1931-03-24

PENSION EXAMINER AT SASKATOON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: I would ask the Minister of Pensions
(Mr. MacLaren) if he is now in a position to give us a definite answer with regard to the telegram I read in the house yesterday. Many of us who come from around Saskatoon are receiving a great many telegrams of this nature. The minister stated yesterday that the rumour was not correct. Is he now in a position to say definitely that Dr. Cox will not be dismissed?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: I do not
know anything about the rumour, but I do know the facts.


John Vallance: Is this only a rumour?


Murray MacLaren: I cannot speak for the rumours. I presume that rumours do exist, because my hon. friend has had a telegram regarding a rumour. I say that the facts do not justify the rumour. The dismissal is not under consideration.



WINNIPEG VETCRAFT SHOP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: The vetcraft shop in Winnipeg was burned down in June, 1930. The employees of that establishment were given to understand that it

would be rebuilt by August of that year. It was pointed out to them that as this was not a political matter but was entirely under the control of the Civil Service Commission, there would be no difficulty. As yet there has been no sign of any step being taken towards the rebuilding of this institution. I would ask the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren) if he is aware of the facts in this case, and if there is to his knowledge anything that is holding up the reconstruction of this institution.


Murray MacLaren: So far as I
am aware, there was no such assurance given, nor do I know that there was any expectation held out as to the reconstruction of that building. There was, however, certain compensation paid to the workers there-two months' pay, I believe, was allowed-in view of their being unexpectedly deprived of employment.


John Power Howden: Are we to take it, then-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Murray MacLaren: I am willing to answer the question.


John Power Howden: If the minister is ready
to answer the question, as we are receiving letters from these people and wish to reply to them, I would like to know if I am to understand that this building will not be reconstructed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Max D. Cormier for an address to His Excellency the Administrator in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Mackenzie King.
Mr. W. D. COWTAN (Long Lake):: For
eight years or thereabouts, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals of this house from the province of Saskatchewan have been having just one whale of a good time. Not only that, 'but their followers out in Saskatchewan have also taken up their cry and have elaborated upon it so that they also have been having a whale of a good time. It is the same old story-when the cat is away the mice will play. Those who have been in this house know that there have been no Conservatives here from Saskatchewan for some time, and consequently there was nobody on the Conservative benches to

The Address-Mr. Cowan (Long Lake)
keep our Liberal friends on the straight and narrow path. They wandered and wandered and wandered, and they have not stopped wandering yet. What they have told the people about Saskatchewan is simply amazing, astounding. You cannot wonder at the frame of mind of the people of Canada towards Saskatchewan after what the Liberal members from Saskatchewan have been saying about our province. But, Mr. Speaker, times have changed. The miany false and misleading statements which have been made and elaborated upon regarding Saskatchewan, I am sorry to say have caused many in Canada to believe that the people out in Saskatchewan were secessionists, socialists, bolshevists, communists, almost anarchists. If there are any other "ists" I do not know, but if you have any, Mr. Hansard reporter please stick them in because I mean them all. The people of Canada have received an entirely wrong impression of the people of Saskatchewan because of this propaganda which has been carried on and which has been entirely misleading. We now have in this house some Conservative members from the province of Saskatchewan, and I may have something to say to my hon. friends opposite from that province. I will speak for myself; I am going to address my remarks entirely to the Saskatchewan members on the Liberal side of the house. I am going to concentrate upon them until we get them back into their own trenches, and soon it will not be long until they are back into their own safety dug-outs, to stay there. I hope that in so doing I shall not be considered parochial. In Saskatchewan we are as broad in our conception of Canada as Canadians anywhere else, but after eight years of misleading propaganda as to conditions in our province, we are going to concentrate on the authors of that propaganda until the enemy is licked. I am delighted beyond measure with the change of policies and methods of administration adopted by our present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir).


An hon. MEMBER:: What are they?


Walter Davy Cowan: The other day one of my hon. friends from Saskatchewan stated that there have been some changes in the policy of that department. At first he said there were four planks in the platform as drafted by the minister; later he said there were twelve planks and at a later time he said he did not know whether or not there was a policy. I can understand that statement, because the hon. member to whom I refer has always been in a confused mental state. Possibly the Minister of Agriculture 22110-16J
took office under the impression that there were four planks in the policy under which the previous government had operated and endeavoured to cover them up. Afterwards the minister may have found there were a dozen and with the interests of the farmers at heart he mended those defects. This government has taken action in regard to agricultural difficulties but for years my hon. friends opposite sat behind the late Minister of Agriculture and did not make any move whatever. They did nothing and they did it for years. Where will we be at the next election? In answer may I say that hon. gentlemen opposite will never keep pace with the improvements inaugurated by the present Minister of Agriculture. I would suggest that my hon. friends opposite should have the sand taken from their eyes and the cobwebs removed from the insides of their heads.
Last night my hon. friend from South Battle-ford (Mr. Vallance) discussed the new agricultural policy. The hon. gentleman attempted to analyze the policy. His analysis did not amount to very much however, because it was quite apparent the hon. gentleman did not understand the policy. Briefly the policy adopted by the Minister of Agriculture is to replace the current practice of the exclusive production of wheat in the province of Saskatchewan by that of mixed farming. Although I come from the province of Saskatchewan I am prepared to admit that the industry of agriculture is as important in the province of Prince Edward Island as anywhere else. However I have the interests of the province of Saskatchewan at heart. We had the spectacle of my hon. friend from South Battleford opposing mixed farming. Mark you, my hon. friend comes from South Battleford-South Battleford, of all places in Canada suited most to mixed farming methods. The area comprising South Battleford and North Battleford constitutes some of the best country under the sun, a country well suited for mixed farming methods. However instead of my hon. friend telling the house of that fact he states that such methods could not be adopted.


John Vallance: Might I suggest that the hon. member confine his remarks to his own constituency.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it; take it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Walter Davy Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I have been through the constituency of South Battleford and I knew it long before the hon. gentleman was there. It is a magnificent country and particularly suited for
244	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Cowan (Long Lake)
stock raising. To the south lies the Battle River country with fertile hills all about constituting the very best pasture land. There is an abundance of native grass. The valley is perfectly fertile and meadows are on every hand. There is not a part of Canada better suited to stock raising than the constituency from which my hon. friend comes; yet he states to this house that he is opposed to mixed farming in his constituency.


John Vallance: I rise to a point of
order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it, take it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Vallance: I will not sit down. .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Vallance: I will not sit down.
The hon. member for Regina has just made the statement that-


Walter Davy Cowan: Excuse me,
but I am not from Regina; I am from the constituency of Long Lake.


John Vallance: The hon. member for
Long Lake has made the statement that I was opposed to mixed farming methods. I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement. I defy him to read my speech and to place any such interpretation upon it.


Walter Davy Cowan: I will not
take back any statements. I lived for twenty-six years in the province of Saskatchewan, and the Liberals of that province received the worst jolt in their history a year ago last June. Since then we have heard nothing but groans, wails, and everything of that nature. We have listened to the most extraordinary statements by hon. members opposite. One of them, I forget who it was, made the statement that 70 per cent of the farmers of Saskatchewan were insolvent and bankrupt. That, Mr. Speaker, is an absolute untruth. There is not the slightest trace of truth in it. I will admit that 70 or 80 per cent, probably more, temporarily, are in an embarrassed financial position.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Davy Cowan: Yes, "oh, oh." And hon. members opposite must know that many of the leading business men in Canada may be in similar circumstances on many occasions. Do they become insolvent? No, certainly they do not. I am temporarily embarrassed all the time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
{Mr. W. D. Cowan.]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Walter Davy Cowan: The statement of my hon. friends opposite will go out to the whole world; I wish it could be expunged from the record. The world should not be misled by such assertions as that. What effect will they have? Even at the present time we have difficulty in getting money from the bankers, but with such statements broadcast throughout the land we can picture a gentleman being introduced to a bank manager and being refused help simply because of that propaganda. I wish to say to hon. members opposite that they should not broadcast that kind of reputation to those who are interested in the development of our country. What are the facts in regard to Saskatchewan? Are we bankrupt? My hon. friend does not know what he is talking about. For the information of the house I shall recite some facts in regard to the province of Saskatchewan and hon. members will have the opportunity of judging whether we are "bust" or not. The information I am about to quote was given to me by responsible officials of the government of Saskatchewan:
Net Taxable Land Assessment
Rural	municipalities	$887,122,979
Villages	 10,690,294
Towns	 15,610,180
Cities	 60,604,753

Those figures do not include the value of stock, icattle or anything of that nature. May I repeat that I am quoting these figures merely to show that we are not bankrupt. There is a little over $200,000,000 chargeable againsT $1,200,000,000. And yet" they say the country is bankrupt! I admit that this money is largely tied up, but it is tied up in excess security. I am asked what I mean by that; I will tell you. The Minister of Agriculture was perfectly right when he admonished the banks of Canada and suggested that they had better mend their ways. This is an illustration-and I have a stack of similar cases-here is what I mean by " excess security." The farmer I am referring to has a section and a half of land near Long Lake for which he paid $55 an acre. I may say that land in that district has sold at a higher rate than that. For that section and a half he paid $16,200 cash; he built a house worth $6,000; his stock and implements cost between $5,000 and $6,000. He had a $5,000 mortgage on a half-section. A year ago he went to the local bank and borrowed $1,800, his -crop having been a failure. His moral standing in the com-

The Address-Mr. Cowan (Long Lake)
munity was sufficiently good to justify a much larger advance. But before loaning him the money the bank manager said, "Now, you have got to secure us on that SI,800." There was no attempt at repudiation, none whatever. The farmer said, "All right, what do you want?" "We want a second mortgage on your section and a half of land, and you will have to pay the legal costs." "All right." "You own a half-section in the adjoining township; that land cost you $6,400 and you have a clear title to it. We want a first mortgage on that land." "All right." He gave them the first mortgage. But the bank manager was not satisfied. He said, "We want a chattel mortgage upon your stock and implements as security." He said, "All right." There was no attempt at repudiation. That is not the attitude of our farmers, they want to meet their obligations and are ready to give all the security that they think is necessary. So he gave them a chattel mortgage on the whole of his stock and implements. Thus the bank had three mortgages to secure $1,800. Three weeks ago that farmer went to the same bank and said, "Now, I have 670 acres of my land summer-fallowed and I want enough money to buy seed to sow it." The bank manager replied, "You cannot have it." "But I must have the money to get some seed to sow the lands." "No matter what you want, you cannot have any advance. We haven't the money to give you." "What do you mean?" "We mean you cannot have it. "How am I going to get a loan?" "You will have to give us more security." "I cannot." Now the bank had that excess security for an $1,800 loan and they would not advance him enough money to buy seed to save themselves.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Shame.


Walter Davy Cowan: Yes, it is a shame. Now if you say that that is finance, I do not, and I do not care who hears me. I say to the bank managers and the bank superintendents, that is not right, and I think the Minister of Agriculture was fully justified in the stand he took towards the banks. We have a stable system of banking. We do not want anything else. There are not enough bolshevists out there to run a peanut stand. But we do want a bank system which will enable us to do business and carry on agriculture in this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Walter Davy Cowan: Hon. members opposite say "Hear, hear." But although they were in power for some eight years they
did not do as much in that time as the hon. Minister of Agriculture has done in two months. I have absolute faith in the Dominion. Our various provinces have been developed under different financial systems.
I was born in the old province of Ontario. There is no better place on the face of the earth that I know of. I have dragged myself all over this continent, but I would not give Ontario and Saskatchewan for all the rest of North America. Ontario necessarily had to have a slow development. Her pioneers did well if, having built their log house and barn, they brought under cultivation two or three acres a year; but conditions are entirely different in the west, and our bankers have to recognize that fact.
Our bankers should wake up to another aspect of the question. Recently in Toronto Sir William Mulock suggested that we should take the communists in hand. Well, I think he had better start right at home. People down here do not know what is going on out west, they are ignorant of the first thing about it-and I doubt very much whether my hon. friends opposite are any better informed. I should like them to come out with me and go among the people as I have done for the last forty years. In Saskatchewan we have community halls scattered all over the province and a school system that cannot be beaten anywhere. The school buildings are of the very best and they are the centre of our community activities. The people from miles around come to the community halls to discuss economic, social and political questions, they sing songs and have a real good time. During the evening some persons will address the meeting. But what do they say? Why the foundation is there for all this communistic propaganda; that is, the very fact of the failure of our financial system to meet the present depression provides such a foundation. I am going to tell the house what some of the speakers say. Let me see how much hon. members like this. I am going to relate what those men say of some of our bankers. Let me tell you that when it comes down to propaganda the socialists have it all over both Liberals and Tories; they can show us how to go about it. They are clever; they have the ability. We are face to face with this fact and we should consider what steps are necessary in the circumstances. I wish to read this one article, which has been in circulation for almost ten years, and I should like to know if our financial interests know anything about it. I doubt it; they stay in their parlour cars and do not bother much with the people. The article to which I refer is an editorial which
246	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Cowan (Long Lake)
appeared in the Bankers' Magazine-and I did not know there was such a publication-[DOT] under date of August 26, 1924. This editorial was reprinted in the Idaho Leader and then brought into Canada. The assertion is made that the Bankers' Association of the United States and the Bankers' Association of Canada are working together and are really one and the same and then the editorial proceeds :
Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes they will be more tractable, and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under the control of leading financiers. A people without homes will not quarrel with leaders. History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of capital to govern the world. By thus dividing the voters through the political party system we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus, by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been generously planned and successfully accomplished.
Imagine getting up before an audience of four or five hundred people and making a speech of that kind. I say that sort of thing is simply damnable, and we must meet it. We might as well get busy, and the only way we can do anything is by letting the people know the conditions which exist in this country not only in regard to finance but in regard to other matters as well. The only way we can counteract this propaganda is by getting the level-headed, reasonable farmers of our country together to discuss these questions. We must find out for ourselves just what the farmers are doing, what it is they want and why they want it, and then try to bring about conditions which will be more or less satisfactory.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. Hon. members opposite have been saying that we have not done anything for the farmers. They seem to think that as soon as you get goods a little bit cheaper you have done everything the farmers want. At every meeting I attended during the election campaign I made the statement that the income was the thing, that if a man has an income he will get along all right. Well, what is the situation? I have some figures here; they apply to Saskatchewan only, but hon. members from other parts of the country will find that the same thing applies. Out in Saskatchewan we have become absolutely tired of the assertion that the tariff changes 
made last session must result in increased prices. We knew at the time that statement was false. The government secured a table of prices right in Regina and submitted that table to the legislative assembly, which prorogued before this parliament opened. These are the figures given at that time:
Percentage of Reduction in Prices
Table oilcloth	
All-wool grey blankets	
Ladies' best class hose	
Ladies' second grade hose	
Children's cotton hose	
Fingering wool	
Men's balbriggan combinations.. ..
Men's merino combinations	
Men's silk combinations	
Men's wool and cotton socks	
Men's merino socks	
Men's khaki drill shirts	
Men's fancy drill shirts	
Men's red-back overalls	
Men's horse-faced leather gloves.. ..
Pillow cotton	
Sheeting	
Grey sheeting	
White cotton	
Grey cotton	
Standard prints	
Sail and tent duck	
Sateen	
Flannelette	
Denim for overalls	
28J
13
10
7
15
9
14 214
15 11
23 15
8
20
There is a list comprising many of the articles needed by farmers throughout this country, and that list was submitted to the legislative assembly of Satskatchewan. Hon. James Gardiner was sitting in opposition. Did he challenge the accuracy of those figures? Did any of the Liberal leaders of Saskatchewan say these figures were not correct? They certainly did not do so, because within a radius of two miles of the parliament buildings in Regina there are from fifty to one hundred wholesale houses supplying all these articles for that section of the country. These gentlemen knew these figures were correct, and they did not dare deny their accuracy. Does that prove that the increased tariff has been a benefit or an injury to the purchasing community? You can take your choice but as far as I am concerned, if that is an injury, pile on the injury.


Mr. BROWN (Lisgar):: I hope now that
the hon. member has dealt with the hon. member for Lisgar-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Walter Davy Cowan: Again, our
friends from Saskatchewan have asked what benefit has come to the farmers from the relief work authorized last year. They understood at the time how that policy would affect the wheat growers; they knew full well there

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
would be no more harvest that year. There is a natural law governing agriculture in Canada; we sow our grain in the spring and reap it in the fall. That special session was held in September of last year. Did hon. members opposite expect the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to tell the farmers of the west to sow a lot of wheat at that time of year? I beg to assure my hon. friend from Lisgar that we do not do things like that in Saskatchewan. The farmers of that province do not raise pumpkins on icebergs. There is a natural law; under that law there is a right time to seed, and that is in the spring of the year. My hon. friends know that the necessities of the prairies had to be taken care of as an emergency measure, and that is what was done. Hon. gentlemen from Saskatchewan know perfectly well what happened. Before the money had been voted by the house the hon. Minister of Highways in Saskatchewan, Mr. Stewart, said to me, "I knew that when the Hon. R. B. Bennett made the statement that the money would be voted this would be done when he came into power; because we know that when the Conservatives make up their mind to do a thing it will be done." The result is that the whole of that drought-stricken area will be considerably improved. There have been nine thousand farmers furnished with work in the province of Saskatchewan-nine thousand farmers with twenty-five thousand horses. They have been engaged building roads. They were not given a dole; they were not given sops. They were given work, and throughout the province camps were provided to house them. Every man was given an opportunity to work until he had earned one hundred dollars, and then he went back home .and enabled someone else to come along. And the work was well done. The sum of ten million dollars was spent to good purpose, and then my hon. friends ask: what did they do? Let me say that never in the history of Canada has work been more economically or better done than the work which was thus carried out in the province of Saskatchewan, employment being provided through the use Of money furnished in part by this government for the relief of people in the drought-stricken area. But were the people of Saskatchewan and Alberta the only ones who have suffered in this regard? Why, in a large part of the United States the people were stricken by the drought worse than we were. Yet the Americans were not crying and groaning and yelping; they did what they could to ameliorate the conditions that faced them. And that is what we are doing now. The drought that has stricken us is a temporary condition, and I for one absolutely refuse to despair of the province of Saskatchewan because of what has happened in the past two years, and to say to the people there, "You are no good, you cannot produce enough."
I am prepared to base my estimate of the productivity of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, not on what has been accomplished during those two years but on the average of production since I first settled there some thirty years ago. I do not hesitate to say that the average for that thirty years will greatly exceed the average of the last two years, and that is the standard by which I shall judge. And what do we find over that longer period? Ask the people of Saskatchewan and you will find thousands of farmers who have been successful in that time. You could find nothing better in Ontario and Quebec. I could take hon. members out there and show them very many farm houses as comfortably furnished as any in the east. Many farm houses have their own electric power plants and many are modernized. They are well built and comfortable. I can assure the house that as a result of thirty years of labour the farmers of the province -can show very satisfactory results, and I do not understand how anyone could stand up anywhere and try to make out that Saskatchewan is not capable of agricultural development. We are just as good in this respect to-day as we have ever been. The soil is just as good; all it needs is a drink. It is thirsty, if I may say so. I am pleased to say that within the past few days I have received news that there has been a rainfall. That is the best news I have received in a long time and I hope there will be ample rain there.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I must first congratulate the hon. members for Resti-gouche-Madawaska (Mr. Cormier) on his excellent speech. When he moved the address he stated that the Canadian people now feel that they have a saviour. What candour! May I be permitted to quote an extract from La Russie des tsars by Maurice Paleologue, who relates an interview which he had with the great Russian metallurgist and financier Poutilow, in 1917:
Mr. Paleologue.-However, you have no doubt that Russia will end by once more coming to her senses and making good? After a solemn silence, he spoke again with a strange
keenness in his eyes:
Mr. the Ambassador, I shall answer your question by a Persian metaphor. . . . There once happened in the plains of Khorassan, a severe drought, from which the cattle suffered cruelly. A shepherd, seeing his sheep dwindling away, called upon a famous wizard and said to him: "You who are so skilful and
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

powerful, could you not cause my grass lands to become verdant again? Oh! nothing easier, answered the other. This will only cost you two tomans." On the spot, the bargain was closed. The magician immediately begins his incantations. However, neither the following day nor thereafter does there appear the lavish with reassuring words and advices of patience. Nevertheless the drought still continues, the land becomes utterly arid. Again, the shepherd in despair hurries to the wizard and inquires with anguish: Are you quite sure of causing grass to grow over my meadows again? Absolutely so; I have a hundred times accomplished harder tasks. I therefore assure you that your meadows will recover. . . .
However. I cannot promise that this will happen before all your sheep are dead."
I therefore think, sir, that my colleague has mixed up the saviour with the wizard of Khorassan.
Mr. Speaker, I wish also to congratulate my hon. friend from Stormont (Mr. Shaver), on his very able speech on the address. The hon. member stated that a very small quantity of butter had come into Canada on the basis of 32 cents a pound since this government came into power. My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Willis) quoted figures yesterday to the effect that from August 1, 1930 to February 28, 1931, 6,375,109 pounds of butter had been imported into this country. From October 1 to the last day of February over 3,690,000 pounds were imported into this country. I replied to the hon. member for Stormont that he could not eat that quantity of butter in a single meal. My remark did not appear in Hansard; I desire to withdraw it and say that in all probability the hon. gentleman has not only eaten that quantity of 6,000,000 pounds of butter for dinner, but he swallowed my remarks ak a pousse-cafe;
During the last campaign the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) demonstrated that he is a great psychologist. He knew that his remarks to the butter industry would be received with favour. During the last campaign we heard considerable talk about New Zealand and Australia. However, in 1928, the Tory party was singing another song. The Montreal Gazette of December 3, 1928, quotes the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) as saying in Victoria:
The trouble with Canada and Canada's side of the Australian treaty is that the present government has never showed a friendly spirit toward Australia.
On March 17 the Prime Minister declared that the relations between New Zealand were at the present time so strained that it would be difficult to understand their being worse.
I am sorry he is not in his seat as I would have been pleased to ask him if that condition is good or bad. I would like to know what 
progress has been made with regard to the present treaty betwen Canada and Australia, as drafted by this government.
At the special session my hon. friend, the member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), seconded the address in a very able manner. I have known the hon. gentleman for some years and although we take different views in politics we have always been good friends. On that occasion he said that the reason for the success during the last elections was the return of the Conservative party to the traditional policy of Macdonald and Cartier, a policy of common sense, of stability in the order of things, of harmony and mutual respect of the two great races which on the soil of America were given the mission of maintaining civilization and liberty. He continued:
And look what has happened within a few hours. Quebec now holds in its hands the balance of power.
For the present, I give it to the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan). The hon. member for Dorchester continued:
Whether it casts its weight on one side or the other or whether it holds aloof, the fate of the nation depends on its attitude. It is my province which gives to the hon. Prime Minister power and the means of governing. Had she turned a deaf ear to his voice, things would have remained as they were.
On September 9, the Prime Minister replied to those words with the following:
It is a great satisfaction to all of us who are Canadians to have associated with us in government those from the old province of Quebec who have, for so many years, really "believed in the principles of the Conservative party.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Mr. POULIOT:: I hear an hon. member
banging his desk. If he is from the province of Quebec will he assume the responsibility for what his government has or has not done up to the present day?
It is stated in the Montreal Gazette of March 20 that the Hon. J. A. Macdonald is going to Havana in connection with the exporting of maritime potatoes to Cuba. Nothing is mentioned of Quebec. I would direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) to the need of the potato growers of the province of Quebec. He should endeavour to remove the charge of $3 which has to be paid for the inspection of carload lots of potatoes and vegetables.
I congratulate the Tory members upon their meritorious efforts to defend a bad cause. If the government is playing a game, it is playing it with too many dummies on the front benches. It has been said that this is a one

The Address-Mr. Pouliot
man government. That statement must be true because up to the present the Prime Minister is the only member of the cabinet who has taken part in this debate. Some members of the Conservative party complain at times that we Liberals are very impolite in referring to them as Tories. I congratulate the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. La-Vergne) for having had the courage to say:
I became a good Tory because I became a good Canadian.
He was born on February 21, 1880, and was elected on July 28, 1930. For fifty years and six months was he not a good Canadian? According to his view, has he been a good Canadian for six months only? That is why he has always been treated by all as a spoilt child. Instead of becoming a Tory he should have followed the advice of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and continued to keep his speech in his pocket. If my hon. friends on the other side of the house are ashamed of being referred to as Tories, there is a remedy; they have only to change their policy and then their consciences would be quieted.
The Montreal Gazette of November 29, 1927, contains an excerpt from a speech delivered in Toronto by the Hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). This speech was delivered after the Winnipeg convention when he was full of enthusiasm and was able to speak in all candour and with frankness. He is quoted as saying:
I believe the Conservative party has been too honest in the past. Our party in the past has been too honest in strictly defining its position and policy on controversial and sectional questions.
I trust the hon. minister will change his views during Lent in that respect.
The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) stated that the Conservative party should be given credit for the removal of the cattle embargo. This embargo was removed in 1922, one year after the Liberal administration had come into office. I need not say anything more with reference to this matter, which would appear to be an anachronism.
In referring to farm implements, the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) said:
We shall know definitely just what margin or profit there has been on these articles and whether or not they can be sold at what would appear to be a less prohibitive price.
During the last campaign it was stated in many constituencies in the province of Quebec that the farmers should not complain about the price of farm implements as they were purchased only once in a lifetime and the higher price paid would be more than
offset by the price received for butter. It was said also that the labouring man should not complain of having to pay more for butter because he would have more work at higher wages once the Conservatives were put into power. Instead of that we are faced with unemployment.
The hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks), speaking yesterday, said:
1 wish to assure the government, as a farmer of the west, that they will have my sincere support so long as they do those things which they have undertaken to carry out.
Nothing has been done yet and we will be watching the hon. member to see if he keeps his word.
In commenting upon labour and unemployment the Montreal Gazette of February 28, 1930, said:
It is impossible to quarrel with the general position taken by the Prime Minister in replying to the delegation from the western provinces which interviewed the government on Wednesday with the object of securing federal aid for the unemployed, Mr. King was right-
The Gazette says that, not during the election campaign, but six months before the election.

in stating that no duty rests upon the Dominion as regards the cost of local undertakings designed for the relief of unemployment. So far as the general question of unemployment is concerned, the responsibilities of the Dominion are quite distinct from those of the provinces and municipalities, and they are, as the Prime Minister reminded the delegation, sufficiently onerous.
During the last election Canada was pictured by the Tories as a land of desolation, although every town visited by the present Prime Minister was a land of promise. The Tories are responsible for conditions in this country being worse now than they ever were. Votes were passed by this parliament under the late administration for work in my constituency, and that money has never been spent.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: That is what they did
all over.


Jean-François Pouliot: They have done that in
nearly every parish along the St. Lawrence river in my constituency. The late government, in order to relieve the unemployment situation, was generous enough to vote sufficient sums of money to provide work for the unemployed in my constituency. What happened in connection with Riviere du Loup station is something that I must denounce in this house. I have already given to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways a complete explanation of this case.
The Address-Mr. Poidiot

The facts are these. The money was voted and tenders were called for. Then what happened? The Tory candidate was interested, I suppose, in the tenders that were sent in and the first thing he asked the Minister of Railways was not to take action at once on the tenders that had 'been submitted to the Canadian National Railway Company. The minister is present in the house and he cannot deny that. Moreover, no action was taken for one month and a half after the tenders wer received.


Mr. MANION:: Would the hon. member
kindly quote the gentleman's statement asking me not to take action? I do not remember anything about it.


Jean-François Pouliot: The fact is that no action was taken for a month and a half, and then when I ask for information from the Minister of Railways, he says that it is not in the interest of the country to tell anything about the Canadian National railway.


Robert James Manion: I think my hon. friend
had 'better quote my words instead of putting into my mouth words that I did not use.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend knows that I 'like "him, and that is why I chastise him. The tenders were due to be received on August 26. They were received on that date, but no action was taken until October 7. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways is a very active man and a good minister so far as the administration of his department is concerned; so these tenders must have been held up with his approval; they could not have been held up by the angels.


Robert James Manion: May I inform my hon.
friend that the department does not deal with the tenders at all? They go to the management of the railway company. We do not deal with them.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then the minister musl
have corresponded with the railway company in order that it should take no action in the matter in the meantime. In the advertisements for the tenders it was mentioned that the station was to be completed by the end of February, and this delay that took place prevented the building of the station for the reason that the contractors had figured their costs, and therefore the amount of their tenders, on a station to be built in the summer time, and not during the winter, which makes a great difference in the costs. My hon. friend cannot contradict that, because I am giving the facts. I say that for a month 
and a half the tenders were held up and no action was taken on them. According to my information, the Conservative candidate in my county was interested with one of the tenderers in getting the contract. That is my first statement.
Afterwards, when the minister was on his way to Fort Churchill, the acting minister took the responsibility of refusing to sanction the construction of that station, although enough money had been voted for the purpose. That was done upon the same day that the Minister of Labour was giving away $1,500,000 for works additional to what had been authorized by the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways, to the amount of $21,000,000. That man was here in Ottawa on that very same day-the thing was 'checked-when this government was giving away millions of dollars and was asking the two railway companies to build works not voted by .parliament, and amounting to millions of dollars.


Robert James Manion: May I say for the information of my hon. friend that Mr. Dube, the mayor of Riviere du Loup, worked just as hard to get that station built, and has done so ever since, as the hon. gentleman himself. Mr. Dube has been fighting continuously to get that station.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is very good, and it helps my argument. My hon. friend says that he tried to get the station. That is true in a sense. He wanted the station to be built, provided that he could have his share in the tender secured by a friend of his, by a partner.


Robert James Manion: He made no conditions to me at all.


Mr. DUPRE:: Perhaps I might say-


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very glad to see the Solicitor General addresssing the house. I hope that we shall hear from him in this debate..


Maurice Dupré: My hon. friend appears to be misinformed. His friend, Dr. Dube, the mayor of Riviere du Loup, complained to the Minister of Railways and to myself because that station had not been built, and contrary to what my hon. friend says, he wanted the contract to be awarded to any tenderer so long as it was awarded.


Jean-François Pouliot: I take the word of my
hon. friend, but that is all humbug.


Maurice Dupré: Is that the only reply my hon. friend has to what I said?

The Address-Mr. Pouliot


Jean-François Pouliot: Give me a chance, please to conclude my remarks. You will have a chance to speak when I sit down.


Maurice Dupré: With my hon. friend's permission-


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman cannot interrupt me like this.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has the floor, and he can be interrupted only with his consent. Apart from that, he has the right to continue his speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not going to treat anyone gently when my county is discriminated against. The man who did that is at present in South America, the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). I am very glad to learn from the Evening Journal that the hon. member is learning how to box the compass. I will tell you, however, what a friend of mine, an American democrat, wired me from Buenos Aires. "You have a wonderful representative here," he said, "and I am very proud of him. He would be a wonderful emblem for our party in the United States."
I see by the press of December 9, 1930, that the representatives of twenty-eight nations have established twelve causes of unemployment. A few days later, on December 12, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the former leader of the Conservative party, explained the unemployment situation, and said that we should look into the root causes of unemployment. Then a few days later, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said that he wanted to find the final causes of unemployment. In 1913 Mr. Arthur Meighen was called by the present Prime Minister the "gramaphone of Mackenzie and Mann." I notice that to-day the Prime Minister is but the echo of that Mackenzie and Mann gramaphone. Speaking in the city of Quebec of the Imperial conference, my hon. friend the Solicitor General said that Great Britain is properly considered to be one of the nations of the world which keeps her head solidly on her shoulders. That would seem to be a good reason why the Prime Minister of Great Britain, speaking of the proposals of the Prime Minister of Canada, said, "We cannot do it." My hon. friend the Solicitor General spoke about Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He said that Sir Wilfrid Laurier established the British preference as a follower of Sir George Foster. I suggest that the hon. gentleman must have been reading the Toronto Daily 'Star which states that Sir George Foster is the daddy of them all. It may be that Mr. Arthur Meighen
was acting as the daddy of all Conservatives when he made his speech regarding the soviet policy of this government recorded in the papers of February 9, before it was defined by the government.
But what about Saskatchewan? We have been told that charity begins at 'home. I listened to the able speech by my hon. friend, the brilliant sophomore from Regina (Mr. Turnbull). At one time the hon. gentleman was in favour of unity, and I am pleased to learn that the Conservative party is returning to the principle of unity and harmony. However he did not speak of that when he moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne last session, but he spoke as follows on Wednesday of last week:-
They (the Liberals) never ran an election in western Canada, at least within the last twenty years, without the most bitter appeals to sectionalism. Elections in western Canada have been fought by my hon. friends opposite on the basis of telling our foreign-born citizens that if the Conservatives should be elected to office in the federal or in the provincial field their churches will be burned down. '
That is exactly what happened to St. Joseph's and St. Jean Baptiste Churches in Ottawa. I do not blame the Conservative party for it, but who could say that it was not the Ku Klux Rian which did it.
My hon. friends opposite speak about unity. At a meeting where my hon. friend for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin) was present there was a gentleman named Charles Edward Guerin who spoke as follows:
Do you still believe that talk about prosperity that he (Mr. Cardin) gave you in 192-5 and 1926? he inquired. "Ask your wife: ask your neighbour if they are going to believe those good Liberals again-those good Liberals who allowed their hands to be tied by the west. Are they going to believe our naive premier, Mr. King, who makes treaties and doesn't know where they are liable to lead us?"
Mark you, Mr. Speaker, the expression is used "those good Liberals who allowed their hands to be tied by the west." The last government was also blamed for having given several portfolios to the west. Another gentleman whom I personally respect is the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). He is a big gun. I will translate to you what he said at St. Eustache in June last, and quote from Le Devoir. This report is dated June 2, 1930:
The budget was prepared by four western ministers, all four born in England, Messrs. Dunning, Crerar, Stewart and Motherwell. We know those western people are ready to admit into this country all English products provided that they can sell their wheat to England.
Mr. Dunning was born in England, but he could not be blamed for that. Mr. Crerar
The Address-Mr. Pouliot

however was bom in Ontario and Mr. Stewart also was born in Ontario. Mr. Motherwell was born at Perth, Lanark county, Ontario. If the hon. the Postmaster General takes part in this debate he ought to apologize to his colleagues in this house for his mistake, whether it is a deliberate mistake or not. Undoubtedly hon. members on the other side of the house read the western papers and if they had read the Edmonton Bulletin of July 30, they would have learned that my hon. friend from East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) is a great friend of the Ku Klux Klan. That body celebrated his victory by the burning of flaming crosses on the side of a hill near Edmonton. They were there with their nightshirts, and may I say that I was very much surprised that the member for Long Lake who spoke this afternoon did not wear his official nightshirt. Probably when applied to a member of this house we should call it a robe, because there must be some dignity attached to the wearing of it. The hon. member for East Edmonton is one of the Ku Klux Klan delegates to whom I wish to refer. There is another gentleman who is very friendly with that body, the one who has been preaching unity. There is the Regina sophomore, who attended the dinner with the nightshirt from Long Lake where a speaker protested against the issue of bilingual stamps. I have referred to two Ku Klux Klan members. Mr. Speaker, I wish to use parliamentary language.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not say that the
hon. member for Long Lake is a whited sepulchre. I will not make that statement. In fact he is not, because a whited sepulchre cannot speak.
I wish to dedicate a few remarks to the French members who support the government. I make these remarks to the Tory French members, as they were termed by my hon. friend from Montmagny. I dedicate these remarks to those men who are the backbone of the present government. In that connection I present a financial statement prepared by Messrs. Dawson and Rosborough, chartered accountants, Regina. This statement is dated January 9, 1929, and is directed to the officers and delegates of the Invisible Empire, knights of the Ku Klux Klan, in "klonvokation" assembled. The text is as follows:
I have prepared and attach a statement of the receipts and payments of the imperial office, knights of the Ku Klux Klan since last klonvokation on October 26th, 1927. Our imperial treasurer, Dr. W. D. Cowan, is not in good health-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: That explains his
speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: The text continues:
-and could not prepare a treasurer's statement, so I have made this statement to take the place of both the financial statement of the secretary and treasurer.
The kloneilium appointed a chartered accountant of Regina to audit the books, he being a member of the klan, but he made other arrangements whereby' he will be away until about the end of March and not wishing to place our records in the hands of a non-ldans-man-
We on this side are non-klansmen, but surely there are some klansmen among my hon. friends opposite. They are cheered by my hon. friend without distinction.


Mr. COTNAM:: You have some over there.


Jean-François Pouliot: Name them.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Look them up.


Jean-François Pouliot: Name them and challenge your seal. Let me continue this citation:
I have undertaken the preparation of this statement myself and trust same meets with your approval.
Here are some of the entries:
Kloctoken received	
$33,437	42Dues received	
6,604	41Overpayments	and loans.. ..	873	36Supplies sold	
1,753	35


Mr. McINTOSH:: Put it all on Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: All right. The next entry shows a small sumreceived from books sold. This is accounted for by the fact that most of them are distributed free of cost.
K.K.K. books sold	 $ 30 00
Receipts from Maloney	 549 90
That apostate is more honest than I thought -he gives the amount of the collection. The entries I have given represent some receipts; now I come to some of the expenditures:
Imperial wizard's expenses.. . $1,284 50
Imperial kligrappy, salary.. .	2,170 00
The member for Long Lake is the Imperial Kligrappy.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is that?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is something with long hair. He has travelling expenses when he goes to the various meetings:
Travelling expenses	 $87 57
Then they have payments to imperial office assistants, and there is nearly $300 for klon-cilium and klonvokation expenses, and also

The Address-Mr. Gobeil
payments for office furnishings and janitor service. Why have a janitor? The Kligrappy could have performed that service.
Advance re J. J. Maloney meeting libel case and one issue
Freedman	$912 26
Sundry rents for halls for meetings	 631 95
A man named Elliott received $698.15. He has been appointed by the Bennett government a commissioner to investigate charges of political partisanship against federal employees. What chance would a French Canadian have at his hands? The Klu Klux Klan men have a publication called the Klansman. The issue for July, 1930, published at Regina, Saskatchewan, has on the front page among the table of contents:
How Shall I Vote?
Turning to the article I find it contains the following sentence:
At the command of Quebec Mr. King withdrew his pledge from Alberta, sold body and soul to Quebec.
I wonder if the Kligrappy approved of such propaganda or signed the cheque himself. This is a sample of what is being done by the Tory party.
My hon. friend from Montmagny said: Who betrayed the province of Quebec if it was not the great Sir Wilfrid Laurier? I answer him that Laurier's policy was to unite the Canadians of all creeds and all racial origins. The doctrine of the Tory party is divide ut impera -divide to reign.


An hon. MEMBER:: Don't believe it.


Jean-François Pouliot: You don't believe it, but you are willing to swell the cry against Freneh-Canadians, whereas your duty as their representative should be to kick the Kligrappy out of this house. The Tories are working to destroy the great work of Laurier. But hi3 influence is still such that twelve years after his death the present Prime Minister has to hide himself behind his name in order to try to justify his stand at the Imperial conference last fall. Laurier has been vindicated by those who were so unfair to him during his lifetime. That is the law of compensation. The same thing is occurring to-day. I may instance the abolition of the tariff advisory board. My hon. friends opposite were against it because it was wanted by the Liberals, and they disbanded it, but now they have to acknowledge the necessity of establishing another tariff commission simply because the old tariff advisory board did such good work and was absolutely necessary in the scheme of things. We on this side do not wait until the leader of the opposition dies to support his policy.
We support him while he is alive because his policy is sound. It is a great pity that those who have eyes to see do not see.


Mr. GOTT:: Here is one who does see.


Jean-François Pouliot: I put this question to my hon. friend opposite: how did you escape from Jack Miner's bird sanctuary?


Eccles James Gott: That is just as sensible as your remarks during the last forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the greatest compliment that I could possibly receive. Who has betrayed the province of Quebec? Who has betrayed Canada? The betrayers are those who sit on the other side and their supporters, ihe Ku Klux klansmen in the ranks of their party. My hon. friends opposite are now doing tardy justice to Laurier. We support his successor as leader of the Liberal party while he is alive because his .policy is sound. I am confident that some of my friends to your right, Mr. Speaker, will live long enough to admit that after Laurier the greatest Canadian prime minister is the present leader of the opposition, Mr. Mackenzie King.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as representative of a Quebec riding, I should express myself in French. However, desirous as I am that my remarks be understood by the Englishspeaking members, I shall take the liberty of speaking English, although I am not quite familiar with that language.
I have just been saying in French that as a member from the province of Quebec I should prefer to speak in my mother tongue, especially as my knowledge of the English language is very limited; but as I wish the English-speaking members to understand what I am about to say I hope they will take into consideration my inadequate knowledge of their tongue.
Hon. members opposite have criticized the policy of the government, especially the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the short address he made. His principal argument was that this is a "one man government." We have also been told about the new blasting methods, and they have been compared, unfavourably, with the conciliatory approach of the right hon. gentleman when he was in office. We have heard about secession talk in the west. There has also been criticism of the Russian embargo, and of course the policy of protection has been assailed. I am not exaggerating when I say that at least 75 per cent of hon. members on the other side who criticize protection are just as sound protectionists as we on this
The Address-Mr. Gobeil

side. But it is a well known fact that the Liberal party for the last twenty-five years has been in the habit of upholding protection when in office and denouncing it in favour of free trade when in opposition. So no one is surprised at what we have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite.	.
I intend to consider in the few remarks I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, some of the matters which have been brought up by hon. gentlemen opposite, and I wish in a few words to follow the very brief argument of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). The remark has been made that this is a one-man government. Surely the leader of the opposition has paid a great tribute to the Prime Minister in making that remark, because if he alone is responsible for everything this government has done during the short period it has been in office, he is still a better man than we Conservatives thought he was, and we thought quite a lot of him. But the leader of the opposition is much worried about it, and I should like to relieve him of some of his troubles in that regard. I should like to suggest to the right hon. gentleman that the people of Canada are not going to bother their heads very much about finding out whether this is a one-man government or a party government, so long as the government administers the affairs of Canada in the best interests of all the citizens of our country. I should like to suggest to the right hon. gentleman also that this is a matter which primarily concerns the Conservative party, so he need not worry about it so much. He might better devote his efforts to his own party; he might try to conciliate the views of the free trade wing of his party from the west with those of the protectionist wing of the east.
Then we have heard about blasting methods, so let us compare them with the conciliatory methods of hon. gentlemen opposite. For the last nine years this country has been given a mixture composed of a large percentage of conciliatory approaches; a little bit of "down on your knees"; and quite a large proportion of "do not provoke the Yankees." The leader of the opposition mixed up that medicine and gave a little dose of it to Miss Canada about every month during the nine years he was in power. What was the result? After nine years of this medicine most of our factories were closed, because Canada had become the dumping ground of the world. At the beginning of that nine-year period agriculturists in Canada were exporters of their goods, but at the end of that period they had become importers of agricultural products, to the extent of importing 50,000,000 pounds of

butter during the last year the late government was in office. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, why not try some of those blasting methods referred to by the right hon. leader of the opposition and see what the result will be?
The right hon. leader of the Liberal party seems to speak of these methods as if they were new discoveries but, Mr. Speaker, they are very old. I would like to remind the right hon. leader of the opposition of a certain passage'in the Bible, which I hope he has not forgotten. Some two thousand years ago our Saviour went to the temple in Jerusalem and found within it dishonest merchants. What did He do? Did He try these conciliatory methods? Did He go to those gentlemen, pat them on the shoulders and say, "My dear sirs, will you please go outside and carry on your commerce?" No, Mr. Speaker, He did not do that. He took a whip that happened to be around and whipped them out of the temple, and while He was doing so he said, "My house is a house of prayer, and you have converted it into a cave of iniquity." This seems to me, Mr. Speaker, pretty much the same idea as that behind the blasting methods referred to by hon. members opposite. The right hon. leader of the opposition does not need to worry; if this government gives the people of this country the prosperity to which they are entitled-and which this government will give them-they will not bother whether blasting methods are used or whether conciliatory methods are adopted.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to the embargo on Russian goods. The right hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) criticized that embargo, and judging from what they said this embargo never would have been put on if the late government had been returned to power. The hon. member for South Battle-ford said Canada had lost millions of dollars by turning down this offer. I shall not endeavour to answer that part of his sepech, because the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) reminded us that bread and meat are not the only things in this world. The hon. member for Montmagny said the Prime Minister spoke in the name of civilization, but I shall go even further; I say the Prime Minister spoke not only in the name of civilization but in the name of Christianity. As soon as the people of Canada learned of the decision of the government, from Liberals and Conservatives from one end of Canada to the other congratulations and messages of approval reached the government. Strange to say, however, we did not hear anything from the Liberal members representing Quebec con-

The Address-Mr. Goheil
stituencies. Public opinion in Quebec was so unanimous that the legislature of that province passed a vote approving of the embargo placed against Russian goods by this government, but still hon. members from Quebec sitting on the opposition benches have not even mentioned it. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) has spoken during this debate; he is quite prominent in the ranks of his party, but he closed his lips on that question and spoke not a word about it. The hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Brasset) and the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) both spoke, but neither mentioned this subject.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think the hon. member is not quite fair. I said a word about it the other day during the course of my remarks.


Samuel Gobeil: If I am wrong I apologize. But I thought I was correct in stating that the hon. member did not mention it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I did mention it.


Samuel Gobeil: I cannot remember that the hon. member approved of it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I did.


Samuel Gobeil: I may be wrong there too,
but that is my recollection. Now, the electors of the province of Quebec would like to know from the Liberal members of that province whether or not they approve of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). May I suggest to them that they might just as well speak now because they will have to sooner or later. Here is another instance where the leader of the opposition might direct his efforts to the adjustment of difficulties within his family; if he does he will perhaps get better results than he is likely to from criticism of the so-called one man government.
Let me also mention another omission on the part of Liberal members from the province of Quebec who have already spoken. I refer to the question of immigration. From several provinces in late years complaints have come that immigration should be restricted if not altogether stopped, and in Quebec the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and his newspaper Le Devoir have always been champions of that cause and have always claimed that the policy of the late government was disastrous to Canada. The late government would not listen to these complaints, and one of its ministers, the Hon. Mr. Crerar, always advocated a policy of wide-open doors when he was one of the members of that government. Only
a few weeks after this present government came into power immigration was stopped or practically so. Yet what do we find here from Quebec Liberal members? Not a word; silence. None of the Liberal members from that province have even mentioned the matter. I am not so much surprised at that on the part of Liberal members; but I am sorry to say that I was very much surprised that the hon.. member for Labelle did not give any credit to the present government for their gesture in this matter. Considering his opinion in the past I was expecting that he would make it a point of honour to approve the government on this question. However, I desire to place myself on record as being perfectly in accord with that measure. And here again Liberal members from Quebec are expected by the citizens of that province to state what opinion they profess on this question, and I hope they will do so.


An hon. MEMBER:: We will tell you.


Samuel Gobeil: Some hon. gentlemen have
had a chance before now to state their opinion but they have not done so.
I now come to the Imperial conference. I admit at once that I do not know anything about the matter, and realizing that I am not an authority on the question of the Imperial conference I am not going to discuss it. But I should like to say this much regarding the subject. Permit me to remind the leader of the opposition that when he criticizes the present Prime Minister he criticizes not only the Prime Minister of Canada but, as well, every other government in the sister dominions.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Oh, no.


Samuel Gobeil: Because every one of them
has emphaticalfy endorsed the policy of the Prime Minister of Canada. Is it not strange -and the people of Quebec will remember this-that before the last election the present Prime Minister was represented as an imperialist of the worst kind? He was said to be even worse than a former prime minister, the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen-'and this is saying much so far as hon. gentlemen opposite are concerned. We were even told that we were going to have a war if the present Prime Minister and his party were returned to power. But what do we see to-day? The same right hon. gentleman is criticized by the leader of the opposition as a traitor to the empire. No wonder hon. members from Quebec who sit on your left, Mr. Speaker, are not so anxious to speak about the embargo;
The Address-Mr. Gobeil


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: I should like, Mr. Speaker, to emulate the humour and the wit of the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), but at the present moment I am not in the mood for any humorous subject at all. My main purpose in rising to participate in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne emanates from an earnest and sincere desire to bring to the attention of the government the anomalous situation in which agriculture now finds itself, and to point out the peculiar idiosyncrasy of that human element in society which has so perversely precipitated agriculture to the bottom rung of the ladder so far as prosperity, profit and a decent standard of living are concerned.
At the outset, therefore, I wish to point out to the cabinet members sitting on the government benches that you cannot degrade agriculture and at the same time have prosperity in the other industries. Nor can you have prosperity in the other industries unless the same condition obtains also in agriculture. For if the tiller of the soil, who 'has been the mainstay of civilization ever since the dawn of ages, and who, like Atlas, has been bearing the burdens of the world through countless centuries, were now to lay down on his job, there is no doubt at all in my mind as to



The Address-Mr. Luchkovich
what the result would be. All the other industries would stop, and mankind would go back to primitive conditions.
Many thousands of years ago, when farming as an industry was still unknown, when man led a more or less precarious and predatory sort of existence, wandering from place to place in a murderous quest for food, civilization in our sense of the word was unknown; and why? The reason is obvious. Because in those days there were no settled agricultural communities; and where there are no settled agricultural communities there is no progress, no opportunity for development of a philosophy of life. But when man finally learned how to care for herds and flocks, and to plant seeds, communities began to spring up in which some of the workers supplied food for all, and other workers applied themselves to the different handicrafts, trades and arts, giving rise to a division of labour based on agriculture from which have developed all the numerous activities that make up our present-day modern civilization. This condition could not have been possible had agriculture not supplied the nucleus from which has sprang the progress, culture and livilization which have been left to us as a heritage of the thousands of struggling, but now extinct, generations.
I think it is universally recognized'-I am sure it is recognized by all members on both sides of the house- that agriculture in Canada is our basic and most important industry. The hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), who has just spoken, said that he would like to have cooperation between the members on this side and the members opposite. I would like to have that cooperation, especially with regard to freight rates, and especially with regard to agricultural credits and interest rates, as well as other things that I would mention were my time not so limited. Agriculture is our most important industry. In Canada, at least, it constitutes our basic industry; and yet, Mr. Speaker, how vast is the difference in comparative compensation so far as agriculture and the other industries are concerned.
Take the case of agriculture and manufacturing. A general survey of our national wealth, published by authority of the hon.
Minister of Trade and Commerce, reveals the following facts for the year 1928:
Farm values (land, buildings, implements, machinery and
live stock)	$6,251,081,000
Agricultural products in the possession of farmers and traders	 1,801,440,000

Manufactures	(machinery and
tools, and estimate for lands
and buildings)	$1,356,306,000
Manufactures	(materials on
hand and stocks in process) . .	795,775,000

Although farm values surpass manufactures by about six billions of dollars, the following figures will show the great disparity which exists between the value - of production in agriculture and the manufacturing industries:
Manufactures	 $3,769,847,364
Agriculture	 1,905,311,580
Hon. members will see from these figures that there is a great discrepancy between agriculture and manufacturing. It is not my purpose to exaggerate or to depict a situation which does not exist, but when one realizes that since confederation agricultural distress has never been as great as it is at . the present time; and the prices of the implements of agricultural production and the necessities of life were never before so high, while the prices of farm products have sunk to levels far below costs of production, with consequent lack of purchasing power; that farmers have found it impossible to meet their obligations and in many cases to secure the bare necessities of life, and that constant pressure and demands by creditors have promoted the bankruptcy of farmers in the west 

when hon. members take cognizance to these facts I am sure they will come to the same conclusion that I came to. It is therefore not difficult to understand that such conditions could easily relegate the industry of agriculture to the level of serfdom and peasantry of bygone days. One can readily anticipate the reaction of the government to a picture of this nature and the inferences contained therein. Undoubtedly hon. members opposite will condemn my remarks as being farfetched or not in accordance with the facts. I am sure however that my colleagues in this corner of the house, or for that matter all conscientious western members, will substantiate my statement and will agree that I have correctly described the conditions which exist in their respective parts of the country. If, however, the government believes my remarks to be true its proper course *would be to give agriculture more substantial relief than it is getting at the present time.
In this respect I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), for the stand he has taken with respect to credits. He has given a lead to his colleagues in the cabinet which should not go unheeded by the government. I believe the hon. gen-

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich
tleman is a brilliant and sincere man who has a great future. The following paragraphs from a magazine article indicates the minister's attitude, in regard to credits:
In the meantime Hon. Robert Weir, federal Minister of Agriculture, has been engaging with the banks in a debate over credits to farmers who have still substantial equities in their farms, own stock and implements and buildings, but who have because of low prices run out of ready cash for winter supplies and spring operations. The strength of Mr. Weir's position is that he was recently out west and while there was given authenticated cases of refusal by banks to loan money even where the security was of a high type. The banks have answered him by challenging him to produce the evidence of what he alleged, but that does not embarrass Mr. Weir, because he has the goods in his office here.
He is taking his time in answering the banks, because he has been invited to speak in Montreal to the Canadian Club, next Monday on the western situation, and to the business men of that city he will quote verse and chapter to prove his assertions.
Mr. Weir's object is not that of developing sectional feeling or of castigating the banks, but of taking away a weapon which he feels may otherwise become a powerful one in the hands of professional western agitators, who are making hay while the sun of prosperity is in temporary eclipse. The federal minister is determined to see that the western farmer who is reasonably entitled to help gets it, and has warned that if the banks will not provide such assistance, someone else will.
By a coincidence, the magazine in which I read the statement of the Minister of Agriculture contains also two excerpts, similar but widely divergent in point of time. I read the following:
The idea that the "farm problem" is something new or peculiar to modern times occasionally gets a jolt when we are permitted a glimpse into the forgotten past. Recently on the site of an ancient city a clay cuneiform tablet was unearthed w'hich recorded the fact that 3,500 years ago one Arilludupti, a Mesopotamian farmer, was forced to pledge his entire farm as security for the loan of three and a half pounds of lead. Whether lead was high in price or farm credit low this farmer was undoubtedly facing a problem, as farmers have faced, and solved, since man first tilled the soil or tamed wild beasts for his own use. The farm problem is part of the struggle of the race, first for existence, then for comfort and now for the multitude of things which go to make up our complex civilization.
I shall now read an excerpt describing an incident which took place in my own district, and which attracted so much attention that even a Chicago paper saw fit to publish an account of it. I quote:
Grain Grower's Dilemma (Chicago Drovers Journal)
Something less than a generation ago sheep and lambs were so low in price that not infrequently western shippers found themselves indebted to the commission firms that handled 22119-174
their consignment. A Winnipeg, Manitoba, message tells of the similar predicament of an Alberta wheat farmer.
The story concerns a farmer in the Vegre-ville district of northern Alberta, who was required to make immediate delivery of certain grain which had been assigned to the bank as security for a past-due note. Obedient to the banker's instructions, the farmer forthwith hauled the first load to the elevator, but it was pronounced of low grade and rejected on account of its moisture condition.
The farmer was in a quandary both as to what he should do about his rejected grain and his past-due note, when suddenly an inspiration struck him. He had assigned the grain to the bank. The bank has demanded settlement of his note and, since the elevator had refused to accept the grain for storage, the logical thing to do was to deliver it to the bank.
Accordingly he drove over to the bank, backed up to the rear door, and before police arrived he had succeeded in shoveling the bulk of the grain in on the bank floor. He still has the past-due note and is $25 poorer, this being the penalty exacted for illegal tender.
There is a sequel, however, even to this. Having reloaded the grain, Mr. Farmer was still at a loss as to how he should dispose of it. This problem he solved by dumping it by the roadside as he proceeded back to his farm. Thus the episode would have closed, but for the fact that a neighbour's horse spied the wheat, ate it, swelled up and died. Now the hero of the story faces a suit for damages.
In this instance, Mr. Speaker, both man and horse suffered from the same malady. In the case of the man the malady was due to inflation and deflation of currency, whereas in the case of the horse it was due merely to inflation of the horse's stomach. The difference, however, lies in the fact that while the horse died immediately after inflation of the stomach set in, the man is still eking out a miserable existence under conditions that were brought about by inflation and deflation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to indicate further the farcical situation into which our farming industry has been forced to recede, I read the following article, from Commerce of the Nation, issue of February, 1931. The article is headed Partners in a Great Enterprise, and the text is as follows:
"Agriculture has been the pioneer and developing partner. Without it there would have been no western Canada and so eastern Canada. Agriculture is one of the real foundations of our national prosperity and development."
Senator W. A. Buchanan, at the 1929 convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, on "Canada's Economic Partnership."
Agriculture has been a vital factor in the dominion's progress. It has made possible the dominant position of Canada-wherein her foreign trade per head is higher than any other country in the world. Wheat and wheat flour are her greatest single commodity of export trade, constituting more than one-third of her total exports for 1928.

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich
The Bank of Toronto has played its part in the development of agriculture. Its resources of capital and experience, always at the disposal of legitimate enterprises have been available to farmers and farming interests for three-quarters of a century. Loans and credits and friendly cooperation have been given to the Canadian farmer. To-day, in a firmly entrenched financial position-
I emphasize these words:
To-day, in a firmly entrenched financial position. and with an enviable record of service behind it, the Bank of Toronto is of increasing importance to agriculture and to all other ventures of integrity and vision.
No one will quarrel with Senator Buchanan's conclusions with respect to agriculture, or with the statement made relative to agriculture as a vital factor in the Dominion's progress; but when the Bank of Toronto refers to its "firmly entrenched financial position" and its "ever increasing importance to agriculture" in face of the aforementioned contraction of credits and the farmer's lack of purchasing power, its high-falutin magnanimity as expressed in this advertisement appears ludicrous enough to make a horse laugh.
The advertisement, Mr. Speaker, nevertheless is not without some merit-it at least has evoked, wittingly or unwittingly, the admission of the existence of firmly entrenched vested interests in Canada ever ready to play the part of godfather to agriculture. And here is where the rub comes in; it is doing nothing of the kind, for the actual relationship that exists is rather that of stepfather and stepson.
Three thousand five hundred years have passed since the Mesopotamian incident, and yet how similar are conditions to-day. One does not wonder at the" terrible hardships of thirty-five centuries ago, but in this supposedly enlightened age of industrial development it is hard to understand why agriculture still languishes in its chronic and seemingly eternal poor man relationship, waiting for the crumbs that fall from the master's table. Indeed with wheat at 35 cents a bushel the farmer is not even getting the crumbs.
One of Canada's chief troubles is a lack of balance between country and city-between agriculture and the other industries. In our present condition we are like a pyramid balanced on its apex, in mortal fear of our industrial structure toppling over and collapsing-which on final analysis is just about what might happen at any time. To prevent such a condition the structure must be overhauled and altered to bring it into proper balance with all the other prerequisites that go to make up soundness, efficiency and stability. Our industrial system must be very

badly out of gear when the prices available for agricultural produce fall to unprecedentedly low levels, while the prices of other goods and services remain at pre-war boom levels. I agree therefore with the contention of Business Trend:
that the reduced prices which the farmer has been obliged to accept for his products, while paying relatively high prices for his manufactured requirements, form a situation that demands correction before business in general can return to its former state of prosperity.
Why is it that the farmers of Canada during times of depression must accept heavier losses than the manufacturers? Why is it that manufacturing is being aided through numerous tariff increases and other bonuses, while agriculture is left to shift for itself without being given any corresponding relief? If the farmer asks for a bonus on wheat he is immediately confronted with the argument that a fixed price for wheat is conceded by grain expert, economist, business man and banker alike to be outside the pale of practical politics. But how about the $20,000,000 which we voted last September for unemployment relief in our cities and towns? How about our bonuses to railways, coal mines, the steel and iron industry? What is right for one should also be right for the other. But possibly in this regard, while the government consider it just in the case of the aforementioned industries, they do not give the same degree of recognition to agriculture.
A noted western economist says:
If agriculture is the greatest of Canadian industries-and it is generally acknowledged to be-then all natural conditions shoidd be taken advantage of and all artificial handicaps that may in any way hinder its development should, as far as possible, be removed. By so doing not only would agriculture itself tend to become more permanent and prosperous but as a direct result every other industry in Canada would benefit.
I have great faith in Canadian agriculture. It is a great industry. It can be made still reater; and if the people of Canada generally, armers as well as business men, easterners as well as westerners, could be made to see the complete picture, could be given a vision that would show them all the varied and interlocking parts of this greatest of all Canadian industries; they would then understand the supreme necessity of cooperating in an endeavour to remove as far as possible, all handicaps in order that it may be placed on a permanent and prosperous basis, that Canada as a whole will be made to prosper as never before.
Other industries there are in Canada most certainly, but none reach the same standing or affect so many people as agriculture; and yet so little is being done to foster this basic industry. It is true that the government, even

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich
at the risk of their political lives, are trying to improve conditions by a rigid application of the policy of protection. But the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) surely cannot seriously contend that a high tariff wall will aid an industry dependent almost wholly upon a foreign market for the sale of its produce. It appears to me that the only person who can benefit thereby is the individual who owns a factory or lives on the stock dividends of a manufacturing enterprise; generally speaking it has very little consideration for the western prairie farmer. When one considers that only sixteen per cent of the national revenue is paid by the income tax levied on those privileged classes for whom protection has been primarily intended, and that most of our other taxes are raised by our excise and customs duties, which bear most heavily on those poor classes who are least able to pay, one cannot but feel that protection is an obnoxious form of legalized domestic piracy that allows the individual to rob the state by forbidding importation in order to prevent reasonable competition, and by creating monopolies in which rich men, who care more for coins than for human souls have absolute control.
My advocacy of agriculture as the basic industry of Canada, and my condemnation of protection as the weapon of the vested industries, will no doubt invite a charge of sectionalism; but my reply to those who may harbour such contradictory thoughts is to ask whether they honestly believe that farming is sectional. If my geography is correct, it is the most all-embracing industry in Canada. Show me a single province where agriculture is not a major calling; as for the prairie provinces, the other industries are so insignificant that they may be regarded as an almost negligible quantity. Agriculture is not sectional, Mr. Speaker; it is the most significant national problem which confronts us in Canada to-day, and as such should be given primary consideration in our deliberations during the present session.
In his pre-election speeches the Prime Minister promised to blast a way into the markets of the world and to foster agriculture in Canada. The unfortunate thing about dynamiting a channel to the foreign markets for our wheat, however, is the utter impossibility and futility of Canadian dictation with regard to the price our customers pay and also with regard to the fiscal policy that should be maintained in their respective countries. I do not believe our market in England can be retained by any hypothetical British political upheaval and consequent fiscal change; for it is hardly likely that any
overseas government, whether it be Liberal, Conservative or Labour, will ever dare put a tax on food products. Even if the British Isles were gravitating in that direction the Canadian farmer, in his present deplorable state, cannot afford to wait another hundred years for improved trade conditions depending upon a supposedly salutary political and fiscal uniformity in the British countries on both sides of the Atlantic ocean.
I think we can safely discount appeals to sentiment in matters of business. Kith and kin mean nothing in business relationships. As proof thereof, Mr. Speaker, witness the manner in which the British dealers and traders have passed up Canada in favour of the Argentine and Russia. It is all a matter of dollars and cents, the buying where goods are cheapest and the selling where it is most advantageous to do so. In my opinion that is the paramount reason why Russia, the Argentine and other countries have beaten us in the markets of the world. Therefore I say that the only way for the government to blast its way to the markets of the world is by beating our competitors at their own game, and in order to do this we must first successfully solve four problems. The first problem we must solve in Canada is how to produce more cheaply, how to bring about lower production costs. The next problem is how to produce better products, a better quality of exports. The third problem is how to market more economically, bring about better and cheaper marketing facilities, and the fourth is the provision of cheaper credit.
So far as the British market is concerned these fundamental questions apply just as they apply to any other country. For generations we have been accustomed to believe that the mother country should buy from us simply because she was the mother country. In recent years, however, the relationship has been more that of a stepmother. What Great Britain says to us is virtually this: "You are now grown up and it is time to look out for yourself. If you want to sell us anything you will have to do it on the same terms as any other country. You cannot expect to get something for nothing. If you want us to purchase more grain from you you must purchase more goods from us. We want reciprocal trade with you, but that trade must be of mutual benefit to both of us."
If reciprocal trade is the only common ground on which we can trade with Great Britain, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day should forthwith begin to pull down the barriers and handicaps that stand in the way

The Address-Mr. Luchkovich
of that trade, so that both countries will give each other what nature intended them to give and exchange their products freely for commodities they need but cannot manufacture or produce economically or in sufficient quantities at home. The proper way to foster agriculture is not by imposing new burdens but rather by lessening those burdens which already exist. What does it avail the Canadian farmer to have the tariff on his machinery raised from 6 per cent to 25 per cent? Undoubtedly the price of a binder is not lowered thereby, and as for the written promises about which this house has heard so much, with regard to the maintenance of existing prices, the western farmers has as much chance of a square deal in that regard as a race horse has of maintaining its usual pace with a dead weight attached to its neck.
If agriculture is to be fostered in Canada it will not be done by tariff increases, which tend to stabilize the prices of manufactured goods at their present high level without a corresponding increase in the levels of prices of agricultural products. While it is true that the grain growing industry cannot be protected by any kind of tariff legislation, it does not follow that the other industries should be given a hand-out which ultimately will have to be paid out of the pockets of the Canadian farmers. Prosperity in Canada can never return unless agricultural purchasing power is restored in proportion to agriculture's importance as an industry. I know this is a big bill for any government to fulfil, but it is nothing more than the economic justice which farmers have always claimed as the inherent right of 'agriculture. Surely, Mr. Speaker, the men who constitute our ultimate consumers and primary producers, the men who pay greatest proportion of our taxes, our freight rates and our interest, the men whose investment represents the largest part of our tangible wealth, but the earning power of which has remained much lower than that of every other industrial investment and development, have the right to demand through this house the same treatment for agriculture that is being given every other industry.
Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, that in order to foster agriculture the handicaps which lie in the way first must be removed. One of these handicaps is our taxation system, of which as usual the farmer is made the goat. He pays a larger proportion of our taxes than any other class in Canada and gets hit coming and going in the process. Being an ultimate consumer he has no come-back. Although when he buys a pair of shoes the tax

is included he cannot pass on that tax by adding it to the price of the wheat he sells in the markets of the world. Therefore 1 sincerely hope, in view of these facts, that the government will refrain from making a bad situation worse by increasing the tariff, which will only tend to add to the already over-onerous burden the farmer has to bear.
I should like to say a great deal about freight rates also, but my time is very limited; I understand I have only five minutes left. I am very sorry that the speech from the throne gave no assurance of a decrease in freight rates to meet the depression now existing in agriculture. The farmer not only pays more taxes, more freight rates and more interest than any other class in Canada, but as between east and west the western farmer pays from 2 per cent to 3 per cent more interest than is paid by the eastern business man. Here again the government has a chance to foster agriculture by appropriate legislation which would not discriminate against the farmer. He has been discriminated against through excessive interest charges and his industry is in danger of going on the rocks by reason of an almost total withdrawal of credit.
I do not know what the Minister of Agriculture meant when he suggested that if the banks did not supply the farmer with credit someone else would do so, but I do know that the farmers of Alberta recognize the inadequacy of the existing credit system in meeting the present economic stringency. They believe that adequate distribution of credit is absolutely essential to the carrying on of the agricultural industry, and they recommend the complete nationalization of our credit system. They recommend further:
That as an immediate measure the federal government take steps to organize a federal reserve bank of issue and discount which bank shall be entirely under government control and shall provide credit at a reasonable rate of interest for all necessary productive and commercial enterprises.
We are convinced that the above proposal is imperative in order to get away from the present intolerable position in which the credit requirements of the public in general are sacrificed to the professed necessity of the charter banks to protect to the utmost their savings deposits.
This is a resolution which was passed at the farmers' convention in Calgary this January. Now, goods cannot be produced and distributed without the aid of credit; there is no doubt about that. If the banks of Canada, to which this very vital economic factor has been extended as a matter of privilege, refuse to continue giving credit they

will wake up some morning to find Canada destitute of goods and the people of Canada rising in their wrath and taking the matter out of their hands and placing it where it belongs, namely, in the hands of the nation, the people of Canada.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I shall deliver my first speech in the house, in French. I first owe it to the riding that I represent and which is composed of a mixed population, the very large majority, of which, however, speak the French language. Moreover, I owe it to the province of Quebec, three-fourths of whose inhabitants are of French origin, and lastly I owe it to my country, one-third of whose people are of French descent. Furthermore, I am only following in the footsteps of my predecessors speaking the same tongue and belonging to the same race when I assert in this house the privileges and rights we possess. My aim is at the same (time that the French language be better respected by our English-speaking fellow-citizens and to induce them to learn and speak French. For some time past the harmony which exists among the various races in our country has been debated as well as that existing between the various provinces, the Dominion and provincial governments. Hardly were the speeches of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), the member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull) and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) delivered, than we read in the local papers that this harmony is not so general as it was contended in the house, and that even, certain of these gentlemen were responsible for the existence of dissensions among us. I took the trouble to cut out from the Ottawa newspapers clippings with reference to certain remarks made by some citizens who are not particularly fond of our language and race. In the Droit of March 18, 1931 we read under the heading:
The Orangemen of Ontario score French teaching in public schools.
At a meeting on Tuesday, the Grand Black Chapter of Ontario East, of the Royal Black Knights of Ireland, at to-day's session protested against the teaching of French in public schools in Russell county and northern Ontario, and decided to petition the Ontario government to have this discontinued.
The chapter also objected to any proposals for the establishment of Roman Catholic
The Address-Mr. Fournier
institutional schools for boys, the upkeep of which is to be a charge on the funds of the public for education.
This clipping is published in another newspaper The Evening Journal of the same date, March 18, 1931. A few days later, March 20, we again witness our good friends begin anew in North Bay:	La Presse of
March 20, publishes the following news: "The Orangemen demand the repeal of the separate school privileges."
North Bay, Ont., 20 (P.C.).-The delegates to the meeting of the Grand Lodge of western Ontario, Orangemen, adopted yesterday, at their closing session, a resolution requesting the repeal of all the amendments to the Separate School Act since 1863, which grant additional privileges to the separate schools of the province, and also requesting that all possible efforts be made to oppose other amendments having in view the granting of special privileges.
The French-Canadians, especially those in the district of Montreal, according to newspapers, thought fit to also protest against the action taken by the Prime Minister of Saskatchewan who had the crucifix or all religious emblems removed from the schools, and forbade priests and nuns teaching in the province, to wear their religious garb. The St. John the Baptist Society of Montreal adopted a resolution protesting against such action on the part of the Prime Minister of that province. I did not think it-it is true I lack experience-that hon. members of this house took part in suoh movements. I even was unaware that the member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), during the elections of July,
1930,	had also personally taken part in the struggle against the French language and the Quebec province. I was in error. In the Regina Star, of May 29 last, certain remarks of Mr. Turnbull were published, they were not very flattering for his colleagues of Quebec. May I quote the Droit of March 20,
1931.	This newspaper publishes and comments on the following article taken from the Regina Star of March 29 last:
Mr. Turnbull stated that the French influence of Quebec was thrown in the scale against the Conservatives because of the measures taken by the provincial government to free the schools of influences which are inconsistent with the public school system, and in support of this proof, Mr. Turnbull in a dramatic flourish, waves above his head a copy of the Patriote de l'Ouest published in Prince Albert. This newspaper, he states, advertises that an examination in French will be held in the schools of all French-speaking districts of the province. Prizes will be offered for the best papers following the examination, with the idea of propagating our beautiful language.
This newspaper, he continues, publishes a list of donations of these prizes, and many of them are residents of the province of Quebec.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: Mr. King
stated that there did not exist any crisis previous to the election.


Jean-François Pouliot: The worst
crisis was the one which brought about the return of the hon. member.

The Address-Mr. Fournier


Alphonse Fournier: I cannot
recall having read that the leader of the Liberal party had contended that there was no crisis. We even contend that it was a world-wide crisis. Moreover, intelligent people know this to be a fact. One had but to inquire and read so as to verify that this crisis existed throughout the world, but was specially felt among the nations with a high tariff. It was in Australia, in the United States and Germany that the people suffered the most from the economic crisis and, to-day, it is still in Australia that the people suffer the most from the effects of the crisis. If we refer to the newspapers of these last days, we find that in January, in the United States, where high protection existed even before the Conservatives raised our tariff in September, there were six million unemployed. We never contended that there was no crisis, however, we maintained that the Canadian government was not to 'be held entirely responsible for that crisis. During his campaign, for a time at least, the present Prime Minister, contended that this crisis was caused by the Liberal administration; he even stated in one of his speeches:
Nine years of wasted effort, before the great betrayal. Can you permit these men to govern you any longer? There should be no unemployment in Canada with a proper fiscal policy.
Some time later, after the election of July 28, it was necessary for the government to take steps to relieve unemployment. The Minister of Labour called a meeting of all the representatives of the various provinces so as to gather information on the unemployment situation in their respective provinces. In his speech at the opening of the conference, the minister rather changes his views and admits, the elections being over, that the unemployment situation was not due to the bad administration or fiscal policy of the Liberal government. The following is his statement:
"I do not for a moment suggest that the present unemployment is due to any governmental activity or lack of governmental activity. Unemployment is not purely a Canadian problem. It is world-wide."
He therefore tells us after the elections, that it was a world-wide problem. They were in power, it behooved them bo relieve unemployment. Did they do so? Not at all. They have but one remedy which they wish to apply in all circumstances. Did they apply it? Did they decrease unemployment? Did they fulfil their pledges? Any serious-minded man must ask himself whether those who were to perform miraculous cures succeeded, and whether their eight months of administration gave beneficial results to the people. 
Did the raising of the tariff in September produce the results expected? I frankly admit that I mingle quite a little with the people. In my riding the working people outnumber the others; the professional class is limited; those in trade are not very numerous, because we deal largely with the capital; there are also manufacturers. Since the raising of the tariff in September I have heard but one manufacturer say that it had had good results. I highly respect Mr. Drury who is the president of the largest industrial company of my city. Some time ago Mr. Drury was present at a banquet of the chamber of commerce in Hull and I had the privilege and pleasure of being seated next to him. I was unaware that politics would be broached at that meeting. However, the last part of his speech was very touching. He also tried to raise the morale of the people of Hull. In closing his remarks he said: "We already feel the beneficial results of the raising of the tariff." The following day, quite upset, and to seek information, I consulted many of the unemployed of the city and not one had found work since the raising of the tariff; they were still among those who needed direct assistance. The upward revision of the tariff has been of benefit to Mr. Drury, I have no doubt. He is a financier, a business man, a manufacturer. I know that he profits by it and I am happy that some of our fellow citizens can reap some advantage from high duties; however, I think that the Conservative government, at the present moment, should also consider the citizens of cities who do not benefit or, if so, very little, from high tariff.
The government would be doing useful work by teaching the people how to make use of business-like methods in their affairs, just as the King government carried on during nine years, that is, spend less than its revenue and economize in order that, when Conservative governments turn up, there may be some savings to face poverty and unemployment which will always be present. Has high tariff increased business? I do not think so. It increases it in the case of some industries which profit by it, but it is not less true that other industries suffer by it. Of late the discount on imported cars was increased. That was to help our manufacturers. All American automobile companies were to establish themselves in Canada. None have come yet that I know. Some seem to forget, notwithstanding the protests of automobile importers, that this legislation or higher tariff is detrimental to a number of our people. Some seem to forget that the automobile importers had invested a capital of $30,000,000, that there were
10,000	employees in that industry and that by

The Address-Mr. Fournier
increasing the tariff their sales would decrease. Many of these automobile importers will have to discontinue business and thereby increase the number of unemployed. We have all received the statement of the Canadian Automobile Importers Association, where much information can be found. The above figures are taken from that statement. In certain circles it was not thought that the automobile importers would have to discontinue their operations. They were in error. In the Droit of March 18, I note the following passage:
W. H. MacIntyre, general manager of the Ottawa Car Garage iand the Ottawa Car Manufacturing, stated this morning to the Droit that his company would discontinue the sale of Marmon and Nash automobiles as well as the Federal trucks. He explained that the sales branch yields no profit owing to the recent tariff restrictions on automobiles of American make sold by the Ottawa Car Garage. Mr. MacIntyre did not wish to further specify.
The rumour spread that the large establishments of the Ottawa Car Garage and the Ottawa Car Manufacturing Company would soon close their doors. Mr. MacIntyre gave out that it was false and that only the Sales Branch of the Ottawa Car Garage, would be discontinued. The garage itself, and the automobile repair shops would carry on. About fifteen men are affected by this decision.
Should this business close, necessarily employees will be thrown out of work, and they will have to wait, in order to get a job, that the American companies establish factories in this country. They must suffer in the meantime. This proves that the tariff, while it helps on the one hand may be on the other detrimental.
I also found out that the mills of the Ste. Anne Paper Co., at Beaupre, will close their doors at the end of the month for an indefinite time. The superintendent of the mills says that this decision will result in increasing from 300 to 400 the number of unemployed. It is thought that these mills will remain closed for a year.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Is that the wish of the hon. member?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The
Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated during his election campaign that the workingmen would have work every day.


Samuel Gobeil: It is the
outcome of Taschereau's policy.


Alphonse Fournier: I have but one suggestion to make before I close my remarks, and it is not a personal one. I came to the conclusion, after the election of July 28 last, that I had certain responsibilities to discharge which I had not previously to that date, and I have endeavoured in the
meantime to obtain information. I am one of those new members who have much good will but little knowledge of politics, however, I hope to acquire some before my mandate ends, and I shall fulfil my duties to the best of my ability. I think that, during the period of prosperity that we have enjoyed of late, it would have been wise to teach economy to (the people tundler the influence of manufacturers, industrial firms, speculators, advertisements, by campaigns known as "high pressure salesmanship ' and by other means, conditions were so upset that the people, the workers who had plenty of work did not restrict themselves to their budget but spent extravagantly. I think it behooves men in public life to teach the people to develop in family life the spirit of thrift and to teach them to live according to itheir means. If family life is on a solid foundation in a country or city, you may rest assured that the city itself will have a wise and economic administration. And to carry this a step further the well administered city will help toward improving the administration of the province and so on until we reach the government of the country. However, I do not think that it behooves only men in public life and the government to carry on this education. It behooves the business man to do a little of this education among his employees. I am perhaps wrong, but by what I gather from the newspapers, heads of industries, manufacturers and business men seem to have one aim in view, that of producing and selling so as to draw dividends at ithe end of their financial year-and dividends as large as possible. They endeavour to increase their turn-over, forgetting the human element which enters in their various industries and especially having in mindi-in a selfish manner, their capital, which is to bring them large returns.
I do not know whether Henry Ford is persona grata with the members of this house, however, he sometimes says things which are full of common sense. Some time ago, I cut out the following passage from one of his articles:
The foundation of prosperity is the family. Each family is, or should be, its own business manager. The material affairs of a family are as much a business as the affairs of an industrial corporation.
He added that many families understand this but that the number is not sufficiently large.
And, further on, another passage of this article strongly drew my attention:
The people can be no more extravagant than business reduces them to be; they can go no

The Address-Mr. Fournier
farther into debt than business permits them to go; they can gamble only when business- or something that passes under that name- provides the opportunity.
That is to say that it places on business men the responsibility of not giving the people the necessary education in prevision of. years of depression.	I think that this
situation will always exist in the world; periods of depression will follow periods of prosperity, and if the people are well prepared by educational campaigns, we shall have accomplished a great step towards the general welfare of our country.
I do not wish to further delay the house. I have a few words to add in support of the remarks of my colleague from Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) with reference to the civil servants. During the Liberal government regime, all seemed quiet in this circle of society. The civil employees carried on, assured that their salaries would be paid, and that at the end of the year they would be given their statutory increase. They lived in peace of mind which, of late, seems to have been disturbed. The present government, I do not know whether it is in a spirit of economy or whether with a view of replacing the staffs of some departments-allow certain information to leak out to the effect that three hundred temporary employees in some departments only, will soon be thanked for their services. I do not know whether the government will do so. I openly state that this will in no way help in the good administration of the various departments and in no manner will it help to relieve unemployment existing in our district.
There is also talk of retiring those who have reached the age of 65. It is sometimes among these persons that the most efficient employees are to be found, owing to their long experience. I think that one should move slowly in this connection. I am told-
I have no personal knowledge in this matter -that already a deputy minister who had reached the age of 65, has been retired, and, by the irony of fate, he was replaced, it seems, by a person who has reached 70 years.
I question whether it is for the better administration of that department.
The suppression of the statutory increase for all those who receive more than S2,500, is talked about. I shall point out that the more the salary of an employee is high, the greater his obligations to society, both as regards to his family and himself. I do not think that the time is ripe to economise-in salary increases and especially to retire persons who can still render great services to the country owing to their knowledge and experience. As 
long as I have a seat in the house, I shall closely scrutinize whether the dismissals are really justified.
I might, moreover, discuss the threats of dismissals made to postmasters and some employees of my riding, but I think that later on I shall have the opportunity of debating these questions.
In closing my remarks-as my leader so soundly stated last week-I believe that in a government, there is not only the material side, the practical side of affairs to consider, but there is also the brains, the intelligence and things which pertain to the mind. Our aim is to have a country as great and beautiful as any country in the world, composed of two great races which will one day love one another if they learn the two official languages of the country, and all my efforts will be directed in that direction.


Mr. C. N. DORION (Quebec-Montmo-rency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is the
custom of parliament to congratulate His Honour, the Speaker of the House. I also wish to fufil this agreeable duty, and thank the house for having elected you. You have proved, in a most striking way, that you were endowed with the required qualities: intelligence, moderation and impartiality. However, what has struck me more, is your knowledge of the two official languages and the use you make of both in presiding over our debates. This feature reveals a breadth of view and a deep rooted sentiment of true Canadianism.
The hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), your deputy, knows too well the esteem in which I hold him, it is therefore unnecessary for me to remind him of it. For over fifteen years, in our district, we have fought the same battles, pursued the same ideal with the firm desire to shake off the yoke of prejudices and to restore in our midst the sound principles of order, progress and peace.
It is also a custom, sir, to thank the artisans of one's victory. I shall do it with so much the more pleasure and pride, knowing that I had the help, during the campaign, of very brilliant political leaders and such outstanding speakers as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).
I had to battle as you are aware, against Mr. Lavigueur, then and still mayor of the city of Quebec, moreover member for Quebee-Montmorency in the late parliament. This gentleman held therefore two mandates. That was a sufficient reason for the right hon.

The Address-Mr. Dorion
leader of the opposition to denounce, here in Ottawa, one week before the vote, the double mandate, and appealed to the electorate of the capital of the Dominion to vote against Mayor Plant. Evidently the then Prime Minister, now the leader of the opposition, had before him the example of my predecessor, and he had derived from it precious lessons for his party. As close to 5,000 unemployed in the city of Quebec awaited the return of their mayor, my constituents deemed it their duty not to reelect him, complying, at the same time, with the wishes and the voice of the right hon. leader of the opposition. My sincerest thanks.
The hon. Prime Minister of Quebec contributed his share, not only by his speeches but also by the presence of his lean figure. Among the 25 parishes which are comprised in the Quebec-Montmorency riding, about 10 are included in Montmorency which is represented in the provincial legislature by Mr. Taschereau. It is especially there that he concentrated his energies, it is there that he constructed his legendary bridge which must some day link the northern coast of the river with the Isle of Orleans and over which project my predecessor was successful in building at least four elections.
Of course they were pledges, and nothing more. Nothing more was needed. The two parishes that this election bridge was to link gave me a very substantial majority.
It was also in that part of my riding that the Prime Minister of Quebec announced the Indian war, reorganized the riding, and denounced the present Prime Minister of Canada, as one of the fiercest opponents of our race, our language and traditions.
The following are a few examples of this eloquence profusely used by this politician who, in certain quarters, is looked upon as a great statesman. In the Soleil of Quebec, July 18, 1930, we read:
On the 28 inst. the Liberal party will be in power and you would have, you from Quebec county, Mr. C. N. Dorion to represent you? No, think of our race. We have too many fine traditions, too many ideals to safeguard that we should place our trust in Mr. Bennett, the right hand of Mr. Anderson who abolished the crucifix in schools and told the good nuns: '[DOT]You cannot teach in your religious garb."
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	It is a
fact.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: There is no
truth in the statement as made by the Prime Minister of Quebec.	_


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: Does the
hon. member approve or not of the acts of Anderson?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I shall say
to the member for Joliette that he will have my answer in due time and place.
Here is what was said at Ste. Anne de Beaupre by Mr. Taschereau who, on this occasion, was accompanied by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), as published in the Gazette of Montreal, of July 21, 1930:
"The first thing Mr. Anderson did was to attempt to take the crucifixes out of the French schools of that western province," said Mr. Taschereau. "When Mr. Bennett went to Saskatchewan, who stood by his side on the platform? It was the same Premier Anderson. Are we to place our French Canadian rights, our traditions and future welfare in such hands?
"You French Canadians standing before me, you mothers and fathers, do you realize the responsibilities upon your shoulders? It rests with you how your children should be brought up. You are responsible for their education and spiritual welfare. You must see that they in turn become worthy members of our race. Think well before you decide which government you endorse."
This text needs no comment, for the greater shame of the one who uttered it.
The success which I obtained in that part of my riding is a worthy answer to this high-bidding for votes and these paltry appeals to prejudices, a method in honour in the Liberal party of the province of Quebec for the last thirty years and of which Mr. Taschereau was one of the first to start.


Mr. RINFRET (Translation):: I do not
wish to be discourteous towards the hon. member, however, may I be permitted to point out to him that if it be wrong to say these things, it is still worse to do them as it was done by Mr. Anderson from Saskatchewan.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: What we
find wrong, sir, is to ascribe to the right hon. Prime Minister of this country intentions attributable to another political man in Canada.
The hon. Senator Beland also paid us a gracious visit in the course of the campaign. It was at St-Gregoire de Montmorency, a village of 6,000 inhabitants grouped around a cotton mill. The hon. senator made a splendid speech and also spoke, like all the others, of war and conscription, lauded the benefits of the Dunning budget, without however mentioning the clauses referring to textiles. A few days later, a number of the people of this village learned that the brilliant speaker was in the county of Beauce and had declared himself against all customs duties on textile imports. Such skill could not pass unnoticed.
The Address-Mr. Dorion

A splendid Conservative majority was gained in that Liberal fortress. I cannot but help thanking the hon. senator.
As to the Hon. Lucien Cannon, who also paid us a visit, I shall refer you, sir, to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) who is better informed than anybody with reference to the precious help Mr. Cannon was to him and to all of us in the district of Quebec, by his charges and appeals to prejudices, conscription and war,
However, sir, the all important factor of our great victory in Quebec, was the strong personality of the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. Through his truly Canadian political stand, his extensive knowledge, his economic science, the consistency of his statements both in the east and west, the Prime Minister won the hearts and esteem of my fellow-citizens. It will not be long before he wins their deep gratitude.
Still another factor of our victory was the entry, into the federal arena, of two men who had already played a considerable part in the provincial legislature: the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) and the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau.)
The first, the acknowledged and admired champion of the Conservative doctrines in our province, inspired confidence among a great number of our compatriots. His knowledge and the experience which he acquired in the course of his long political career, the friendship which he has always manifested towards the true champions of his party, the esteem which he has always enjoyed among his own people inspire us whith great confidence.
The wide legal experience of the hon. Minister of Marine, his memorable struggle in the provincial field, were also a precious encouragement for the exponents of the party.
I may add, how pleased we were, we hailing from the district of Quebec, of the right hon. Prime Minister's choice in inviting one of our own people, whose ability is known to us, the hon. Solicitor General, to accompany him to the Imperial conference.
I hope, sir, to have the opportunity, in the course of future debates to explain the needs of my province, of my district and riding; but I wish to state now that my constituents, themselves, do not only live on bread. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) for whom I have a deep admiration, although I do not always share his views, knows this quite well, for he came one day, about 1908, in my riding during an election which still lingers in our memory.

My constituents have equally confided in me the mandate of expressing their views, sentiments and opinions on the various questions of a national and economic order which were raised in the course of the last election. These views, sentiments and opinions are also those of 23 other ridings in Quebec, uniting with the 112 ridings of the other provinces of confederation which brought to the leader of the Conservative party the support which he needed for the triumph of his economic and political doctrines. Without us, without the province of Quebec, the country, as in the last nine years, would have probably been at the mercy of a coalition government without guidance or fixed principles. Thanks to the stand of our province, thanks to the breaches made in the solid bloc, the government will not only reign but govern. More than ever are we in need of a government that is in a position to govern.
I do not intend, sir, to return to what has been said, in the house, with reference to the economic crisis. May I, however, be permitted to add a few comments of a universal, national and provincial aspect.
The first cause of .this world-wide crisis is to be found in the overproduction of raw material and produces of the soil. The financial crisis was an immediate sequel of this over-production. This financial crisis was intensified by the artificial maintenance of prices. It is to these two crises: the crisis of overproduction and that of finance, that we must attribute, to-day, this industrial and trade depression which is felt the world over.
I spoke, a few moments ago, of over-production. This is especially evident in food products, such as wheat, sugar, coffee, etc. The same phenomenon happened for certain raw materials used in basic industries: coal, cotton, wool, leather, etc. While production was increasing, as a natural sequel, according to economists, we had inadequate consumption. The Great war brought on an era of intense production in all branches. Part of mankind was unceasingly consuming while the other part was unceasingly producing. When peace was concluded!, (production continued to increase and certain consuming countries became producers. Conditions were completely upset in the world. A great wave of economic nationalism took place, each country endeavoured to develop its own industries in order to become selfsustaining. In certain parts of the world, to counteract this overproduction the policy of price pegging was inaugurated. It was an

The Address-Mr. Dorion
artificial policy which could not succeed And, by the way, sir, I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister for not having accepted the idea of pegging the price of wheat in Canada. Not only this policy would have as a consequence greatly burdened the national budget, but it would have had the same result as the pegging of prices for coffee, sugar and rubber. For if this policy stimulated production during a certain period, it led to the decrease of consumption through the -stagnation of capital and credit. Under-consumption is the sequel of overproduction. While the countries of Europe were carrying on war, the markets of the far east were closed to them, Japan organized its industries. If we add to this tthe unrest in India, the revolution in China and in many countries of Asia, the political disturbance in South America, it is so many markets closed to producing countries.
The destruction of factories in Belgium and northern France has put those countries under the necessity of rebuilding their entire equipment from top to bottom and according to the most up-to-date plans. This reorganization enabled them to compete successfully, on certain markets, with those countries when old-fashioned industrial methods were still in use. But what further entangled matters was the Russian upheaval and the well-known five-year plan.
While the people of Russia go barefoot, enormous quantities of footwear are being exported to England; while the Russian workers are rationed, shiploads of wheat sail from the Black sea bound for England and other countries where it is sold at prices so low that no capitalist nation can compete against them.
I do homage, Mr. Speaker, to the great Canadian statesman, ithe Prime Minister of our country, who was the first t.o teach to the world by his own example, that no Christian nation should have any business relations with countries where the people are veritable outcasts among the states, due to the misdeeds of their political leaders.
I repeat that the Russian unheaval, the civil strife in China, the Hindu boycott, the insurrection in Asia, the disturbance in Latin America, have put the world's trade in a very bad way.
This crisis was felt in our own country, but its effect was much more serious than necessary due to the blind policy followed for nine years by the Liberal administration. From 1921 to 1930 was a time of wilful blindness, of reckless optimism, of misunderstanding complete and absolute. Canada was thrown wide open to the products of all kinds of foreign countries; the balance of trade was always against us; we must remember these things also if we wish to grasp the reason for the economic crisis which is upon us.
Mr. Tardieu, former prime minister of the French Republic, had this to say of the world
crisis:
Although, quite evidently, we may not control the doings of outside markets we are most assuredly masters, and responsible masters, of what goes on in our own markets. That is our business; as President Roosevelt used to say, our game may be right, or it may be wrong; but there is no doubt of our right to play.
With the optimism which was their weakness, the Liberals did not ask themselves whether they played the game properly; they simply did not play at all.
We were no longer masters in our own house, our home markets did not belong to us. If we had remained under this antiCanadian regime, if our people had not thrown off the yoke, where would we find ourselves to-day, with foreign competition growing stronger in every way, and with our own markets wiped out? It is strange, to say the least, that a young country like ours, which despite its share in the world war had suffered a great deal less than France, for instance, should have been so severely affected by the economic depression following the war. As the right hon. prime minister of Canada has pointed out, nothing shows more clearly the total lack of foresight on the part of our former government.
The Liberal government instead of anticipating the crisis, instead of adhering to a sound policy of protection for its own people, thought that Canada should become a dumping-ground for all the nations of Europe and should gladly admit thousands upon thousands of immigrants to her shores. From 1921 to 1926, we spent $13,000,000 for the purpose of settling strangers in our midst. During the same period thousands of Canadians were leaving home, migrating to more hospitable countries. Was this merely favoritism towards our transportation companies, or did our opponents imagine that a country can be built out of all sorts of materials, like a mosaic? With the importation of foreign products came the importation of foreign labour. And our Liberal friends expect us to cure in a short six months the evils resulting from nine years of misrule! I take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of congratulating the government on the vigour of its immigra-
The Address-Mr. Dorion

tion policy; I beg them to believe that this gesture will be memorable in the annals of our country's growth.
During all this time, in the province of Quebec, our opponents, under the spell of the same radiant blindness, were selling our national resources to the foreigner, sacrificing agriculture to industry and business, legalizing the unlawful acquisition of vast stretches of land under cultivation, for the benefit of foreign capitalists; they encouraged the overproduction of paper, established town sites where agricultural centres were already in existence, drained our countryside of its workers who were shepherded into artificial towns which to-day are on the verge of bankruptcy. After ten years of such a policy, we realize to-day that their frog-town that Mr. Taschereau tried to swell beyond the ox s size, is blowing up, that the paper mills are closing down one after the other, thus throwing hundreds of workers on the streets.
Is it any wonder that thousands of unemployed are to-day walking the streets of our cities, with nothing to fall back upon, hopeless-farming folk of yesteryear, fascinated by these artificial cities?
It was in our province also, whose business policy was praised by the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) that the excessive intervention of the state in private undertakings hampered and even-in certain cases-* prevented the necessary accumulation of private capital and its investment in private enterprise. We must make radical changes in our province if we wish to feel the beneficial effect of the economic recovery that the present government is bringing about through the wise and effective measures it has adopted since coming into power. Despite these obstacles of a local nature, which our friends of the opposition must answer for, I can say definitely that the efforts of our present government have already borne fruit; there is abroad to-day, amongst private individuals and in the business world, a finer spirit of generous confidence.
As I recalled a few moments ago, another act that brought joy to the hearts of our people, was the closing of our Canadian markets against all imports from Russia. Just when Ottawa was adopting an order in council to this effect the provincial government of Quebec was -putting a similar measure through the legislature.
Why is it that our friends of the Liberal party did not give expression to any such desire when a Liberal government was in power at Ottawa? Did they take this way of showing their faith in the firmness, the disinterestedness of the right hon. Prime Minister

of this country? Have they begun to realize that the country is far better off in the hands of men who can act freely, heedless of the narrowing exigencies of cliques, and beyond the need of continual bartering with radical elements? There you have a fine certificate of impotence addressed to the former government.
In acting thus, Mr. Speaker, the government of our country has given proof of all its affection, all its esteem, all its consideration for the workers of Canada. He has condemned the conscription of labour without remuneration, the brutalizing system enforced on the Russian proletariat, under guise of safeguarding their liberty. It is also an act of the highest social and moral importance, since it condemns anarchy and all forms of disorder, the overturning of values and of institutions.
The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and his colleagues of Quebec were worried, during the last campaign, at the thought that the present Prime Minister might go to represent Canada at the Imperial conference. The voters laughed at his misgivings; and the attitude taken by our Canadian delegation has thrown new lustre on our own dear country. Like Mackenzie Bowell in 1824, the Canadian Prime Minister asked for preferential reciprocity without striving to hide the fact that he was guided first and foremost by the interests of Canada. It is plain that the precedence claimed for the interests of his own country by the leader of each delegation does not exclude his devotion to those of the empire, -but our Prime Miniser was applying in the sphere of economics the principle successfully upheld by Sir Robert Borden, thanks to which Canada was finally recognized at the League of Nations as an independent and self-governing member of the empire
This attitude was particularly pleasing to the province of Quebec. Tied to her soii with all the fibre of her soul, guardian of her language, her laws and her tradition, enamoured of her past filled with trials and moral conquests, she wishes her mother country to stand by itself and to include no other land than Canada: her duties, as her rights, cease at the border line of Canadian territory. There you have Quebec's idea of patriotism; that is our understanding of national sentiment. This Canadian sentiment must beware of two dangers, both from the outside: Americanism and colonialism. Americanism which signifies for us, on the one hand, a young people, weak, made up of two distinct races, each with its own temperament, its own ethnical character;

The Address-Mr. Boulanger
on the other, a giant people, rich, powerful, intoxicated with their own strength, their wealth, their power, and sending out beyond their own borders their ideas, their tastes and their morals. The process has been described as the moral, mental and economic annexation of the first by the second, of the weak by the strong: the wolf swallowing the lamb. We may dispense with a definition of colonialism. The right hon. leader of the opposition gave a good example of it in this house last May when 'he interrupted the present Prime Minister who was expounding his doctrine of Canada First, with the query: " But what about the British Empire?"
As to those obstacles of a purely Canadian character which are apt to irritate the national sentiment of my fellow French Canadians may I quote the following from an article written by the director of Le Devoir on August 27th, 1910:
In other words the French Canadian will love and uphold the bond of Empire and British institutions as long as will be recognized their right to freely discuss all problems involving the national future of Canada; if they are not forced to assume, first the glory of Great Britain, burdens and responsibilities which the constitution and simple justice do not impose upon them; and especially if they find throughout the length and breadth of Canada a political and social system which allows of their cultural organization, permits them to foster their mother-tongue and to bring up their children in the love of their traditions both religious and national.
What we strive for is the preservation of the federative spirit and the mutual respect of the two great races who inhabit this country. An eminent citizen of France, Count Saint-Aulaire, once said:
Speaking politically, if an admixture of British genius and French genius were possible, it would shield us from error; just as an alliance between the British fleet and the French army would save us from aggression.
We of the Conservative party, have already proven the possibility of this blending process; it was eminent statesmen imbued with these principles who, in Ontario, generously reorganized our compatriots' right to be educated and taught in the language and in the religion of their forefathers. I long for the dawn of the same intelligent spirit in Saskatchewan for the disapprovance of the mean and narrow-minded persecution of all we hold dear. At a time like the present when, more than ever, we should unite, should understand one another, why waste our energies in quarrelling among ourselves? That sort of thing is unknown in the experience 22110-18
of Quebec province, because that province has always respected in its entirety the agreement signed with the other provinces in 1867.
One of my remote ancestors, Antoine-Aime Dorion, fought with all his might against the compact, before its adoption. He foresaw the struggles we have had to wage since 1867. He abided by the decision of the majority, however, willy-nilly, once it was reached; and even took his seat in this house. Several thought as he did in opposition to Sir Georges-Etienne Cartier; but once the covenant had been signed on behalf of the province that was the end of all dissension among us-there was no further distinction between victor and vanquished.
On behalf of my constituency, on behalf of my province, for the greater welfare of my country, I claim the same measure of justice for my compatriots throughout this continent. Under the intelligent and energetic leadership of the Prime Minister of this country I believe in the future, I trust that the day will come when Canada will know the full enjoyment of peace, harmony and progress at home; of moral, political and economic independence abroad, within the fold of the great British Empire. Let us have faith. Let us face the present with courage. Let us believe in the future. Let those of us who are of French descent, draw that courage from the history of those who, three hundred years ago, discovered this vast country and colonized it; and you, fellow-citizens of English origin, may find this courage in the patriotism of those royalists who suffered so deeply to remain loyal to their king. Let us unite; let us work together to build up a great country.
Mr. OSCAR L, BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, like the
two hon. gentlemen who preceded me I shall speak in my mother tongue since this is the first, time I have addressed the house this session. Naturally, French is much easier for me than English; but if my speech is not in English it is not through any reason of indolence, it is rather because I wish to affirm our right to express ourselves in our own language within the walls of the House of Commons of Canada. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this right will always exist in our country no matter what Mr. Anderson of Saskatchewan, and the Regina Star, may say. I am convinced that the good common sense of the Canadian people will overcome these



The Address-Mr. Boulanger
appeals to fanaticism, these hollow, dishonest notions sown here and there throughout the country with the sole purpose of gaining power or, once successful, of keeping it.
My first thought, Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in the house this year must be for the good people who do me the honour of electing me to represent them here. So I shall take advantage of this debate on the speech from the throne to place before the government the extremely critical and painful plight of the people in the northern part of my riding.
I am happy, Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. LaVergne), to see you present here to-night; I am glad to see my good friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) here, too. I know that the same distressful situation exists in the northern part of your own counties. I ask my two excellent colleagues to help me make the government understand how real is the need of the inhabitants of our constituencies; but especially to help me in my efforts to have this situation remedied. My colleagues know it, if the government does not, there is real hardship in that part of the province of Quebec.
In the parish of St. Camille, for instance, which is the upper parish of the county of Bellechasse, and touches the Maine boundary, I could mention fifty cases of the blackest poverty, people who haven't enough to eat, who are in need of clothing and of all the necessaries of life. I feel sure things are not better in the two neighbouring counties.
Why? Because there is no work in the woods. The people of these parts derive their livelihood almost entirely from working in the woods; they are lumberjacks rather than farmers. Up to now farming has been a side-line with them. They were mainly employed in the woods and tended their farms only when they had nothing else to do.
This year the border is practically closed. The people I am speaking of cannot take jobs in the Maine woods like they used to do. In Quebec province itself lumbering operations have been very much curtailed and wages have been cut enormously. Those who succeed in getting work in the lumber-camps receive in the way of pay barely enough to live.
Only last Sunday I saw at least a hundred of these lumberjacks, easily recognizable by their peculiar manner of dress and their sun-tanned features, going in a body to the soup kitchen in St. Pie Street, Quebec, where the Salvation Army serves free meals. These
[Mr. Boulanger.3
poor men come back from the woods without a cent in their pockets and to be fed must appeal to public charity. They spend the day around the railway stations or walking the streets; they have just enough money to pay their fare back home. Such is the plight of the lumber workers in the part of the province of Quebec that I have the honour to represent with my two excellent neighbours.
As I said a moment ago, the inhabitants of these parts worked almost exclusively in the lumber camps. On their land they did only what work was absolutely necessary to obtain their letters-patent; once they had got them they seldom troubled to cultivate them further. These farms are not sufficiently developed to feed those who cultivate them; that is why these men had to find some additional means of earning a living. They had to get work in the woods. To employ a picturesque phrase I heard some time back, these folk, instead of getting a living out of their farms, are bound to feed the farmer. In the summer season they spend on their farms what money they have earned in the lumber camps during the winter.
How could we solve this problem? What remedy should we apply to the situation I have just described? I have no hesitation in indicating just what that remedy is. Besides, the idea is not mine. More than once it has been put forward by others and I have no scruples, as was the case with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) when he was leading the opposition last year. On one occasion after he had been more than usually violent in his denunciation of the government's laws, he was asked: "If you were in our place what would you do?", and his answer was: "Wait until I am at the head of the government; I'll tell you then what I intend to do." His reply was somewhat on a par with that made a while ago by my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion): "I'll answer when the proper time comes"; all of which is not very conducive to practical progress in the House of Commons. I have no hesitation in suggesting a remedy to this sorry state of affairs among the people of my riding. In my humble opinion these backwoodsmen or backwoods settlers should be given the means to clear their lands in such a way that the lands woud furnish a living to whoever worked them.
Some time ago I had the honour, in company with several local members, of going with His Lordship, Bishop Plante, before the Hon. Mr. Tasohereau, premier of the province, to explain this situation to him and suggest that clearing bounties or ploughing bounties

The Address-Mr. Boulanger
be given to these settlers so as to permit of their getting a decent return from their agricultural labours. Unfortunately the prime minister of the province, like the prime minister here, also holds the portfolio of finance; and when we put forward the above suggestion we were answered not by the Prime Minister, but by the Minister of Finance, that the scheme would prove too costly. I have been shown estimates which indicate that such aid to the settlers would cost some three million dollars. Like the governments of all the other provinces, that of Quebec feels the shock of bad times, although Quebec can still show a surplus which is not true of our sister provinces. Hence my appeal to our federal authorities, which I hope my very good neighbours will support. I know they will not refuse my request. I ask the government of Canada to cooperate with the government of Quebec in granting clearing bounties or ploughing bounties to the settlers in the northern regions of these counties so they may be enabled to become real farmers and get their living from the land, and no longer find it necessary to work in the lumber camps during the winter.
I hope this plan will be put into operation along with several other plans made practical through the cooperation of the provincial governments. There is no more objection to these clearing or ploughing bounties than there was to old age pensions, unemployment relief, agricultural credits, technical education, roadway improvements, and the other numerous schemes brought to fruition through the cooperation of Ottawa and the provinces. During the recess, since last September, I discussed the matter with the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). He was most courteous and tried to point out that the unemployment relief act did not allow of any portion of the $20,000,000 voted last September being spent for the furtherance of any such plan as I suggested. There was no need of telling me that because at the September session the government never gave a single thought to agriculture, not a thought. They were looking after the manufacturing classes. The farming community was entirely forgotten; that is why we must bring up the question of these terrible hardships to-day. Or rather they did think of agriculture, but in an indirect way. They saw to it that the farmer had to pay a higher price for every manufactured product he must buy. The cost of living was increased; but there was no increase in the price of what the farmer has to sell.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to correct certain errors committed by my hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dor-22110-181
ion). He spoke of appeals to prejudice and especially of the notorious issue of conscription which he accused the Liberals of bringing up in every election camaign. As ill luck would have it, our Conservative friends were the ones to bring up the question of conscription during the last campaign, in my riding at least. Their main argument was that the Liberal government had become conscrip-tionistwhen it admitted to its ranks the Hon. Mr. Crerar, a partisan of conscription and a member of the former Union government. We were also told about the Hon. Mr. Fielding who became Minister of Finance in the Liberal administration after 1921, and who, it seems, was also in favour of conscription. And the Liberal party was violently upbraided for having admitted to the cabinet conscrip-tkmists like t'he Hon. Mr. Fielding and the Hon. Mr. Crerar.
The member for Quebec-Montmorency spoke on immigration. Our hon. friend is new to the house; knowing how well-disposed he is I feel sure that his mistake was purely involuntary, and that he will be pleased to have matters set right. We who have been in the house longer than he, know that what he claims to be the Conservative policy in matters of immigration is an entirely new departure for the Conservative party. We who have been here for some years remember that in this house the conservative party was always clamoring for more and more immigration; and that the chief fault found with the Liberal administration by the then leader of the opposition, Prime Minister to-day (Mr. Bennett), and those behind him, when they sat on this side of the chamber, Mr. Speaker, was that we were not bringing in enough immigrants, that our immigration policy was far in the rear of the aggressive Conservative program, when they were in power; that the Liberal government was not sufficiently active in settling the country and increasing the population of Canada.
I recall that when the right hon. Prime Minister was leader of the opposition he launched a particularly vicious attack against the Hon. Mr. Forke, Minister of Immigration. Why? Because the Hon. Mr. Forke, according to him, was remiss in his duty of bringing settlers into this country.
I intend to quote proof of what I say. F.vidently I cannot quote all that our friends said on the subject of immigration, when they sat on the opposition benches. But I shall quote the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, as also his chief organizer, General McRae, to show that the Coneerva-

The Address-Mr. Boulanger
live party, the Conservative leader, the Conservative chief of organization, and our good friend, since gone to his reward, Dr. Edwards, former member for Frontenac-Addington, were endlessly blaming the Liberal government because its immigration policy was not sufficiently aggressive. And when the hon. gentleman from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) claims that this change in attitude was brought about by the Conservative party, once again he is beside the mark. As a matter of fact it was the Liberal party which first began to tell the house that we should begin to cut down on immigration. Without mentioning your humble servant, it was Liberal members, like the hon. gentleman from Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) and others who warned the government when unemployment began to threaten. It was Liberal members who advised the government to slow down and claimed that if they wished to settle the country they should use the surplus population of the older parts of Canada for the colonizing of the newer regions. If we were to help the settlers we should first take care of our own people before giving this help to foreigners.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Will my hon. friend from
Rellechasse allow me a question?


Mr. BOULANGER:: With pleasure.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Who passed the order in
council putting a stop to immigration?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: We have here another one of those political mysteries so frequent in the Conservative party. It is like the mysterious policy of the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Air. Weir) who the other day had to admit that what the press has been saying about his policy was not founded on fact; but who could not state just what his policy was. Things were just the same as regards this order in council: nobody ever saw it. People heard of it; but nobody ever saw it, nothing concerning it was ever laid on the table of the house. If there has been a slowing up in the flow of immigrants I don't believe the government or the Conservative party should get the credit; to my mind it is rather a consequence of hard times.
Nevertheless, despite our present depression, in spite of our unemployment crisis and the rigours of the season, we have admitted a monthly average of 5,000 immigrants during the past five months. That means that in the last five months 25,000 immigrants came to Canada, in spite of hard times, unemployment and severe winter weather. Which proves that the famous

order in council that my hon. friend speaks of has at least not put. an immediate stop to immigration.
Coming back to the quotation I mentioned a moment ago, I shall give you first of all the immigration figures under a Conservative government and under the Liberal adminis-tion. I shall make use of the argument that our friends were forever mouthing when they were in opposition. Their hands full of blue books they would exclaim: "Here is the number of immigrants who came to Canada when we were in power. Compare these figures with the absurdly small number of immigrants admitted to the country since the Liberal government has been managing the affairs of the country."
Here are, first of all, the figures for the period between 1912 and 1921. The Conservative party came into power in September, 1911; they left office in December, 1921. In 1912, 254,237 immigrants entered Canada; in 1913, 402,432; in 1914, 384,878; in 1915, 144,789; in 1916-the war was on-48,537; in 1917, 75,374; in 1918, 79,074; in 1919, 57,702; in 1920, 117,336; in 1921-and I ask the house to notice that in 1920 and 1921, when our soldiers were being demobilized and we had to find employment for our returned men, the Conservative party admitted 117,336 immigrants in 1920, and 148,477 in 1921.
Now let us glance at the record of the Liberal government: 1922, 89,999; 1923, 72,887; 1924, 148,560; 1925, 113,362; 1926, 96,064; 1927>
143,991; 1928, 151,597; 1929, 167,722;	1930,
163,288. Those are the figures the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was alluding to when he said: "What are you doing? Compare your results with the brilliant results we obtained when we were in power."
My first quotation is from a speech delivered by the leader of the opposition on April 12, 1927, which will be found in the debates of 1927, volume II, page 2326. On the motion that the house resolve itself into committee- of supply, the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) drew the attention of the government to the fact that there were
2,000	miners out of work at Drumheller. This is what Mr. Bennett had to say:
I am not going to deal with the question of unemployment. I deprecate greatly the observations that were made in this house this morning by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), because if this country is ever going to make progress we have to get people into it, and the more people we get, the more work there is going to be. It is all nonsense to talk of a close preserve for occupations in this country, and everybody knows it; the idea is absurd. Instead of encouraging that sort of thing, we must frown it down. We are masters of our ....

The Address-Mr. Boulanger
That was in 1927.
In January, 1928, speaking in the debate on tibe speech from the throne the right ben. gentleman who at the time was leading the opposition and is to-day Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Bennett), used the following words in discussing immigration-page 21, vol.
I,	of the debates of 1928:
Now, sir, I pass rapidly to the next domestic matter that I think of great importance, and that is immigration. It is true that immigration is by all odds the most important question that can engage the attention of this house or of this parliament. I find that in every part of the Dominion there is a state of unrest in the public mind-suspicion with respect to the manner in which the department is being conducted, suspicion of its administrative power, belief that political considerations have influence in connection with getting permits for the admission of settlers. You will find these things in every newspaper you take up, in the dispatches from its correspondents and in the editorials, and they are discussed in synods and other church meetings. It is high time that something be done to put the power of parliament unitedly behind an effort to bring people over and settle them in this country. We cannot continue as we are and maintain our present position very long. It is essentially important that we should induce more settlers to come to this country. I have pointed out this before, and I . . . .
A little further on, page 22, after quoting the figures I mentioned a while back, he went on to say:
I have already read that part of the speech from the throne delivered in 1927 dealing with this question, and I gave the census figures for 1916 to 1921 and for 1921 to 1926; those figures have been placed on record, and they indicate that although we have sent a few settlers west, many of them have left the country; they entered at the front door and left by the back, and we have not even maintained our natural increase. Further than that, in no one year since 1921 have we brought into Canada half as many people as were brought here in 1913. Those are the facts and the figures.
The year 1913 was the banner year of the Conservative administration. In that year at least 400,000 immigrants entered Canada. The Conservatives never mentioned immigration without bringing in this record year of 1913, and holding it forth to us as a goal, as an accomplishment that we indolent Liberals should strive for.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Would the hon. member from Rellecbasse, who seems to be well acquainted with statistics, be good enough to tell me how many immigrants came to our country from 1896 to 1911 when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I shall take some
other opportunity of instructing my hon. friend whose thirst for knowledge I am glad to note.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: There were two million.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) continued: Now, Sir, this question transcends party; it is larger than the lives of parties because it strikes at the very life of this Dominion. We must have settlers. We have in Canada facilities to take care of an additional population of from 15,000,000 to 17,000,000 people; we have 10.000.000 acres of untouched land within 20 miles of the railways; we have the Peace ltiver area and other portions of the country which are lying idle while the government is expressing pious hopes as to what will happen. I say the time has come when action must be taken.
During the same session the right hon. gentleman who was then leading the opposition and is to-day the Prime Minister of Canada, discussing the report of the committee on agriculture and colonization, which committee, hon. gentleman will recall had made a very lengthy and very exhaustive inquiry into the problem of immigration, the right hon. gentleman, I say, used the following language on June 7, 1928-page 3924 of Hansard:
I regret to have to differ with my hon. friend the Minister of Railways as to relying entirely upon unorganized and individual effort as we used to do twenty-five years ago.
My hon. friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion) will please note: this is what was going on 25 years ago.
But conditions have profoundly changed in the meantime. They have so profoundly changed that, as mentioned this afternoon, there is a very great demand for settlers made upon Britain and upon various countries of northern Europe from which we draw population, with the result that we are not able to secure all we wish from those countries. Australia and New Zealand are in the same plight. But, on the other hand; we can get our fair share if we make conditions here such as are found in other communities, and therefore it is necessary to give that assistance to immigrants which otherwise we would not be compelled to give.
In the course of the same debate, the same day, on page 3925, the right hon. leader of the opposition made a very virulent attack against the then Minister of Immigration, Mr. Forke. He spoke in these words:
Now I regret to say this-you will say it is very unkind of me to say it. But the fact is that we have not at this time, in charge of this department, a gentleman who by natural aptitude or training is calculated to properly develop policies in connection with the Immigration department. I have as profound a respect as any man in this house for my hon. friend the member for Brandon (Mr. Forke). But in England they have long since, in their parliament, made it a rule under conditions such as these to fearlessly express their opinions with respect to ministers of the crown who direct policies. And in this instance I regret to say that it is so pain-

The Address-Mr. Boulanger
fully apparent to anyone, whoever he may be, whether Liberal or Conservative, whether he sits to the right or to the left of the Speaker, that the hon. gentleman, the member for Brandon, a man of integrity and character, is unfitted temperamentally or by training to discharge the varied and onerous duties of Minister of Immigration and Colonization in this country. That is one of the real difficulties. You could not have made the Canadian Pacific irrigation projects flourish unless you had had at the head of them a man such as the late Lord Shaughnessy or men of that type. And so, in relation to our immigration policy, you cannot have that policy succeed if you put in charge of it one wlio is disqualified-not qualified at least-either by training or by temperament, to discharge the very _ onerous duties that appertain to that position. So we say in this amendment that we should have a responsible minister in charge, although in Australia they did try a commission. And there are those in this country who believe that a commission responsible indirectly to the government might be able to succeed. In Canada there is less evidence of the likelihood of a 'commission succeeding. We say there should be a strong minister, a minister with the training, with the aptitude, with the temperament, with the desire and the determination and vigour to make such a department succeed-with these two great branches working side by side, the one, in cooperation with the provinces and other organizations, seeking new settlers, the other providing work for these settlers when they come here to keep them in this country. For I deny that this country is, by reason of its natural resources, unfitted for occupation, unfitted to give employment to men who come within its borders.
Now let us come to the organizer-in-chief of the Conservative party, General McRae, who also had in 1928 a splendid scheme for increasing the population of Canada, for bringing hundreds of thousands of immigrants within our borders at government expense. A few quotations from this plan will show whether the Conservative party was favourable or unfavourable to immigration. No later than two years ago, on March 9, 1928, page 1162 of the Debates, General McRae, member for North Vancouver, had this to say:
Mr. Speaker, I feel impelled to take up the time of the house this afternoon because so little of a constructive nature has been put forward by the hon. Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) in the last year in respect to the serious question of population in this country that the country at large, and possibly a few members of this house, may reasonably conclude that there is no way of solving this great problem.
and on page 1163:
There is no big construction program in the country to-day. Something must be attempted if we are to take care of any considerable immigration. . . .
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I propose that the government inaugurate on a large scale a program which will bring about the settle-IMi. Boulanger.]
merit of our more or less scrub and lightly timbered land whicV we have in such abundance in our prairie provinces,-land with wonderful, almost inexhaustible soil, and easily reached by branch railways. In provinces like Manitoba, large areas which could be easily drained might also be included. A most conservative estimate of land of this character easily available in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and possibly a section of northern Alberta, would be ten million acres, capable of supporting sixty-five thousand families or, roughly, a quarter of a million farm population. This of course does not include the Peace River country. There, there is a minimum of at least thirty million acres available, even more fertile and more easily cleared, which when developed would be capable of supporting 175.000 families, or nearly three-quarters of a million farm population-[DOT] more than the entire population of the province of Alberta at the present time.
And here is General McRae's summing up which will be found on pages 1163-4.
Summing up my proposal, Mr. Speaker, it will be seen that it contemplates the ultimate settlement of fifty million acres of land by some 250,000 to 300,000 farmers. These, with their families and the urban population which would he required, and the consequent developments which will follow, will add two million new people to the prairie provinces. I propose that we start out to double the present population of the west. Do this, and the rest of Canada will grow and prosper. . . .
.... As to the cost of clearing, I have made careful inquiries. It is no longer practical to clear land in the old-fashioned way. The grub hoe must give way to the heavy steam-breaking plough.
Mr. McRae did things in a big way. . . -which walks through ordinary brush and scrub like so much stubble. The operation, while necessarily under government direction, would be more or less a cooperative clearing scheme. Using modern methods, confining the clearing to the easiest half of each homestead, avoiding any heavily timbered areas, and pro-rating the expense over the district, I estimate the cost on the whole would not exceed at most $12.50 an acre: that is, one thousand dollars must be expended for clearing on each homestead. In addition, the expenditure required for the modest farm buildings-probably a log house and barn-would approximate five hundred dollars, making the total of $1,500 per homestead.
Naturally it wasn't enough that we should get them to come here and pay their way over and that we should grant them free lands; we still had to build a house and barn for them at the expense of the State. A little further Mr. McRae goes on:
Well and energetically administered, it should be possible to complete the program I am suggesting in ten years. On this basis,
I estimate that the government would he called upon to finance about $30,000,000 a year for ten years, or a total of $300,000,000. Not very much of this money would be repaid in the interval; nothing at all for the first five years.

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Nelson)
I should say so!
The country could well afford to borrow for such a development, issuing special land bonds or debentures for such time as would make it possible for repayments from the settlers to take cure of the same.
At page 1165:
Worked out on a unit basis, this plan can soon be built up to locate 25,000 or 35,000 families a year. It should be borne in mind, however, that once a good immigration movement gets under way it grows up like a snowball. People will come along on their own and make their own arrangements. In a big movement probably not over 50 per cent of the immigrants would have to be provided for under the project I am suggesting. The others, attracted by the development and consequent prosperity, would locate themselves throughout the Dominion. If we handle 200,000 people a year under this government colonization program a total immigration may be anticipated of easily twice that number, or equal to the maximum immigration the country has enjoyed.
I suggest to the government that in cooperation with the Imperial government and the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia the Peace River country should be developed as a great Imperial settlement. Alberta and British Columbia together could furnish 30,000,000 acres of land for homesteads; the Dominion government could finance the cost of clearing the land and erecting the necessary buildings on the basis I have already suggested, while as their part Great Britain could finance the temporary requirements of the settlers as they do now in part. It would also be a reasonable pro- ....
That would suffice, Mr. Speaker, to show what attitude the Conservative party adopted in immigration matters when they sat on -the opposition benches. When election time came around our Conservative friends, never slow in appropriating other people's ideas, saw that this question of immigration could be used as a lure in the province of Quebec. Hence the Conservatice party, at least in Quebec province, took over this immigration policy as its own and used it throughout the campaign, though it was exactly opposite to the attitude followed by that party in the house right up to -the time of -the last election.
May I point out that, at our last session, when the Hon. Mr. Forke was appointed to the Senate, the Liberal party practically abolished the Department of Immigration- that is to say the government did not appoint a successor-and it was the Conservative administration, after the elections of July, 1930, that reestablished the Immigration Department by naming a minister to preside over it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if it is wrong to bring immigrants into our country at public expense, it is far worse to swell the numbers of civil servants who live at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. But when we
came here at the opening of the session we were quite surprised to find that the House of Commons barber shop had been put in charge of a master-barber from England. We were equally surprised to find the House of Commons restaurant presided over by another gentleman from England; as is also the supposedly protective staff of the House of Commons, several of whose members were not born in this country. I also ask the House to note that during recess since last September the patrolling of the Parliament buildings, the conducting of visiting tourists, etc., were given over to seven or eight members of the House of Commons protective staff, and out of this number only two or three were Canadian born, all the others being of foreign extraction. While I am on this question of importing public employees, I wish to draw the attention of the House and of my good friend from Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Dorion), to the fact that when his friends were in power in 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920, they brought in auditors to organize the Income Tax Branch. I have not the figures for the present year; but last year there were seventeen non-Canadian auditors in the Income Tax Branch as against fifteen Canadians. Naturally the non-Canadians, who had been here first, had the choicest positions and were drawing the best salaries. The same thing took -place when the radio branch and the aviation branch were organized. Apparently we had no Canadians sufficiently competent to take over these services of radio and aviation. Once more people were brought over from the other side and the directors, the high officials, the inspectors, in a word all those who are at the head of the radio service, were not born in Canada. At the head office in Ottawa there are eleven Canadians and eleven non-Canadians; and what is true of Ottawa is truer still of the branch offices in other Canadian cities.


Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to extend my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Cormier) and seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. The hon. gentlemen made splendid speeches- speeches that are a credit to themselves and to the people who returned them to this house as their representatives.
I represent the constituency of Nelson, one of the largest in the Dominion. It is slightly over 600 miles long with an average width of 400 miles and contains an area of a little over 200,000 square miles. This constituency might well be termed a kingdom-but I am not its king; I am its representative. It is

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Nelson)
divided into two parts. The southern portion is purely agricultural and is known as the Swan river valley. This district might very appropriately be termed the agricultural paradise of western Canada. Practically all the people there are engaged in mixed farming.
Already this session I have heard a good deal about the condition of agriculture in western Canada. I am not in a position to speak regarding the prairie provinces generally; I must confine myself to the Swan river valley. A good deal of what hon. members in the southeast comer have said in regard to the condition of the western farmers is true, although those in the Swan river valley are not feeling the depression to the same extent as those in the sections in southern Saskatchewan and southern Alberta known as the dry belt. The farmers in the Swan river valley are not short of food; their granaries are full of grain, their cellars are full of potatoes and other vegetables, and they have plenty of live stock. But they do complain that the prices they receive for their products are too low, while they have to pay relatively too high a price for the commodities which they buy. I quite agree that they have good reason to complain. For instance, farm machinery has not come down in proportion to the reduction in the prices obtained for farm products. As a
6-ft. binder	
8-ft. binder with bundle carrier and" T truck.'!
6-ft. mower	
Hay loader, with steel windrow and forecar r i age	
Field cultivators, 7|-ft., three-horse.. ..	!.
Single disc drills, eastern, 13-dise, 2-horse hitch. Single disc drills, western 20-marker combination, 4-pulley hitch	
Disc harrows, in throw, 12-discs, 16-inch, 3-horse
That increase continues all down the line, in spite of what our Liberal friends said they were doing for the western farmer while they were in power. We all know that the greater part of the cost of production in agriculture is the cost of machinery, and this was what the Liberal party did. I might also remind the house that the Liberal government reduced the duty on these articles, but in spite of that there was a steady increase in the prices. I do not hear any shouting or handclapping across the way; what is the matter? I challenge contradiction of these figures.
Now I am going just a little further for the benefit of my hon. friends opposite. As I said before, I have here the price lists for 1930 and 1931 of the Cocksbutt Plough Com-

matter of fact the price of farm machinery is about the same as it was ten years ago, although I might say there is a considerable reduction this year, in spite of the fact that hon. gentlemen have been telling us ever since the special session that the increased tariff would raise the price of everything the farmers of western Canada might buy.
That has not been the case. I have here the price lists of the Cockshutt Plow Company for 1930 and 1931, and they show several very substantial reductions in the prices of farm machinery this year. For the benefit particularly of hon. members opposite, and lest the people of the west forget, I repeat that during the period the Liberal government was in power, that is to say from 1922 to 1930, the prices of agricultural implements showed a steady increase. I have before me revised Hansard for May 14, 1930, and I am referring to the speech on the budget delivered by the hon. member for London (Mr. White). In that speech he went into detail with regard to the prices of farm machinery from 1922 to 1930, and although I have read this volume of Hansard through from cover to cover I have not discovered anything in the way of an attempt on the part of any member of the Liberal party to contradict the statements the hon. member for London made, so they must have been correct. The figures he gave were as follows:
Price in 1922 219 00 251 00 95 50	Price in 1930 225 50 263 50 96 50	Increase 6 50 12 50 1 00112 00	122 00	10 0099 50 142 00 206 00	113 50 154 00 232 00	14 00 12 00 26 0045 50	48 50	3 00
pany. In spite of all that was said at the special session and all that has been said since this session opened it will be seen that very substantial reductions have been made this year. I am going to quote some figures which may interest my hon. friends:
' Reduction
No. 3 power lift gang plough, wood
eveners	 $25
Angle disc plough	 25
All sizes No. 1 and	2	tractor ploughs. 25
All sizes Nos. 2 and 3 furrow disc
ploughs	,		30
4-5-6 furrow disc ploughs	 35
No. 8-36 run drills	 50
No.	6	disc	harrows,	7-ft. and 8-ft . .	5No.	8	disc	harrows,	12-ft	
10No.	8	disc	harrows,	16-ft	
12No.	8	disc	harrows,	24 ft	
15
The Address-Mr. Stitt (Nelson)
Reduction
No. 9	disc	harrows,	12-ft.	and 18-ft..	8No. 9	disc	harrows,	16-ft	
10No. 9	disc	harrows,	24-ft	
15125-bushel	grain wagon tanks	
20
This is what is happening, instead of what was predieted by hon. gentlemen opposite, as a result, of the increased tariff policy of this government. They said we were going to ruin the western farmer, but just what answer c-an they give to these figures?
I quite agree with some of the hon. members opposite that something must be done for agriculture in western Canada. At the moment I do not know what this government is prepared to do. I know the Prime Minister has made some promises; I know he is a man who always keeps his promises, and I am sure he will keep his promise in this ease. I quite agree with some of the members sitting in the corner opposite that the banks are not playing fair with western farmers. Considering the amount of money the banks have made during the last ten or fifteen years of so-called prosperity I think they might be expected to cut their interest rates in the west, at least until such time as the situation clears up. We all know that some of the banks in Canada are paying a 12 per cent dividend; others are paying a 10 per cent dividend, while I know' of no case where a bank is paying less than this amount. In addition they are all building skyscrapers in order to camouflage an amount of profits just about equal to their dividend, in order to prevent the public from knowing how much they are making.
I also agree that freight rates should be reduced. I do not know the intention of the government with regard to the recapitalization of the Canadian National Railways, but I sincerely hope that just as soon as the situation will permit that capitalization will be written down to where it belongs, because I am of opinion that just as long as the capitalization remains where it is, all the railways in Canada will have the benefit of high freight rates. If the capitalization of the Canadian National Railways were written down there would be such a vast improvement shown during the first year that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, which boasts about how much it has done for Canada, would be shown up in such fashion that its rates would be reduced, and the western farmer would get the benefit.
As I said before, I do not know just what this government intends to do for the western farmer, but I do say that the farmer is entitled to some consideration and help, because his is the basis industry of western Canada.
Agriculture is entitled to assistance, just as much as the iron and steel industry is entitled to it, or any other industry in Canada which is being given support by way of increased tariffs. The western farmer has just as much right to expect the same treatment, and for this reason, that, as the hon. member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) said, about 50 per cent of the people of Canada are engaged in agriculture. Without agriculture in western Canada the country would be nowhere; without agriculture in western Canada the eastern manufacturing industry would be nowhere. I think, Mr. Speaker, it may be necessary for this government to put through some legislation to aid the western farmer. It may require to go to extremes. It may be necessary for that legislation to be more or less revolutionary. It may be necessary to put through legislation that will be painful to this government. But I say it has got to be done if we are going to recover the position we have lost in the world of trade and commerce.
In regard to northern Manitoba, as I said, my constituency is divided into two parts. From the Pas north we have an area of approximately 178,COO square miles. As the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) so aptly put it, this area might be classed as a "cowless, sowless, chickless, but by no means sockless north." And while I am on socks, for the benefit of the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young) I might suggest that, in spite of the fact that in the north country we pay 5 to 15 per cent more for such articles than is paid in any other part of Canada, we are paying very much less for socks to-day tha-n we did seven or eight months ago. And I do not confine my remarks to socks alone. For everything we eat and wear we are paying very much less than we did eight months ago. As a matter of fact, it is generally conceded that the cost of living is back to pre-war levels. I am sorry I cannot say that for Ottawa. I only wish that the farmers of the west were getting for their produce the prices that they are getting around Ottawa. As an illustration: The other day my wife purchased a chicken from a butcher shop down here for $2; I can buy that chicken in Swan River in my constituency for 75 cents. I say that to show that it is possible the farmers in eastern Canada do not realize how serious the situation is in the west, because they are getting twice as much for their goods.
We have in northern Manitoba industries which comprise, chiefly, mining, forestry, fishing and furs. We brought into production last November one of the largest mines in the Dominion known as the Flin Flon, owned by the Hudson Bay Mining & Smelting Com-
2S2	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stitt (Nelson)
pany. This mine, since going into operation in November, has shipped 247 cars of blistered copper and zinc. They are producing at the present time approximately 130,000 a day. They are putting through their smelters on an average of 3,000 tons of ore a day with an average of about $10. These are all new dollars being turned out in Manitoba. In addition to that we have the Sherritt-Gordon mine which came into production only the other day. That mine is producing an average of about 500 tons a day with an average value of about $14. We have many more mines, not as large as these, but of commercial size and having commercial ore, mines which would be operating to-day if conditions were what they were a few years ago. But as is well known, the price of these metals is down to zero and many of these smaller mines cannot operate. As soon as they get cheaper power I am satisfied that a great many of them will be opened up.
In addition to mining we have forestry. We have one of the largest saw mills in the west in the town of the Pas, producing in the neighbourhood of 3,000,000 feet per week. We have within ten miles on either side of the Hudson Bay railway, up to mile 300, some
7.000.	000 cords of spruce pulpwood waiting for some industry to come and cut it down to be manufactured into paper. On Nelson and Churchill rivers we have more than
3.000.	000 horse-power waiting for development. And in spite of all that has been said about
Grain and Flour Rates to
that north country being a muskeg area, we have large belts of first class agricultural land. This has been proven, and I give my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) credit for having put in some small experimental stations along the line, from which wonderful results have come. As a matter of fact, I used to take Mr. Guild of the experimental farm from Brandon up to visit these plots in the fall, and he told me the results were so amaging that he was almost afraid to send them in to Ottawa for fear they would not believe the results shown.
That Hudson Bay railway, from the Pas to Fort Churchill, 500 miles long, is about completed and -we expect it will be ready for operation in the fall. It has a maximum grade of less than 1 per cent. A large sized locomotive can easily haul 100 cars of wheat from the Pas to Churchill. There is very little intermediate traffic. Most of the traffic will be through traffic, which will be very cheap and will mean a lot to the western farmer. Might I in passing, for the benefit of some hon. members who may not be familiar with the situation, just give some comparative costs in the matter of freight to show what the Hudson Bay railway means to the farmers of western Canada. These rates are comparative as between Montreal and Churchill on grain and flour. Take Swan River and Yorkton as centres, Yorkton as the central point in Saskatchewan and Swan River in Manitoba:
Churchill and Montreal
Savings in rates
to Montreal to Churchill to tidewater
From
(Rates in. cents per 100 lbs.)
Swan River	19 - 12 = 31 cents	19	12 centsYorkton	19 - 12 = 31 cents	19	12 cents
or 7-2 cents per bushel of wheat.
These rates are not theoretical; they are In regard to live stock, the hon. member not imaginary. These rates are in effect for Marquette; touching on this question, on the Hudson Bay railway to-day.	pointed out what he thought the Hudson Bay
railwa}' would do. Let me give some figures to show the saving on live stock:
Live Stock Rates to Churchill and Montreal
Savings in rates
From	to Montreal to Churchill to tidewater
(Rates per car of 20,000 lbs.)
Winnipeg stock yards	
$170	$116	$ 54 00Swan River	94	108 00Yorkton	96	106 00Saskatoon	102	123 00Moose Jaw	108	113 00Edmonton	126	103 00Calgary	132	97 00

Average reduction per car.. ..	100 57
or 50i cents, per 100 lbs.

The Address-Mr. Stitt (Nelson)
In addition to that, I would point out that the farmers of western Canada will receive a considerable benefit by way of a reduction in shrinkage. Cattle om long train hauls shrink as much as 10 and 15 per cent. They do not shrink after they get on the boat because they can be fed again, and they are not bumped around as much as they are on the train. I bring these matters to the attention of the house to illustrate what the Hudson Bay railway means to the farmers of western Canada.
Would it not be much better for the farmers of western Canada if that road were completed and in operation to-day? I lay at the door of the late Liberal administration the blame for its not being in operation. During the 1921 elections the Liberals were accusing the Conservative government of not having completed this railway and of having closed down the construction in 1918. That is quite true because in that year they needed money to conduct the great war, and in 1919 they needed money to bring the boys back home. That is why construction was closed down during those years. What happened? I intend to quote some figures which will be very illuminating. The Liberals agree that this road means a lot to the western farmer, but what did they do? They made a political football of the Hudson Bay railway for a period of five years after they came into power. The money expended upon that line *was expended for maintenance only. I know this because I was chief forester of northern Manitoba and was travelling continuously up and down this railway by gas car. I knew just what was going on, but to illustrate further I will give some figures. In 1922-23 they expended $40,118, mostly for administration. That would hardly keep twenty sec-tionmen on the 332 miles of track which had been completed when the Liberal government took office. In 1923-24 they expended 8322,279. During the next year they expended $294,158, and in the next year $173,334.
During the elections the Hon. Mr. Dunning, who took over the portfolio of Railways and Canals, pledged himself as well as his party to the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. As a Conservative, I am fair enough to say that Mr. Dunning deserves more credit for the completion of this railway than does any other man in the Dominion of Canada. The first year after the Hon. Mr. Dunning took office, S2,808,549 was expended; the next year, $2,574,224; the next year, $3,389,084; the next year, 1929-30,	$5,357,692, and in 1930-31,
$1,550,787. The road is completed with the exception of repairing a few low spots and heaves, which will occur in a country like
this during the winter months. I repeat that the Liberal party made a political football of this road for five years in spite of the fact that they knew it meant a saving to the western farmer of some seven cents per bushel in the shipment of his wheat. If the farmer had those extra seven cents he would be much better off than he is to-day.
There is no question but that Fort Churchill is one of the finest ports in North America. It is a landlocked harbour, the entrance being through two high granite cliffs. The harbour consists of a basin about eight miles long and about two miles wide. Dredging operations have been carried on for the last two or three years and, in all fairness to the late government, I must state that the work carried on at Fort Churchill has been of the highest order. Competent engineers were in charge and no complaint can be made as to the quality of the work which has been done there. Last fall I had the pleasure of travelling to Fort Churchill in the company of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). It was his first visit to that country, in which he spent two days. I do not know that I ever saw a man cover as much territory as he did within that time or ask as many questions. He came away very enthusiastic about all he saw and I am quite satisfied that Fort Churchill is in as good hands as it was when the Hon. Mr. Dunning had charge. I am satisfied that the hon. minister is going to see this thing through. In passing I might state that probably no other constituency in Canada will suffer as much through the completion of this port as will the constituency represented by the >hon. minister; many cargoes of grain will be diverted from Port Arthur and Fort William.
There is no question about the feasibility of this route. I could talk for hours upon what has happened in the Hudson bay from the time of its discovery by Henry Hudson in 1611. Hundreds of craft of all description have been taken into the bay by the Hudson's Bay Company. Scores of craft have been taken in by the Department of Railways and Canals, some under their own steam and others by means of tow, with very few casualties. I have spoken to shipmasters who have told me that they would rather take a ship into Fort Churchill than into Montreal. That is what they think of the perils of navigating Hudson strait and Hudson bay. I have received opinions from about fifty sea captains and they agree that the average season of navigation will be from seventeen weeks to four and one-half months. If it is desired I could give their names and their experience in northern waters.
284	COMMONS
The Address-Mr. Stitt (Nelson)
The Hudson Bay railway and the port of Fort Churchill should be completed and should be given a fair trial. That is all the people of western Canada are asking for. The Minister of Railways and Canals has stated on several occasions that trial shipments will be made from this port during the present year. About eight hundred feet of docks have been completed with a depth of 30 feet of water at low tide and the elevator will be completed about September. The hon. minister has convinced me and most of the people in western Canada that this port is going to be given a fair chance. We have received the benefit of the Crowsnest rate, for which credit must be given to the present Prime Minister. I do not mean to say that those rates would not have come into effect had the right hon. gentleman not been elected, but he has brought them into force, and he has announced that fact all over Canada. The people of western Canada are worrying over the possibility of the usefulness of this route being strangled by the imposition of excessive marine insurance rates. I am glad the hon. minister is in his seat tonight and I hope that if Lloyd's and the other insurance companies are not prepared to give the same rates as apply to Montreal, this government will be prepared to take care of the difference. That is the only way in which this route can be given a fair trial; it must not be strangled by excessive marine insurance rates.
I trust the hon. minister will see to it that the vessels used in these trial shipments are seaworthy. I sincerely hope that no old hulks, no old tramp steamers that are not fit to go to sea, are sent in there for the purpose of bringing discredit on the route. I know there are people equal to that, and who would do it if they were allowed; but I have every confidence in the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) and in the government doing their best to give the route a fair chance, and that is all that the people of western Canada are asking.
Before closing, may I make a few observations from the viewpoint of a new member sitting in this house, and especially this session? I think everybody in the house will agree that the situation in Canada to-day is serious. I believe that every member of the house has a very real interest in the welfare of this country. I believe that we are all sincerely willing to do all that we can to help meet the conditions that confront us, and if possible find remedies to cure the present situation and bring Canada back to where we believe it ought to be. May I

with all respect suggest to hon. members on both sides of the house, because one side is as bad as the other, that for this session especially, when we are facing such a serious situation, we refrain as far as possible from sniping across the floor and from mud-slinging and obstructional methods; that as far as possible we get together and magnify the things on which we can agree and minimize the things on which we disagree; that we diagnose the ease as a doctor would a patient's, suggest remedies, try to get the necessary legislation through this house, and then see to it that that legislation is applied for the benefit of Canada as a whole. I am making that plea as a new member. Some hon. gentlemen may think that I am giving them a curtain lecture. That is not my intention at all. I am simply giving the conclusions at which I have arrived after my observations during the short time I have been in the house. I believe that the electors expect us all to do everything that we can at this session of all sessions. I am also satisfied that the electors in my constituency, and in every other, will not measure a member's service in this house by the measure oi obstruction that he is able to place in the way of this government putting its policies into effect, but rather will he be judged by the service he gives and the cooperation he extends to the government in bringing into effect policies which it sincerely believes will be for the betterment of the Dominion as a whole.


John Power Howden: I
trust that the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) will pardon me if I do not follow him very closely, blit candidly I did not catch his remarks very well over here as there was a good deal of whispering and murmuring going on. I would like to congratulate him upon having made a very excellent address. It was his first speech in this house. I managed to grasp over here one or two of the points he made, and I can assure him that any criticism I may make of his remarks will be offered in the kindliest spirit.
In opening his remarks the hon. member spoke of the cost of machinery, and as far as I could gather pointed out that the price of machinery had not risen. I do not live in the country and I have very little occasion, now at all events, to be brought in contact with the price of machinery, but I have heard that the price of repairs for machinery has advanced substantially since the new government came into office. I suggest to hon. members opposite and to the country at large not to be downhearted if the price of ma-

2S3
The Address-Air. Howden
chinery has not yet risen, but rather to cheer up because after some time the price will almost certainly rise.
The hon. gentleman also asked what the Liberal party had done for the western farmer. There are not many people in Canada, Mr. Speaker, who do not know what the Liberal party has done for the western farmer. It has given him the Crowsnest rates, and fixed them permanently on the statute books of this country. It has built for him the Hudson Bay railway. It has lowered the tariff in several successive sessions. It has given the western farmer almost everything that he asked for in the new grain act. Finally, but most important, it furnished him with ample and remunerative markets, which, unfortunately, the western farmer has not got to-day. So I think that the former Liberal administration can speak very well for itself with regard to what it has done for the western farmer.
I also gathered from my hon. friend's remarks that he thought the Conservative party had about as much to do with the building of the Hudson Bay railway as the Liberal government. That is a story that we must not rehash to-night, because we all know all about it. We know that in the campaign of 1925 the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was then leading the Conservative party, said that not one five-cent piece would he spent on the road until the debts of Canada were paid. If nothing had been done towards building the railway until the debts of Canada had been paid, the road would not have been built for a very long time. I think also that the right hon. leader of the present government (Mr. Bennett) said in this house that he would not spend five cents on the Hudson Bay railway until the whole question had been thoroughly reviewed. That also would have taken a considerable amount of time. So I am bound to feel, Mr. Speaker, that to the Liberal party belongs the credit for the completion of the Hudson Bay railway. I shall not attempt to follow the hon. gentleman in his remarks any further.
There have been some very excellent speeches during this debate, beginning with those of the mover (Mr. Cormier) and the seconder (Mr. Porteous) of the address, whom I heartily congratulate upon the able manner in which they acquitted themselves in their difficult task; including also a long list of very able speeches, many of them by new members. As they have covered and recovered the ground thoroughly and, as an hon. member once said in this house, picked
the bones pretty bare, I shall not attempt to go over much that has been discussed; but as we were elected to this house after, for the most part, a strenuous and heated campaign in which very often our energies were tried to the utmost; in appealing to the electors "on advancing our beliefs and arguments, and obtaining from the majority an endorsation of our policies, I think it is incumbent upon us, and only reasonable that we should endeavour to present on the floor of this house their viewpoint and our own. I would like, therefore, to touch briefly on conditions as they were in Canada at the time of the last election and as they are in this country at the present time.
During the last election campaign one of the great issues was that of unemployment. Lesser issues there were, to be sure, but the storm centred about the subjects of unemployment and national depression. There are not many people in Canada who are not familiar with the causes of unemployment. We are told it is due to world-wide overproduction and under-consumption. I think we are all fairly well agreed that in Canada unemployment and national depression are due to the fact that we have lost our markets. Without markets we cannot sell, and if we do not sell we receive no returns. If we have no returns we have no funds, and without funds we cannot buy. Seven times the amount of grain needed in this country for the use of our people, vast quantities of pulp and paper and pulpwood, millions of feet of lumber, millions of pounds of fish, nickel, asbestos, beef, bacon, butter, cheese, all these national products, millions of dollars' worth of manufactured products, enough to supply the people of this country many times over, are produced in Canada every year. Yet the proceeds from the sale of this great bulk of products are required to keep the Canadian people from year to year and to fatten a few millionaires. Now we have lost our markets, we have no money, we have many unemployed, throughout the land there is no small measure of distress.
The last Liberal administration is blamed by hon. members opposite for this state of affairs. Well, we know all about that, Mr. Speaker. We know that the last Liberal government is not to blame for the present state of affairs in Canada. True they were responsible for the New Zealand treaty, but as a mater of actual fact the New Zealand treaty never did us any harm. From the time it was ratified and came into force the price of cream and butter fat increased from month to month and from year to year as
The Address-Mr. Howden

compared with previous years. Finally when we were shut out of the American markets, and when we lost our markets in the United States naturally we had a glut of these products in Canada. On the other hand our sales to these countries, which at the time the agreement first became effective amounted to a million or two million dollars, rapidly increased until just before the close of the Liberal administration they amounted to about $12,000,000 on the one hand and $19,000,000 on the other. That is a substantial return for Canadian trade, making abundant work for Canadian workmen.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a record of accomplishment in this country which the present government might do well to emulate. During the time the late government was in power Canada emerged from a state of deepest depression and enjoyed a period of the greatest expansion and prosperity ever known in the history of this or any other country for the same period of time. In all such crises as the present, governments are held responsible. Whether a government is responsible or not it must if possible find a remedy. Obviously in this case the remedy is markets. Markets we need and markets we must have, and the only visible market on a large scale is in England. The last government endeavoured to recover the lost English market by offering British trade substantial advantages as set forth in the Dunning budget, and submitted those proposals to the country. On the advice of our friends opposite, however, the country would have none of that. It preferred the method that the then leader of the opposition offered, that of blasting a way into the British and other markets, and it gave hon. gentlemen opposite the mandate to blast. In turning down the Dunning budget, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian electors not only curtly snubbed the last government in a very unwarranted manner but slammed the door in the face of all friendly approach on the part of British trade and this action was made doubly offensive by the action of the present government in boosting the Canadian tariffs to a height of utter exclusion and then offering the British trade a scant three per cent on top of that in exchange for a preference on our wheat.
On August 7 the present government came into power. The electors were told that there would be an immediate improvement. One statement was made in Winnipeg to the effect that after three days there would be a change. So far as I have been able to learn, in my constituency up to the present there has been no improvement. In spite of the high tariff,

stable commodities in my district are selling at a price which does not allow the producer any profit, and they are not worthy of production. Eggs which sold formerly in the Winnipeg market for from 50 cents to 75 cents a dozen, and in the winter sometimes as high as $1 per dozen, have been selling this winter at from 25 cents to 30 cents. First class dairy butter can be bought for 20 cents per pound. The unfortunate part of it, however, is that there are hundreds of people in Winnipeg to-day who cannot afford butter and a considerable number who have not a steady supply of bread. Potatoes can be bought on the Winnipeg market to-day for 15 cents a bushel, and sometimes as low as 10 cents a bushel. Many gardeners are offering to give them away. My hon. friends opposite have said that the low price of butter in Canada is due to the fact that we imported billions of pounds of Australian butter.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is, too.


John Power Howden: Hon. members say that our cold storage plants were so full of New Zealand butter that we could not receive a reasonable price for our own commodity. However, we have not imported millions of bushels of Australian potatoes, yet our potatoes are going to waste and thousands of bushels will be thrown out. I refer to domestic potatoes grown in the province of Manitoba.


Samuel Gobeil: We imported American
potatoes last spring.


John Power Howden: We did not need to go to the United States for potatoes. My hon. friend could have secured all the potatoes he wished at Winnipeg.


Samuel Gobeil: We all know that.


John Power Howden: At the special session last September the government passed its $20,000,000 relief bill to cure the evil of which I have just been speaking. In enacting this legislation they made it a condition that the cities and municipalities should contribute amounts equal to the grants from the fund. I believe that 'the major part of this vast sum has gone into the pockets of well-to-do contractors and their regularly paid staffs. Instead of the work in connection with the various undertakings being done by large numbers of men, machinery was utilized with only a few men in control. At the present time two bridges are being built in Winnipeg, to cost approximately $1,100,000. The new structures are being erected beside the old bridges. I have been crossing the old bridges all winter and I have noticed that not more than one hundred men have been steadily

2S7
The Address-Mr. Howden
employed. About a hundred men have been engaged in excavating, building forms and pouring cement, and not more than another fifty have been busy fabricating steel and driving teams and trucks. At a dollar an hour for a ten hour day-and certainly not half of those men will be getting anything like such a wage-at the end of five months, when the substructure will be up, these men will have received about $180,000; by the time the spans are laid the wages will amount to approximately $250,000. Remember, sir, these works were undertaken for the purpose of relieving unemployment, of putting bread into the mouths of hungry men and women. That is a comparatively small proportion -$250,000 out of $1,100,000-to go to the actual relief of unemployment.
Meanwhile the Prime Minister has spent several weeks at the Imperial conference endeavouring to blast a way into the British market. Unfortunately his dynamite must have been all wet, at all events the fuse misfired. But we must have export markets, and even then it will take a long time for us to catch up It may be said that Canada ought to be able to live from within her four walls, that every Canadian farmer ought to be able to find the necessities of life from his own farmstead. But Canada never has been able to live within her own four walls, and for many years our farmers have not been able to live off their land. Incidentally it would be a pretty dull life and void of most of the attractions and advantages of the city. But even at that it were better to live in the country than starve in' the city-and there are a lot of people starving in the cities. Possibly in this way might be found some relief from the present state of affairs. Men have taken their living from the soil since the earliest times of which we have record. To-day mankind does precisely that same thing, but so varied and refined have become their tastes that it requires the products of many soils and a chain of manufacturing plants to satisfy their appetites. It will be a long time before any considerable number of Canadians will or can return to win a first-hand living from the soil. Meanwhile we must live; that is to say, we must have markets, and the only feasible way is to re-establish our foreign trade. This we can never do so long as we have a high tariff wall, and it seems to me it is up to the government to take down that wall.
Now, Mr. Speaker, like a good many members I was struck by the remarks of the hon. deputy speaker (Mr. LaVergne) a few days ago. I am bound to say that I felt he meant well; I appreciated the fine vein running through his speech, and I am sure he did not
intend to give the offence which was so readily taken by hon. members on this side of the house; but I do feel that his references to the revered Sir Wilfrid Laurier were most unfortunate. That gallant, chivalrous French Canadian, that princely, magnanimous statesman, of whom the Canadian people have always been proud, of whom the Canadian people will always be proud, little deserved to be attacked in this house, and I cannot but deplore the words uttered by the hon. deputy speaker.
I will not dwell further on that part of his speech. I would deal for a moment with his references to the soviet republic. I am not so sure that Canada has done the wise thing in severing trade relations with the soviet republic. I am not a communist, but Russia to-day is functioning very well. Before very long that vast country will be independent of the world-independent in time of peace, independent in time of war. I have every reason to believe that before many decades pass, probably before many years, the nations of the world will be very ready to make friends with soviet Russia and enter into trade agreements with her. It is true that the downtrodden and untutored Russian people finally broke their bonds and entered on a rampage of pillage and murder; it is true that they repudiated their church and slew their ruler; but in all this they had precedents, and as a matter of fact it was not the first time such an event has been recorded in the history of the world. Imperial Caesar was slain by an assassin at the head of rebellious Rome, three times England rose in revolt-twice she forced her reigning monarch from the throne and once she beheaded him; at the time of the French revolution so fierce was the tempest of the people's anger that they not only guillotined their ruler, but every individual of aristocratic bearing or refinement was made the object of their enmity and the victim of their hate. So, sir, I say that the Russian soviet of to-day has not transgressed the laws of society any worse than the Romans, the English, and the French did in the past, and I believe the time will come when we shall be glad enough again to extend the hand of friendship to Soviet Russia and reestablish our trade connections with her.
In closing there is but a word I should like to say. Like the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) I also deplore the recourse which has been had by the press and by various individuals throughout this country to racial and creed prejudice. I think, sir, that if we could banish the trouble makers, the firebrands and the bigots, the Canadian people
The Address-Mr. Howden

would get along very well. If I am not mistaken, in the province of Quebec both races have been good friends for a long time; there have been no differences there. We have not fared so well in Manitoba; beginning with the first Riel rebellion we have had racial trouble.


Mr. SPENCE:: Why bring that up?


John Power Howden: I am not going to hurt any feelings; I still have a few minutes to speak, if the hon. member will leave me alone. In 1885 trouble again broke out, and again in 1S96 we had a showing of this prejudice, with the final display taking place in connection with the school legislation. To-day, however, we are good friends. I live in the French city of St. Boniface, and there is no ill feeling in that city or in the province of Manitoba as between the French and English elements. We are living together there in friendship and as brothers. We have our schools and they have their schools; we are satisfied and contented, and, as I said before, if we could just hang or drown the firebrands and trouble makers we would soon have in this country no racial prejudices or creed differences.
On motion of Mr. Ralston the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 25, 1931