been well understood, it would have been noticed that I made no speech but that I had simply asked a question. To justify my question, I first had to state the facts to the house.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, the
question asked equally concerns the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), as regards the printing of the report. As to the translation, I shall see that it is completed without further delay, if it has not already been done; for we want all reports in both languages, to be at the disposal of the house in the shortest delay possible.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	Mr. Speaker, would the hon
the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) advise the house if, in adding to or supplementing the directorate of the Canadian National Railways, consisting of fifteen members, in order to include the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, he intends, in the representation to be effected, to give representation to agriculture in those two provinces?
Robert James Manion: The matter is under consideration.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian Press despatch of the 6th instant reports that Mr. Ralph Webb, mayor of the city of Winnipeg, has strongly urged the present government to construct the trans-Canada highway as a federal undertaking rather than a provincial one. Mr. Webb states that such an undertaking would relieve
the present unemployment situation as it would give employment to 25,000 or 30,000 workmen for three years. Would the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) inform the house as to the attitude of the government in this regard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad one hon. member realizes
that. The question will be answered in due course.


DOMINION CONVERSION LOAN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: A few days ago the Prime Minister made mention of a national bond issue which the government has under consideration and I think he intimated he would have a further statement to make. As the press is giving a good deal of attention to the matter, perhaps he would inform the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the orders of the day were
proceeded with I intended to inform the house that I proposed to make a statement to-morrow before the orders of the day are called.


SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I understand that a commission under Sir Alexander Gibb is coming here to make an investigation into the harbour boards of Canada. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he will consider the harbour board of New Westminster as coming within the scope of that inquiry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no difficulty in answering this
question. I will consider the harbour board of New Westminster. I had occasion to do so recently when their half-yearly interest fell due.


OCEAN RATES ON CATTLE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. II. A. MULLINS (Marquette):	In
view of the Manchester Lines carrying another deck of cattle, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the rate remains at $15 per head. I am told there was an attempt to raise the rate to $17.50 a head.
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: There was an attempt to raise the freight rate to $17.50 a head, but I understand the rate is still to remain at $15 a head.
Agridultvral Conditions



SUPPLY-AGRICULTURAL CONDITIONS   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE AND AMENDMENT OF MR. BROWN

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bennett for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Brown.
['That is satisfactory.']
Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: I wish to speak in support of the amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) and. I am led to do so because I cannot but believe that the Prime Minister, his colleagues and supporters are not yet fully seized of the facts in connection with the unfortunate condition in which the agriculturists of this Dominion find themselves at this time. I am led to the conclusion that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in particular is unaware of the actual facts, and I am led to that conclusion because of statements that the right hon. gentleman has himself made and because of conclusions that he has drawn from the facts to which he referred in those statements. I am also led to the conclusion that that is the case because the government has not shown the same alacrity in dealing with the requests of the farmers as it has in dealing with the requests of other classes. Let me illustrate this by pointing out that when the manufacturers of barbed wire-and I presume they are not numerous-approached the government, the government was very quick to respond to their request and to fix a price for duty purposes on barbed wire, on the ground that barbed wire was being imported into Canada against the interests of the producers of barbed wire in this country. Precisely the same thing happened when the refiners of gasoline approached the government and again when the manufacturers of cars did so.
I have already, once in the house during this session, sought to enumerate the ills of the farmers in western Canada and I do not apologize for endeavouring to-day to repeat some of the statements that I then made. I do not hesitate, because of certain statements made recently by the Prime Minister himself. I remember that on one occasion the Prime Minister said in this house that hon. gentlemen opposite, referring to us on this side, had made statements that could not be substantiated. At the same time he said that we had made exaggerated statements as to conditions that prevailed in western Canada. He went further than that and said we had broadcast throughout the country statements that could not be substantiated in any manner

or form'. The right hon. gentleman did not enumerate the statements, but I imagine that he was: referring to statements that have been made on this side to the effect that many farmers in western Canada are insolvent. I believe I was one of the first offenders in that'..respect. I remember saying in my first address in this house, my maiden address on a. major debate, that I fully believed in my own constituency at least sixty per cent of the farmers were insolvent, and I repeat that statement to-day as being my honest conviction.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: May I ask hon. members to refrain from indulging in loud conversation while an hon. member is addressing the chair. In this building there are many offices provided for the transaction of business and also spacious lobbies.


Harry Butcher: I should like to explain my understanding of the word "insolvent." I was using that word in the ordinary every day acceptance of the term. Who is the insolvent man? He is the man who is possessed of money, goods and land to a certain amount, and at any given date that amount is less than the total amount of his liabilities. That being the case, I affirm again that a large majority, in my opinion sixty per cent of the farmers in my constituency are to-day insolvent.
The Prime Minister, in refuting statements that we had made and in proof of his contention that they were exaggerated, made three major statements. In the first place he said that tens of thousands of farmers in the west had money in the bank. Then he said that new wealth to the extent of $1,900,000 had been produced in the west during the last three years. Finally he said there were a large number of cars in the western provinces and he suggested that the possession of those cars indicated that the statements we had made were exaggerated. I admit without any qualification whatsoever the truth of those three statements made by the Prime Minister; they are irrefutable. But I go further and say that they neither prove his contention nor disprove ours.
In the first place he said that tens of thousands of farmers had money in the bank. There is not the slightest doubt that that is true. But it is a very vague statement at best. There may be men who have a few dollars in the bank. There may be men who may have lots of money in the bank. There may be men who this spring obtained an advance from the bank, and then deposited the proceeds to their credit in the bank, and who

Agricultural Conditions
may now have a small amount which will be gradually diminishing during the summer. But if ever}' one of the tens of thousands of farmers that the right hon. gentleman speaks of have a large amount of money in the bank, our statements may yet be true.
May I draw attention to the fact that according to the census returns of 1926 there are in the three provinces that the right hon. gentleman mentioned 247,162 farmers. Taking my own statement that 60 per cent of these men are insolvent, what do we find? Sixty per cent of 247,162 is 148,000. That still leaves approximately 100,000 farmers who may have money in the bank. So I say again that the right hon. gentleman's statement to the effect that there are tens of thousands of farmers in the west who have money in the bank neither proves his contention nor disproves ours.
Then he said that since 1928, 81,900,000,000 of new wealth had been created in the west, and in addition there was S100,000,000 of new wealth created in the great mining areas in the three western provinces. That sounds like affluence, I admit. It sounds as though we were wealthy in the west. But I think it is advisable to analyze the statement and see what it produces.
The population of the three prairie provinces, according to the 1926 census returns, was 2,175,900. Very good. We find that the wealth produced per capita for the three years was $873.21 and the wealth produced per individual per annum, $291.07. The figure quoted by the right hon. gentleman was the gross agricultural wealth. It allowed absolutely nothing for the cost of producing that wealth. In the year 1928 it is very probable that the cost of production bore a reasonable ratio to the amount of wealth produced. In the year 1929 it was not so good, and in the year 1930 the cost of producing was greater than the value of the new wealth produced. I could produce all kinds of evidence to this house to show that such is the case, but I want to read a quotation from a letter that I received two or three days ago. It is a letter from a very reliable farmer who has been farming in our district for approximately thirty years, a man who takes no active part in politics, has no axe to grind, a hard-working man and a good farmer, with three sons to assist him in the operation of about nine hundred acres of land. This is what he says:	.
Well, I took my usual inventory and made up my books for the year on April 1st. My profit and loss account showed that the operations on the farm for 1930 were a loss of nearly $2,500.
He says further:
Still, we will try again. There are lots who say they won't. It is the first time in thirty years that I have farmed that I have seen the western farmers' morale so low.
I say to this house without fear of successful denial that the production of new wealth for another year or two more on that basis will certainly bankrupt the west. Close to the farm occupied by the writer of this letter, there is another farm of about nine hundred acres, farmed by four brothers, splendid men in every way, hard-working, intelligent, excellent farmers, with only one failing that I know of, and that is that they would never support me as a candidate for election. These men have assured me through a mutual friend that they made a loss on their operations last year. What is true of those two farmers is true of hundreds of thousands of farmers in western Canada. We do not want to go on producing wealth on the same conditions as those under which these men produced new wealth last year.
The right hon. the Prime Minister in his remarks said that we on this side of the house had stated that the western provinces were going into bankruptcy. He said it unintentionally, I think, but he did make that statement, as you will see if you look up Hansard. No speaker on this side of the house said that either of the provinces or all of them were likely to go into bankruptcy. We did not say that the whole of the farmers were going into bankruptcy. What we did say was that a reasonable proportion of them were.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman point to where I made the statement about the provinces going into bankruptcy?


Harry Butcher: I shall be very pleased
to do that. May I quote from his remarks?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I want to hear how it is put.


Harry Butcher: At page 779 of Hansard the right hon. gentleman is reported as follows:
Hon. gentlemen opposite who come from these provinces-
He had been referring to the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta:
-have been talking about their insolvency and bankruptcy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was with reference to the farmers.


Harry Butcher: That is probably what
the right hon. gentleman meant, and I accept his explanation that he was referring to the
Agricultural Conditions

farmers. But the grammatical construction of the sentence might suggest otherwise. At any rate, the words I have quoted are the words that he used. We were referring in our statements on this side of the house to only approximately sixty per cent of the farmers. In this connection I would like to make a suggestion. The Bankruptcy Act of this Dominion provides a means whereby business men who are hopelessly entangled and harassed beyond all possibility of getting out of their financial difficulties may go into bankruptcy. I would like to see a simplification of the procedure under the Bankruptcy Act, to have certain amendments made which, with proper safeguards against fraud, would make it possible for a farmer who is hopelessly involved to avail himself of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. That is a suggestion which I think might be considered by the government.
The next statement which the right hon. the Prime Minister made is also irrefutable, namely, that there is a large number of cars in western Canada-261,778 in the three prairie provinces, to be exact. I know that the right hon. gentleman merely stated a fact. I do not believe that he intended any implication, but I gathered from the response that his statement met with from his followers, that there was a certain implication in the minds of many of them. It is rather remarkable that since I have been here in the east I have had on several occasions the suggestion made to me that the farmers of the west have been very extravagant. It has been suggested that they have bought too many cars and other things, like radios. There is one thought that comes to my mind in that connection. Who is more entitled to own a car than the farmer? Who can use a car more profitably than the farmer? The car has not only been a very profitable thing for the farmer to have, but I will tell you what it has done for the farmers' wives of the western prairies. It has made life far brighter for the women of the prairies and for the children. Before the advent of the car it was a rare experience for the hard-working wife of the hard-working farmer to have an outing. Many a farmer, having worked the whole day, and working six days a week, puts his horses away at night. Perhaps on Sunday he would hitch up his team and take his wife and children to church. That was about the limit of the outings the wife and children had. In these days things are different and the car is used to give a little pleasure to farmers' wives and children. I fear there is a

misconception in the minds of a great many people regarding the statement made concerning cars owned by farmers. When I was going home for the Easter recess I travelled for a short distance with a very delightful old lady. She told me she had heard there were a great many members of parliament on board the train and after a while she asked me if I was one. I did not like to deny it, although in a great many cases I find the fact is not appreciated. She told me she had a good friend in the House of Commons but did not say on which side of the house her friend sat. I hope however the hon. gentleman is on the other side of the house. My reason for saying that is that presently she said to me, "Is it not a f'\ct that your farmers in western Canada 1 ^ve built large houses, own cars and radios?" I said, "Madam, undoubtedly it is true that a few of our farmers have large houses, but more of them dwell in shacks or very poor houses. It is a fact that many of them have radios, and I think they are entitled to them." To me it is passing strange that the men who derive their wealth from the producers of wheat own cars without comment. On the other hand the man who produces the wheat must not own a car.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I point out to the h'on. gentleman that certainly he is misrepresenting my statement. In answer to a question by an hon. member I pointed out that I had no sentiments but those of commendation for farmers owning automobiles, but the fact of ownership bespoke their material resources. The misrepresentation by my hon. friend cannot be wholly accidental.


Harry Butcher: I am talking about the-


Mr. DUPUIS:: He is speaking about the
old lady.


Harry Butcher: If the right hon. gentleman will look to-morrow morning at Hansard he will find that at the very beginning of my remarks I said I knew this was not the true feeling of the right hon. gentleman.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I heard the remarks of
the hon. gentleman, but any hon. member would know he did not place his remarks on Hansard by accident. He wanted those people who read them to draw the inference that I was endeavouring to reflect upon the farmers owning automobiles. I am accustomed to that practice; we all are. And may I say the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Yeniot) need not tell the hon. member what to say. He is quite capable of talking for himself.

Agricultural Conditions


Mr. VENIOT:: The ex-Postmaster General never opened his mouth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The effort of the hon.
member to make capital of his suggestion was quite evident to all of us.


Harry Butcher: In case of a possible
misunderstanding I will repeat what I said. I did not for one minute accuse the Prime Minister of endeavouring to reflect upon the farmers. I said that there was an idea prevailing, or something to that effect, that the farmers were not entitled to own cars. I repeat that statement.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: And the
roar of laughter from hon. members opposite proves it.


Harry Butcher: The right hon. gentleman told of the number of cars in western Canada. In the previous paragraph of his speech he will find he was referring to farmers. I would point out that in the three prairie provinces 34 per cent of the people are urban dwellers and 66 per cent are dwellers in rural districts. The automobiles to which my right hon. friend referred have not all been purchased by the farmers of western Canada. In case the right hon. gentleman states that I am positively accusing him of making that statement, I will say at this time that he did' not make it. He said that the people of western Canada purchased these cars, and I am pointing out to him that 34 per cent of those people live in villages, towns and cities and 66 per cent in the rural districts. I venture to suggest that if a survey were made as to the ownership of those cars it would reveal a reversal of the figures I have stated. I suggest that 66 per cent of the car value in the western provinces would be credited to city, town and village dwellers. The average man in the city, town or village owns a good car, and nobody would blame him for doing so. The farmer usually buys a cheap car, and very often a second hand one discarded by the city dweller.
My right hon. friend made three suggestions as to why it was time hon. members on this side of the house ceased criticism. I wish to make my statement carefully, because I might be misunderstood. First he wanted to know how we could expect the banks to continue to lend money if we continued to talk in the way we have been talking. Mr. Speaker, I venture to opine that no bank will grant fewer loans because of statements made by hon. members in this corner of the house, and no bank will grant more loans because of what has been said by hon. members opposite. In the past when I have wanted loans, as now
and again, I do, I have found that the banker took me into his inner sanctum and put me through a drilling. He wanted to know what I owned, how much was free from encumbrance and asked a great many other questions to learn whether or not I would be a proper risk. That is the practice of banks everywhere. I will go further and state that the 60 per cent of the people in my constituency to whom I have referred could not get bank credit anyway. Therefore they are not prejudiced by the fact that I have made a statement in connection with the matter. In the second place the right hon. gentleman stated a gentleman had said to him, "We must uphold the credit of Canada." I believe that. He said a certain gentleman had written to him and said that somebody should be prevented from speaking because agreements of sale were being offered and could not be sold. May I say in reply that hon. members in this comer of the house were not sent here to assist in the disposal of agreements of sale. We were sent here for a specific purpose. Having acquainted ourselves with the conditions in our respective constituencies we were sent here to make those conditions known to the house. Having made discoveries as to what was needed for the good of Canada it is our duty to make our desires known. Mr. Speaker, I consider that to be our duty. Again I will explain that the Prime Minister did not intend to imply that we should moderate our speech. Certainly not; he does not do it himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman would permit me again to interrupt, may I say to him that since I have had to do with these conversion loans I have been informed by representatives of bond houses that the very speeches made in this house have seriously impaired the credit of the western provinces and made it more difficult for them to obtain loans for which they are now in the market at reasonable rates. I make that statement only for what it is worth.


Harry Butcher: From which side of the house did those people complain the speeches came?


Richard Bedford Bennett: On your side.


Harry Butcher: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying that I believe I have fulfilled the duty imposed upon me when I was sent here to represent to the best of my ability the constituency of Last Mountain. I have made statements which can be substantiated, and I have not made one statement which cannot be substantiated.
Agricultural Conditions

Before I close however I would like to state frankly that I do not believe the government is responsible for existing conditions; I believe they are not wholly responsible. I believe I made that statement before. Probably they did something to aggravate the situation during the last session of parliament but on the other hand I think there are things they may do which will relieve the present situation. I do not believe however that it is within the power of the government to cure the present economic situation. However we ask them only to do the best they can. With regard to the last paragraph of the amendment moved 'by the hon member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) I think there are suggestions therein contained which the government might well reconsider.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I agree very largely with what has been said by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher) with respect to agricultural conditions in western Canada. I believe practically every hon. member from western Canada, regardless of his seat in the house, will agree with him. However, I do not purpose at any great length to take up the time of the house in a discussion of the subject matter of the amendment because I feel such action would be merely a repetition of the five weeks' debate on the address. However I would like to place on record some of the activities of the group in this section of the house with respect to the issues involved. Knowing the serious plight of western agriculture I must admit I have some sympathy with the amendment.
However, I do feel constrained to comment upon the fact that for many years we in this corner of the house have been bringing forward measures for the relief of agriculture. Generally we have found our Liberal friends opposing and voting them down. But now that they have been transferred to the opposition benches they have suddenly become reformers. Of course, I am not objecting to that, I am not criticizing them for it; on the contrary I welcome even this belated action on their part. As an illustration of what I mean, may I deal with the demand made on the government on Tuesday last by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan). He demanded that the government set a maximum rate of interest of 6 per cent on farmers' liabilities. I quite agree with him that something like that must be done. But I would remind him that in 1923 when the Bank Act was up for revision this group moved an amendment that would have had the effect of setting a maximum rate of 7 per

cent for bank interest. Of course, that limitation is already in the Bank Act, but the bankers have been able to override it by technicalities. The amendment that we introduced would have made it impossible for them to do so. What' was the result? Every member on the government side of the house -the Liberal party at that time-voted against it, along with the Conservatives who then sat on this side of the house; and I have no doubt that my hon. friend from South Huron, being a good party man, would have done the same had he been here. Of course, he was not in the house at that time, and we cannot tell what he would have done, but I can hardly conceive of him breaking with his party. I do not like to cross swords, with my hon. friend because, as I appreciate, he is a "bonny fighter" in the interests of agriculturists.


Mr. McMILLAN (South Huron):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has no right to make such an implication.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Milton Neil Campbell: There is nothing to take back. I think my hon. friend would be the first to admit that he is a good party man, and that is all I said about him. I have never heard him deny that. I am not questioning his integrity or his ability as a member of parliament.
Now, sir, I come to the amendment itself, and I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) on the very able case he made out and his effective presentation of it. The moving of an amendment to a motion to go into supply is a very dramatic and spectacular way of placing a case before the country. Generally, I do not condemn the practice; under certain circumstances I would do it myself. We in this corner of the house have done it, but we have never done it except on issues that we had been fighting for previously and with respect to which we found we could not get action any other way. But there are circumstances in which this course is positively damaging to the very cause supposed to be served. It must not be assumed that because our Liberal friends moved this amendment they are the only members concerned in the issues involved. From the very moment of the opening of this session we in this section of the house have been dealing with all the issues mentioned in the amendment and in the speech of the hon. member who moved it. The only difference is that our work was not done in a spectacular way. We were not looking for publicity, w? were looking for results.

Agricultural Conditions


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not wish to suggest that our hon. friends merely want publicity.
I assume they are perfectly honest and perfectly sincere in their action. I am criticizing their methods not their motives.
Now. let me take the question of freight rates dealt with by the mover of the amendment. I may say that since we came to Ottawa we have had frequent conferences with the ministry and we have been in constant communication with the United Farmer bodies back in the country. To show what is being done in this regard, may I read, in part, a letter addressed to us by Mr. Frank Eliason, secretary of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section? This is only one of many letters that we have received from that body since the opening of the session. The letter is from Saskatoon under date of April 29, 1931, and, in part, reads:
As a result of our negotiations and representations in connection with freight rates on canned goods, we have gained a certain amount of experience and we have come to the conclusion that what is needed in western Canada, at this time, is a freight association,-an association which will be composed of representatives from the United Farmers of the three western provinces, of the boards of trade for the three provinces and of the wholesale and retail distributors of the three provinces.
George H. Smith, our provincial government traffic expert, returned last night from Alberta where he has received unanimous support for the proposal. We have also been in touch with the United Farmers of Manitoba and have their support. Mr. Smith is going to Manitoba this week in an endeavour to line up the wholesalers and the distributors. The first meeting, which is called for the purpose of forming the organization, will be held in the parliament buildings, Regina, on May 1st. We have decided to discuss four points. First: the advisability of forming a western Canada freight association, which association shall deal with freight rates only. Second; present freight rates on canned goods from the east. Third; present freight rates on canned goods from the west. Fourth; rate construction of the Canadian National Railways capital.
At future meetings Hudson's Bay rates, mountain rates will be discussed, also the adjustment of local freight rates as compared with through rates.
Now. with particular reference to the question of the disparity between domestic and export freight rates on grain, I may say that the group in this section of the house have had the matter under consideration for a long time. On April 23 we addressed a letter to the three prairie premiers. It is signed by myself and was written on the instructions of this group. It reads as follows:
I have been instructed by the independent groups here to suggest that the three prairie governments make an application to the railway commission for an equitable adjustment between domestic and export freight rates on grain.
We would appreciate it very much if you would discuss this matter with the other prairie premiers-


Thomas Reid: Is British Columbia included?


Milton Neil Campbell: We have no representative from British Columbia in our group. We are particularly interested in the prairies.,


Thomas Reid: Don't leave us out of the
freight rates.	.


Milton Neil Campbell: We	are not. It will
rest with the prairie premiers, and if possible they will take that into consideration when they are dealing with it. However, if we secure a reduction it will work for the benefit of British Columbia the same as for the prairie provinces. I will proceed with my letter:
We would appreciate it very much if you would discuss this matter with the other prairie premiers and we trust that action will be taken without delay. We have thoroughly canvassed the situation here and find that there is nothing directly that we can do and this would appear to be the only proper procedure in order to get results. I do not need to discuss the point at issue as the matter has been before the public for a long time.
This letter was addressed to the Hon. J. E. Brownlee, premier of Alberta; the Hon. J. T. M. Anderson, premier of Saskatchewan; and the Hon. John Bracken, premier of Manitoba. Under date of April 28 Mr. Bracken wrote us from Winnipeg as follows:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 23rd instant, in which you suggest that the three prairie governments make an application to the railway commission for an equitable adjustment between domestic and export freight rates on grain. I will be very glad to have the matter considered at the next conference, which I expect will take place within the next two weeks.
Mr. Anderson wrote us from Regina under date of April 29, as follows:
I am in receipt of your letter of April 23rd, and in reply may say that consideration will be given to this matter.
We are not yet in receipt of a reply from the premier of Alberta. We might have saved ourselves a lot of effort and trouble if we had moved an amendment such as is now before the house, but I think every member knows that such a course would have been barren of results.
With regard to the fiscal policy of the government, the proper time to consider and discuss it is when the budget comes down. Then we will have that policy in detail and will be
Agricultural Conditions

able to discuss it in detail. Then, too, we can, and undoubtedly will, move an appropriate amendment expressing our counter policy. That, it seems to me, is the time to discuss it instead of taking up the time of the house now, when it is merely an academic question, and when we do not know exactly what the government will do.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why waste time
now?


Milton Neil Campbell: My hon. friends have
been wasting time; I am pointing out the uselessness of this discussion. Now, sir, with regard to the general agricultural conditions, may I say that committees representing this group have waited on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture since the beginning of the session and have made representations to them, discussing the situation with them; and we have in return received some assurance. We have not got all that we asked for, but we know that something is being done in the prairies. We know that the three prairie governments are administering the necessary relief in the way of seed grain aDd so forth and that they have the financial backing of the federal government.
Take again the question of the processing of meats and marketing of live stock, referred to in the amendment. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) came to Ottawa this year with some well thought out and clear cut suggestions regarding these matters. Committees representing this group have waited on the Minister of Agriculture at least four or five times and have thoroughly discussed the whole situation with him. The minister received us sympathetically, and we know that he is going into the matter. So far as we are aware, nothing definite has been done yet, but we do hope that as a result of our negotiations some action will be taken.
Take again the duty on farm implements repairs. Last year the government raised the duty on repairs from 6 per cent to 25 per cent. There are millions of dollars' worth of American-made machinery on the farms of western Canada and no doubt a great deal of it on the farms of eastern Canada as well.


Mr. DONNELLY:: What government was
that?


Milton Neil Campbell: This government; and I may say that the imposition of this duty would have imposed serious hardship upon those farmers. Representations were made to the Prime Minister on the floor of the house from this section last year and in response he delayed the imposition of these duties for

one year. The duties come into effect on the 1st of July or August of this year. But we are not sleeping at the switch; we have our eye on that. We know that no branch factories have been built in Canada by such concerns as the J. I. Case company and the John Deere Plow Company, and the farmers will be penalized if the extra duty is put on. We have already made representations to the Prime Minister. We did not wait to move an amendment; and while, as I say, we have no assurance, we hope that something will be done at the appropriate time. If nothing is done with respect to this and other matters, then we will take the proper course. But I believe that in the meantime we have taken the right course. While our Liberal friends were deliberating the moving of this amendment, we were steadily working on and considering these problems. I believe that what we have done is the proper thing to have done, and I do not think that any good and useful purpose will be served by moving an amendment. In fact, I believe that is the best way of hindering governmental action while matters at issue are still under consideration. I do believe, however, that before this debate concludes we are entitled to some statement from the government, and I suggest to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) that he avail himself of this opportunity to make his maiden speech and to tell the house what he has told our committee when we have discussed the subject with him privately. He may not have carried it out to fruition yet, but I am sure the house would welcome a statement from him as to what he has under consideration with respect to the matters we have discussed with him.


Alan Webster Neill: I
will not take up more than a few minutes of the time of the house. I had been, and still am, in some doubt as to how to vote on the amendment. Provided I was assured it was what is known as a straight vote of want of confidence in the government, I would vote against it, because, elected as an independent, I would consider it my duty to give the government a run for their money, so to speak, allowing them an opportunity to develop their policies before voting against them. On the occasions when I voted against the late government on a motion of want of confidence, or what was technically such, it was always on questions involving such a distinct and definite line of policy concerning matters which were of such importance, either to British Columbia or to the industries I represent, as to compel me to view

Agricultural Conditions
it in the light of immediate necessities rather than from the point of view of the consequences to the government.
As regards the amendment now before us, I find fault with it as being somewhat vague in its terms. It condemns the government for failing to announce any agricultural policy to the house. That is somewhat indefinite. And later on it suggests emergency measures to meet the present crisis-that also is indefinite-and to make adequate provision for the processing of meats, the marketing of live stock and so on. I am always ready, if I find fault with something the government are doing, to suggest an alternative policy and one which I am prepared to support, because I do not believe in condemning the government simply for the reason that they have not done something which neither I nor anybody else can do. Perhaps I should be best advised to follow the attitude of my hon. friends to my left a few weeks ago and refrain from voting, in spite of the obloquy which apparently attaches to such an action, which however was quite within the rights of those hon. gentlemen, although we do not know how long they will enjoy the privilege.
What I rise for particularly at this time is to put on record, as typical of many others, some representations I have recently received from the district I represent. One of them has reference to a matter I discussed in the debate on the address, and the other arises out of the remarks of the Prime Minister some weeks ago with regard to the wealth of the people of western Canada as indicated by the number of motor cars, etcetera, owned by the farmers. I will not enter into any argument with the Prime Minister along the lines taken by my hon. friend from Last Mountain (Mr. Butcher), but I would say this. As regards what appears to be the enormous sum of money invested in cars, that is a very old method of making out an ex parte case; it is simply putting large issues against small ones. For instance, suppose the government introduced legislation to collect in taxation from the people of Canada the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, and suppose I went to a man in the street to whom one hundred dollars was a large sum-a man who perhaps never possessed a thousand dollars in his life. Suppose I said to this man, "Listen to this, Bill: they are going to take one hundred thousand dollars away from you people." That would make a considerable impression upon him. He would compare it by his standard of one hundred dollars a month in wages and he would say to himself, "One hundred thousand dollars! Why, that is an awful sum they are going to 22110-86
take away from the people." He does not know, nor can he be expected to know, that it represents, on the basis of our present population, something like one cent per capita. But that is the way specious arguments are advanced. Now, it would be more appropriate, in discussing the question of motor cars, if the question were asked:	How
many of these cars were bought in the last six months or year, and how many have been paid for? To go back a number of years is not to make a fair comparison.
Here is a letter which I wish to put on record, a letter I received to-day from a man in the west. It is addressed to myself and reads:
Having read press notices of the efforts of certain western members to draw attention to the serious conditions prevalent in their constituencies, to which the Prime Minister and his cohorts persist in turning a deaf ear, I presume upon our slight acquaintance to address you in this connection.
While the Hon. R. B. Bennett and his confrere, Mr. Manion, may deem it fitting to minimize the growing seriousness of conditions, let me assure you that we here are in a position to know that the western members have been guilty of no exaggeration. The Conservative press, of course, make a feature of Mr. Bennett's loud-mouthed condemnation of "blue ruin" speakers, hut such an attitude as bis is simply a refusal to look facts in the face. The country now realizes how empty were the promises to "end unemployment." to "blast our way into the markets of the world," etc., etc. Unemployment is now a great deal worse than when this government took office, and the bottom is not yet reached.
The hon. Mr. Bennett speaks of the farmers on the prairies, but apparently forgets there are 600.000 people west of the Rocky mountains. Mr. Bennett was to expand our export markt-, but since the election half of the coast lumber business has closed down, and most of the balance is running on part time. One firm, normally employing about 800 men, is shut up tight, with no prospect of reopening and very few of the men laid off have found work or have any prospect of doing so. This condition has been repeated over and over. I have word of one very large mill, running six hours per day. five days per week, with a base wage for labour of 18 cents per hour. Ask Mr. Bennett to multiply that up. subtract living expenses, and see how many automobiles he can buy. Most of the loggers now out in camp are making barely enough for board, with not enough margin to buy clothes and pay their fare to camp and back. As you know, this work is very seasonable and when the men get back to town there will be nothing for them but begging on the street.
It is within my own personal knowledge that that statement is absolutely correct. I know that the firm to which he alludes, ordinarily employing nearly a thousand men, has been shut down. It is a common salutation for the men in the woods to say to each other, "Have you earned your board to-day?"
ItEVISED EDITION
Agricultural Conditions

Many have been put on a piecework basis and sometimes they are unable to earn even their board. The letter continues:
Less than half the canneries will be running this year, and none will pack late fish-
That is, those running in the fall-
-so the fishermen will have no money next winter. The copper mines and pulp mills are all running with reduced crews or not at all.
The Coast Copper Company Limited, operating in my district, a subsidiary of the Consolidated Mining & Smelting Company of Canada Limited, which has been running for about fifteen years and employing a comparatively large crew, has shut down with no probability of soon reopening. The letter continues :
Notwithstanding Mr. Bennett's promise to help the dairymen, the farmers are getting still lower prices for their produce, and are paying almost as much for feed as when wheat was selling for $1.50 per bushel. Probably the grain dealers and holders of Canadian Pacific Railway stock are buying automobiles, but the dairymen are not. Consider the poultrymen with eggs bringing them eleven cents per dozen. The one consoling thought is that very few of us will be paying Doctor Tolmie's one per cent tax.
The writer becomes sarcastic at this point. That is a tax commonly referred to as "Tolmie's tag day," which is put on all incomes above $25 per week for married men or $15 per week for single men. It is collected weekly so that a stenographer earning $60 per month for one or two months and then being idle the rest of the year would still have the privilege of paying an income tax. One week's work, one income tax. The letter continues :
Let me repeat the warning of Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, that conditions are certainly such as to induce rioting and serious disorders before another year. To-day I was talking to a man who has been prominent in the business life of Vancouver for many years, and he admitted that the present outlook was much less promising than it was six months ago.
To-night I cut two clippings from to-day's issue of the Daily Province. I enclose these to you, as illustrating the difference between fancy and fact, the cartoon showing what the Conservative press would have people believe and the advertisement showing conditions as they are. And this is the first day of May, in this west of seasonable occupation when, if ever, employment should be available!
This cartoon, familiar to all, appeared in the daily press. It depicts the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) with two clubs in his hands, one marked "sound logic" and the other marked "proven facts." He is shown chastising two so-called calamity howlers and putting them to rout. The headline reads: "Would anyone else like to tell me that Can-

ada is ruined?" That is the cartoon referred to. The advertisement to which he refers appeared in the Daily Province under the heading "Help Wanted Male"-rather a travesty on the heading. It reads as follows: Revelstoke
No men need come to Revelstoke looking for work.
500 men have been waiting here six weeks for )obs on Canadian Pacific railway.
There are also some 300 local men unemployed.
Hundreds of men are arriving daily who cannot be fed nor employed.
City Clerk,
Revelstoke. B.C.
That is not an advertisement published by some union during strike time, but was got up and paid for by the city of Revelstoke in an endeavour to keep unemployed men away from that place so that the city would not be faced with the burden of keeping them. As the writer of the letter which I have just read, mentioned, these conditions existed at the beginning of May, which should be almost the most favourable employment period in British Columbia. A few days ago I saw another advertisement along the same lines published by the city of Trail, warning unemployed men to keep away from that vicinity.
The other communication is in the form of a post card evidently circulated among a large number of dairymen and farmers to be signed and forwarded to their parliamentary representatives. No doubt other hon. members from British Columbia will be receiving these post cards. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
Due to the great deflation in the prices of all agricultural commodities it is absolutely essential to the existence of the industry in the Fraser valley and Vancouver island that costs pf production be greatly reduced. The greatest factor in production costs is the price of feed grains and a very large proportion of feed grain prices is freight. The Canadian farmers in this area are paying as much for freight per ton on Canadian grown feed as do farmers in Japan for the same article delivered to them.
May I say in parenthesis that it is not the same article; that sent to Japan is of much higher value being No. 1 or No. 2 wheat, and that delivered to British Columbia, at $4.20 per ton extra freight, is No. 5 or No. 6 wheat. The post card continues:
This situation is serious and calls for action by the government pursuant to our repeated demands.
As a farmer, resident in your constituency I request you to insist upon definite action being taken immediately by the government in accordance with our petition made to it, to remedy this obvious injustice by ordering the immediate cancellation of freight differentials on feed grains coming to this district.

Agricultural Conditions
The post card obviously should have read "coming to this province." This refers to a matter I brought up while speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and on previous occasions, the discrimination between the export rate on wheat going foreign from Vancouver and the same or lower grades of wheat coming to British Columbia for domestic use. I brought this matter up the other day and I explained the situation to the house. This matter has been through the regular procedure of being brought up before the Board of Railway Commissioners and once, if not twice, it has been referred to the privy council of Canada, which is the government. The matter rests there now and has been resting for something like fifteen months. I urged then, and I urge now that this is the best time to take action in this matter. It is something tangible, it is something which would really help; it has not the vagueness of a general condemnation of the government. I am not condemning the government, I asked it to take prompt action on a grievance which has been repeatedly brought before this house and the government. I am always faced with the reply: "Oh, this is not the occasion on which to announce a policy." A statement upon going into supply on agricultural estimates should offer a very appropriate ocoasion to announce such a policy because if it is left until we are in committee we would oe restricted to particular items. As it is not .ikely there will be an item referring to this .natter, it will be difficult to debate the subject. Unless the government is prepared to take immediate action by means of an order in council, which would be preferable, it should announce its policy now.
To go back to my remarks in connection with labour conditions, I omitted to urge the necessity of this government having a conference with the provinces before the close of this present session. Should that not be done, how can money be voted for relief for this coming winter? Just as surely as the sun will rise to-morrow morning, much relief will be needed this coming winter. I urge that a conference be held at an early date to enable the government to take appropriate action at this session. I may add it will be of no use to enact legislation similar to that passed during the session of last September because most of the municipalities are broke and will not be able to finance a fifty-fifty proposition. They strained their resources last year in the hope that only temporary relief was needed, and they will not be able to continue payments this year.
In closing I would again impress upon the government the necessity of an announcement as to its policy with regard to railway rates, and the need of an immediate conference with the provinces with regard to unemployment relief.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): In associating myself with the want of confidence motion which was moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), I take it that this motion and the debate on it deal entirely or almost so with the Department of Agriculture and the minister who is at the head of that department. It is important that everything pertaining to the question of agriculture be brought forward during the present session and as early as possible. I believe it is unnecessary to state that the condition of this primary industry in western Canada is not good; it is absolutely unsatisfactory. Therefore it behooves all members from western Canada and also from many other	parts	of	the	Dominion,
especially those who represent agricultural ridings, to see that the existing condition of affairs is brought before the house and the country.
I do not want to say anything derogatory in connection with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir).	There	is	a feeling thatperhaps he has been unduly criticized. I do not think that is	the case	and	I do notbelieve that is the	feeling	on	this	side of the
house. We do not want to criticize unduly any member of the government. What we want to do, though, is to draw the attention of parliament and the Canadian people to what I said were serious conditions in the agricultural industry from coast to coast. I do not really see why the Minister of Agriculture should be overly criticized. Perhaps there is one reason why, and I shall touch on it later.
So far as I understand, he is a native-born Canadian; he was born in one of the best parts of Canada, in western Ontario, and I do not see any reason why he should apologize for that. The other day the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) mentioned the fact that the minister was a product of Huron county. There is no better county in Canada. There are many splendid counties and districts in central Canada, eastern Canada and western Canada, any one of which no person need be ashamed to say was his birthplace. So the criticism cannot be on account of the portion of Canada in which the Minister first saw the light of day, or on account of his ancestry, or on account of his
Agricultural Conditions

iducational training; because he went through the primary and secondary schools as well as one of the leading universities of Canada. He has educational training and I am proud that a minister of agriculture with that training was selected for Canada. Training of that kind means developed ability, and I hope that ability in a practical way will be shown later by the minister not only on behalf of the agricultural industry but also as applied to the questions of government that will come before him.
Moreover, the minister moved west and was one of those who took part in the opening up of that vast empire of western Canada. He has done his duty there, not only educationally but in an agricultural way. He represents a splendid riding in this house, and he also fills an important position. It is on account of none of these things that any criticism has been levelled at him to-day. Therefore it must be for some other reason. May I ask what that reason is, Mr. Speaker? The other reason I would say is the political company he is keeping, the party with which he is lined up, the policies with which he is identified, not only in this chamber, not only in western Canada, but all across this land. So I would say that westerners are counting on the minister to take definite action although he is part and parcel of an inactive cabinet and government-action, again I say, although he is identified with policies which I think are absolutely too restrictive and are not going to bring prosperity to Canada-yes action, because I think the only tariff policy that will mean anything to this country, that will build up all portions of it, is a compromise tariff policy, a fair, moderate fiscal policy. When you resort to extremes, I care not what party be in power, you cannot make the machinery work; you are only going to turn back the hands of time so far as Canada is concerned, and instead of prosperity bring rhe opposite condition of affairs which we certainly now have.
Might I say a word about the question of secession? I think it was the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) who brought up in the House of Commons the question of secession. I notice he got some big black headlines in the daily press of Canada, and I was surprised to find that we have in this country a section of the daily press floundering around and trying to make some propaganda out of a question that does not in reality exist. There is no systematic secession sentiment in Western Canada any more than there is in Ontario or Quebec or the

marilimes. The hon. member said that references made to that question in times gone by had been regarded lightly, but we should not regard lightly the references that are now being made to secession; we Should be very much concerned about them. He said also at the United Farmers of Alberta convention in Calgary he rose and voiced his sentiments against secession. Further on he drew attention to the distressed and discouraged people who might try anything-that is, they might resort to secession in order to bring redress. He wound up with this expression of thought: that if this session of parliament will not do something towards relieving agriculture of the extra tariff burden imposed on it, we shall have to face the disintegration of our Dominion.
Those are serious words, serious sentiments; they are echoes of a fiscal problem that come well within the sphere of . debating. This afternoon I want to give the house and the country the sentiments in my own riding with regard to secession. There is absolutely none. Before I left for Ottawa I went through my riding and held eleven or twelve important meetings. At the end of each meeting those who were in attendance-and often there were three or four hundred present- were given an opportunity of their own free will and accord to bring up any resolution, and this afternoon before I resume my seat I shall read some of the resolutions that were proposed. You will not find among those resolutions one on secession. There was not in any of the meetings that I addressed in my riding one iota of secession sentiment.


Mr. IRVINE:: There were in the hon.
member's own province.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I shall deal with that
in a moment.


William Irvine: The hon. member had better hurry up.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There is no need for
hurry. If what I have said be true in the riding of North Battleford, it is practically true in Saskatchewan. It is true that here and there we have an odd sentiment with regard to secession, but as I said, there is no connected movement with regard to secession. Wherever you get in any part of Saskatchewan or western Canada any sentiment in regard to secession, what does it signify? It signifies merely a reaction to the administration which now holds office, and which my hon. friend supports by advocating a conservative self-supporting economic dependent

Agricultural Conditions
Canada, a reaction to their fiscal policies, and to what they have done to Canada since the election took place on July 28. That is all In other words, the men and women of western Canada are protesting resolutely and continuously and will continue to protest with regarded to the fiscal policies with which this government has saddled Canada and which are causing the people of the west to see not a ray of hope in the future.
Beyond this any suggestion that has been made has emanated from a source unconnected with any recognized organization or movement. There is therefore no secession sentiment in western Canada-none in Saskatchewan. none whatsoever in the riding of North Battleford. That we have a government in power that is not satisfactory to western Canada; that its policies are out of joint as compared with the policies we ought to have in this country, faced as we are at the present time with very serious problems, is no reason why we should have word go all over Canada through the daily press to the effect that there was a concerted movement towards secession in western Canada. This talk about secession sentiment is all nonsense; it is not worth paying very much attention to. I thought I would draw the attention of the house to it because I am from western Canada, and I know western Canada as well as I know the east, and I know the east as well as I know the west, and I am not afraid to stand up here and tell what I know to be the facts about that question.
Let me now come to the promises that were made during the election by hon. gentlemen now members of the government, with regard to agriculture, because it is the question of agriculture that is now before the house. They said that they would protect agriculture, would foster and develop agriculture. They said they would bring about the stabilization of economic conditions and the continuity of trade, freedom from the manipulation of tariffs at home and abroad. They said that they would find a foreign market for our products. Have they done so? Have they protected agriculture? Have they fostered and developed it? Have they brought about the stabilization of economic conditions? Have they brought about continuity of t.rade? Have we been free from the manipulation of tariffs at home and abroad? Have we? Have they found a foreign market for our products? To all these questions I would answer, no.
In the special session last September what did they do with regard to agriculture? Well, they increased the tariff on 170 articles which the farmer and labouring men of this country
must buy. We put up tariff barriers on all these products, and when we did that, we did something which helped to put the farmers in the condition in which they find themselves to-day. I have a letter here bearing on what is taking place in that regard, but before reading it let me say that last September we raised the tariff on the following articles:
Cultivators, harrows, seed-drills, horse-rakes, horse-hoes, seufflers, manure spreaders, garden seeders, weeders, and complete parts of all the foregoing.
Ploughs; farm, field, lawn or garden rollers; soil packers; complete parts of all the foregoing.
Mowing machines, harvesters, either selfbinding or without binders, binding attachments, reapers, harvesters in combination with threshing machine separators including the motive power incorporated therein, and complete parts of all the foregoing.
Hay loaders, hay tedders, potato planters, potato diggers, fodder or feed cutters, ensilage cutters, grain crushers and grain or hay grinders for farm purposes only, post hole diggers, snaths, stumping machine and all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, n.o.p., and complete parts of all the foregoing.
Scythes, sickles or reaping hooks, hay or straw knives, edging knives, hoes, pronged forks, rakes, n.o.p.
We raised the tariff on all those agricultural implements. Under the Liberal tariff before the special session, the tariffs on all these implements of production were 7i, 7i, 6 and 20 per cent. These rates were all raised under the general tariff to 25 per cent. Sometimes it is said that the tariff increases that were made in the special session have not meant any increased price for those who were buying these implements. Let me quote from a letter I have received which bears on that very point. It says:
While there is no advance in prices, there are very few declines. What we are iooking for is cheaper goods, and while some of the papers are protesting that the retail trade are not lowering their prices, the fault as I see it is with certain manufacturers. Steel is very much cheaper than a year ago; still steel goods do not come down to us.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What about labour?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Labour is cheaper too.


Alexander McKay Edwards: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Out in western Canada
it is cheaper because there is limited industrial labour to perform. The letter continues :
Copper was quoted a few weeks ago as being the cheapest for thirty-five years; still copper goods are very little less. You will admit that Mr. Bennett promised that goods would not go higher but he never said anything about going lower, and it is on that that the manufacturers are working.
Agricultural Conditions

That is the interpretation put upon the increases in the tariff by the people in all portions of western Canada, and I would say that the tariff increases have helped to accentuate the serious conditions which are to-day obtaining in the agricultural industry. It was no wonder, then, that when parliament assembled at the present session we moved an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne.


Mr. COTNAM:: When the friends of my
hon. friend were in power, did they reduce the cost of agricultural implements to the farmers in western Canada through their tariff reductions?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, they reduced them, and more than that, they brought about in this country conditions of prosperity so great that the farmer never thought that he was paying too much for anything.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. gentleman has
not answered the question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is an old question
which has been answered time and again.
I was referring, when I was interrupted, to the amendment that we brought down to the address. We were told when parliament assembled that the government would consider measures to ameliorate present conditions. Those conditions are not ameliorated, and they show no sign of amelioration. The people of Canada are becoming disgusted with present conditions, and there is no sign whatever of improvement. So I say that that promise in the speech from the throne is not worth the ink it is written with. The speech from the throne also promised to bring about . prosperity hitherto unattained. Well, the government have not made any move to bring such about. Canada is not prosperous to-day. The government said they would make it prosperous, but they have not done so. Further, the government promised to furnish safeguards against the recurrence of like depressions in days to come. More than that; the government were going to explore the origins of the agricultural depression. They were going to set out on an exploration policy. I am wondering whether they have yet completed that exploration policy. What have they explored, and what have they discovered? They were going to explore the conditions from which we are now suffering in a domestic sense.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: "Exploration" must have been a misprint for "exploitation."


Cameron Ross McIntosh: My hon. friend suggests that the trouble with Canada is in the sphere

of exploitation, and the inference is that the present government has helped to put Canada in her present exploited condition. Those were some of the promises that were made by the government. There has been nothing explored and nothing discovered. No safeguards have been provided against a recurrence of the depression. The depression, in fact, is worse to-day than it was before. Prosperity has not come, and there is no amelioration of conditions. These are facts.
The government also promised to provide for an orderly marketing of the wheat crop, and further intervention, if necessary, because of changing conditions in world markets. There was to be a reduction in the costs of production and marketing of the wheat crop; more stable markets were to be provided, and satisfactory returns received by the grain growers. Well, we are selling a certain amount of wheat, but look at the price we are getting for it. The price bears no comparison to what we are paying for all the industrial products that we need on the farms and in the homes of western Canada, and which we must have just the same as any other part of Canada. The big spread between the price that the farmer and the labouring man receives for his product and the price he has to pay for the things he has to buy is the discouraging feature of present conditions, and until the western farmers and labourers see that gap closed they are not going to be satisfied that this government is doing anything for either agriculture or labour.
More than that. Mr. Speaker, we have an amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), in which we are told that the agricultural policy of the government has not been brought down, that markets have not been found for our goods, and that consequently something must be done if Canada is to be brought back to prosperity. If, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Department of Agriculture has not been brought down- at least the government say that is the fact- the sooner it is brought down the better, because in this want of confidence amendment I believe there is dynamite enough to move any government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: You have not got the match.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, we have. In the
amendment it is stated that in order to fulfil the many definite promises in regard to agriculture the government has made no constructive announcement. That is true.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is your policy?

Agricultural Conditions
134'.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We have had nothing
but hearsay. The onus of propounding a policy is on hon. gentlemen opposite, not on the opposition.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: It was on my hon. friend for eight years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, eight years of prosperity. And until my hon. friends do bring down their policy we will bombard them and force them to bring it before the house and the country.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: What did my hon. friend
do for the past nine years?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And that is not all.
Some further points come into this want of confidence picture. I must say it appears to be "some" picture, when one looks at it for a while. We say the policies of the government tend to restriction rather than to expansion; that is true. Canada's trade is decreasing by millions and millions of dollars, month after month and year after year; we will soon have no foreign trade at all-or no trade outside of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Blue ruin.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And all because the
policy of the present government "blue-ruin" like, is to have Canadians live unto themselves, to make our people believe they are prosperous when they are not, and to attempt to build the country up fiscally and commercially by pulling at our boot straps.
Another question faces the government in this amendment, and it is this: If our international trade goes to pieces; agriculture will become more and more paralyzed. It is becoming more and more paralyzed every day and every week.


An hon. MEMBER:: More blue ruin.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And that is why we are
calling upon the government to take cognizance of its blue ruin consequences in this country, and asking it to do something.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: What about the past government?


An hon. MEMBER:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, not just now. In
the closing paragraph of the amendment we find the expression, "emergency measures to meet the present agricultural prices." These emergency measures are requested because wheat marketing has not been successful, and other agricultural products are not bringing satisfactory prices in the markets of the world. To all these representations on the part of the
opposition up to the present time the government has suggested nothing in the way of an agricultural policy. I do not wish to make any statements of a disparaging character concerning the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know him intimately, but I have a very high regard for him. I would say, however, that the minister has made one mistake: he has over-sold himself to this country, in an agricultural way. That is more reason than ever, Mr. Speaker, why the minister or some other hon. member of the government should come forward and announce the government's agricultural policy all along the line, thereby letting us know exactly what they have in mind to cure conditions. Up to the present time they have done nothing. That is a serious statement to make, but it is made in connection with a serious condition of affairs.
I have before me a statement contained in the press of western Canada concerning a speech of the Prime Minister.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Star-Phoenix?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It was in my own paper, The News, and it at least tells the truth. This is a press despatch sent from Ottawa to western Canada with regard to the seven points mentioned by the Prime Minister when he spoke in this house regarding western conditions:
1. No government of which Mr. Bennett is the head will consent to any policy of pegging the price of wheat.
That is correct, is it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: All right. Western
farmers say: The only reason we want to peg the price of wheat as an emergency measure is that the government pegged the price of 170 industrial articles, and it should therefore peg the price of wheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, that is the reason. Therefore Mr. Speaker it is needless for hon. gentlemen opposite to make a row. The government started the practice of pricefixing. and they are afraid to go through with it. That is all. I think the farmers are dealing absolutely fairly with the government; all they want is for this government to come through and do for the farmers what they did for the industrialists.


An hon. MEMBER:: They will come
through; don't worry.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Then, we come to statement No. 2:
The three prairie provinces are not experiencing undue hard times.
Agricultural Conditions

Is that true? That is what he said. Then we come to No. 3:
Nothing approaching an acute depression or an economic crisis exists.
The Prime Minister said that. Then No.
4 is as follows:
Cases of hardship and actual want are confined to a few isolated individuals.
That is No. 4. Now, will hon. members listen to No. 5-
An hon MEMBER: Five loaves and two small fishes.
Mr. MeINTOSH: It is as follows-no five or two about it.
Tens of thousands of prairie farmers have substantial bank accounts.
By the time I am through perhaps hon. members will know they have not. Then No. 6 is as follows:
Three hundred millions of dollars invested in automobiles and tractors in the prairie provinces bespeaks their solvency and economic well-being.
That is a ringer. Then No. 7:
Prevailing impressions that western Canada has been hard hit are due, entirely, to exaggerated statement of Liberal, Progressive, Labour and Independent politicians, who have been guilty of decrying their country for purposes of party politics.
I want to refute that statement, and all the other statements I have read. I have before me the result of an investigation carried out by Doctor William Allen of the university of Saskatchewan with regard to two well-defined agricultural areas in western Canada. One area which Doctor Allen, as an expert, investigated in an agricultural way was the provincial riding of Kindersley. The other area investigated was the provincial riding of Turtleford. That provincial riding is part of the federal constituency I represent in the House of Commons. The provincial riding of Kindersley is part of the federal riding represented in this house by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). Doctor Allen confined his investigations to two of the main areas in western Canada. I might say however that the conditions he found in those two portiov.3 would be representative of other parts of the west, because one area is in the north and the other is towards the south. Doctor Allen found the following:
.... that the average farmer debt in Kindersley county is $4,084, and in the Turtle-ford district. $2,262, both sums taking into account debt-free farms.

Let us do a little calculating with these figures. Provincially speaking, if we add the S4,0S4 for the Kindersley electoral district to the $2,262 for the Turtleford electoral district wc get a total of $6,346. Dividing that figure by the figure 2 we get an average of $3,173. that is the average debt of all the farmers in those two important areas in Saskatchewan. If we take that average and multiply it by 250,000, the number of farms in western Canada, we have a total indebtedness of western farmers amounting to $793,250,000. That says nothing about the share the farmer has in municipal debts, provincial debts, railway debts, urban debts and federal debts. It says nothing about the millions of wealth brought into western Canada by settlers from different parts of the w-orld; it says nothing about the $5,000,000,000 of wheat values that were produced in western Canada and shipped eastward to build up the.Dominion as a whole. When we think of that prodigious debt, and when we realize that these are facts disclosed by investigation in regard to only two areas in western Canada, we must conclude that agriculture is not in a very satisfactory or sound condition. I would not go so far as to say that western Canada is bankrupt; I do not think it is. But I do say the farmers must be given a real opportunity to go forward, that their debts must be cut down as far as possible, that they must be encouraged to make the best of their surroundings. In order to do that there must be a government in power to encourage the farmer by a fiscal policy adapted to his needs, to encourage him by strong governmental leadership, the leadership of men of vision, statesmanship and power. Such a government will appeal to the people of western Canada. I do not believe the present government has done as much in that direction as it might. I do hope that in the months to come there will be a change of heart on the part of the government in regard to its support of agriculture and the encouragement of that industry, and that by bringing down a constructive and forwardlooking policy it will improve the condition of the western farmer. If this is done I have no objection to this government getting credit for it. It is not a question of party politics, it is a question of the well-being of western Canada and the whole Dominion.
With regard to these distressing conditions, may I enumerate to the house a number of resolutions that I have received passed by the farmers of the North Battleford federal district at the meetings to which I have referred. These resolutions were passed volun-

Agricultural Conditions
tarily, the farmers were not asked to pass them. I think these resolutions indicate truly the conditions of agriculture in the area I represent in this house and also that they are fairly applicable to the entire west. All these resolutions ask for action on the part of the Prime Minister, action on the part of the Minister of Agriculture, action on the part of the Conservative rank and file all across the Dominion. Resolution No. 1 asks:
For government supervision of the grain exchange.
Number 2:
That the government guarantee a minimum fixed price of 70 cents per bushel, basis No. 1 northern. Fort William or Port Arthur, for the 1930 wheat crop.
The farmers are not asking for these things without knowing full well why they are asking for them. Number 3:
That the government take over the supervision of the banks with regard to interest charges, and bring about their reduction to a maximum of 7 per cent.
Number 4:
That the government declare a moratorium until such time as conditions affecting agriculture shall sufficiently improve to warrant its removal.
Number 5:
That the government set a price on all wheat used for consumption in Canada of $1.25 ner bushel, and the price of flour per 98 pound sack be set at a reasonable price not exceeding present prices.
Number 6:
That all freight rates be lowered 20 per cent.	.
Number 7.
That all interest and indemnities on taxes be cancelled until a fair measure of prosperity is restored.
Number 8:
That all debts owing banks, machine companies. and wealthy corporations by farmers be cancelled till a fair degree of prosperity is restored.
Number 9:
That all banks, natural resources, timber, mines, oil wells, water-powers, be nationalized.
Number 10:
That extension of credit should be through the banks alone, controlled by the government, with a suitable provision made for those in distress.
Number 11:
That in view of the privileged position of industries other than agriculture, government assure cost of wheat production at $1 per bushel.
Number 12:
That the government be asked to set up a board of standards to maintain _ a proper relationship between the price the farmer has to pay for commodities that he has to buy and the price he receives for commodities which he has to sell.
Number 13:
That the legal rate of interest of 7 per cent as set out in the Bank Act be enforced.
The source of all these resolutions, Mr. Speaker, is to be found in the fiscal policy sponsored by hon. gentlemen opposite. For instance, on February 18, 1931, at a meeting held at St. Walburg the following resolution was passed unanimously:
That this meeting go on record as being in favour of freer trade in lieu of protection as practiced by the Bennett administration.
There, as I say, Mr. Speaker, you have the source of all these resolutions, they are all concerned with the fiscal policy of the present administration. All these resolutions have grown out of the high tariff policy of this government, out of the increased tariff rates passed at the special session, out of the increased tariff rates the government are expected to put into operation at the present session; in a word, these resolutions arise out of the artificial fiscal policy of the government of the day, and until that policy is very much modified I am satisfied the people of western Canada will not feel happy and contented. It is not a question of secession. It is a question of the people of western Canada'recognizing that the policy of the present government is not the policy for western Canada. They are strongly of the opinion that there must be a change, and that the next government that takes office must recognize in its policy the interests not only of one section, but of all sections of the country; it must introduce a fiscal policy that will bring about the development of Canada as a whole. In no other way will Canada prosper and reach her full development. Until something in that direction is attempted, I believe conditions in western Canada will not improve very much.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to put on Hansard a few of the resolutions passed by the local lodges of the United Farmers of western Canada, and also by wheat pool committees. I believe the people behind these resolutions are entitled to recognition. They are fighting the battle for fiscal freedom in western Canada, and they are doing their best to call the attention of the whole Dominion to the conditions which now prevail in the prairie
Agricultural Conditions

provinces. Here is a resolution passed by the Cavalier local lodge of the United Farmers of Canada on December 10, 1930:
That we advocate government supervision of the grain exchange.
That we ask the federal government to guarantee a minimum fixed price of 70 cents for the 1930 wheat crop.
The rural municipality of Mervin passed unanimously the following resolution on December 6, 1930:
Resolved that the Dominion government be requested to set a minimum price for wheat, of 70 cents per bushel basis No. 1 northern, Fort William or Port Arthur.
The next resolution that I am reading was passed by the wheat pool "Speers local" on December 6, 1930.
In view of the very serious situation that has developed as a result of the collapse of the wheat market:
We the members of the wheat pool, "Speers local" urgently request that the Dominion government guarantee a minimum price of 70 cents a bushel at Fort William for No. 1 northern wheat grown during the season of 1930.
That was moved by R. Miner and seconded by S. Cunningham.
The council of the rural municipality of Round Hill passed the following resolution on December 20, 1930:
Resolved: That this council demand that Dominion government take steps to stabilize wheat market so that minimum price of at least 70 cents be maintained.
I have a resolution passed by the Edam local of the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, covering practically the same ground. Then there is a resolution from Spiritwood covering a little more ground. But since I have not the time to read these and the other resolutions under my hand, I should certainly like to have them on Hansard for the information of the house and of the country. Not only should I like to put all these resolutions on Hansard, but I should also like to give their source and the names of their movers and seconders.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I hope the present government will bring down its agricultural policies and its budget as soon as possible in order that members on this side of the house may see whether the government as a whole is looking up or down; whether it intends to go forward or backward; whether it intends to make progressive history for Canada or the opposite; whether it intends to recognize the ills of agriculture in western Canada or to turn a deaf ear to those ills, as it has done since it assumed office. May I say-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon, member's time
has expired.
[Mr. McIntosh [


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have just a word to say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. Let me say to the government that I hope it will not follow the downward course; that is-
Not down, down, down to the uttermost down,
For the pathway is long and deep;
And as you go down to the uttermost down, "iour're prone to get fearful and weak.
But up, up, up to the uppermost up

Oh, the pathway is steep and long-
And as you go up to that uppermost up, Cheer all the way with a song.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I have listened with a great deal of interest to the present debate, and I should be neglecting my duty as a representative of my constituency if I did not speak to the amendment which has been proposed. I believe the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) was induced to move this amendment by the speech delivered in this house, -by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. During that debate I heard Liberal members on this side of the house, one after another, representing to the government the conditions as they had found them in western Canada, and I believe that every one of them was telling of the conditions exactly as he had found them in his own constituency. And when they were through the Prime Minister got up and began to read them a curtain lecture. He told us that we on this side were only playing politics, making such speeches only for political purposes. I resent a statement of that kind. If, having entered politics, I am not to be allowed bo get up and tell the truth regarding conditions, then the sooner I get out of politics the better. But let me tell the government, Mr. Speaker, that I do not intend to be bullied either by the Prime Minister or by anyone else. The Prime Minister may be able to bully his own cabinet and to keep their mouths shut, but he will not keep our mouths shut on this side of the house. He will not prevent us from portraying conditions as we find them, no matter how much he may curtain-lecture the house and attempt to bully us. We will not be bullied. It is contrary to my nature anyway.
No man in the history of Canada, Mr. Speaker, has done more to discredit public men in the eyes of the common people of this country than the Prime Minister. He went from coast to coast during the last election, preaching prosperity, promising to usher in better times, and representing the conditions in the country as something for which the

Agricultural Conditions
then Liberal government was responsible. He said to the people, "Put me in power and I will give you heaven and earth-everything; I will give you whatever you want. You shall have (prosperity; there will be good times." Well, the people took him at his word and returned him to power. And what do rve find now? We find harder times than we have ever known. The result is that the common people have the impression that no public man can be relied upon. They say, "There is the Prime Minister. He made promises which he knew quite well he could not carry out." He was a high pressure salesman all right; he sold himself to the country. He went from coast to coast with his propaganda and sold himself. Let me say that if any stock salesman had gone from coast to coast as he did and had sold stocks, making representations such as he made, that stock salesman would be in jail to-day. They would have had him arrested. The right hon. gentleman had mo regard for what he promised. He went up the high mountain, showed the Canadian people the glories of the world, and said, "You can have it all if you only vote for me." And they voted for him. But they have learned their lesson; make no mistake about that. The people in western Canada have learned their lesson and now they know they were handed a gold brick. The conditions as hon. members on this side have indicated them are the conditions as they exist in the west, and it is because those conditions are as they have been represented that I now get up to speak on this amendment.
When the Prime Minister was speaking in Calgary on June 19 last year, he said, "We will look over the top of the hill and beyond the horizon to make provision for the Canadian agriculturist." I do not know whether he has ever got up on that hill. That was the hill of prosperity which he was going to have the Canadian people climb. Well, we have not even got to the foothills yet.


An hon. MEMBER:: You never will.


Thomas F. Donnelly: We never shall with this government; you are absolutely right. Let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that they are going in the wrong direction. They are not reading the signposts along the road. They are going into the valley of despair. The Prime Minister, after he was elected, said, "Wait until the special session; I will pass resolutions, I will vote $20,000,000, there will be prosperity." When the special session came he said, "I was wrong; wait until we have the regular session." And now that the -egular session is in progress, what does he say? He says, "If I am given health and
strength I will bring you prosperity." Why, Mr. Speaker, we are filled with such promises. We want action. We have had too many promises; we want some of the action which the right hon. gentleman was going to give us. But we are getting none of it. We are, as I say, going deeper and deeper into the valley of despair, because hon. gentlemen opposite are not observing the signs along the road. They are going the wrong way. I advise those hon. gentlemen to turn around and go in the other direction if they want to get anywhere. Their whole policy is wrong, and this country will get nowhere under such a policy.	.
I wish for a moment or two to refer to two or three things the Prime Minister said in regard to conditions in the west. Speaking in this house, he said:
Wherever men have had regard for economic laws and have kept free from speculation and wild dreams of sudden wealth, they are happy and contented and have provided a good livelihood for themselves and their families.
And he went on:
What is the cause of the great depression in western Canada? Hon. gentlemen opposite know that the most important cause is speculation.
What does the Prime Minister mean by speculation? That is an important thing. If he means speculating in grain or speculating on the stock exchange, I want to tell him that I know thousands and thousands of people in the west who never invested a dollar in either of these forms of speculation, and yet they are in despair and in financial difficulties at the present time. I know thousands of them. I know that some of the best men are suffering, although they have never invested a dollar in speculation in their lives. But if the right hon. gentleman means by speculation the investment in land and farm machinery, in horses and equipment of various kinds, then I will admit at once that a good many farmers have speculated. There is no doubt about that. But let me tell the Prime Minister that farming conditions in the west have Changed considerably within the last thirty years. I nave been farming there for that length of time, and when I went there I found a piece of land of 160 acres a good-sized farm. But farms have expanded. The farmers, like the manufacturers, have gone into mass production, and we know that to-day 640 acres constitutes an ordinarysized farm. A man can farm 640 acres today as easily as he could 160 acres thirty years ago. There has been a considerable increase in the use of farm machinery and equipment generally, and great strides have been made in the mode of farming. Conse-
Agricultural Conditions

quently, farmers can take up more land. If that is speculation, all right, but does the Prime Minister intend to condemn a man because he has confidence in the country, because he believes ;n it, because he has investigated it and is satisfied with the result? Surely not. Surely the right hon. gentleman is not going to condemn a man because he says: This country is all right and I am going to buy more land, I am going to buy belter equipment, I am going to build a better home and a better barn. Surely the farmer has the same right to do that as has the manufacturer to erect a bigger plant, to put in better machinery and to go into mass production. That is all the farmer has done, but the Prime Minister gets up and dares to condemn him foi his action. It ill becomes the Prime Minister or anyone else to condemn the farmer for doing these things; he is to be commended rather than condemned.
The Prime Minister then went on to say that during the last twelve months the banks had increased their agricultural credits by 16 per cent. I will agree with that statement, but I am surprised that the increase was not greater. In the spring we borrow a little money with which to seed our land; in the fall wo borrow a little more to harvest our crops, and after the harvest is over we pay our loans and start off with a clear sheet, or, if necessary', borrow a little more. But what were the conditions last year?	After we
harvested our crops we could not pay any loans, and I guarantee that ninety-five per cent of the present outstanding loans are simply renewals of old notes. With the exception of a new credit here or there, this increase is made up of renewals, and I am surprised that the figure is not much greater than that given by the Prime Minister.
Conditions are serious in western Canada. 1 have lived there for some thirty years and I have never known them to be worse than they are at the present time. I have seen the farmer wiped out with frost, with drought, with hail, but always he would say: Next year things will be all right. We do not find that spirit to-day; the note of optimism has gone. We are sowing our crops but we do not know what we will reap. Should we obtain a good crop, we figure that prices probably will be bad and we will be worse off than ever. One thing which this government should do is to restore that spirit of optimism which has always prevailed in western Canada.
I would like to read one or two letters which I have received from my constituents. One received from Hodgeville reads as follows:
Times here are terrible. The farmers are in a state of panic not knowing what to do.

They cannot start seeding as we have had no rain and the soil is drifting and blowing so that some days one can scarcely see ten feet away. On top of this adding another mortgage for seed and feed, and many for food supplies.
I have never seen such despondency' and discouragement among the masses, even the hitherto well-to-do. God only knows how it will all end.
The next is a letter received from a clergyman, reading in part as follows:
This has been the most discouraging spring I have seen in the w'est and I have been here for twenty-one years norv.
He is a clergyman giving his independent view. Another letter reads as follows:
If the people of eastern Canada wanted to aggravate the people of the w'est to the verge of war and bloodshed they couldn't have found another man in all the world with a disposition more suitable to carry out such a program.
The writer refers to the present Prime Minister. The letter continues:
Talk al>out a bull in a china shop causing trouble-if he could do more damage than this bird at Ottawa he would need to be a superbull. _	'
I don't suppose there is another man in the Dominion of Canada or any other country that could have caused so much trouble and suffering and discontent in such a short time in office
The writer of this letter is a good Tory who has always voted against me. The letter continues:
And his last speech at Ottawa ought to convince the farmers of the west w'hat they can expect from the federal government in the way of relief from their present difficulties.
Another thing our Conservative supporters ought to know by now, and that is out of eight members they sent from Saskatchewan to Ottawa, two proved to be feebleminded

I wonder who they can be?
-and the other six w'ere deaf and dumb. So I must say to the people of Saskatchew'an. why spend $32,000 to keep these birds at Ottawa when they could be kept so much cheaper in Saskatchewan ?


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. The hon. member cannot put on Hansard the words of someone outside this house which may be offensive to an hon. member. He is reading a statement made by someone outside the house to the effect that two of the hon. members from Saskatchewan are feebleminded. I submit that to make a statement like that is unparliamentary and out of order, even when made in the form of a letter written by someone else.


Thomas F. Donnelly: If the hon. minister
will name the two hon. members to whom I have been offensive, I will withdraw my remark.

Agricultural Conditions


Robert James Manion: The hon. member is
simply making it worse; he is making it offensive to all the hon. members.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the point of order is well taken. Unparliamentary language cannot be quoted any more than it can be uttered in the house, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his remarks. He would not himself say that hon. members from Saskatchewan were feebleminded, and he cannot quote people outside of the house as making that statement.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I will withdraw the
statement, but I might say that it was made in a published letter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Even so, it is not parliamentary.


Thomas F. Donnelly: This letter was published in the press of Saskatchewan. I will withdraw that particular statement, but will continue with the letter. It is as follows:
But on the other hand if the farmers of the west have such substantial bank accounts as our beloved friend, Mr. Bennett, says they have, why should they worry about a few thousand dollars more or less, or whether they keep their feebleminded at Ottawa or Weyburu.
1 Now. in regard to our provincial government, Premier Anderson needn't try to bolster up the Bennett government for it can't be done. Mr. Bennett's last speech at Ottawa swept away the last thread of confidence that the people of western Canada had put in this so-called super-man and left bare his true character-that of a rank imposter.
Premier Anderson said there never was a government in power before that gave as much money to the west as the Bennett government, but he didn't say that there never was a government in power before that took so much money from the west. This Bennett tariff wall has cost the people of the west around $50,000,000. Then he tries to make a big man of himself by giving the west a few million for their unemployed and the rest goes to the eastern manufacturers. This is the kind of a square deal the west is getting from the Bennett government.
If the people of western Canada are going to submit to this particular brand of British fair play then I must say they haven't got any more backbone than a jellyfish.
That letter was written by Mr. Tom Clark of Willows, Saskatchewan, and is dated April 27, 1931. This man is credited with having voted against me in the last election, and has always voted Tory. His letter gives his opinion of the present government.


Mr. JACOBS:: Can the hon. member read
any letters from any of his constituents who voted Liberal?


Thomas F. Donnelly: I would gladly do so, but I am afraid they would be unparliamentary. I ask here and now: what does the
present government intend to do? What is their policy with regard to agriculture? We have sat here and listened and every one of us has asked: what is the government's policy with regard to agriculture? Farmers are writing to me from day to day and week to week to this effect: "Keep after the government and try to make them tell us what they intend to do for us. We have been endeavouring to do that, but we get no answer." The government seems to be deaf and dumb, just as this man said.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), however, did bring out a policy to which some hon. members on this side have referred. This announcement of policy, which appeared in MacLean's magazine, is called Canada's new agricultural policy, and it is divided into twelve heads:
1.	A national marketing board.
That is all right.
2.	Lower costs of production obtained by increased yield per acre.
That is a nice thing.
3.	Sowing of land to crops best suited to it.
That is all right so far as it goes.
4.	Research work to discover fertilizer required for different soils.
That is all right too.
5.	Immediate survey of seed grain, seed vegetables and fodder crops.
Those are all right. Then we come to number 6, and I want the house to pay particular attention to this:
6.	Creation of "bull clubs."
Then the seventh:
7.	Immediate improvement of quality of swine.
8.	Eradication of disease among poultry.
9.	Research work on feeds.
10.	Increased effort to eliminate parasites.
11.	Transformation of experimental farms into local educationl centres.
12.	Cooperation with provincial governments in carrying out policies.
Those are all right so far as they go, but practically every one of them bis been in operation for years and they are not going to help our conditions one bit. I can answer all of them just the same as many questions are answered in the house. I can say that numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all answered by number 6. Then number 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are all answered by number 6 too, and that is the "bull clubs." That is all there is to it; there is nothing in it to help the farmer at all. It is all window dressing, all show, all froth, eyewash. We want something substantial. We want something that is going
Agricultural Conditions

to do some of us some good. This is of no use at all. The .people of western Canada are in a desperate state, and desperate conditions require desperate measures. We are asking the government for desperate measures, something that is going to bring us out of the woods, but we are getting nothing. The government are deaf and dumb.
Of course we know the Prime Minister came out to western Canada and at Regina said that the thing to do was to go into mixed farming. He said: We are going to get a revolving fund of $5,000,000 and bring you out on the Minnesota plan. This fund of $5,000,000 is alright; we will take the money quickly enough, but what the western farmer is looking for to-day is not a chance to get further into debt but a chance to get out of delbt. It is all very well to bring in the Minnesota plan when prices of live stock are rising, but it is a different proposition when they are declining as they are at the present time. I would say to anyone who is thinking of investing money in a scheme of this kind: take a long last look at your money, because it is going to be many a day before you see it again; kiss it good-bye when you put it into the fund, because I doubt if you will ever see it again. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) seems to favour mixed farming. There appears, however, to be a wrong impression about mixed farming. A year ago the price of butter was away up, but now domestic butter is worth about ten or twelve cents a .pound and eggs are worth eight or ten cents a dozen. We do not hear so much about the price of beef, but I have before me the report of the Dominion Live Stock branch, markets intelligence service, giving the top prices at Edmonton for the week ending April 2, this year and last year, as follows:
1931	1930
Butcher steers	$5 25	$10 50Select bacon hogs	6 85	12 10
So that present prices are just about one-half of last year's prices. If the farmers can make money at .the present starvation prices, then last year they must have made a fortune, and I doubt very much whether the farmers to-day can make money with prices of farm produce as they are.
But there seems to be a wrong impression altogether as to mixed farming conditions in western Canada, and I wish to say just a word or two about this question. In my opinion western Canada can be divided into three great areas. There is one area which, on account of climatic and soil conditions, is fit only for ranching. There are some dis-

tricts in the southern and eastern parts of Alberta and the southern and western parts of Saskatchewan, and other districts here and there, which on account of the soil-sandy, stony, gravelly, or rough-or on account of climatic conditions-extent of rainfall-are fit only for ranching. Then there is the broad open prairie, which, on account of climatic conditions, is fit only for grain; we can grow grain; we cannot raise live stock. We are not sure of rainfall from day to day and week to week so as to get pasturage for the stock. We are not sure of water for watering the stock. If we had plenty of water, the proposition would be different, but I have known of farmers hauling drinking water twelve miles, and one cannot raise live stock if one has to haul water that distance. Many of these farmers do not keep horses for farming; they use tractors entirely. We can grow small grains and wheat, but we cannot grow oats or flax. It does not take as much rainfall to grow wheat or flax or some of the coarser grains. It does not pay us to go into mixed farming. Here and there, throughout that district, wherever it pays us to go into mixed farming, we do so; we have some stock. Then there is the great northern part which has its rainfall, its water, its shelter for the stock. It is fitted for mixed farming, but the people there are already engaged in mixed farming. It may be possible that some of them should go into it a little further, but any farmer who goes into mixed farming must do so gradually. Let him buy one or two head of stock, go into the thing gradually, and find out how to handle stock. Do not let him rush into it wildly and think he is going to make a fortune, because it cannot be- done. Let him handle just what stock he can handle properly and no more. One thing is sure; he cannot make a fortune out of it at present prices.
What our farmers are demanding now from the Prime Minister is that he make good his election promises. He promised to find a market for our wheat and other farm produce at better prices. The Conservatives went through my constituency and promised that if returned to power wheat would be selling at $1.80 and $1.90 a bushel. Put the Conservative government in, they said, and wheat will go up from eight to ten cents a bushel right away. Some of them even guaranteed that if the Conservative government came into power wheat would go up within two weeks by ten cents a bushel. As a matter of fact, wheat went down ten cents a bushel during the first five days this government was in power. It has been going down ever since, and the bottom is not in sight.

Agricultural Conditions
The Prime Minister says that we are now selling wheat. No, Mr. Speaker, we are not selling our wheat; we are giving it away. To sell a commodity at 50 or 60 cents a bushel is quite different from selling it at $1.50 or $1.60 a bushel. At the time the Liberal government was in power the price of wheat was around $1.50 a bushel, but since this government took office the price has been from 50 cents up to less than $1 per bushel. Why does the government not do something with regard to the price of wheat? They are doing nothing; not a man on the government benches has a word to say about it; they are deaf and dumb still. What the farmers of Saskatchewan are demanding is that the government do something, that they sell our wheat, that they look after our farm products, because our western farmers cannot continue very long to raise crops under the present conditions.
The present policy of the Conservative government is absolutely wrong. It is absurd to put a wall around the country, shutting out all foreign goods; it simply means that we cannot buy from anybody and therefore we cannot, sell our goods. There is not enough gold in the w'orld to use as a purchasing medium; the only way we can sell our goods is to take other goods in exchange, and unless we take other goods in exchange ' for our wheat we cannot sell it at a profit. Therefore I say that to put a wall around this country, preventing us from exchanging our wheat for the goods of other countries, is the wrong policy. Where we should be to-day is not at the London conference, but at the Briand conference, among the wheat buyers of Europe. I do not think anything worse could have happened for the wheat growers of western Canada than what happened at Rome. Our High Commissioner in London went there, and what did he do? There were the buyers and there were the sellers, and he split them into two different camps. Who does the seller want to make friends with? With other sellers or with the buyers? Any man who is selling commodities knows that the seller wants to make friends with the buyers. But our High Commissioner split this conference of European buyers and European sellers into two, and he said:	The sellers will all
meet in London for a conference, and you buyers can meet in France three days before that conference. Nothing worse could have happened for the wheat growers of western Canada than to divide the conference into two camps in that way. We as sellers do not care what the other sellers think. The ones wo are interested in are the buyers. They
are the people we want to make friends with; they are the people we should be doing something for in order that we may be able to sell our products to them.
The policy of the Liberal government, Mr. Speaker, has been altogether different from the policy of this government. The policy of the Liberal government was for wider markets, more open markets, freer trade. It was to take the goods of other countries in exchange for our goods, to make treaties with other countries, to get preferences in their markets and to give preferences in ours. We believe that if the Liberal government were in power in this country to-day and the Dunning budget were in force, we would have no trouble in selling our wheat at a good profit. That is the policy that we have always advocated and it is the policy we advocate to-day. The policy of this government, on the contrary, is to build a wall around the country, and for the country to live within itself. The countries of the world that have followed that policy in the past now realize that they were wrong and are beginning to tear down their walls, while Canada is beginning to go in the opposite direction. It is building up a wall just as other countries are beginning to tear theirs down. All over the world today the tendency is towards freer trade and more open markets.
I want to make this suggestion to the government: What we should have at the present time is a wheat board to market our grain.


Mr. SHORT:: Why didn't you have it When you were in power?


Thomas F. Donnelly: The price of wheat was so high then that we did not need it. But to-day, since this government has closed all the markets of the world to our products, we do need it. If we are going to market our grain, it is absolutely necessary that we should have our grain under some single control, even if it be under the farmers' control, such as the 100 per cent wheat pool. Either that, or it must be under government control-one or the other. You cannot enter into arrangements to market grain when you have none to market. How can the government go over to England and talk about marketing grain when it has no grain to market? You can no more do that than you can market overalls or lobsters when you haven't got any.


An hon. MEMBER:: The government has lots of lobsters.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Yes, and some are boiled and some are raw. There must be a single control, and the best way to bring that
Agricultural Conditions

about, I suggest, is through a wheat board. Establish a wheat board and give it control, with power to investigate conditions and make arrangements for disposing of our wheat. Give it power to enter into quota arrangements, for a premium, if necessary.
I wish to refer to the proposal that I made in the house the other night with regard to fixing a price of wheat for home consumption, and to answer a few objections to that proposal. There was an idea that it would be a terrible thing for the consumers in Canada. If you look at the price in Canada to-day, you will see that one cent's worth of wheat goes into a pound loaf of bread, with wheat at 60 cents a bushel. With wheat at $1.50 a bushel, you would be putting only 2 cents' worth more of wheat into a loaf of bread; it would be increasing the price of a loaf of bread to the consumer in Canada by about 2 cents, and that would not mean much to the consumer. What does the report into the alleged combine in the bread-baking industry in Canada say in this connection? It points out that the price of wheat has very little to do with the price of bread. It says, at page 12:
The difference in flour prices, which are the medium through which the influence of wheat makes itself felt, does not account, then, for the difference in the two levels of bread prices, the one in 1913 and the other in the years 1925-1930. ... In other words, even if the baker had got his flour for nothing in 1930 he would still have charged 5-1 cents a pound for his bread; in 1913 he would have charged only 2-3 cents.
No, Mr. Speaker, the price of wheat has very little to do with the price of bread. It is the prices of the other ingredients and the costs of distribution that are the big factors in the price of bread. Fixing a price for home consumption would not interfere in any way with the millers. Our millers who are milling for export would still receive their wheat to mill into flour for export at export prices. So if we set a price for home consumption it would not interfere with the millers.
Another objection was this, that if we fix the price for home consumption in Canada, the western farmers would go into the growing of wheat wholesale. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that at 70 cents a bushel it does not pay the farmer to grow wheat; it would pay him only part of his expense, and he would still be losing money. So that if the farmer received a price, say from 70 to 73 cents, which would partly pay his expenses, he would not be induced to go into the raising of wheat on a wholesale basis.
rMr. Donnelly.!
I want to hurry on because my time has about expired. It is necessary that the spirit of optimism in western Canada be restored. Nothing would do more towards its restoration than to have the price of bread and flour fixed for home consumption. The farmers of western Canada would then feel that the people in the east are behind them, and trying to help them, and the support of this part of the country would help to buoy them up under the present difficult conditions. It would not mean very much to eastern Canada, but would do much towards the restoration of the spirit of optimism among the western farmers. I say the government could not consider anything better than to take some action of that kind. I repeat my suggestion that the government appoint a wheat board, and I ask them to investigate the proposal of fixing the price of wheat for home consumption in order that the wheat growers of western Canada may receive the benefit.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to take this opportunity of thanking hon. gentlemen opposite-perhaps they did not intend it any too kindly-for the great pains they have taken to bring before this house and before the people and the press the fact that I am inexperienced. They have said that I am "green." That is true. There is not in this house a member greener in politics than I am-and God grant that I may remain so. They have also referred to my limitations in various resipects, agricultural and otherwise; in this also they are correct. In confirmation of their statements, I wish to say that on those points we agree in every particular. May I add that up to last June I had never attempted a political speech. Nothing was further from my mind than politics. I had attended only one political meeting since the war until my own convention was held. But there was a growing feeling among t'he farmers in my part of the country that they should be represented by a person who had been a farmer buff had not been tied down to any political party, whether Liberal, Conservative or Progressive. I regretted very much that the lot fell to me to represent them, for I felt that there were many farmers who were very much better qualified than I was to assume this great responsibility.

Agricultural Conditions
But they felt that I had one qualification that was necessary for the accomplishment of the task which they imposed upon me-I was a university graduate, little realizing, although I made it as clear to them as I could, that mathematics did not, any more than farming, give a person ability to speak. Therefore with this clear understanding and agreement that I have no political experience, I ask the indulgence of the house to-night. It is difficult enough to speak, it is still more difficult to think and translate one's thinking into parliamentary language.
I realize that my time is limited, very limited, to speak on a subject so comprehensive and important, and yet I feel that decent people throughout the Dominion,-and thank God the majority of the people of Canada are decent-would think that I was very remiss in my duty to-night if I let this opportunity pass to answer in as emphatic a manner as with my limited capacity I am capable of, the many cowardly attacks that have been made, more especially the most' cowardly of all this afternoon. From thd beginning of this session until now I think the attack this afternoon has been the most cowardly of all.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Weir: Hon. gentlemen
on the other side at the very outset pointed to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) as "the autocrat", "the great I am." Do they think they can fool intelligent people that way? Nothing could be clearer than the facts as they stand revealed. The right hon. Prime Minister has been returned election after election by the freest thinking people in the Dominion-the people of the cow town, city of Calgary, where they are accustomed to think straight, to talk straight, and, in days gone by to shoot straight. Do my friends opposite think that a city of free thinking people would idolize an autocrat? Does the right hon. the Prime Minister's return election after election show he has lost the common touch, that his heart does not vibrate in unison with the common people, that his mind does not think along the lines of the free-thinking men of the west? There' are no politics in Calgary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Weir: There are a few transient Liberals who still vote Liberal, as also do a few civil servants, especially those who to get an appointment vote that way. At least it is very peculiar that there was only a very short interval between the time some of them took out their naturalization papers and the time they got their appointments, although 22110-87
they had lived here years before, and practically the only real qualification that seemed to be necessary for their appointment was that they were bosom friends of some of the chief Liberal organizers in the city. I say there are no politics in Calgary.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert Weir: There are a few
transient Liberals, I repeat, a few civil servants; but the others are not Conservative; they do not vote Conservative, they vote for Bennett. There is another city in. the west, that dearly beloved city of Prince Albert. It is a city peculiarly situated and it has had a unique history. It is situated between the old settled district and the new or pioneering district. There is nowhere in Canada where the pioneering spirit has been kept so much alive as in the city of Prince Albert. What that pioneering spirit means only you who have lived in the west know. That spirit is this, that even though your house be a shack, or your bam merely a small place to shelter your cattle and your horses, it is a religion of the pioneers of the west that they will never turn anyone from their doors, whether black or white. Is it any wonder then when there appeared in Prince Albert a political outcast from eastern Canada, that nothing could be more natural than for those people to take him in? But let him beware. There is a difference between a night's lodging and thrusting yourself upon a hospitable and generous people as a permanent boarder. At the first election they accepted him out of generosity. But how was their hospitality responded to? At the meeting during the past election that was supposed to be a public meeting all the available policemen were on hand to keep order! That was the Liberal answer to the hospitality of the people of Prince Albert. But the city of Prince Albert gave its answer as a city on election day. The point I wish to make is this. I hate to say things that seem to hurt, but it has been so incessantly repeated in this house that the right hon. Prime Minister is an autocrat that I think it is only fair I should give the facts as the people of Canada see them. On the one hand we have the so-called "autocrat", who has been returned election after election with increasing majorities; on the other hand we have the right hon. gentleman whose heart bleeds for the common people, who weeps with them in then-sufferings, and whose sympathies are with them always. Yet he moves from one part of Canada to the other to get a seat.
It has been said that there is no man in Canada big enough to formulate a policy in

Agricultural Conditions

agriculture. No one realizes that better than I do. After I received my portfolio my first utterance was that no one realized better than I did my' many' limitations, and that I should seek every occasion for consultation with experts. I have been ready to receive constructive suggestions from persons in any walk of life. I have asked hoa. members to give me any constructive ideas that would be of benefit to the agriculture of Canada. I did not want people to think that in some subtle way' I was trying to steal their ideas. Therefore I made it 'clear that 1 would take every' opportunity to give credit where credit was due. As long as the idea was such as if put into practice w'ould redound to the advantage of agriculture in Canada, I was willing to give credit to the originator. That was the only reward I wished. I told you I had no political experience. It may be of interest to some hon. gentlemen to know that I did not even run my election as a Conservative, but as an independent Conservative. I made the statement at the convention that I wished to be free to vote as I saw fit in the interests of the farmers of Canada. I made that pledge on the 6th day of June and it was on that pledge that I took this trust from them. And I will keep that trust. I speak to-night, then, only as a farmer and in the simple language of the farm.
No one was more surprised than I was when the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) called me to ask me to take the portfolio of agriculture. I made it clear to him that I had no political experience and that I felt that was absolutely essential to make a success of such a gigantic undertaking. His answer was characteristic. He said, "I called you not to be a minister of politics but Minister of Agriculture." His attitude has been the same from that day to this, and I have no hesitation in saying that there was never a minister of agriculture in Canada who enjoyed in fuller measure the wholehearted support of the Prime Minister, his chieftain, and that of his colleagues than I have done. If there is any falling-down in the Department of Agriculture the responsibility is mine and mine alone.
And now for a few minutes with reference to agriculture, because I realize my time is brief. It was emphasized the other day-I do not know why' special attention should have been called to the fact, but I am glad it was,-'that I had resided only three years on a farm. It was said, with reference to certain gentlemen here, that all they knew about farming was looking through the fence on to the farm. I couple that statement with a suggestion which the hon. member for Melville
(Mr. R. Weir.]
(Mr. Motherwell), the former Minister of Agriculture, made-the only supposed constructive suggestion, I believe, which has come from the hon. gentleman since the house has been in session. It was this. He advised me in connection with cut worms to send people to a certain district to get caterpillars or larvae and to incubate those caterpillars to see whether the eggs laid by moths were fertile. I shall never forget the picture I saw opposite as I sat beside the Prime Minister. When the former Minister of Agriculture made that statement there was a nod of approval and of confidence on the part of the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), who was looking in my direction, as much as to say, "You see what twenty-two years' experience as Minister of Agriculture can do." Other farmers from the west on the other side also nodded their approval. That is what practice does. Well, certainly even the chief entomologist of our department will acknowledge that there is no man in his department with such deep, intensive scientific knowledge or insight as to be able to tell by incubating caterpillars whether the eggs laid by moths are fertile or not.
Maybe I have resided only three years on a farm, maybe there are other gentlemen on this side who know nothing about farming beyond what they have seen by looking through the fence. But could they know less by standing outside and looking through the fence, than if they were as completely asleep as old King Tut himself, to whom the hon. gentleman referred?
I must be fair. I said hon. gentleman opposite. I did not have time to watch the faces of all as closely as I might have done. But I did observe this. The thoughtful member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) showed by his smile that he appreciated the humour of the situation. The member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), with his Scotch humour, also smiled and looked around to see whether some of the hon. members on the other side did not, with him, relish the humour that was taken so seriously. And the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) almost bubbled over before the statement was well out of the mouth of the former Minister of Agricrdture. But enough of that. No one, Mr. Speaker, is freer to admit his limitations than I am. I have missed no opportunity of asking for advice, and here let me say that some of the best advice I have received towards the formation of agricultural policy has come from hon. gentlemen opposite in the far corner of the chamber.

Agricultural Conditions
And now for agriculture. I hesitated as to what plan I should take to-night, whether to outline policies or to start at the beginning and follow them in chronological order as problems came before us. I have decided upon the latter. One of the first propositions I ran into was a method of obtaining a market for cattle that were in Canada, seeing that it was impossible for us to get a market in the United States by reason of the high tariff wall there. I made inquiries, even before the by-election, as to what ships were available and what boats might be fitted out. And here is the situation as I found it. Although I have referred to this on many occasions, I attach no blame to anyone. But the first obstacle came in the answer of the steamship companies, that on a previous occasion a former minister of the crown had advised them to fit their boats to carry cattle, promising so many head for so many shipments. The steamship companies went to the expense of fitting their boats, and the promise was not carried out. I do not blame anyone for not doing things that were impossible, but I do think that if some precaution had been observed, and this promise had not been given, it would be much easier now to persuade the steamship companies to carry out the refitting of their boats in order to transport Canadian cattle. However, realizing the situation, I immediately got in touch with professional experts

I do not mean so-called educated professional experts, but men who knew their business. I got in touch with five or six of the leading ranchers of the west; because I considered that the men with whom I could best discuss the cattle situation were men engaged in the cattle business. I wired them to meet me in Regina, and we consulted as to the best course to take. We decided to make two trial shipments, in which would be included cattle of different types. I got one of the best cattle men in the west to go along with the shipment so as to be able to put these cattle before the old country market in the most convincing way. In this shipment were groups of different types, and the man selected to put the cattle on the English market was Mr. Shea Gilchrist. He made the necessary arrangements and did everything within his power to create interest in the old land in this and any other shipments that might be made. I saw the cattle before they left Montreal, and I felt that the best advertisement which we could have in the old country for Canadian cattle was this representative shipment. I thought that we could have no better advertisement than to make 22110-S7.V
sure that some of the most suitable cattle would go into the hands of feeders. To encourage this, and to make certain that these cattle would not be slaughtered, it was agreed that we should subsidize them to pay freight up to five dollars a head. Although I made that proposal on Saturday-it was not a binding promise but merely a suggestion-the news immediately got to the old country. It appeared in the newspapers there that the Canadian government was subsidizing cattle and I had to withdraw the tentative promise made. However, I asked Mr. Gilchrist to take every precaution to see that this special shipment was not sold but put into the hands of some feeder, especially a leading farmer, in order that English farmers might see in the old country the type of cattle we had. He was very successful. He got them into the hands of one of the most outstanding north of England feeders. He went to see them twice before he left, and he assures me that nothing could be a better advertisement for our western cattle than this shipment. Later shipments went to Glasgow, and we arranged that some of these cattle should also go to feeders. The results were not as encouraging as we might have expected. But I went west in January to make arrangements for a shipment this spring and was surprised to find how pleased the ranchers were with the results of the four shipments we had made. Some of the cattle, the heavier type, brought three dollars a head more than they would have done in the local market, and although some of the lighter cattle were sold for less than they would have brought locally, it was the unanimous opinion of the ranchers there that the price of cattle in the west had been held up from half to three-quarters of a cent per pound. That is not my opinion; it is the opinion of men in the business.
A simple mathematical calculation will show what that half cent a pound wdth that volume meant to the cattlemen of western Canada. When I made my trip to Calgary in January I was following a policy which I hope always to follow while 1 continue in the position I now occupy, and that is, that no politics will in any way be allowed to interfere with agriculture. The only man whom I notified when I made my second visit to Calgary was Senator Riley, and I do not think any person can accuse him of being a rabid Conservative. He met me in the hotel and introduced me to the cattlemen. We stayed there and made plans for the handling of cattle this spring, but I do not think that is sufficient; we need plans to extend into the future so that we shall not continue in any
Agricultural Conditions

haphazard way to formulate plans, only when faced with an emergency. We endeavoured to obtain all the information we could as to cattle on feed in the west, the types of cattle, where they were situated, and so on; and in addition we made arrangements with the transportation systems to give us a 50 per cent freight rate from the ranges to the coarse grain feed lands in northern Saskatchewan. That would save an extra toll-that is the only word I can use, because it seems to me that from the time produce leaves the farm until it gets into the mouths of the consumers it is one toil after another. As practical farmers we endeavoured to find ways of saving a dollar here or a dollar there, whether by freight, commission or otherwise, because it is often those few dollars which mean the differeuce between profit and loss. We made arrangements not only for the shipment of these cattle to the northern feed lands at 50 per cent of the regular freight rate, but also for reductions in the expense of the farmer going down to hunt those cattle. We arranged that he would be able to obtain accurate information and it is hoped by next fall or possibly late summer that the farmers in the north will be able to obtain cattle according to their requirements at a minimum expense.
In addition to that we felt that many farmers in Saskatchewan had had very little experience in feeding cattle and that it was only fair that this machinery should be put into their hands for immediate use. Simple experiments were carried on with the homegrown feeds. I asked the experimental farm at Rosthern to perform experiments on some eighteen or twenty head of steers and heifers, sired by the one bull so that the strain would be uniform and there would be the least variation possible in the results. I asked them to feed cut sheaves and crushed barley to one group, and cut sheaves and crushed wheat to another group, in both cases with salt and water only. Many people thought that we would not have any success with feed such as that, but realized that many farmers in western Canada have had no experience in feeding and they would want things to be as simple as possible. After allowing for the freight on the cattle and the purchase price, they were sold eighty-four days afterward on a basis which returned $1.19 per bushel for wheat and 83 cents per bushel for barley.
One of the most difficult problems we had to face was the impossibility of shipping these cattle to the United States. Regulations and restrictions had been put on the shipment of cattle by the British government-we knew* of this last November but no announcement
Mr. R. Weir.]
was made. Announcement was made some two months later that there was an embargo against Canadian cattle. It was announced also that there were 100,000 cattle in western Canada for export, and the result of such an announcement was evident; the people thought that they would be unable to get rid of their cattle; they threw them on the market and the price went down. We were able to counteract this to some extent. It will be of interest to the cattlemen in the house that we have every available foot of space to be secured in British ships this summer to carry our cattle to the old land.
The next problem had to do with butter. It has been said that the raising of the duty on butter encouraged a lot of people to go into the dairy industry with the result that the prices on butter were broken. That is not my interpretation of the cause. I believe that the price of wheat and the price of coarse grain was such as to encourage people to enter this industry; they were ready to go into anything which would make them five or ten cents with which to carry them through the winter. In order to save this industry we put, on an eight-cent duty against New Zealand butter. However, the Australian treaty, made by the previous government, was still in force and that permitted a one-cent duty only against Australian butter. We were faced with a flood of Australian butter, and my colleagues and I realized that the only way to meet this emergency was to make a verbal agreement with the Hon. Parker Moloney of Australia to the effect that Australia would not release in Canada any butter under 32 cents per pound except with our consent. This at least helped the daily industry of this country through the winter months. There was a possibility at one time that the price would be driven down by New Zealand because they were shipping in some butter to sell at less than 32 cents. I immediately got in touch with the commissioner for New Zealand and was able to arrange with him that their butter would not be released at a price less than 32 cents per pound to the detriment of our dairying industry. This state of affairs lasted until some two weeks ago, when the increased production of butter in Canada drove the price still lower. In my opinion, one of the reasons for this drop is the lack of a uniform board of control in Canada to supervise this industry. For the benefit of those who have expressed adverse opinions, I will say that when we came into power Canadian butter was selling at a lower price than that prevailing in the United States, and Australian butter

Agricultural Conditions
in England, and I believe New Zealand butter as well. Immediately after coming into power we put on a duty of eight cents per pound; from then and for some six or eight months our butter was selling at a higher price than was butter in London and the United States. That continued, as I said before, until some ten days or two weeks ago.
The butter industry is almost to the export level; we expect it to be at that level within a short time. I am told by the dairy commissioner and by produce merchants that our Canadian butter as a whole is not sufficiently uniform as to grade to permit its being labelled and shipped to the old country as Canadian butter. The former Minister of Agriculture, recommended the other day that some of the creameries in Quebec should be merged into larger creameries in an endeavour to develop a more uniform grade of butter. Surely this is not the time to do that. While listening to the hon. gentleman's remarks, I could not help but think that if he had done one-tenth as much during the nine years he was in office as he said he had hoped to do or intended to do if he were returned to office, we would not be having insistent demands from hon. gentlemen on the other side for a statement of agricultural policy.
When this government came into power, realizing the then low price of coarse grains and rough feed, we felt that we would soon be in the export market with our bacon. Upon making investigation, one point was evident to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house -or at least it was evident to the government,-namely the great scarcity of select bacon, the only type that has any opportunity to compete in the old country with the Danish product. In Saskatchewan alone I found that the number of select bacon hogs was only 5-6 per cent; that is, only 5-6 per cent of the pigs slaughtered in Saskatchewan would have any opportunity to go on the world market. That is the condition in which I found the bacon industry for purposes of export. I knew there had to be an emergency measure, and it was an emergency measure when I tried to work out a way that would make it easier for the farmers to get into the production of a select bacon type of pigs. That is why I formulated the "brood sow" policy that some hon. gentlemen opposite have been making a good deal of fun of. In that way we made it easier for the farmers to get into the production of the select bacon type of pigs. Further, this idea was that litters of the. select bacon type of brood sows would be sired by boars of the select bacon type, and the information brought to me is that one could not realize how much effect this would be likely to have on the type
of pigs obtained from these litters for breeding purposes.
The next point with which I wish to deal is breeding cattle. I think, as perhaps one of the soundest principles of agriculture, whether in live stock or feeding, we should at all times aim to get into our live stock that type of blood that will make the best use of the feed that we give them, whether dairy cattle or beef cattle. It was for that reason I tried to catch up with the policies that had been neglected so much, by introducing the policy that was scoffed at this afternoon, the policy known as the "bull loaning" policy, by which we hope to help the farmers of Canada, especially at this time by loaning them bulls under supervision. This was only doing fairly and honestly as the people of Canada would really wish, because I believe ninety-nine per cent of our people are really intensely interested in this question of the success of agriculture and desire from the bottom of their hearts that agriculture should prosper.
In connection with statements of hon. gentlemen opposite concerning agriculture, people both on this side and on the other have told me not to take these debates too seriously; that hon. gentlemen on the other side who moved and supported this motion were not so much concerned with policies of agriculture; that it was all a political game. I can scarcely believe that. I have sat here day after day watching the faces of hon. gentlemen opposite, farmers from the west, and I cannot help feeling they are very sincere as regards their interest in helping agriculture. I am willing at this point to put it to hon. members; I will ask the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment if he cannot show to the house that he is interested in agriculture and describe the two brood sow policies of the late government when they went out of office. I realize that he will hesitate to interrupt me in my speech. No doubt the hon. gentleman knows those policies, but if he does not, then I would be left to believe that the suggestion that the talk was political rather than agricultural is true. We have other so-called policies and I realize that each of them is not of very great importance in itself for immediate relief. The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donne'lly) said this afternoon that these things were all right in their way, and I appreciate the kindly reference to them. However, I ask, would they not have been much more right if they had been put into force five years ago, so that now we would be in the position in which we should be?
It has been said that this government has done nothing for agriculture. Laughing reference has been made to the speeches that I
Agricultural Conditions

delivered in Toronto and Montreal in connection with the banks not lending money, and especially to the last part of my speech. I did not make those speeches in western Canada to the farmers. I thought the place to make them, the place where the farmers of western Canada would wish me to make them, would be in Toronto and Montreal, and that is where I made them. At the end of my speech in Montreal I said that if credit were not given to the farmers through the banks, some steps would have to be taken to give them credit. The reference has been made that we have heard no more of that. The truth is that in less than ten days from that time, realizing that credit would not be given, I made arrangements to meet the western ministers of agriculture at Winnipeg just for the purpose of doing what I said would have to be done. I met with them and we discussed the problems of the west, seed grain relief, relief to help the farmers to put in grain, and other relief. These ministers agreed it would be better in the interests of carrying out this plan if our part in the contract were not made public, but I can say this, that never before was there a government which realized more clearly than we did the exigencies of the situation of the western farmer due to circumstances over which he had no control, and our offer was commensurate with our appreciation of the situation. Moreover, when it is known, I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will blush for having discussed this question in the way they have done, although perhaps this is through no fault of their own as they did not know the offer.
In conclusion, because I see I have only five minutes more, no one in the house realizes better than I do that these policies which I have enunciated, are policies that will not result in benefits until some time in the future. No one realizes better than I do that there is carried by the western farmer a load that requires some form of immediate relief, a load that these policies will not immediately alleviate. But that load of mortgages and debts was not created since last August. That is the load that worries me, when I look forward to the future to see these agricultural communities in the west happy and prosperous again, as I would see them.
There is another handicap for which we take no responsibility. In the early days when western Canada was first settled, people came from many countries, including many from the United States, with whole carloads af equipment and were directed to areas that people knew or should have known did not

give those farmers a ghost of a chance of making a living there. Why was that done? They were warned about it. Among many others, that veteran rancher Joe Wylie, from Maple Creek, told them they were breaking up over night a sod that took a thousand years to make. That is one of the loads we are carrying in western Canada to-day.
Another load is that of weeds. In this connection I hesitate to make this statement, but I think when we are discussing in this house things on their merits, we are not supposed to mince words and therefore I shall speak plainly. However, before I discuss weeds, it has been advocated that a pork packing plant be established in the west. Few hon. members in the house or in the Dominion have given more thought to that question than I have since last October. I have been in consultation with people who, I thought, might operate it. I have done something to bring representatives of wholesale cooperative houses from the old country to look into the proposition, because I felt nothing like that could be a success unless we had some one here from the old land who knew the taste of the English people in regard to bacon, to manage the plant, etc. We could use their sales machinery. I believed that in this way thousands of dollars would be saved. I have made a study of private plants, of public plants; the whole thing has been gone into very thoroughly. I doubt whether the quantity of bacon this year will be anything like what people some time ago expected it would be, but if hon. gentlemen opposite were anxious for a packing plant, they had plenty of opportunity to build one. Take the Moose Jaw registered seed grain plant at Moose Jaw. There was enough money spent on that to build four seed cleaning plants and then have enough left over to build a packing plant. According to the speech delivered by the provincial treasurer in Saskatchewan the other day, the co-operative creameries that were built there lost the province one million dollars. That was enough to build at least four packing plants in Saskatchewan. If the estimate for the railway hotel in Saskatoon had been cut in two, enough would have been saved to build a packing plant in every province in the Dominion.
One word more and I shall have finished. I think the biggest load that agriculture in Canada, especially in Saskatchewan has to carry, is known to the majority of farmers in this Dominion. When the former Minister of Agriculture was made Minister of Agriculture in the government of Saskatchewan in 1905, he had before him a clean, fertile, virgin field

Agricultural Conditions
in that province, and he had coming into that field people who took second place to none. And what has been the result? It is an old saying that there is a record written that he who runs may read; but written along trails leading out of Regina there is a record which those who drive in automobiles travelling sixty miles an hour can read, a record written during the term of office of the former Minister of Agriculture in sow thistle, stinkweed and other weeds of various kinds.
But that is not all. He left the provincial ' field in 1918 and came into federal politics as Minister of Agriculture in 1921. His work was not yet completed. There was a patch in Saskatchewan that was still not weedy enough, that fertile valley which takes second place to none, that valley which is in the constituency I have the great honour to represent, the Carrot river valley in northern Saskatchewan. It *was comparatively clear and clean of weeds of any kind. What happened? The former Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart)-I take it that he acted in conjunction with the former Minister of Agriculture- decided that there was a great slough there which should be drained, and they drained it at a cost in the neighbourhood of $186,000- which would have helped considerably in building a packing plant.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was the Tories who did that.


Robert Weir: It was in 1921-1922. The result of it all was this, that some three or four years ago, after they had had people out there making experiments to find out the best thing to grow on that drained land, they rented it out to people who did not utilize the knowledge of the experts, and the result is that to-day we find just across the fence five hundred acres of sow thistle polluting all that fertile valley. The hon. member said the other day that if I had been in Saskatoon when the United Farmers met there, my life would not have been safe. The hon. gentleman's life would not be very safe towards August and September in our part of the *country, when I myself for one-and other farmers-have had to hire four men for about two weeks to pick out the sow thistle that *came from that area.
In conclusion, may I say that there it stands and will stand as a menace to the north, to spread sow thistle and noxious weeds of various kinds. It stands as a memorial to the lack of agricultural intelligence of two former ministers of the crown. It stands as a record indisputable and undeniable because [DOT]written by their own hands.


Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: I am reminded to-night, Mr. Speaker, of a great occasion in the city of Regina on the 30th of December last. I think that the impression that was left by the hon. leader of the government (Mr. Bennett) on his audience on the 30th of December last was the impression left in the -minds of hon. members to-night after listening to the wails of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir). The Minister of Agriculture has stated that he was no politician. After listening to his speech I want to pay him this compliment, that he is a much better politician than a minister of agriculture. It took him fifteen minutes to tell the house that he was neither a great politician nor an agriculturist, and that fifteen minutes was wasted because he amply demonstrated beyond a doubt that he had no knowledge of either politics or agriculture. If I were to ask the people of Canada, what is the most outstanding question before the agricultural people of this country to-day, with one voice they would answer:	Markets for
wheat. Yet the Minister of Agriculture never mentioned that subject. Perhaps his forty minutes was not long enough, but he took seven minutes to deal with matters that were of absolutely no consequence to this country. He tried to castigate a man whose shoes, I say quite frankly, he is not fit to buckle.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Vallance: We	gave the Minister
of Agriculture every possible opportunity to speak, and I crave similar indulgence from hon. gentlemen opposite. In the parliamentary library the Minister of Agriculture will find a book entitled Deep Furrows, written by Hopkins Moorhouse. I commend it to the minister. Does he say that he has it? I hope that he has read it. In that book he will find it stated irrefutably that no man in the last forty years has made a greater contribution to western agriculture than the Hon. W. R. Motherwell.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Vallance: I hope, Mr. Speaker,
that you will note these interruptions and allow me time for them. I am trying to show the Minister of Agriculture some of the things that he should have said. This book that I have mentioned shows the Hon. Mr. Motherwell, not only as a great agriculturist, but as one of the first who made any effort to organize western agriculturists.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Agricultural Conditions


John Vallance: Oh, oh, yes. He was
the father of the old Grain Growers' Association, from which organization sprang every cooperative body that has been developed in western Canada-cooperative creameries, cooperative elevators, even the wheat pool. All these cooperative organizations were possible only because of those first steps in organization that were taken by the Hon. Mr. Motherwell, and it ill becomes the Minister of Agriculture even to attempt to say what he has said to-night of the former Minister of Agriculture. He demonstrated a lack of knowledge in that respect equal only to his lack of knowledge of agriculture generally and even of politics.
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the debates in this house, and after reading the trade returns, that one of Canada's greatest assets is her wheat crop, and one of her greatest problems the finding of a market for our wheat. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from the speech of the Prime Minister, speaking in reply to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). He said:
In order that there may be ample opportunity for attack, I think it is desirable that the government should make a statement at once. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has moved an amendment. That amendment deals with everything with which agriculture has to do, from grain to chickens, and with every phase of these agricultural products from growth to consumption.
He goes on to state that it was about time he made a statement, and there we were absolutely in agreement with him. What was the statement he made? The Minister of Agriculture says that if we knew just what the government had done for agriculture we would blush.


An hon. MEMBER:: Blush?


John Vallance: Yes, blush, after the
attacks we had made upon them. Ever since the house opened, we have been trying to get a statement of agricultural policy from this government. I have before me a long list of requests from about 30,000 farmers of Saskatchewan presented to the Prime Minister when he was in the west. Not one iota of consideration has been given to any of the requests made by those farmers. The Minister of Agriculture says that we would blush if we were told what the government has done. I make the statement that if the Minister of Agriculture or the government had come forward openly and told the people of Canada what they were doing or attempting to do there would have been no need of all the speeches made on this amendment. What is the position in which we find ourselves?

Quoting from the remarks of the Prime Minister as contained at page 1076 of Hansard I find the following:
T am not going to deal further with agriculture, hut one thing more I desire to say. In Woodstock, New Brunswick, I said: "The collective weight of the resources of this country would be put behind agriculture." I ask hon. members to name any government which has saved a situation by deliberate effort as this one has in view of the condition of the wheat market. What would the price of wheat have been in this country had it not been for the action of the government?
I have tried to indicate-


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely impossible for any hon. member to hear. When a debate is in progress hon. members ought to have the opportunity of hearing it. For the last five minutes it has been impossible at this end of the chamber to hear anything. I would ask either that steps be taken to ensure the observance of decorum in the house so that hon. members may be able to hear, or that the debate be adjourned until such time as we may have order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I sympathize with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), but so far as I can observe, decorum is being observed in the chamber.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I have the right to suggest that such steps be taken as will make it possible for hon. members in this chamber to hear. The other day it was stated that we had certain obligations to fulfil. On the other hand we have certain rights, and among them is that we be able to hear what is going on in the chamber.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is true that the acoustic properties of the chamber are not all that might be desired.


John Vallance: I was just commencing to read from the remarks of the Prime Minister following those of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). The remarks of the Prime Minister continue as follows:
Mr. Bennett:	I tried to indicate the other
day that I think it is very much better that these things should speak for themselves. We put the collective credit of this country behind the, wheat market.
Mr. Vallance:	It was security only to the
banks which you gave, not to the wheat pool at all, or to the farmer. The help was given to the banks.

Agricultural Conditions
An hon. Member:	It was the banks you
saved.
Mr. Bennett:	I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker,
and through you to the Canadian people, to judge whether anything could better illustrate the line of thought indulged in by some hon. members than the two observations to which we have just listened.
One of those remarks was made by me and another by an hon. member whose name does not appear in Hansard. Then the Prime Minister continues:
Mr. Bennett: Could anything be better calculated to bring-shall I say?-despair on the part of those farmers who are struggling with adversity than this counsel of desperation to which we have been listening?
The Prime Minister used the words "struggling with adversity". Hon. members heard what the Minister of Agriculture said to-night.
The banks have money belonging to their depositors, and they owe it to them. The banks have no right to lend that money upon security which will hazard the deposit. The banks have lent the money to the farmers, to the pool -which was a voluntary organization created by the farmers themselves and not by the country. The banks were called upon to do one of two things; support that market by continuing to advance money; or stop doing so and let wheat drop 40 cents.
Then a question is asked by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young):
Would wheat have dropped 40 cents if you had not taken the action you did?
The reply of the Prime Minister is as follows:
I cannot say. I can only say that that is the judgment of those well able to express an opinion on the subject.
Mr. Young: That is 40 cents more than it actually did drop.
The Prime Minister was trying to convey the idea that through the assistance extended by this government to the wheat pool in the marketing of the crop the government had saved the price of wheat from dropping as low as 40 cents. I would ask the Prime Minister if the action taken by the government to prevent the price of wheat from dropping, also prevented a similar drop in the Argentine, Russia, the United States and Australia? I ask that question because at no time was the wheat of those countries any lower in price than that of Canada. It would appear that by his action he saved not only the Canadian market but the entire wheat market of the world. If we are to accept his statement we must come to that conclusion.
Now that the Prime Minister has stated his action in connection with the control of wheat prices I am going to ask him and the Minister of Agriculture to use every effort
possible to give to the western wheat growers 100 per cent control of their wheat. If the Prime Minister argues that by advancing or guaranteeing moneys to the banks he controlled the price of wheat I am now asking him to consider in a similar way the present demands of the western farmer. In the province of Saskatchewan we were attempting to have 100 per cent control by legislation. I noticed the other day in the press an article stating that in the courts our action had been declared ultra vires. I do not know what the next step will be; I do not know whether there will be an appeal to this government for an enactment which will enable them to have such legislation, or whether they will ask this government once more to create the old wheat board. After listening to and reading the statements of the Prime Minister I cannot see for the life of me why or how the government can refuse to take such action.
At one time we in western Canada had a cooperative organization known as the pool. I was rather grieved this afternoon to read the following from the Globe of May 7:
The pool permits members to suspend contracts and use open markets.
What does that mean? It means that we are -back to where we were five or six years ago. Only one thing can save us, and this government and this parliament have the power to put i-t through. I plead with them to take that action. I go further and say that this government is partly responsible for the defeat of the pool, and I shall proceed to prove it. Because of the position the pool got into and because of the assistance which was tendered by the banks the pool was being dictated to as to its policy by some powers other than those who were the contract signers. When the Prime Minister went to the Imperial conference he took with him some chief advisers. Who were they? He took two professors of economics, one from the university of Saskatchewan, Doctor Swanson, and Doctor MacGibbon, who is a professor of economics and also fills one of the chairs of the Board of Grain Commissioners. He took John I. McFarland. Then there was Mr. Gage, who is now deceased, and Alex. McPhail, who was president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool. As I said, we found that we owed the -banks. Probably it was our fault because we believed that -in the interests of the producer we should deviate from the old organized grain trade method of marketing whereby for every purchase made to-day they hedged to-morrow to secure the bank for the money advanced on the purchases made to-day. We cooperatives believing that that was not in the interests o'
Agricultural Conditions

the producer, decided that we were not going to sell futures wheat, hedge our wheat, and that we would give the banks security of 15 cents a bushel. When that margin almost disappeared the government did step in. It looks rather peculiar to me that not long after the Prime Minister and his associates had gone to the Imperial conference, I think about two weeks, we find Mr. McFarland returning to Canada, and shortly afterwards he becomes manager of the central selling agency of the Canadian pools. He took that position on two conditions; first, that he was to receive no salary-being a Scotchman, I suppose he did not want any money; second, that he foe given an absolutely free hand regarding the sales policy of the pools. It was quite evident to us who had taken an active part in building up the organization that this was the first body blow to the pools. I would not have been so suspicious had it not happened that the -day after the announcement was made that Mr. McFarland had accepted the managership of the selling agency, my genial friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) came out with the statement that he was pleased to see that the pools of their own free will had decided to give Mr. McFarland a free hand. I question the so-called "free will" because I know the pools. The first thing Mr. McFarland did was to close the overseas agency. What was the result? Let me read a despatch from France, the country that the Prime Minister has been telling us is going to buy large quantities of our wheat. This despatch is dated Paris, March IS, and is written by William H. Ingram, correspondent of the Times-Journal:
Since the Canadian wheat pool closed it3 offices in Paris, Canadian wheat is sold only through the grain trade. Millers know perfectly well that the traders are not doing business without a profit. They also know that in many cases the wheat which is offered to them has passed through middlemen who have increased the price a few cents, and this does not tend to please the buyer any more than it has added to the profit of the Canadian farmer.
The French people find it difficult to understand why the Paris office of the Canadian pool has been closed when millers willing to buy Canadian wheat without middlemen W'ere buying it under conditions which suited them. Prices were the same for every kind of buyer 

miller, merchant or broker. It was good business without a preferential tariff, buyers knowing that the prices were those quoted daily by Winnipeg.
During the seven years in which the Paris office functioned, there was not a single complaint against quality. Every miller ordering wheat from it was absolutely sure that he received the quality ordered. This was due to the fact that a bill of lading and a dominion

certificate were issued with every order from the smallest to the largest. And" this was an encouragement to the buyer.
Under existing conditions it may happen that only one bill of lading and one dominion certificate may be issued for, say, 1,000 tons which will be divided into ten lots of 100 tons each, but for which each miller will be unable to get the dominion certificate as proof that it is Canadian wheat which he is receiving. Any omission of that dominion certificate may result in the millers not getting Canadian wheat at all. And that is quite likely what is going to happen.
If information is correct, the same applied to Portugal and Spain.
Portugal has authorized recently the importation of foreign wheat for its own consumption. Representatives from the Soviet, the Danubian countries and the Argentine have been on the spot to bid closely for the quantity allowed. This has resulted in an order for 46,000 tons being given to the Argentine. If Canada had had her representatives there at the time, the chances are that she would have obtained the order or at least a part of it.
As to Italy, it is known that through reciprocal arrangement she is buying this year Soviet wheat in exchange for manufactured goods. It is unfortunate that Canada if losing by this arrangement one of her most important European customers. But as Soviet delivery is far from being satisfactory, it is expected that she may resume her former business relations with the dominion.
In the face of this, and the position that the cooperative organizations find themselves in to-day, and the statement of the Prime Minister the other day when he took credit that because of the fact he had guaranteed the banks against certain losses he was able to stabilize the price of wheat, I demand for the farmers of western Canada that he immediately, by enabling legislation, make if. possible to put over 100 per cent control as the farmers first sought, or establish the old Canada wheat board. I think the Minister of Agriculture will agree that that at least is a constructive suggestion to the government. I was rather disappointed that he did not say something about it.
I notice that the Minister of Agriculture referred also to a speech that he himself made in Toronto. The Prime Minister said in this house on April 28th:
Who is it that says the farmers are unfit for credit and that the country is bankrupt and insolvent? Day after day and week after week hon. gentlemen opposite-
Meaning us.
[DOT]-have been saying it; they complain that the farmers cannot get credit.
Now let me quote something that was said, not by any member of the opposition but by the Minister of Agriculture himself. This was long before the session opened; this was on February 4 at Toronto, and I think

Agricultural Conditions
13G7
the hon. minister must bear some of the responsibility of bringing to the attention of the country the fact that the farmers of the west to-day cannot get credit. If the Prime Minister was right in saying that those conditions did not exist, surely his Minister of Agriculture would not have said what I now present to the house. Let me read this Canadian Press despatch:
"Persons with glib tongues, with hopes of personal publicity," have been responsible for agitation among western farmers, Hon. Robert Weir. Canadian Minister of Agriculture, told a gathering of Canadian agriculturists at a Canadian National exhibition annual dinner to live stock breeders.
These persons, the minister said, had gone around to the farmers exhorting them to prevail upon the government to have wheat "pegged" at $1 a bushel, demand new freight rates and eliminate mortgage interests. Mr. Weir made it clear he in no way referred to the United Farmers.
I think if the Minister of Agriculture had gene to the trouble to read the memorandum that the United Farmers of Canada, Saskatchewan section, presented to the Prime Minister on December 30 last, he would not have had occasion to say that he was not referring to the United Farmers, because everything that was asked for by the "agitators", as he called them, was embodied in that memorandum. He continues:
In spite of this agitation, he declared he found at a recent meeting of his own constituency no trace of dissatisfaction and no complaints. He had warned them they might have to accept extremely low prices for their products, and still there had been no complaints. he said.
Now, this was the point:
Conditions, he admitted, were severe in some cases, particularly concerning credit. It was credit the farmer needed and he was unable to get_ it. While not criticizing the banks. Mr. Weir said he was unable to understand why these institutions refused to allow money to these people. He would not advocate the loan of money to people without justifiable security, but people who had ample assets in their farms and properties were not able to secure relief in this form and they needed money to carry on.
The Prime Minister conveyed the impression to the house and to the country that the whole controversy regarding the economic position of the western farmer was started by the opposition at the opening of the session. I have just read a Canadian press despatch of a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture on February 4. Probably had he not made that statement many of us would not have really realized just how bad a condition the western farmer was in; but when even the Minister of Agriculture-who was back here in Ottawa, not living through the conditions
that we in the west were familiar with every day-had noticed those conditions, surely the Prime Minister will not condemn us for having brought them to the attention of the country and to his attention. We are still looking for relief. It will be remembered how the Prime Minister when out in the west during the elections, used to say to the farmers:
Listen, you agriculturists from the west and all the other parts of Canada, you have been taught to mock at tariffs and applaud free trade. Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? Tell me, when did free trade fight for you? You say tariffs are only for the manufacturers. I will make them fight for you as well. I will use them to blast a way into the markets that have been closed to you.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, I ask this house, has he demonstrated to the smallest extent that he has obtained for the farmer any greater market than he had before? The one thing the farmer needs above all others is a market; and as was pointed out this afternoon by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly), the action of this government has made it more difficult to obtain that market. In making it more difficult for goods to come into Canada, the Prime Minister has made it that much more difficult for the agriculturist of Canada to sell his surplus produce; because, whether hon. gentlemen opposite believe it or not, we must take payment for our exports by imports. That is the only thing we can do, and every time you restrict the possibility of our shipping out one bushel of wheat by raising the tariff on any commodity which we import, you make it all the more difficult for the farmer of the west to operate. I think the Minister of Agriculture will admit this as a westerner. He will admit it as a westerner and not as a politician or as Minister of Agriculture. As a plain farmer he will agree that that statement is absolutely true.


Robert James Manion: May I ask a question?


John Vallance: I will allow the hon.
member to ask a question.


Robert James Manion: I thank my hon. friend. I ask this as a fair question. How is it that, in spite of the statement which the hon. member makes, the exports of wheat during the last eight months have been from sixty to seventy million bushels more than they were in the corresponding eight months of the previous year?


John Vallance: I will tell my hon. friend the reason. The farmer is selling it; or rather, as the hon. member for Willow Bunch pointed out, he is not selling it but giving it away. After twenty-five years of farming in the west
Agricultural Conditions

and marketing many thou,sands of bushels of wheat; after harvesting last year one of the best crops ever grown in that section of western Canada, the section in which I live; after seeing oats last year running as high as 80, 90 and 100 bushels to the acre, and wheat going from 20 to 45 bushels per acre, and finding the farmers insolvent to-day-after all this experience, I would not dare to tell you, Mr. Speaker, of some of the conditions that prevail among large farmers. And the larger the farmer the harder he was hit. With this statement, again, I think the Minister of Agriculture will agree; because you cannot produce wheat any more economically-perhaps slightly more-by increased production than if you produced only a 20 bushel crop. I say this for the reason that your initial cost is the same-your seed and cultivation, and your operations right up to the moment you start harvesting the crop, although from that point on you decrease your cost because of volume. But so long as you cannot get cost of production, I care not whether it be a cent or ten cents below cost, the more you produce the more you lose. That is the position of the western farmer to-day.
I would urge most seriously upon the government the absolute necessity of taking some definite action. This is not a time for palaver. As I listened to the Minister of Agriculture- I hate to refer to this again but I must-I really did expect that he would deal with these most urgent problems, the most important of which is finding a profitable market for Canadian wheat. The Prime Minister stated that he had, by his efforts, saved wheat from going to 40 cents, and if he is able to save it from going to 40 cents, then I should think that a man of his calibre ought to be able to raise it another 20 cents, even if he has to resort to pegging, as suggested by the organized farmers themselves.
I do not wish to cover old territory, Mr. Speaker. I could point out, as others have done, that we have pegged the price of everything else. But I would repeat that every time you raise the duty on any article coming into Canada you make it so much more difficult for the farmer to find a place for his wheat in the world's market. I do not believe the tariff ,is sound economically, and the greatest economists to-day are telling us that our most difficult problem lies in the high tariff walls that are dividing the people of the earth. If, therefore, we could remove those walls and have a free exchange of commodities as between country and country, I am sure that the problems with which we are faced at the present time would be largely solved.

It is all very well for the Minister of Agriculture to institute bull, sow and other policies. But they are as old as the hills. The best live stock ever raised on God's earth never resulted from such policies as the minister is advocating. I know, Mr. Speaker, coming from the country across the sea in which I was born, that Canada is not adapted in some sections to some of the enterprises which the minister would force upon the country. Look at the country in which I was brought up, Scotland: they have never had any bull and sow policies or anything of that kind. The country is naturally adapted to the production of live stock. And as the hon. member for Willow Bunch pointed out this afternoon, it is ridiculous to expect the farmers of the west to go into mixed farming. The farmer of western Canada does not wish to go further into debt; what he wants is an opportunity to get out of his present financial difficulties. This five million dollars is just so much piffle; I would not even consider it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


John Vallance: I see the hon. member
for Saskatoon laughing. I listened with others the other night to what he said, and I read his remarks, and I can assure him that when the people have an opportunity to register their views regarding the actions of this government in this matter they will do so in no uncertain manner.
I would impress upon the Minister of Agriculture that the supreme problem facing agriculture to-day is the finding of a market for our wheat. The hon. gentleman admits, Mr. Speaker, that his is the voice that speaks for agriculture within the cabinet councils of the nation, and there is therefore a great responsibility upon him. And I believe he feels that responsibility. All you need to do is merely to look at the hon. gentleman and you will realize that he is conscious of his responsibility in this matter, and I hope that he is man enough, big enough to rise to the occasion against all the plutocrats sitting around him in the cabinet and stand up for the rights of the farmers of Canada.


William Irvine: I know the house is just about ready for the question, but seeing that it is the will of parliament that hon. members should vote upon every issue, I do not propose to vote until I have published my reasons for doing so.
I am sorry I cannot enter into the debate with that warmth which was characteristic of the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), or with the heat which evidently was engendered thereby in the

Agricultural Conditions
breast of the hon. member who has jusit taken his seat (Mr. Vallanee). I do not see much difference between the debate which is now going on and the one at the conclusion of which we voted a short time ago. Nor do I see much difference between this debate and many others which it has been my pleasure to follow in this House of Commons.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the use of talking then?


William Irvine: I will tell the hon. gentleman in a few moments what the use of talking is, because I am not going to talk for the sake of a party or in any hope that some day this little group will be on the right of Mr. Speaker. I am going to speak on the issue as I see it, without any frills on either side of it.
Before addressing myself specifically to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), I wish to make a reference to the speech of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). This afternoon the hon. gentleman went a long piece out of his way to make an attack on me because of a speech I made in this house some time ago. He did not attack the speech itself but merely an aside in that speech, w'hich made a reference to secession talk in the west. As some other hon. members have done, he attributed to me the blame for, or the honour, as the case may be, of first introducing that question in the House of Commons this session. I just wish to call the attention of the house and of the Ottawa Journal to the fact that I was not the first to mention that question in the house; the first one to mention it in the house was the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). He quoted the ex-premier of [DOT]Saskatchewan in his reference to the matter. The next hon. member to mention it was the member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallanee), who even went so far as to hold aloft that famous "Charter of Liberty" drawn up in the province of Saskatchewan. The next hon. member to refer to the matter was the deputy speaker of the house (Mr. LaVergne). These hon. gentlemen scoffed at the idea but in my reference to it I said only that I thought perhaps the hon. gentlemen did not understand as well as they might the conditions prevailing in the west and that there might be more in the secession talk than was imagined. That remark acted as a match to the powder barrel of the Ottawa Journal and hurt the feelings of my hon. friend to my right who made a reference to it this afternoon. I trust that this will be sufficient to prove to my hon. friend that I was not the first to mention the matter in this house.
I shall now address myself to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). In doing so I would say in all kindness that the Liberal party is always great in opposition but I am afraid that if they are not careful they will prove themselves to be so great that the country will want to keep them always in that position. The hon. member for Lisgar is one of the most respected members in this house. He is possessed of a matured and balanced judgment, is well informed on all matters pertaining to agriculture and has advanced in this chamber on many occasions very interesting views on agricultural economics. I listened to his speech on his amendment, I have since read it very carefully and I must confess that I agree with a great deal of what he said. I do not think he overstated the case in referring to the conditions prevailing in the west and I stand with him in his earnestness and sincerity to endeavour to find some means of alleviation and in looking forward to some policy to safeguard a return of normal conditions. Nevertheless, when I come to examine his amendment I do not feel so much in keeping with his thoughts. I intend to oppose that amendment, and will give my reasons for so doing.
The amendment does not make a definite, constructive proposal. It was moved as a protest against the speech of the Prime Minister. What I am about to say may not be popular in the west, or in my own riding, because of the fact that the Prime Minister's speech referred to did meet with some resentment. I agree with my hon. friend that that speech will be regarded by the western farmer as indicative of a lack of sympathy, but I believe that when the western farmer understands the relief actually given by this government he will then realize that when the Prime Minister made that speech he knew that conditions in the west were bad indeed.
The suggestion as to markets made in the last paragraph of the amendment is too vague and nebulous to warrant one's voting nonconfidence in a government which has not been in office one year, furthermore, the amendment is unfair to the Minister of Agriculture who has just taken over the responsibilities of office.
The amendment regrets that the administration has failed to implement its promises with respect to agriculture and that it has not announced any policy. I thought that the last election was singularly empty of promises so far as agriculture was concerned. That was one of the objections we had in my riding to the Conservative party; that it
Agricultural Conditions

made no promises to agriculture but had made a great many to the other classes. It may be that in the province from which my hon. friend come such promises were made, but so far as the keeping of promises is concerned, we feel that we can deal with the government on that score at the proper time. I do not think it is fair inside of one year to expect the government to have made a very definite impression upon the economic conditions prevailing in Canada.
Speaking of agriculture specifically, I think the hon. Minister of Agriculture put his finger on the point when he referred to the fact that the conditions from which agriculture is suffering were not developed during the last nine months but had been developing during the last nine years. I do not blame the previous government for having developed these conditions because there are many reasons apart from anything the past government could have done to account for the present state of western agriculture, and in all fairness we must admit that present day conditions have not been brought, about by the advent of the present administration. As to a policy not having been announced, I think the Prime Minister stated in one of his speeches that the Minister of Agriculture would announce his policy when he brought down his estimates. I am quite prepared to give the Minister of Agriculture and the government at least one year in which to deal with agriculture and other matters of importance in Canada. I do not know what they intend to do; I do not know that we will be any better off next year than we are this year, but I owe it to my own sense of fairness to give the government that opportunity. If my hon. friend is still of the same opinion next year-he probably will be even though the government may have done something by that time-I will then stand with him in criticism of the government if it has failed to take advantage of its opportunity to do something.
The amendment next refers to the policies ol the administration restricting rather than expanding trade. I am at a loss to understand just what the hon. gentleman means by this, because in the first clause he denounces the government for not having a policy and in the next clause complains that the policy of the government is a restriction of trade. It may be that he had the belief that the general policy of the government restricted trade and no policy has been announced for agriculture. If that were the hon. gentleman's belief then the clauses would

have some meaning, but if he referred in both cases to a general policy, then there would be a direct contradiction.
The amendment then goes on to state that without the development of international trade Canadian agriculture will become increasingly paralyzed. In this regard I refer to the statement made by the previous speaker (Mr. Vallance) in answer to a question asked by the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). The hon. minister asked the question: How is it that more wheat is being sold this year than last, to which the hon. member for South Battleford replied that it was being given away this year. I agree with him in his answer, but it was given away last year as well and in that respect he was unfair. Wheat is being sold this year at the world price just as it was sold last year on that basis, therefore both this government and the last government are in exactly the same position in relation to the price of wheat.
The amendment states that any policy brought forward with respect to agriculture should include emergency measures to meet the present crisis. According to the statement just made by the Minister of Agriculture, an emergency policy has been in force for some time. I understand that he went to Winnipeg in January last; that he met there representatives of the western provinces; that an agreement or arrangement was made which was satisfactory to the premiers of the western provinces in respect to certain relief, and that for some good reason on the part of the western provinces, the actual conditions of the agreement, so far as they had to do with the federal government, were not made public; so that would appear to settle the emergency part of the resolution with which we are dealing.
Finally, the suggestion is that adequate provision should be made for the processing of meats and the marketing of live stock, wheat, dairy, and all other agriculture products. That, of course, should be done, but I have not heard any hon. member, nor have I heard any one outside of the house, put forward a single proposal that would be calculated to bring a cent more for wheat than we are now getting. If the hon. member who moved this amendment will put forward a concrete proposal that will give even a promise of a penny more a bushel, I shall vote for it, but so far in all the speeches that have been delivered in the house this session, I have not heard a proposal that would raise the price of wheat or pork or eggs or butter or any other commodity. Indeed, this par-

Agricultural Conditions
liament would have great difficulty in altering materially the price of any one of these commodities. I think hon. gentlemen who expect, that or talk as if they expected it, know better. They know that our present system and the conditions under which we are living and operating are such that laws not passed by parliament, but laws of economic significance, determine the price of all these commodities, and that no proposal which could be made by parliament, so far as I am aware, apart from actually bonusing wheat or pegging the price, would produce the result that we desire. The government has stated very emphatically that it will not peg the price of wheat, and I am not sure that I want it to do so. I question very much the economic sense of such a proposition and I have done so ever since it was first made. I have expressed my opinion in that regard in other places than in this chamber.
But with regard to relief for farmers, the government can take action, and as regards the debt which is on the back of the farmers, which did not come last year, but which has been accumulating and accumulating for a generation due to a bad policy of finance which has been adopted by all governments and due to unrestricted interest rates and other things from which agriculture has been suffering, that burden of debt might be relieved by some arrangement which the government might make. It might be possible to fix the interest at a lower rate or to get the mortgage companies to think reasonable in regard to the situation and to cancel the interest for last year and the year before so as to give the farmers an opportunity to come back when conditions improve. The government maybe could not do that by law, but they might be able to do it by consultation and advice. Apart from that I do not believe any suggestion has been made that would guarantee to the farmers even a hope of getting a higher price for wheat.
While that is so, we have here a motion of no confidence moved against a government that is really sitting now in its first session, because it has not raised the price of wheat or found a better market for wheat or other things. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am very anxious to find a better market for the western farmers; I am very anxious to see them get more for their wheat, and I say again if any hon. gentleman on this or the other side of the house will put forward an idea that will give a hope of doing that, I shall readily vote for it, no matter what party he belongs to. But in the first session of a government that has not
been in power one year, to move a vote of no confidence in them for not getting a better market and to do this without making a suggestion of how such an objective could be attained, does not appeal to my reason. I may be wrong in that, and I may be censured for the speech which I am now making. Very well, let the censure come. I am not going to curb my intelligence for fear of censure from anybody, and I say that is not my understanding of playing even the party game. It is censuring the government for not doing that which was an impossibility in the time allotted to it.
I turn to the speech of the hon. member for Lisgar to make sure that in the summary I have given of the amendment I have not misinterpreted his ideas. He says in one part of his speech that there are one or two things to which he intends to refer, that might be considered as being of a more constructive nature. I want to mention these things of a more constructive nature in order that I may be perfectly fair to my hon. friend and also fair to myself, because if we were to read these constructive things into his motion, I would have to judge as to whether or not I would be warranted in voting for his amendment considered in the light of his remarks made in the discussion of it.
With regard to these constructive suggestions, the first is a protest that a certain Mr. Wilson was to be withdrawn from Great Britain as our agricultural representative. That docs not impress me as being a constructive economic policy. I cannot conceive that the price of wheat or the market for wheat would be very materially altered by keeping either Mr. Wilson or any other gentleman where he is, although I have no doubt the gentleman referred to is doing good service. But, as it happens, my hon. friend was immediately assured by the Prime Minister that the vote in this respect was larger than last year and that the office referred to would be continued, so that that constructive idea may be set aside.
The next constructive idea is the reduction of internal freight rates. This, of course, is not a new question. There is a real problem to be solved by some government in regard to internal freight rates, but I cannot help saying that that has not developed since this government was elected. That question is not one year old; it has been a Canadian problem for a long time, and I am amazed that my hon. friend did not move this during the last session of the last iparliament; that he did not use his influence when the party to which he belongs was in power; .that he did
Agricultural Conditions

not during the last five, six, or seven years make a plea that this be corrected. But why we should move it now as a vote of no confidence in a government that has been in power nine months, when other governments might have fixed it a generation ago, I am not clear, neither do I regard this suggestion as being particularly constructive. I am informed by some hon. gentlemen who pretend to know law. that the question is scarcely one for parliament at all; that at. least it is doubtful whether it is, and that there exists machinery which has been set up for the purpose of regulating these freight rates and which should be set in motion to correct the grievance referred to by my hon. friend.
The last constructive suggestion is the consideration of the meat problem, a suggestion which was made first in the house so far as I know, by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), that the government should take action in certain experimental ways in regard to packing and the live stock business generally. I understand the government, as the Minister of Agriculture has just said, have been working towards this end and that they intend to take action on that very point; but again my hon. friend, as the Prime Minister pointed out, should have considered this for the last eight years. We have it from his own lips that just a few years ago he was knocking his own pigs on t'he head, or should have done so, because they were a dead loss. They would be, of course, if he knocked them on the head. But even then my hon. friend said nothing about the packing plants. He moved no vote of censure of the government then in power for not taking action, and that, government was in power for many years, during which they could have been censured. I know that to reiterate this is the old political game. I do not want to play it, but I am trying to be fair to this administration. I will frankly say that I would rather enjoy voting the government out of office, if we could do it, upon an issue that mattered; but I do not think that the issue before us is a fair one.
I come to the last reason mentioned by me for refusing to vote for the amendment, and that is that I think it is unfair to the Minister of Agriculture. Personally, so far as I am concerned, I want to give him a chance. That is what he was elected for. The people of Canada decided that about nine months ago, and I do not know that they have changed their minds in the meantime. Though I have no doubt that they will some time, I have no authority to say that they have done so as yet. So I say that in all fairness the amend-
IMr. Iivine.j
ment should not have been moved at this time.
As I have already said, if next year the Minister of Agriculture shall have proved himself a failure, if there is evidence that the action or inaction of the government in regard to agriculture has been detrimental to the economic life of the country or that any policy which the government has advanced has been injurious to Canadian trade or detrimental in any other way, then I shall speak against the government perhaps with a great deal more enthusiasm than I am now speaking for it. I am not asking any favours of the government or of anybody else. I am simply trying to face this issue as squarely as I can. I frankly state, Mr. Speaker, that if I could have sat in my seat while this vote *was going on without creating an uproar I would have done so, because while I am not going to vote for the amendment, I am not particularly enthusiastic about supporting the government; but since I have been compelled, practically, by the sentiment of this assembly, to register my vote either yes or no, I feel bound to say why I go over the line a little bit to say no with respect to this particular amendment.
In conclusion, in view of the universal depression to which every member who has spoken has made reference and recognizing that this depression has its roots in causes that extend far back, and which have produced results over a period of years; in view also of the nature of the policies to be evolved to meet the situation, which necessarily require time, I think it is not fair to censure the Minister of Agriculture before he has been given a chance to act. I frankly say that I have great confidence in him personally. I believe that he has only one object, and until I find it otherwise I shall continue to believe that. I believe that his one object is to devote himself to the Department of Agriculture, to relieve the present situation, so far as it is within the power of the government to do so and to evolve policies which, taking the long view, it is thought will be to the advantage of agriculture in the future.


['I will tell the hon. gentleman in a few moments what the use of talking is, because I am not going to talk for the sake of a party or in any hope that some day this little group will be on the right of Mr. Speaker. I am going to speak on the issue as I see it, without any frills on either side of it.\nBefore addressing myself specifically to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), I wish to make a reference to the speech of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). This afternoon the hon. gentleman went a long piece out of his way to make an attack on me because of a speech I made in this house some time ago. He did not attack the speech itself but merely an aside in that speech, w\'hich made a reference to secession talk in the west. As some other hon. members have done, he attributed to me the blame for, or the honour, as the case may be, of first introducing that question in the House of Commons this session. I just wish to call the attention of the house and of the Ottawa Journal to the fact that I was not the first to mention that question in the house; the first one to mention it in the house was the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). He quoted the ex-premier of [DOT]Saskatchewan in his reference to the matter. The next hon. member to mention it was the member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallanee), who even went so far as to hold aloft that famous "Charter of Liberty" drawn up in the province of Saskatchewan. The next hon. member to refer to the matter was the deputy speaker of the house (Mr. LaVergne). These hon. gentlemen scoffed at the idea but in my reference to it I said only that I thought perhaps the hon. gentlemen did not understand as well as they might the conditions prevailing in the west and that there might be more in the secession talk than was imagined. That remark acted as a match to the powder barrel of the Ottawa Journal and hurt the feelings of my hon. friend to my right who made a reference to it this afternoon. I trust that this will be sufficient to prove to my hon. friend that I was not the first to mention the matter in this house.\nI shall now address myself to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). In doing so I would say in all kindness that the Liberal party is always great in opposition but I am afraid that if they are not careful they will prove themselves to be so great that the country will want to keep them always in that position. The hon. member for Lisgar is one of the most respected members in this house. He is possessed of a matured and balanced judgment, is well informed on all matters pertaining to agriculture and has advanced in this chamber on many occasions very interesting views on agricultural economics. I listened to his speech on his amendment, I have since read it very carefully and I must confess that I agree with a great deal of what he said. I do not think he overstated the case in referring to the conditions prevailing in the west and I stand with him in his earnestness and sincerity to endeavour to find some means of alleviation and in looking forward to some policy to safeguard a return of normal conditions. Nevertheless, when I come to examine his amendment I do not feel so much in keeping with his thoughts. I intend to oppose that amendment, and will give my reasons for so doing.\nThe amendment does not make a definite, constructive proposal. It was moved as a protest against the speech of the Prime Minister. What I am about to say may not be popular in the west, or in my own riding, because of the fact that the Prime Minister\'s speech referred to did meet with some resentment. I agree with my hon. friend that that speech will be regarded by the western farmer as indicative of a lack of sympathy, but I believe that when the western farmer understands the relief actually given by this government he will then realize that when the Prime Minister made that speech he knew that conditions in the west were bad indeed.\nThe suggestion as to markets made in the last paragraph of the amendment is too vague and nebulous to warrant one\'s voting nonconfidence in a government which has not been in office one year, furthermore, the amendment is unfair to the Minister of Agriculture who has just taken over the responsibilities of office.\nThe amendment regrets that the administration has failed to implement its promises with respect to agriculture and that it has not announced any policy. I thought that the last election was singularly empty of promises so far as agriculture was concerned. That was one of the objections we had in my riding to the Conservative party; that it\nAgricultural Conditions', "made no promises to agriculture but had made a great many to the other classes. It may be that in the province from which my hon. friend come such promises were made, but so far as the keeping of promises is concerned, we feel that we can deal with the government on that score at the proper time. I do not think it is fair inside of one year to expect the government to have made a very definite impression upon the economic conditions prevailing in Canada.\nSpeaking of agriculture specifically, I think the hon. Minister of Agriculture put his finger on the point when he referred to the fact that the conditions from which agriculture is suffering were not developed during the last nine months but had been developing during the last nine years. I do not blame the previous government for having developed these conditions because there are many reasons apart from anything the past government could have done to account for the present state of western agriculture, and in all fairness we must admit that present day conditions have not been brought, about by the advent of the present administration. As to a policy not having been announced, I think the Prime Minister stated in one of his speeches that the Minister of Agriculture would announce his policy when he brought down his estimates. I am quite prepared to give the Minister of Agriculture and the government at least one year in which to deal with agriculture and other matters of importance in Canada. I do not know what they intend to do; I do not know that we will be any better off next year than we are this year, but I owe it to my own sense of fairness to give the government that opportunity. If my hon. friend is still of the same opinion next year-he probably will be even though the government may have done something by that time-I will then stand with him in criticism of the government if it has failed to take advantage of its opportunity to do something.\nThe amendment next refers to the policies ol the administration restricting rather than expanding trade. I am at a loss to understand just what the hon. gentleman means by this, because in the first clause he denounces the government for not having a policy and in the next clause complains that the policy of the government is a restriction of trade. It may be that he had the belief that the general policy of the government restricted trade and no policy has been announced for agriculture. If that were the hon. gentleman's belief then the clauses would\n\nhave some meaning, but if he referred in both cases to a general policy, then there would be a direct contradiction.\nThe amendment then goes on to state that without the development of international trade Canadian agriculture will become increasingly paralyzed. In this regard I refer to the statement made by the previous speaker (Mr. Vallance) in answer to a question asked by the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). The hon. minister asked the question: How is it that more wheat is being sold this year than last, to which the hon. member for South Battleford replied that it was being given away this year. I agree with him in his answer, but it was given away last year as well and in that respect he was unfair. Wheat is being sold this year at the world price just as it was sold last year on that basis, therefore both this government and the last government are in exactly the same position in relation to the price of wheat.\nThe amendment states that any policy brought forward with respect to agriculture should include emergency measures to meet the present crisis. According to the statement just made by the Minister of Agriculture, an emergency policy has been in force for some time. I understand that he went to Winnipeg in January last; that he met there representatives of the western provinces; that an agreement or arrangement was made which was satisfactory to the premiers of the western provinces in respect to certain relief, and that for some good reason on the part of the western provinces, the actual conditions of the agreement, so far as they had to do with the federal government, were not made public; so that would appear to settle the emergency part of the resolution with which we are dealing.\nFinally, the suggestion is that adequate provision should be made for the processing of meats and the marketing of live stock, wheat, dairy, and all other agriculture products. That, of course, should be done, but I have not heard any hon. member, nor have I heard any one outside of the house, put forward a single proposal that would be calculated to bring a cent more for wheat than we are now getting. If the hon. member who moved this amendment will put forward a concrete proposal that will give even a promise of a penny more a bushel, I shall vote for it, but so far in all the speeches that have been delivered in the house this session, I have not heard a proposal that would raise the price of wheat or pork or eggs or butter or any other commodity. Indeed, this par-\n\nAgricultural Conditions\nliament would have great difficulty in altering materially the price of any one of these commodities. I think hon. gentlemen who expect, that or talk as if they expected it, know better. They know that our present system and the conditions under which we are living and operating are such that laws not passed by parliament, but laws of economic significance, determine the price of all these commodities, and that no proposal which could be made by parliament, so far as I am aware, apart from actually bonusing wheat or pegging the price, would produce the result that we desire. The government has stated very emphatically that it will not peg the price of wheat, and I am not sure that I want it to do so. I question very much the economic sense of such a proposition and I have done so ever since it was first made. I have expressed my opinion in that regard in other places than in this chamber.\nBut with regard to relief for farmers, the government can take action, and as regards the debt which is on the back of the farmers, which did not come last year, but which has been accumulating and accumulating for a generation due to a bad policy of finance which has been adopted by all governments and due to unrestricted interest rates and other things from which agriculture has been suffering, that burden of debt might be relieved by some arrangement which the government might make. It might be possible to fix the interest at a lower rate or to get the mortgage companies to think reasonable in regard to the situation and to cancel the interest for last year and the year before so as to give the farmers an opportunity to come back when conditions improve. The government maybe could not do that by law, but they might be able to do it by consultation and advice. Apart from that I do not believe any suggestion has been made that would guarantee to the farmers even a hope of getting a higher price for wheat.\nWhile that is so, we have here a motion of no confidence moved against a government that is really sitting now in its first session, because it has not raised the price of wheat or found a better market for wheat or other things. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I am very anxious to find a better market for the western farmers; I am very anxious to see them get more for their wheat, and I say again if any hon. gentleman on this or the other side of the house will put forward an idea that will give a hope of doing that, I shall readily vote for it, no matter what party he belongs to. But in the first session of a government that has not\nbeen in power one year, to move a vote of no confidence in them for not getting a better market and to do this without making a suggestion of how such an objective could be attained, does not appeal to my reason. I may be wrong in that, and I may be censured for the speech which I am now making. Very well, let the censure come. I am not going to curb my intelligence for fear of censure from anybody, and I say that is not my understanding of playing even the party game. It is censuring the government for not doing that which was an impossibility in the time allotted to it.\nI turn to the speech of the hon. member for Lisgar to make sure that in the summary I have given of the amendment I have not misinterpreted his ideas. He says in one part of his speech that there are one or two things to which he intends to refer, that might be considered as being of a more constructive nature. I want to mention these things of a more constructive nature in order that I may be perfectly fair to my hon. friend and also fair to myself, because if we were to read these constructive things into his motion, I would have to judge as to whether or not I would be warranted in voting for his amendment considered in the light of his remarks made in the discussion of it.\nWith regard to these constructive suggestions, the first is a protest that a certain Mr. Wilson was to be withdrawn from Great Britain as our agricultural representative. That docs not impress me as being a constructive economic policy. I cannot conceive that the price of wheat or the market for wheat would be very materially altered by keeping either Mr. Wilson or any other gentleman where he is, although I have no doubt the gentleman referred to is doing good service. But, as it happens, my hon. friend was immediately assured by the Prime Minister that the vote in this respect was larger than last year and that the office referred to would be continued, so that that constructive idea may be set aside.\nThe next constructive idea is the reduction of internal freight rates. This, of course, is not a new question. There is a real problem to be solved by some government in regard to internal freight rates, but I cannot help saying that that has not developed since this government was elected. That question is not one year old; it has been a Canadian problem for a long time, and I am amazed that my hon. friend did not move this during the last session of the last iparliament; that he did not use his influence when the party to which he belongs was in power; .that he did\nAgricultural Conditions", "not during the last five, six, or seven years make a plea that this be corrected. But why we should move it now as a vote of no confidence in a government that has been in power nine months, when other governments might have fixed it a generation ago, I am not clear, neither do I regard this suggestion as being particularly constructive. I am informed by some hon. gentlemen who pretend to know law. that the question is scarcely one for parliament at all; that at. least it is doubtful whether it is, and that there exists machinery which has been set up for the purpose of regulating these freight rates and which should be set in motion to correct the grievance referred to by my hon. friend.\nThe last constructive suggestion is the consideration of the meat problem, a suggestion which was made first in the house so far as I know, by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman), that the government should take action in certain experimental ways in regard to packing and the live stock business generally. I understand the government, as the Minister of Agriculture has just said, have been working towards this end and that they intend to take action on that very point; but again my hon. friend, as the Prime Minister pointed out, should have considered this for the last eight years. We have it from his own lips that just a few years ago he was knocking his own pigs on t'he head, or should have done so, because they were a dead loss. They would be, of course, if he knocked them on the head. But even then my hon. friend said nothing about the packing plants. He moved no vote of censure of the government then in power for not taking action, and that, government was in power for many years, during which they could have been censured. I know that to reiterate this is the old political game. I do not want to play it, but I am trying to be fair to this administration. I will frankly say that I would rather enjoy voting the government out of office, if we could do it, upon an issue that mattered; but I do not think that the issue before us is a fair one.\nI come to the last reason mentioned by me for refusing to vote for the amendment, and that is that I think it is unfair to the Minister of Agriculture. Personally, so far as I am concerned, I want to give him a chance. That is what he was elected for. The people of Canada decided that about nine months ago, and I do not know that they have changed their minds in the meantime. Though I have no doubt that they will some time, I have no authority to say that they have done so as yet. So I say that in all fairness the amend-\nIMr. Iivine.j\nment should not have been moved at this time.\nAs I have already said, if next year the Minister of Agriculture shall have proved himself a failure, if there is evidence that the action or inaction of the government in regard to agriculture has been detrimental to the economic life of the country or that any policy which the government has advanced has been injurious to Canadian trade or detrimental in any other way, then I shall speak against the government perhaps with a great deal more enthusiasm than I am now speaking for it. I am not asking any favours of the government or of anybody else. I am simply trying to face this issue as squarely as I can. I frankly state, Mr. Speaker, that if I could have sat in my seat while this vote *was going on without creating an uproar I would have done so, because while I am not going to vote for the amendment, I am not particularly enthusiastic about supporting the government; but since I have been compelled, practically, by the sentiment of this assembly, to register my vote either yes or no, I feel bound to say why I go over the line a little bit to say no with respect to this particular amendment.\nIn conclusion, in view of the universal depression to which every member who has spoken has made reference and recognizing that this depression has its roots in causes that extend far back, and which have produced results over a period of years; in view also of the nature of the policies to be evolved to meet the situation, which necessarily require time, I think it is not fair to censure the Minister of Agriculture before he has been given a chance to act. I frankly say that I have great confidence in him personally. I believe that he has only one object, and until I find it otherwise I shall continue to believe that. I believe that his one object is to devote himself to the Department of Agriculture, to relieve the present situation, so far as it is within the power of the government to do so and to evolve policies which, taking the long view, it is thought will be to the advantage of agriculture in the future."]
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I was paired with the
hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr.	
Cahan). Had I voted, I would have voted	
for the amendment.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If hon. members are going to follow the time-honoured custom of announcing pairs and stating how they would have voted, it should be done in a orderly way.

Agricultural Conditions


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker,
the whips have a record of all hon. members who are paired.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Nevertheless, under the
rules hon. members have the right to declare how they would have voted had they not been paired.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, will you
please quote that rule to which you have just referred, to the effect that hon. members have the right to declare how they would have voted? I do not know of any such rule in the book of rules.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a matter of custom.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The practice of the house should be followed if hon. members wish to announce how they would have voted.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


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


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


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. March). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Merrier). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DUPRE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Harry Bernard Short: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


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


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


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBERGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HURTUBISE:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HACKETT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Perras). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. COWAN (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):: I was paired with the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BEAUBIER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Aheam). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MATTHEWS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion (Mr. Bennett) agreed to.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, by consent of the house I purpose to take an item in the Department of Trade and Commerce anl also an item in the Department of External Affairs. The hon. member for Vegre-

Supply-Trade and Commerce
ville (Mr. Luchkovich) intimated his desire to speak to-morrow when the Geneva item is called upon the question of the rights of minorities in Poland. As the council of the league meets at an early date the hon. member should be afforded that facility if at all possible. If the house consents we will take a single item in the Department of Trade and Commerce, and then an item in the Department of External Affairs. From that point we will proceed with items in the Department of Public Works.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can see no objection to expediting matters by taking an item in any single department, but to take two departments is perhaps going a little farther than is usual.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman is quite correct. I remember that last year the estimates for the Department of External Affairs were put through very expeditiously, and my reason for suggesting consideration of the items in that department was to afford the hon. member for Vegreville an opportunity to speak, as the meeting of the council will be held at an early date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I understand the Prime Minister correctly, he does not intend to take up different items in the department, but rather to consider at this time only one item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. We shall go on
with the Department of Trade and Commerce, taking an item at this time so that it may come before the house to-morrow, thereby affording the hon. member an opportunity io speak.



[Stage Direction]
Trade and Commerce-salaries, $633,765: contingencies, $40,000.
Ernest Lapointe: Will the minister explain the increase in this estimate?


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a very slight increase in this item. If it is so desired I will give to the committee the details. The vote provides for the dropping of four employees and the appointment of twelve others. Of the twelve, several are promotions or alterations in the staff. The secretary to the executive is a promotion. Then there is a clerk, grade 3, in the office of the minister. That simply means that due to pressure of work there will be an additional stenographer. There is
22110-SM
provision for a typist, grade 2. This is a temporary position made permanent in the publicity branch. For several years there has been a typist in that branch and this provides for a continuance at the same salary of a permanent employee, instead of carrying such employee temporarily. There is the appointment of a qualified stationary engineer in connection with the motion picture bureau. This appointment is made necessary in order to comply with the laws of the province of Ontario. There is provision for two stenographers in the commercial intelligence branch. Again it is simply a question of pressure of work, and a need for additional assistance. In the Bureau of Statistics the chief item is the appointment of two senior statisticians in the educational division and in the industrial census division. I may say that in the census we are rather elaborating industrial and unemployment questions and so forth, making necessary the appointment of these two additional senior officers. There is also a head clerk in the agricultural division of the Bureau of Statistics, a principal clerk in the forestry division, and one stenographer in grade 2. That completes the list of new appointments. There are, of course, some statutory increases to the staff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with these additional appointments, was an effort made to secure some of the staff who are being retired from the Department of the Interior or other departments, for example, stenographers? The minister also referred to the appointment of a clerk in the forestry branch.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The instructions are that that practice be followed as far as possible. I think in three instances that would not be possible, the stationary engineer and the two senior statisticians. I am not sure whether they could be provided from the sources mentioned, but I will make inquiry.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I think my hon. friend will find that he could get them from the Department of the Interior.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is quite possible. We shall be guided very largely by Mr. Coats, the head of the bureau, whose work my right hon. friend knows very well, and whose advice necessarily must be fairly closely followed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The appointments have not yet been made?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-External Affairs

[Stage Direction]
Civil government-External Affairs-salaries, $105,940; contingencies, $66,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no change in this item either as to staff or amount involved, except the statutory increases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It is understood that the next item of External Affairs to be called, if the committee please, will be the League of Nations, Geneva, on which the hon. member for Vegreville wishes to make some observations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend intend to go on with External Affairs to-morrow?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whatever my right hon. friend wishes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should prefer it were left over until next week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then that will be the only item in External Affairs to be taken up to-morrow, the item dealing with the League of Nations.


[Stage Direction]
Public works-harbours and rivers-New Brunswick, $450,000.
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, when the New Brunswick items were before the committee last, it was understood that while they were adopted in general I would have the privilege when they were brought up again to deal with .certain matters in respect to which I had asked the production of correspondence. I drew the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart), after this correspondence had been tabled, to the fact that some of it was lacking. The next day he was kind enough to produce what was supposed to be all the correspondence and documents in connection with the undertaking. Now, I am not going to try to prevent the adoption of these items because of the fact that, notwithstanding a second attempt has been made to produce the correspondence and documents, the file is still incomplete. There is nothing on the file produced to show the details of the account rendered for the services of the legal representative of the Department of Justice. The Minister of Public Works can well say that that correspondence is in the Department of Justice, but when a member asks for all the correspondence it is the duty of each department having to do with the matter to produce that correspondence. I refer to this more

for the purpose of reminding the committee that a great deal of dissatisfaction was expressed by my hon. friends opposite during the last session of parliament in 1930, because of some of the files then produced by myself as Postmaster Genera! not being complete, it being insinuated that those files had been rendered incomplete for a certain purpose. Although I attempted to justify myself on that occasion by showing that the incomplete part of the file was the part which was handled by the 'Civil Service Commission, still hon. members opposite insisted that the items in my department should not pass until the entire file was produced. While I am anxious, Mr. Chairman, to see the account as rendered by the representative of the Department of Justice, I do not intend at this moment to insist any further upon its production, but to ask the Minister of Public Works if he will be kind enough to see that the Justice department produce to him a detailed statement of that account and allow me to have a copy.
I wish to direct the attention of the committee to the proposed construction of a wharf at Little Shippigan, Gloucester county. I do not wish to delay the passage of these items, but I ask for the production of that account because I understand from the correspondence which is here that a cheque for fifty dollars was issued for the service of the gentleman in question. I understand that, on the production of deeds, two cheques were issued for land appropriated by the department for the construction of this wharf. These cheques were issued to two gentlemen, a Mr. Brown and a Mr. Brune; one for twenty dollars to Mr. Brune and the other, for fifty dollars, to Mr. Brown. I understand that these cheques were issued jointly, the first to Mr. Brown and Mr. A. M. Robi-chaud, the solicitor, and the second to Mr. Brune and Mr. Robichaud, the solicitor. I want to know why these cheques were issued jointly to the solicitor of the Department of Justice and the owner of the land. It may be the practice; I do not know. If it is the practice, I have no fault to find. But I wish to see the detailed statement of this account. And I wish, further, to protest against an expenditure of fifty dollars for obtaining land worth seventy.
While I am on the question of the proposed construction of a wharf at Little Shippigan, I see by the correspondence that on August 21, 1930, the Minister of Public Works recommended to council that the tender of C. L. Comeau be accepted; and he further recommended that an amount of
816,000	additional be placed in the estimates this year for the termination of that work

Sup-ply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
and to complete the contract. The tender, I believe, was in the vicinity of $26,000. Last year we voted $10,000 knowing that it would cost betwen $26,000 and $30,000, and that $10,000 was voted for the purpose of calling for tenders to have the work proceeded with. The minister recommended on August 21 that the tender of Mr. Comeau should be accepted and afterwards the recommendation was withdrawn; at least, it was not accepted by council. I should like the minister to explain this. He does attempt to give an explanation at page 16 of the correspondence submitted. In a letter to the reverend father in charge of the parish of Little Shippigan he states, at page 16 of the correspondence:
In view of the falling revenues of the government and the increased expenditures, including a special vote of $20,000,000 passed at the recent session of parliament for the relief of unemployment, it has been deemed inadvisable in the public interest to proceed with this work at the present time.
With reference to that $20,000,000, we had a statement from the Prime Minister in September as to why' this money could be used for such purposes; and to my mind this letter of November 13, 1930, in which the statement is made that in view of the falling revenues and the voting of this $20,000,000, it was considered inexpedient to go on with the work, is not a sufficient excuse. The minister at that time was in possession of information which he had a perfect right to accept as well founded, coming as it did from the parish priest of that district, and in view of a conversation with myself in regard to the unemployment situation at that particular point. And if the $20,000 000 voted by parliament could not have been expended in that way, then I claim that the work could have been proceeded with under that vote for the relief of unemployment in the district.
That district is perhaps one of the hardest hit of any section in Canada so far as unemployment is concerned. The people living on Miscou island are not an agricultural class; the island is not fitted for agriculture. They raise some very small crops, it is true, potatoes and hay. But they are fishermen; they earn their living by fishing. Last fall, however, fishing failed and these people were practically on the verge of starvation. That was represented to the minister and he had every reason to believe that the representations were correct. Yet in the face of that, refusal was given to relieve the situation as it existed at that time.
Leaving aside altogether for the moment the question of unemployment relief in that
section, and coming down to the real merits of the case, I wish to say to the minister that there is no section of the maritime provinces where the construction of a work of that kind is so necessary. These are hardy fishermen who risk their lives every day, and they have been asking for some time past for this construction. They have asked for it under previous Conservative governments; they have asked for it under previous Liberal governments; and it was only last year that I was enabled in their behalf to have this amount placed in the estimates to give them the needed protection. And there is no doubt about it that it is absolutely needed. Under the circumstances I would appeal once more to the Minister of Public Works and, as well, to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Minister of Finance; because I realize, from my experience in council, that after all the Minister of Finance has a great deal to say in matters of this kind. I appeal to both of these hon. gentlemen to see that something is placed in the supplementary estimates in order that this work may be carried on.
A tender has been received, if I mistake not, five or six thousand dollars under the estimate placed upon the work by the engineers; and, even under present circumstances, if the contract were offered to-day to the person who tendered at that time at the figure he gave, I believe, although I have no authority to speak in his behalf, that he would accept the contract at that figure.
If the vote is placed in the supplementary estimates this year it will serve two purposes. There is still unemployment in that district, and these people will not succeed in their fishing very much better this year than last year. The money would therefore relieve the situation in that section of the country. The people there are isolated; they are living on an island far from the mainland. They have no communication except by water, and with the freezing up of the bay they are unable, for four or five weeks in the fall and three or four weeks in the spring, to communicate with the mainland at all except by telephone. This work would relieve unemployment in this district because the contractor could begin work towards the fall of the year at the very time when it is necessary to provide relief. I do not desire to take i:p too much time of the committee, but let me appeal once more to the Minister of Public Works and to the Minister of Finance and direct their attention to the absolute necessity of the carrying on of this work.
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works)Mr. Chairman, in reply to the
1378	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
member for Gloucester let me deal very briefly with the points he raised. First, with regard to the production of correspondence. My hon. friend will notice that the correspondence brought down included everything except a private letter. When I looked at that letter I saw there was no reason why it should not be brought down and I asked the writer for his permission to produce it. So that in my desire to meet my hon. friend's request I brought down even a private letter which I might have been justified in refusing to lay on the table.


Peter John Veniot: Not if the minister acted
upon the letter. The rule is that if action is taken on a letter marked "private" it cannot be considered as a private communication.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I did not act
upon it except to make a reply, and surely that is not sufficient action to force a minister to bring down his private correspondence. However, I had nothing to conceal, and in order to convince my hon. friend of that fact I brought the letter down. I was unaware of the existence of the other documents from the Department of Justice, but again, in my desire to meet the wishes of my hon. friend, I asked that department for the correspondence and brought it down.


Peter John Veniot: Not all of it. There is
some of it still missing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As far as I know it has all been brought down.


Peter John Veniot: It has not all been brought down.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The correspondence is all there, but my friend wants an account. I do not know whether any such account exists, because once a matter is turned over to the Department of Justice that department deals with the matter of compensation to their agent. However, I will make inquiry, and I assure my hon. friend that if there is any such account I will secure a copy of it for his information.


Peter John Veniot: Thank you, that is all I
want.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With regard to his suggestion that the cheques issued for two small parcels of land should not have been made payable to the agent of the Department of Justice and to the owner of the land, I may say that that is the regular procedure.


Peter John Veniot: I said it was the practice.
fMr. H. A. Stewart.]


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The reason is
quite evident; until the agent is satisfied that everything has been furnished he has control of the cheques. I know nothing regarding the charges, because they are settled and taxed by the Department of Justice. Let me suggest in all sincerity to my hon. friend that this agent dealt with the title to the two parcels of land. It is true that the consideration for the transfer of these two parcels is small, and although he has correctly stated the amount, I think on reflection he will agree with me that very often there is just as much work involved in searching the title of a small parcel of land as there is in searching the title of even a hundred or a thousand acres as long as the title comes down through the one chain. In this case there were two parcels the titles of which had to be searched. As I have said, the Department of Justice deals with these matters, and I will obtain the information from that source. As to why this work was not proceeded with, I think the correspondence discloses the reasons. I cannot go any further than that.
I know my hon. friend is very much interested in the work at Little Shippigan. During the short session he spoke to me about this matter and impressed upon me the importance and desirability of proceeding with the work. We were faced with the fact that an appropriation of $10,000 had been made, with a considerably larger expenditure being involved. The conclusion arrived at was that we were not in a position to do this work this year in view of the larger amount involved. I would point out to my hon. friend that a very large work is being proceeded with in his constituency at Tracadie. The department was of the opinion that this construction would afford the greatest measure of relief for unemployment, and therefore selected that work as the one which we would prosecute. The expenditure involved will amount to about $160,000 more, but notwithstanding that it was thought that as the work could be carried on continuously it would afford the greatest measure of relief.
With reference to my hon. friend's last request, that consideration be given to this matter in the supplementary estimates, all I can say is that I shall certainly give it consideration and I hope we will both live long enough to see this work completed at Little Shippigan.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, I have very little more to say in regard to this matter, but I do not like to hear the minister give as a reason for delaying the work-I hope it is only delayed

the fact that considerable

Business oj the House
work was being parried on at Tiracadie harbour. This work was commenced in 1929 when some three or four thousands dollars was expended in protecting the beach to which the' channel is to be dredged. The dredge boat went in during the fall of 1929 and worked all last summer. This work has been under contemplation for some four or five years and while I am pleased to see an item to complete it I cannot accept that as sufficient reason for not going on with the -work at Little Shippigan. Other works in Gloucester county which were absolutely necessary were thrown out. There was the Little Shippigan work; there was the extension on the Young wharf for which tenders were called for and held up for quite a long time before it was decided not to continue with the work; there was the dredging at St. Simon which was included in the program of $650,000 voted last year for dredging generally in the maritime provinces; there was the dredging at Lower Caraquet which was absolutely necessary and which was included in the general program; there was the dredging of the upper channel leading to Shippigan gully through which 250 or 350 fishing vessels pass twice a week, and there was the dredging in the inner channel of the gully in Shippigan harbour, which was to be straightened out, as well as the removal of the sandbanks outside and inside of the gully. These items which have been thrown aside, if gone on with, would have considerably relieved unemployment in that section of the county, and I feel that an injustice has been lone to the county which I have the honour to represent. I may be wrong; I do not desire to impute any motive to the minister or to the government, but I think they perhaps sought the information in wrong places and decided upon information which, to my mind, was not correct. The minister, however, has stated that he will consider the request 1 made.
There is one item in regard to which I should like to have a little explanation. I think there is an item of $491.84 in the expenditure on that wharf. Would the minister please tell me what that includes? The work has not been carried on, and I should like to know what brought about this expenditure of $491.84.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am informed by the chief engineer that honest and sincere efforts were made last year to have several of these items of dredging which he has mentioned done, but they were unable to secure anybody willing to undertake the work.


Peter John Veniot: No tenders were called for the $10,000 work at Lameque basin.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes there were.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Public tenders?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am informed there were.


Peter John Veniot: Where were they advertised?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They were advertised and no tenders were received.


Peter John Veniot: I would like to know where they were advertised.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall be glad to furnish that information. The chief engineer informs me that all reasonable efforts were made to have that dredging done. That is all I can say with regard to that. As regards the expenditure, we have not particulars of that here, as no item covering the same work to which my hon. friend refers is involved in our estimates this year. I can, however, get that information for him.


Peter John Veniot: That is satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my right hon. friend whether he understands the government will be free to go into Trade and Commerce estimates to-morrow if they wish to do so?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My understanding is that we cannot take up the estimates of any new department to-morrow beyond those of Trade and Commerce. External Affairs, and Public Works, and that only one External Affairs item will be taken up namely that respecting the League of Nations, after which we shall take up Trade and Commerce. If we do not decide to continue until we finish that, then we shall take up an item on Public Works, the estimates of which are nearly all through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my right hon. friend is entitled to proceed with Trade and Commerce estimates tomorrow. I shall read the resolution under which we proceeded to-day. It is to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of May 6, as follows:
That the debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance that "Mr. Speaker do now
13S0
Business oj the House

leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply" and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Brown, be resumed on Thursday, May 7th, instant, and that standing order 28 be suspended on that day in relation thereto.
After debate thereon, the question being put on the said motion, it was agreed to.
The suspension therefore of standing order 28 is applicable only to to-day, May 7; it does not apply to to-morrow. Standing order 28 reads:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
The house has given unanimous consent to take up what we have done to-day with respect to to-day, but it has not given unanimous consent to take up the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce on a Friday or on any subsequent Thursday without having them taken up in the regular way in the first instance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We cannot reprobate and approbate at the same time, I think Lord Eldon-once said. What has happened is that we have made to-day a Tuesday for the purpose of going into supply, and Trade and Commerce is the item which we have considered, which we could not have considered otherwise than by consent of the house. It having been so considered and the house having further consented that External Affairs be taken up to enable the hon. member for Yegreville to speak about a particular matter, my submission is that the house has now before it three supply items: Public Works, Trade and Commerce, and External Affairs, and that having agreed to take up but one item in External Affairs to-morrow; we may go on with Trade and Commerce, because that item is now properly before the committee by the consent of the house. It could not be otherwise.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The consent
of the house was given to the taking of the item for to-day, but standing order 28 is still applicable, and while we are only too anxious to oblige the government in the matter of the expedition of its business, we must not, by giving our consent here and there, be prejudiced as respects our position in other particulars. I am quite prepared to leave the matter to Mr. Speaker to decide, but I submit that the resolution under which we proceeded to-day to consider estimates is applicable only 
to the day of May 7; that apart from that, standing order 28 is applicable for the rest of the session, indeed is applicable to the session as a whole, and that by giving consent to take up a particular estimate to-day, we have not waived the right we have under standing order 28 to refuse to give consent to taking up the estimates of any department that has not been gone into on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course we treated
Thursday as Tuesday. Otherwise, without the consent of the house, we could not have gone on at all. Owing to the fact that on going into supply on Tuesday, a debate was precipitated which, except for private member's day, lasted practically without interruption until to-night, I certainly believe that since the item is by consent before the committee, it stands for consideration. Otherwise, there was no point at all in the consent. We might as well have gone on next Tuesday, because Monday is another private members' day.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The items have been
passed; they are no longer before the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are willing to do the best we can to facilitate my right hon. friend in carrying on the business of the house, but if every time we oblige him he is going to take advantage of our courtesy to go beyond anything we intend, we shall have hereafter to decline to give him consent on other things.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not inclined to ask for it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that
my right hon. friend has not the right to proceed to-morrow with either Extermal Affairs or Trade and Commerce estimates without the unanimous consent of the house. I have said that so far as the opposition is concerned we -are prepared to give unanimous consent to External Affairs being proceeded with on the condition that one item, and one item only, shall be called, so as to allow the hon. member for Vegreville immediately to make a speech which he is anxious to make. We are prepared to do so in order to oblige him as well as to oblige the leader of the government, but beyond that our obligation does not extend.

Criminal Code-Cheques without Funds


Robert Gardiner: I have not looked up
the rule in regard to this particular question, but when the understanding was arrived at yesterday, I certainly understood that if we finished the debate on the amendment to the notion for supply to-day, we would go into supply on another item. I did not understand that we would take up two items, but one item only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right, but the
second item was merely to enable the debate on the item of the League of Nations to take place before the council of the league meets in May.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps His
Honour the Speaker would give his ruling on the matter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The resolution that was
passed on the 6th of May was:
That standing order 28 be suspended for to-morrow, Thursday, the 7th day of May-
That is to-day. Standing order 28 provides:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except by the unanimous consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken up on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
This is Thursday, and the estimates have been taken up to-day. I take it that the intent of the motion which I have just quoted was to treat to-day as a day other than Thursday, although I may say that the right hon. leader of the opposition has applied a strict interpretation of the rule. I think that to go into supply to-morrow on any other, item than items concerning Public Works, the house should give its unanimous consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall appeal from that
ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: And the leader of the
opposition has signified his willingness to give unanimous consent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is needless to say that I do not agree with that ruling, but the house can appeal from it. As it is eleven o'clock I have nothing further to say at the moment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And I may say lhat the opposition will support the ruling of His Honour the Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 8, 1931