1932-05-25

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I move for the introduction of this bill on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) ?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member in whose name the bill appears upon the order paper will have to make the application himself.
Order stands.

Questions



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, I have decided not to proceed with this bill, and with the consent of the house I ask that it be dropped.
Bill withdrawn.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	How long has Mr. Victor Gariepy, veterinary surgeon of Waterloo, Quebec, been in the employ of the Dominion government?
2.	On what date did he pass the examinations?
3.	Was he qualified as a veterinary surgeon?
4.	If so, on what date?
5.	Is he, at present, in the employ of the Dominion government, in county of Shefford, if not, is he permitted to carry out tuberculine test on cattle, in the county?
6.	Was Mr. Langevin authorized by the government to employ Mr. Victor Gariepy?
7.	If so, by whom was he authorized?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Dr. Victor Gariepy was employed in the Health of Animals Branch, Department of Agriculture, during the following periods:
March 5, 1928, to September 30, 1928.
November 14, 1928, to January 31, 1930.
June 9, 1930, to September 8, 1930.
2.	He passed the civil service examination for veterinary inspectors in April, 1922, and was offered a position in August of the same year but did not accept it. He is not eligible for permanent appointment now; not until he passes the examinations again.
3.	Yes. He was a graduate of the University of Montreal.
4.	1918.
5.	No. Dr. Gariepy is an accredited veterinarian and as such can test cattle for export to the United States but his certificates must be endorsed by a veterinary inspector of the Health of Animals Branch for acceptance by the American authorities. He, in common with other accredited veterinarians, is remunerated for his services by the live stock owner engaging him to conduct the test.
6.	See 5.
7.	See 5.


CAPE ST. IGNACE, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Has the municipality of Cape St. Ignace, Quebec, requested that the premises of the post office be in the parish hall?
2.	If so, what are the reasons for the delay in carrying out the request of the municipality?
3.	Why is not that post office occupied at present by the postmaster?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. The postmaster at Cap St. Ignace is required to provide post office quarters out of the remuneration he receives from the department. Post office now in charge of an acting postmaster, who keeps post office in quarters he provides himself-and which are satisfactory.


RADIO LICENCE FEES
Mr. WHITE (London):: 1.	How many radio receiving set owners paid the licence fee in 1929, 1930 and 1931, in each of the following cities, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, London and Windsor, Ontario?
2.	Are firms selling receiving sets required to report separate sales to the department when such sales are made?
3.	If so, how many sales were reported in the above cities in each of the years 1929, 1930 and 1931?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	1929-30	Fiscal years 1930-31	1931-32Ottawa.. .	. .. 9,528	12,226	15,073Toronto. .	. .. 61,S63	81,073	83,094Hamilton.	.. 15.490	17.593	20,391London. .	.. 8.888	9,815	9,898Windsor. .	. .. 9,447	10,644	9,4402.	No, but draft regulations in this regard are under consideration.3.	Answered by No. 2.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. RALSTON:: For a return respecting the supply of coal used in public buildings in the maritime provinces for the year 1931-32, showing the name of the contractor, the location of the public building concerned, the quantity of coal, the date of the contract and the price paid.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents in connection with the contract to be awarded by the trade and commerce department, for the ferry-boat service between Ile-aux-Coudres and Les Eboulements, in the county of Charlevoix, since the 1st of January, 1932, together with the evidence taken in writing of all the witnesses heard at the hearing held by Mr. F. E. Bawden, of the trade and commerce department, at Baie St-Paul, in the month of
St. Lawrence Waterway

May, 1932, and his report upon such matter to the minister, and the decision arrived at by the minister.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the objection to this motion being premature still prevail?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have been told that the decision of the minister has been arrived at and I should like to have the production of the papers.


Mr. BENNETT:: Surely this motion cannot pass as the contract has not yet been awarded and the information is not available.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have been told on good authority that the contract has been awarded to certain parties and I should like to have the papers in connection with the investigation made and the decision arrived at.


Mr. STEVENS:: The contract has not yet been awarded.
Motion stands. '


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
as it is altogether likely that parliament will be prorogued to-day, I Should like to ask one or two questions of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) with respect to which I imagine the public would desire to have such information as he may be in a position to give. The first question is as to whether or not. my right hon. friend is in position to intimate to the house what progress has been made with respect to the negotiations concerning the St. Lawrence waterway and to indicate when the treaty is likely to be presented to the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, negotiations in this regard have proceeded but they have not resulted as yet in the completion of a treaty. Certain questions between the province of Ontario and the dominion have yet to be disposed of. The province of Ontario is the only province interested in the international section, the river being wholly within the province so far as the province of Quebec is concerned. Negotiations with Ontario have proceeded, shall I say very satisfactorily, but there are one or two questions still outstanding. I cannot express an opinion as to the exact time when they may be disposed of; it may be ten days, it may be two weeks and it may be even two months. The completion of a treaty will depend upon satisfactory arrangements being made between Ontario and Can-

ada but the negotiations between the United States and this country are in a most satisfactory position.


Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: The Prime Minister has stated that it is impossible to conclude the waterways treaty with the United States until after an agreement has been reached with the province of Ontario, and I think he indicated that an agreement has been reached or at least matters are proceeding satisfactorily on certain points. Might I ask him whether an agreement has been reached between the dominion and Ontario as to the ownership of the water-powers in the international section, or is there any policy with regard to the matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As was stated in the
house, both yesterday and 6n previous occasions, there has been no decision of any court of last resort upon that question, but for the purposes of the agreement water-powers in the international section in Ontario are regarded as being the property of that province and those in the national section in Quebec as being the property of Quebec.


TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to inquire of my right hon. friend with respect to the report of the transportation commission and as to whether or not he is in position to indicate when it may be expected. In the event of the report being presented before parliament reassembles, will it be given out immediately to the public?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps within the knowledge of the right hon. gentleman and hon. members of this house that Lord Ash-field came to Canada a short time ago and after discussion between members of the commission it was decided that it would be impossible for them to conclude their labours in time to have a report available at an early date, that is, it will not be available within the next few weeks. As I understand the matter at the moment, and I have no definite information upon the point, it is not probable that a report will be completed for some months. The question as to whether or not the report when completed should be published before being presented to parliament is a matter which the government has not considered. I can see strong reasons for either course being taken and I have an entirely open mind upon the maitter. The inclination

Unemployment Statistics
would be to do whatever is thought best under the circumstances considered from the standpoint of the public, but depending to some extent upon the terms of the report itself. At any rate, no conclusion has been arrived at in that regard.


MEETING OF PARLIAMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: One remaining question I wish to ask my right hon. friend is with respect to the probable date of the reassembling of parliament. There has been an idea in some quarters that parliament might reassemble this year in the fall rather than at the beginning of the new year. If the Prime Minister is in a position to indicate what is possible or probable in that regard, hon. members might be enabled to make their plans with respect to the remainder of the year in a more satisfactory way than would otherwise be possible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would regard it as my duty to
communicate to the house any conclusion that had been arrived at in that regard, for the convenience of members, as the right hon. gentleman has said, must be considered in a matter of that kind. But no conclusion has been reached, nor has the government seriously considered the question. As the right hon. gentleman is aware, the fiscal measures in Great Britain provide that, after November 15, the 20 per cent duty imposed upon importations would, unless action were otherwise taken by that parliament, apply against importations from the dominions, and until after the conference has concluded its labours, I am not in a position to make any statement in that connection. If, however, it is concluded, immediately or shortly after the conference, to call the house together during this year, I shall endeavour to see that the longest possible notice is given so that the convenience of the right hon. gentleman and members of the house generally may be fully considered.


PROPOSED ST. LAWRENCE BRIDGE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. PAUL MEROIER (St. Henri):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether any understanding has been reached between his department and the province of Quebec regarding the construction of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river at a point between Lachine or Ville La Salle and Caughnawaga.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I can only say that negotiations are proceeding, and I hope we shall soon arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with the province of Quebec. We have arranged for a discussion on Friday of this week.


UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I call the attention of
the Minister of Trade and Commerce to some rather startling figures given on Monday before the Canadian Political Science Association in Toronto, to the effect that, based on government statistics, there were some 726,594 unemployed in March last. May I ask whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce can place on the table before the close of the session the figures as available from the last census, and ajso any later reliable figures with regard to the unemployment situation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member was good enough to indicate to me yesterday that he might ask this question. In regard to the very unusual figures quoted in Toronto at the meeting of the Political Science Association of something over 700,000 as the number of unemployed in Canada, I have not the faintest idea where those figures were secured. They were certainly not official; they were not secured from the bureau and my inquiries indicate that they were very wide of the mark.
The unemployment figures of the census are as follows:
June, 1931: in towns and cities of 5,000 and over, 286,874.
Another indication-and this is as near as I can give it at the present time-of the situation as it is to-day, is as follows: Taking the year 1926 as 100. these are the employment figures for the first four months of this year:
Index figure
Month-	of employment
J anuary	 83 [DOT] 9
February	 85-9
March	 87
April	 87-3
We have also the figures of industrial employment from some 5,000 firms of which the record is kept. While this indicates a falling off during 1931, it shows a gradual, although not very marked, increase during the present
Income War Tax Act

year. For instance, in December, 1931, the figure was 414,824, and in April of this year, this had risen to 424,030. This is as near as I can give the situation to the hon. member. I would say that the indications from the figures I have on actual employment are that there is a gradual diminution of unemployment during the present calendar year. I would most emphatically say that the figure of 700,000 odd has no foundation in any authority of which I know.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When will these
census figures be available to the house and to the public?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are available now.
I think I can have a copy sent to my hon. friend.


HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY SHIP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: On Monday I asked a question of the Minister of Marine in reference to the hydrographic survey ship being built in Collingwood. I wonder whether he has an answer for me to-day.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: The answer is that the cost of taking the boat from Collingwood to the western coast is included in the contract for the building of the vessel.



INCOME WAR TAX ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 92, to amend the Income War Tax Act.
He said:	These amendments are purely
verbal, with one exception which adds a provision that those persons who are hereafter appointed to office shall be subject to a deduction of ten per cent per month.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Rhodes that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Miss Macphail.
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was under debate last night

the Prime Minister was good enough to follow my remarks and at one or two points he raised a question as to the figures which I had quoted. I would like very briefly to refer first of all to the index price of agricultural products which I mentioned last night.
Quoting from the monthly bulletin issued by the Bureau of Statistics for January, 1932, I find that in the province of Alberta the index number of agricultural prices which stood1 at 100 in 1926 was in 1931 down to 40. There was a drop of 60 per cent in all farm commodity prices in Alberta during those few years, and from the index figure of 100 for 1913 the index figure has dropped to 49 at the present time. Taking the prices for all Canada, I find that based on the index figure of 100 for the year 1926, prices had dropped in 1931 to 46.9, or a drop of 53-1 per cent. Last night I gave that figure as approximately 60 per cent. I would point out that these figures are, I understand, based on wholesale prices of farm commodities. The net prices which the farmer receives are considerably less than the prices quoted. The cost of moving these things from country points to the central markets must always be deducted, and there has been very little drop in the transportation oosts. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that the figure I quoted last night of a 60 per cent drop in farm commodity prices would be well within the mark.
In regard to the cost of retail goods which the farmer now buys, I find that the Labour Gazette for the month of April, 1932, gives the average prices from 1913 up to date. The figure for foods in 1926 stood at 156. It is now down to 99, a drop of 57 points or 36 per cent. But as the farmer buys very little foodstuffs, the drop in the price of foodstuffs does not enter very much into his cost of living. Fuel and light have dropped from the figure of 166 in 1926 to 150, a drop of 16 or 10 per cent. Rent stands at exactly the same figure in 1926 and 1932, but the farmer as a rule does not pay rent, so that does not enter into his cost of living. Clothing has dropped from 157 in 1926 to 123 in 1932, a drop of 34, or 21 per cent. Sundries have dropped 3 per cent and all commodities 18 per cent. Within that 18 per cent, as I said before, there is included the cost of food, and as the farmer buys very little foodstuffs I think that the figure I quoted last night of a drop of 14 per cent in the retail cost of the things the farmer buys was also approximately correct.
I would like to refer very briefly to the price of wheat. It seems to me that it does not matter whether the price at which we
Agricultural Conditions

sell our wheat is set by Liverpool or Winnipeg. The Winnipeg price must conform to the Liverpool price, and Certainly the Liverpool price is the guiding price in the case of wheat, regardless of whether the price of wheat, when We make sales, is really set in Liverpool or Winnipeg. Quoting from the Commercial Intelligence Journal for September, 1931, from the despatch of our trade commissioner in Australia, and this despatch, of course, was sent before England went off the gold standard:
The exchange premium in Australia gives wheat growers an apparent gain of about 6id. (13 cents) per bushel on all wheat exported.
If our dollar could be brought to par with the pound sterling within the next month it would increase the price of wheat in Canadian funds. I should also like to quote one sentence from the annual address of Mr. Robinson, president of the National Dairy Council of Canada. Referring to the rate of exchange, he said:
I wish to make it very clear that the whole question of future prices in our industry is bound up in the question of sterling exchange and its relation to our currency and to that of the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my hon. friend will
allow me to interrupt, the last three words that he read, "of the United States" are the key to his difficulties. You cannot have a pound value in dollars in the United States and then fix another standard here without having the difficulty referred to.


George Gibson Coote: Our difficulty at the present
time is that our currency is nearer the value of that of the United States than it is to the value of the pound sterling, and it would be very much to our advantage to forget all about the United States currency and get to par with the pound.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our obligations are paid
in the United States.


George Gibson Coote: Our obligations in the United States are not paid in Canadian dollars.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They are paid in gold.


George Gibson Coote: We discharge our obligations in New York by buying foreign exchange if we do not renew them, and the only way we can pay for our obligations is by exporting goods, selling these goods for foreign exchange, which foreign exchange is then available on the market for governments to buy to meet their obligations in the United States. That is the only way in which foreign obligations can be met. I am urging the government to allow our dollar to go to a lower 41761-213
level in the United States, which will increase the-price bf export commodities in Canada and encourage production. Our exports will bring the same amount in foreign currency whether our dollar is up twenty per cent or down twenty per cent, and by' increasing oUr exports there will be more exchange on the market available for governments to buy. 1
In addition to that, if this policy were carried out, it would raise commodity price levels in Canada, and as trade is dependent upon the amount of money in circulation it would increase trade. There would be more purchasing power in the hands of the farmers and of those engaged in export industries. That would increase the receipts of the government from the sales tax, the stamp tax and all other nuisance taxes, and from the income tax. I have no doubt in the world that had our dollar been at par with the pound since last September the revenues of the government would have been increased sufficiently to take care of the additional premium for foreign exchange which so worries the Prime Minister.
May I also point out that in some of our provinces which depend primarily on agriculture, the tax-paying power of the farmer has practically disappeared, and the provincial governments are unable to collect the revenue they must have. I am sure that if our dollar were brought to par with the pound and the prices of agricultural products increased in that way, the provincial governments, particularly in western Canada, and the same is also true of the east, would secure from their taxpayers enough additional revenue to far more than meet the added premium that they would have to pay for New York funds to meet their foreign obligations.
Then, too, the unemployment relief burden which every government in Canada is bearing to-day would be lessened to some extent because more people would be employed. As I said last night, there is no question that the price level is the most important question in Canada to-day, whether you consider it from the standpoint of the farmer, from the standpoint of the nation, or from the standpoint of the Minister of Finance, who has to balance his budget if he can. But how can he balance it at the present price levels? I am afraid that it is impossible.
The Prime Minister asked me last night hoiw our dollar could be brought to par with the pound. I am sure that he knows just as well as I do, perhaps better, the methods of bringing our dollar down to par with the pound. I feel that if last September the Prime Minister had said: We will not en-

Agricultural Conditions

deavour to maintain the gold standard in Canada but will link up our currency with sterling

surely the old British pound should still be good enough for us-our currency would have been at par with the pound and commodity price levels would have been raised. There are many ways of bringing our dollar to par with the British pound. Only two months ago the Prime Minister said that if a certain suggestion, made in the house had been adopted our dollar might go to twenty cents. Well, I think the Prime Minister was exaggerating la little bit. I believe however that a small step in that direction would perhaps bring our dollar down to the desired point.
May I suggest another way? If the Prime Minister would take $50,000,000 worth of dominion notes now printed and waiting to be put out, lying in the vaults of the east block, and loan the money at a low interest rate to school districts requiring new schools, to public utilities eonporations desiring to complete power plants and to municipalities to engage in housing schemes, he would soon bring our currency in line with Britain. May I add that construction costs are down nearly thirty per cent as compared with what they were when the last housing scheme was embarked upon in this dominion. Finally may I say to the Prime Minister that if he does not care to do any one of these things he knows perfectly well that the price of foreign exchange, outside of the question of confidence, is determined by supply of and demand for bills of exchange. There are plenty of Canadian bonds on the United States market,-federal, provincial, municipal and corporation bonds-and all he needs to do is to instruct the bankers to buy a sufficient quantity of those bonds maturing in the next few months. I do not think there is any doubt that he could control the rate of exchange easily enough, so that our dollar would be brought down on a par with the pound. May I point out the action taken in England recently. According to press despatches they have provided a fund of $150,000,000 to stabilize the rate of exchange in New York. There is no doubt stabilization can be effected within certain limits, if it is stabilized at a natural level. I think at the present time our dollar at par with the pound sterling would have reached a more natural level than if it were at a par with the American dollar, and such a condition would be very much to our advantage. Compared with Canada Great Britain is a wealthy country, and there is no reason why our currency should be at a higher level. At this point may I refer to the evi-
denee given last year by James Richardson before the agricultural .committee of this house. When he was asked a question with regard to the price of wheat in relation to the exchange situation in Australia and the Argentine, he said:
Australia's position in the Orient had been secured through the commonwealth's depreciated currency, he told the committee, and agreed that if Canada depreciated the currency of this dominion it would enable the farmer to sell more, to get more of that currency for his produce and enable him, at least, to pay his debts.
What a wonderful thing it would be to-day if the farmer could pay his debts. Mr. Richardson represents the oldest, the longest established grain firm in Canada.
In the moment or two left to me may I emphasize to the Prime Minister the importance of this matter. I notice in the last summary of Canada trade issued in the month of April that the exports of Canada for that month were valued at $26,000,000. A few years ago our exports in a corresponding month would have been valued at approximately $100,000,000. I know the Prime Minister is anxious that Canada should meet her foreign obligations in the terms and on the dates they fall due. I too am anxious to see that done, but we can meet them only if we have sufficient exports.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the discussion on the amendment is to be confined to the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It should be.


William Richard Motherwell: In other words, we cannot wander off to a debate on the Beau-harnois project. I may say however that I should like very much to do so. Having regard to the late stage of the session and the desire to get through I shall have to be content to confine myself to the amendment.
To begin with may I say I think the amendment was drafted in such a way that whether or not we agree with all contained therein, at least we can agree to inquire into the practicability of some of the suggestions with which we do not agree, I believe in the good old scriptural teaching to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good. I am going to try to prove all the enunciations in this amendment, to cull out all unpractical parts of it, and to hold fast to those which prove to be good. In doing that I think I am on sound ground.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: Irrefutable ground.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: With those reservations I shall support the amendment. There are two phases to it, one of which laments the absence of policy on the part of the government. I am sure the government must lament that fact itself; I do. I have one reservation there also, however, and that is with respect to the Minister of Agriculture, concerning his initial attitude towards the establishment of an export marketing board. I do not wish to include him in what I am going to say in regard to that phase of the matter. The Minister of Agriculture has shown that he is acquiring some wisdom, because he indicated the possibility of appointing a commission to inquire into this matter. I hope the commission is given powers sufficiently wide and comprehensive to inquire into a good many other matters; there is no doubt many inquiries could be made. Probably he has changed his mind since he made his somewhat notable speech during the discussion on the estimates. My view, however, is that in dealing with special matters commissions cannot be dispensed with; that has been the experience of all governments in all countries. Of course, there are commissions and commissions; there are ghastly foolish ones sometimes.
In the lamentation in the amendment concerning the absence of policy on the part of the government, I join in all sincerity with the hon. member (Miss Macphail) who drafted it. Let us consider the estimates for the Department of Agriculture. They are not only a cause for lamentation, but they are a tragedy. They represent a massacre of agriculture, a slaughter of the agricultural estimates. We have all heard of the massacre of Glencoe which took place in Scotland during the reign of William and Mary. We have heard of the Sepoy massacres in India, of the massacres of natives in North America, but we have never witnessed such a massacre of agriculture as is now evidenced in the estimates of that department. I defy anybody to challenge the correctness of my statement. Who can show any justification for it? Let us consider the vote with respect to the health of animals upon which the health of human kind is so dependent, especially in regard to the use of milk and dairy products-this vote is cut down so they can hardly wink an eyelash; they can simply maintain their staff, retest old restricted areas, and mark time till a better day. Then take the administration of the 41761-213J
Agricultural Conditions
Destructive Insect and Pest Act. It has been one of the characteristics of the Tory party when in opposition to make great fun of the Liberal Minister of Agriculture with respect to this vote. I remember on one occasion-it was some time after the war-I made the prediction that the next great war would be between man and insect pests, including fungus. We are facing that war right to-day in western Canada. How is the government preparing for that great fight? Are they stacking up ammunition and getting ready for the fray? No, they are cutting equipment and war supplies in two by cutting the vote to that extent. What a heroic fight they are going to put up! I suppose my friends opposite will try to make fun over the threatened invasion of grasshoppers. I would expect that to be their attitude, for they are not the knee-height to a grasshopper them- , selves in their knowledge of agriculture; that is about their measurement, and I shall expect them to poke a lot of fun at this subject.. They will not be running true to form if they do not make merry over this, and I shall be-surprised accordingly. Here is the way they-are preparing for the grasshopper invasion in, the United States, which was predicted there last fall, and as it was predicted also in western Canada:
Washington, D.C., March 7.-Advised by its biological experts that there will be an enormous hatch of grasshoppers this spring in the western states, including those along the Canadian border, congress has voted $1,450,000 for "grasshopper control" by the distribution of poison-bran bait.
According to the chief entomologist at the Department of Agriculture, the succession of dry seasons %vas favourable to the spread of the grasshopper plague, and in 1931 the insects destroyed small grains, corn and other crops over large areas. Surveys, taken in Minnesota, Montana, the Dakotas and states to the south of these, show that the grasshoppers were exceptionally active in egg-laying last summer and fall.
The cost of the projected war on the grasshoppers is estimated at about $3,000,000 and the states concerned are expected to match the federal appropriation with a like sum.
According to that report the federal government in Washington and the state governments are working in unison to meet this invasion of insect pests. What are we doing? So far as the western provinces and the municipalities are concerned, they are nearly bankrupt and little financial fight left in them. While I understand from the press that they are preparing poison bait to cope with thia grasshopper invasion, their financial energy must be greatly crippled in this respect. There is no indication here that the Dominion government is going to help them, although ah
33S8	COMMONS
Agricultural Conditions
Washington the federal authorities are going fifty-fifty with the state authorities in their preparations for this great war-a war which Is not confined to the south of the international boundary. Grasshoppers are no' respecters of imaginary boundary lines; they fly hither and thither as the wind blows. I have before me a grasshopper map prepared by the entomological branch of the Canadian Department of Agriculture, and I refer tp it merely to show the extent of the invasion. Won't a smile now crack the countenance of the Minister of Na'tdonal Revenue (Mr. Ryek-man)? This map shows that the Minister of Agriculture's own constituency is menaced. So apparently this invasion is going to cover a great deal of Saskatchewan and a considerable part of Manitoba and Alberta also. What are the members of the government doing with respect to this menace to our agriculture?
' They are limp, lifeless and inactive. Either they do not know anything about this predicted invasion, or they do not know how to meet it. Apparently they are going to leave :It to the prostrate financially crippled provinces of the west to take care of this menace. -No wonder the member for Southeast Grey \(Miss Maephail) is full of lamentations-


Miss MACPHAIL:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: -over the uselessness and helplessness of the aggregation opposite with respect to agriculture. Now I have got a smile from the ministry at last but not one of belief. Let us see to what extent I am justified in making this wholesale, sweeping statement with regard to the lack of knowledge and experience of agriculture on the part of this government. The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan)-I am going to start with him-was on absolutely sound ground last night as to the ownership of the Beauharnois water and power, and I am quite with him with regard to some of his strictures concerning certain members to the left of me; but on agriculture he is a babe in arms. It is true that at one time he owned certain lands in Mexico, but that does not qualify him to be an up-to-date adviser on Canadian agriculture. Then as far as the Minister of National Revenue is concerned, about all he knows of agriculture is to shoot up the valuation on imported commodities for duty purposes. He is certainly a whale at that, so he has found his spot in the sun. As to my good friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), I must give him some commendation because he has showed his sympathy with agriculture in the supplementary estimates, he has shown that in some' way or

another he knows the relationship between successful agriculture and the national status, peace and prosperity, and he has tried his best to remedy the niggardly defects of his immediate predecessor, the Prime Minister, in that respect. But I do not think that even he (Mr. Rhodes) will claim to be much of ah authority on agriculture. However, he does realize how closely connected is the condition of our agriculture with our national prosperity, and to that extent I want to give him all the credit I can, for I do not wish to miss any member of the government where merit exists, even ever so little. Then the Prime Minister-I am sorry he is out because I have a word for him. If there is one hon. gentleman in this house or in the whole of Canada who knows less than nothing about agriculture, it is the Prime Minister. His knowledge of the subject is represented by a minus sign. It cannot be otherwise. How could I know what he is familiar with in the financial world? I am just as ignorant of banking, of finance and of match factories, and things of that kind, as he is of agriculture. Then my good friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie); I had a run in with him on the grading of eggs some years ago and the fact that he has said nothing more on the subject shows that he has since gained wisdom. Indeed, he or his government has retained the Liberal policy of grading not only on eggs, but nearly all farm products. He will probably adorn the bench some day, and I should like to see him there-


Mr. SPOTTON:: We cannot do without him.


William Richard Motherwell: -but as for his knowledge of agriculture, save us! The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) is a very versatile gentleman and can throw in the stuff about bimetallism and all that when he wants to throw out a smoke screen. But what he knows about agriculture would make quite a book-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Richard Motherwell: Rather what he
does not know about agriculture would make quite a book, and I do not look to him to improve our agriculture or assist his colleague the Minister of Agriculture in doing so. In fact I do not think the Minister of Agriculture can get much inspiration from any of these sources. Then what of my good friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion)? He used to invoke us to stimulate the red corpuscles in our blood, but he does so no longer; apparently his blood corpuscles have either become white since entering the ministry or some other objectionable colour

!3S9
resembling yellow. I know my good friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) is sympathetic to agriculture. He lives in a splendid dairy country and knows that not only our national prosperity but also our national health is in large degree dependent upon agriculture and the condition in which its products are put on the home market. As to my three good friends from Quebec who adorn the treasury bench, they are of different racial extraction from my own, but I respect them none the less, in fact I respect all my friends from Quebec, that great, old historic province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: I am going to take the Quebec members of the ministry as I find them. They have all used me right since I came into this house. But they will not take exception to my stating that so far they have shown no particular evidence of any knowledge of agriculture. True, my good friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) has withdrawn his bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act with respect to the coasting trade, and that is all in his favour and may indicate a desire to consider the western farmers' viewpoint on this question. Then we have my two good friends of the medical fraternity, the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland); they are both good doctors and I think they will be all right where they are until the electors decide otherwise. I have nothing to say against them.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The electors recently decided that.


William Richard Motherwell: All these interruptions are lost upon me; I hear some hon. members, but the chirp of the others resembles a lot of chickadees. Sometimes it is an advantage to be partially deaf. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) showed a glowing desire to help agriculture last year when he decided to close the two forestry farms in Saskatchewan in the midst of the most ghastly hurricanes we have ever seen on those plains, but I do not hold that against him. He retreated gracefully into the arms of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and left the farms to be administerted by that hon. gentleman, but with no additional vote to take care of them. They were tacked on to the experimental farms as an adopted child of some promise. As I have said, I have a reservation with regard to the Minister of Agriculture who, since he cannot get agricultural information from his colleagues, is showing an inclination to seek that information elsewhere.
Agricultural Conditions
There has been mention even of a royal commission, and to that extent the minister is on sound ground, from which I sincerely hope he does not retreat.
I ask the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) what she could expect as to Canada's present standstill agricultural policy other than what has already happened as a tree is usually known by its fruit. The electors of Canada are responsible for putting the right hon. Prime Minister in power, and he is responsible for choosing his many non-agricultural colleagues. That is the position, and no one can give redress except the electors. We do what we can by expressing our disgust with the government's lack of agricultural policy, but after all is said .and done the, electors are responsible. Of course they were bamboozled, misled by false pretences and stung generally, and to some extent they must be excused on that account. The electors wanted a change in 1930 and in all conscience they got it. Now many are holding up both hands for another change and that right speedily.
Then we come to that part of the amendment dealing with suggested reforms. It explores ground on which I am none too solid myself, and which I would not like anyone to think I favoured fully just now. But we must explore these grounds. If there had been no explorers in the world the continent on which we live never would have been discovered. Without explorers the human race would have been segregated in a very small part of the world's area, so I am in favour of exploration.' Agriculture is in a distressing, economic condition at the present time. So far I have succeeded in keeping out of gaol, but if ever I were put in a gaol cell, with the windows all safely barred and the door securely locked, and I saw a gleam of light in one corner, certainly I would explore that gleam in the hope that it might lead to a wider opening through whioh I might escape. There is just a gleam of light in these suggestions of the hon. member for Southeast Grey, and I want it explored. If it is no good we can throw it into the discard, but we can hold fast to that which proves to be good. All reformers were explorers; when they once got it into their heads that they were rigid on any given subject, all h- could not stop them from going ahead.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What does h- mean?


William Richard Motherwell: It means hades,
though I will say the other word if anyone wants me to do so. I do not know that there is any necessity to deal with this question at greater length.
Agricultural Conditions


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Richard Motherwell: I am going to stop when I like, within the forty minute limit. I should like to read some of the suggestions contained in the amendment in order to place them on Hansard once more:
Further, this house is of opinion that the government should take into consideration the following suggestions . . .
I think it Shows a great deal of courage and bravery on the part of the hon. member for Southeast Grey to make a suggestion to this government at all, after the way suggestions have been received recently. My right hon. leader was given a slap in the face yesterday for making a most timely suggestion, by the Prime Minister who, however, was squared up by the ex-Minister of Justice. That is the way our suggestions have been received. Last session, and during the early pant of this session, members of the government side howled because we were not making constructive suggestions, but when we do make them this is the way they are received. Of course all members of the government do not act in that way, but yesterday the Prime Minister was in one of his mad fits, and he proceeded to castigate us as already indicated. The amendment proceeds:
(a)	the national control and regulation of currency and credit;
Is that not going on now in some countries? I do not believe any meital as a basis of currency in the earth or on top of the earth will stand the test of the times through which we are passing now, nor any combination of metals. I agree w'ith Sir Josiah Stamp, who indicated in his recent Ottawa speech that as long as men and women are so unstable in their emotions and business activities we cannot have anything stable in regard to currency, but we can make it as stable as possible. The stability of currency depends in large measure upon the stability of men, and in turn the stability of men depends upon what anchorage they are tied up to, what kind of a rock they are standing upon. I do not know whether or not that needs any interpretation to the hon. gentlemen of the treasury benches, but I am not going to just now interpret it further-
(b)	a measure of controlled inflation having for its object increase in commodity prices. . . .
Anyone who ever had any experience in selling goods in a country where the currency was higher than the currency in our country must know the advantage of that situation, but this is a sword that cuts both ways, as
'Mr. Motherwell.]
I understand it. I am only a student in matters of currency; I recognize that no matter what you do with our currency you must earn your share of it; you cannot get your share by lying down and howling or loafing.


Edward Joseph Garland: A good
many men got it without doing any work.


William Richard Motherwell: That is quite right, but I was referring to the walk of life of my hon. friend and myself. I know I have never been in that other financial world, though I am not going to say too much against it. I know that we need big interests, but they should be well harnessed. We need capital, but it should not run riot without control. I think we are nearing the day when these things will come under more control, not with the idea of damaging capital but to see that the best possible use is obtained from it and that no public harm is done by its illicit or unbridled use.
Apparently I have again obtained silence, although that does not necessarily mean consent. I have been speaking longer than I intended but I think by this time the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) knows what I think of and how I appreciate her amendment.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the harangue of the hon. gentleman, and I ask this house and hon. membei-s opposite why agriculture is in its present position? It is due to the hon. gentleman who has just given his criticism, the like of which I have never heard in this or any other parliament. Apparently he is showing a kindly feeling to the opposite side, the farm group, in the expectation of being able to get them later on. Agriculture has suffered in western Canada because of the actions of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. There are hon. members on this side of the house who have forgotten more about agriculture than he ever knew. If I had a farm in western Canada that looked like his I would get rid of it at once. I am sorry I have not the references before me, as I had not intended to speak again during this session, but I should like to read an article and a letter which deal with this matter. The letter was from Mr. Arkell, whom the hon. member had travelling over the country as live stock commissioner. He came to my farm and then wrote me a letter, and yet the hon. member says there are numbskulls here who do not know anything about agriculture. From ills

Agricultural Conditions
remarks one would think we were all ignorant and knew nothing about agriculture. I have been farming just as long as the hon. gentleman.


William Richard Motherwell: I was speaking of
the ministry.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. member was not speaking of the rank and file?


William Richard Motherwell: No.


Henry Alfred Mullins: The hon. member was
looking directly at me when he was speaking-However, there are men on the ministerial benches who know just as much about agriculture as does the hon. gentleman.


William Richard Motherwell: Who are they, outside of the Minister of Agriculture?


Henry Alfred Mullins: Take any one of them.
It is just such harangues as we have been listening to that have ruined agriculture in western Canada. What have we been hearing in the agriculture committee of which I have been a member? We have been hearing of nothing but Garnet wheat. This mongrel wheat was introduced into western Canada after Marquis and Reward wheats had been grown for years. I did not take any interest in the hon. member's remarks with reference to wheat because there was nothing to be learned therefrom.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has said that the price of hogs is down, but I tell her that thousands of pounds of shoulders and hams are being brought in from the United States to ruin the hog industry of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why don't you stop
them?


Henry Alfred Mullins: Only a short time ago
two carloads of shoulders and hams came into Toronto from the United States, paid a duty of six cents per pound and broke the hog market by two cents a pound. The hon. member should look into these matters and get a practical knowledge. Export cattle are selling for six and six and one-half cents per pound.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The hon. member has stated that the low prices for hogs are due to importation, but I should like him to explain why in January, 1930, when we imported 7,000,000 pounds, butter was selling at 39 cents while in January, 1932, when we imported only 44,000 pounds, butter was selling at 17 cents?


Henry Alfred Mullins: The only thing I can say is that as far as butter and eggs are concerned, when they are scarce the hens scratch all the harder, and over production takes place.


An hon. MEMBER:: The people are not eating them any more.
Mr .MULLINS: I permitted hon. members opposite to make their speeches and I ask them to let me make mine. I ask the hon. member for Southeast Grey why she does not look into the local live stock question to discover that this industry is being ruined by the importation of canned meats from the Argentine. Ten million pounds of canned meats have come in from the Argentine and have affected the local live stock industry. The duty should be raised three times as high to give protection to the farmer. But not a word is said about that. We hear the stock speech which comes out every Wednesday or Thursday, the speech to which I have listened until I am tired.
I am here in the interests of farmers just as much as the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I represent a constituency in which there is not a single smokestack, and I am proud of it. That constituency has sent me here to represent agriculture, and I do not intend to pay heed to a harangue from an hon. member who can see no good on this side of the house. There are hon. members on this side who have forgotten more about agriculture than he ever knew. Agriculture would not be in its present condition of stagnation if he had not left such an appalling situation upon our doorstep. He does not commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) for getting a S12 rate on our export cattle. I came all the way from Manitoba and was ready to support the hon. member in an effort to get the rate lowered from $25, but he was able to make no reduction during all the time he was in office. I am sorry to have to take such strong exception to what the hon. member has said, but I feel I must do so. Unless we get the farmer back into live stock, unless the cattle trains are again thundering over the railroads, we will never get back to our former position. The hon. member should give a little credit to this side of the house for having some common sense.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, owing to the lateness of the session I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of the house, but I cannot let a subject of this importance go without saying a word
3392	COMMONS
[DOT]-	Agricultural Conditions
in support of the . amendment before the house.. The amendment reads in part as follows;...	.
. . . this house regrets that the government has not made any pronouncement of a policy calculated to meet the depressed conditions of the agricultural industry.
The only pronouncement I know of is a one-third cut in the agricultural estimates. If the money spent in former years did some good, surely money spent this year would do some good. If it did not do good in previous years, it should not have been spent; if it did good in previous years, there should have been no cut in a year like this. I hope the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely, but he made one remark to which I shall refer. He said that the western farmer would foe all right if he would go into live stock, but I remind him that, proportionately there is more live stock in western Canada than in any other part of the dominion. That is sufficient answer to the statement he has made. It is true in regard to all diversified farming and the figures have more than once been put upon the record of the house.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote)-, when speaking last nighit, referred to the fact that agriculture production in Canada amounted in 1926 to $1,714,000,000, but that a year ago, 1931, it had dropped to the much smaller figure of $880,000,000, or, in other words, nearly $1,000,000,000 less. That, of course, is what is wrong with agriculture, and incidentally what is wrong with the business of Canada, because, as the hon. member for Macleod pointed out, agriculture is represented by 47 per cent of the Canadian people and if, by having to sell their products at a loss, they have.no purchasing power, this will have a natural effect on the whole of the business of this country. I should like to remind the Prime Minister and the cabinet that the reason the prairie provinces particularly (for only one other province came) had to come to the federal parliament for help last year, was because of lack of purchasing power in the hands of the farmers. They could not meet their taxes; taxes could not be collected by the provincial governments, and as certain liabilities were1 coming due, those governments were forced to come to the federal government for financial assistance.
Only a week ago I had a letter from my constituency giving me some of the prices that were being received in that part' of Alberta, and I take it that those prices will be pretty well typical of those prevailing through-fMr. Spencer.]
cut the prairie provinces. They may be a little higher in eastern Canada, but . we know from what we have heard, that in spite of prices being a little better in eastern Canada, possibly taxes are higher here, so that no greater profit is being made in any part of panada than is . being made in the west. Prices given me are as follows:
Hogs, $2.75 per ioo pounds for bacons.
Eggs, 5 cents per dozen.
I may say I have had further letters since then and they indicate that the price of eggs had dropped down to two cents a dozen in certain areas. Imagine having to sell eighteen eggs before you can buy a stamp to put on a letter.
Special cream, 12 cents per pound for butter fat.
Wool, 3 cents per pound.
I notice one of the farmer senators the other day, speaking in the Senate, gave the prices he had received for some 800 pounds of wool and he showed a net loss after counting his various expenses.
Top beef steers, $4 per 100 pounds.
No industry can carry on at those prices; we all recognize that fact. But this is the gem of the whole information sent me by this man : He said that on the same day he went into the local town and bought four hame straps. Everybody knows what they are: they are very small pieces of leather. He paid $1 for those four hame straps, but he said that four beef hides were sold on the same day in the same town and they brought in the price of $1. Therefore, he gave four beef hides for four hame straps, or one hide to the hame strap.


George Gibson Coote: It was lucky he had the hides to trade.


Henry Elvins Spencer: They certainly took it
out of his hide anyway.
I wish most heartily to support the hon. member for Macleod in his claim that we should have some inflation. The fact that prices have dropped some 60 per cent on farm produce since 1926 is a reason we are having such difficulty in meeting our debts to-day, for we well know, if you halve prices, you automatically double debts. That is the position the farmer is in and, incidentally, it affects all business.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that I could not see any policy which the government had brought forward this year except a cut of about one-third in the amount of the agricultural estimates. This reminds me of a speech I heard the Prime Minister make in

Agricultural Conditions
1930 in Winnipeg when he said that agriculture was going to be looked after by his government if he got into power. .Speaking to the farmers listening to him over the radio, he said:
Furthermore, I will make the tariff fight for you.
That is for agriculture. I should like to know of any one product of agriculture that has been benefited by the way in which the tariff has been increased since 1930.


George Gibson Coote: How about wool?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Unfortunately, instead of
having better prices for agricultural products, we have had very much lower ones. We had great hopes when the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was appointed. He is a man of considerable ambition, vigour and ability and we had great expectations of something being done. Of course, I suppose he is not alone; he cannot do anything without the rest of the cabinet, and therefore he must take the blame with the rest of them for nothing except a few minor matters here and there having been done for agriculture. The fact that agriculture is to-day in a worse condition than it has been for the last fifty years is surely enough to make any minister or any government realize that it is the one problem which should have first attention.
What has the government done with regard to financing the farmer? I have mentioned on several occasions in the house that we have in Canada no real system whereby the farmer can be properly financed. We know farming pays on an average a smaller percentage of profit than does any other business in Canada. Yes, under the system whereby our farmers have been financed through the ordinary banking houses, interest rates have been too high; loan terms have been too short and the renewal of loans has been too uncertain. This year, when the farmers have been suffering more than usual in paying large amounts of interest, when I introduced in the house a bill to restrict the banks from charging more than the legal rate of interest of seven per cent, I found the whole of the government forces voting against any change being made, and, indeed, supporting the action of the banks in charging eight per cent or any other amount they could get away with.
What has the government done with regard to processing plants? I have often thought, as far as the live stock industry is concerned, until the farmer gets, at least some control over the processing of his products, he will not prosper. The processing plant in private hands
stands to-day between the. producer and the ultimate consumer; live stock is bought at as low a price as possible; it is put into cold storage and doled out at just as high a price as can be charged to the consumer. A good deal could be done by the government to assist the fanner in this matter. W hy cannot the government advance loans at a reasonable, rate of interest? Why cannot they cooperate with the cooperative, live stock enterprises and help them in some systematic way of auditing their accounts? Surely we have the officials in the Department of Agriculture who can give very valuable help in this respect, and I rather have the opinion that the present. Minister of Agriculture is somewhat sympathetic in this -regard. Unfortunately we have this solidarity of the cabinet with which to contend, and if the minister cannot get a majority to think with him, agriculture has to go by the board. We have heard a good deal lately not only from the Prime Minister but also in the press of an export marketing board being formed, and legislation was going to be introduced for the purpose, but apparently something has gone wrong; the cabinet apparently cannot agree and the result is that there is not a word on the order paper to indicate that a marketing board is going to be formed. I shall therefore look forward very much indeed to a statement from the Minister of Agriculture because he realizes just as keenly as I do the serious condition of this basic industry, and until this basic industry is built upon a firm foundation where people will stay on the land willingly as volunteers, until they can carry on in this industry at a profit so that they will wish to stay on the land instead of wanting to try their luck in other callings, we cannot expect any big improvement in general business in Canada
Mr. JOHN T. SPROULE (East Lambton): I did not intend to say anything but I cannot allow to go unchallenged the statement of the last speaker (Mr. Spencer) that the hon. Minister of Agriculture has done nothing for agriculture. I come from a rural district myself and no one has more sympathy with the condition of agriculturists than I have. I am sure that the Minister of Agriculture sympathizes just as keenly with the condition of the agriculturists as does any member of this house, and I want to say that he has'done great things for agriculture this year and also last year, For instance, he has secured space for cattle going to the old country for ten and twelve dollars a head, and our cattle would be selling for one dollar per hundred pounds less but for that. The
Agricultural Conditions

minister is doing much more than that for agriculture. It is not for me to say what he has in his mind, but I am sure that everyone will agree that the minister is very industrious and that he is doing his very best. When members complain of the price of agricultural products I would ask them to point to any country where the prices of agricultural products are higher than they are in Canada. It is easy to criticize the government, but I repeat there is no other country that is obtaining better prices than we obtain in Canada for our agricultural products. Hogs in Chicago, for instance, are quoted at $3.60, and are bought in Michigan at 2J cents a pound. What is the cause of this?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: High tariffs.


Mr. SPROULE:: The tariff has nothing to do with it. I believe that my hon. friend from Southeast Grey is doing her best for her constituents and she is entitled to her views, but still the fact remains that the tariff is the only weapon we have to keep a lot of commodities out of this country. After the Imperial conference we all hope that there will be some improvement in conditions.


William Richard Motherwell: May I ask the hon. member a question? He stated that the freight rates on cattle had been reduced to twelve dollars as the result of the intercession of the Minister of Agriculture. I would be only too glad if that were so, but I would point out that ocean passenger rates were reduced at the same time. Was that due to the intervention of the minister or was it merely the policy adopted by the North Atlantic Shipping Conference of their own accord?


John Thomas Sproule: I was speaking of the
cattle industry and what I stated is perfectly correct. Rates have been brought down not merely to twelve dollars but ten dollars, and ten days ago what were they asking? They were asking fifteen and twenty dollars. The Minister of Agriculture is responsible for bringing about that great improvement.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Realizing, Mr. Speaker, that the
house is getting impatient I shall be very brief in any remarks I have to make. Taking first a few minutes to deal with the addresses given by hon. members opposite, there was one point in which they seemed to be in accord, and that was the regret with which they viewed the cut in the agricultural estimates and the great damage they apprehended to agriculture in this country in consequence. I think perhaps the majority

felt that way. We have spent some time discussing the agriculture estimates and I do not think any hon. member opposite has shown that in any item we have discussed agriculture in this country has lost or will lose anything in the year 1932-33 due to these cuts. If, then, we can make a cut in the Agriculture estimates with no detrimental effect on agriculture in this country, I think that is all gain. No one will welcome more than I any suggestion on the estimates still to be discussed as to where I can improve agriculture by an increase in the estimates alone.
Much has been said regarding cooperation, and it was urged that this government give more support to cooperative movements. I myself am a member of the cooperative live stock pool, of the wheat pool, and of the Saskatchewan registered seed grain pool. I have always taken a very keen interest and active part in these cooperative organizations, but because I do belong to them is no reason why I should shut my eyes and say that they are right and everybody else is wrong. There is no country in the world that has been boosted more or has done more in the way of cooperative processing and cooperative marketing in agriculture than Denmark, and at the present time conditions in agriculture in Denmark are as bad as they are in this country, and even worse. Therefore cooperation is not the solution. The fact that Denmark has a lower tariff has not saved agriculture in that country. On the other hand, the fact that the United States has a high tariff has not been of as great assistance as it was thought it would be to the agriculturists. I believe there has been a greater depreciation in land values and in values of farm products in the United States than there has been even in Canada. So, on the one hand, we have low tariff with agricultural conditions in the low tariff country worse than they are in this country. On the other hand, we have countries with high tariffs, and with agricultural conditions worse than they are in this country. On the one hand, we have countries that are very far advanced and developed in cooperative movements, and yet the conditions of agriculture there are worse than they are in Canada. I shall refer to this again before concluding.
The one thing that I am sure has appealed to every hon. member of this house, as it has appealed to many farmers throughout the country, has been this, that no sooner did the former government go out of power and this government come into power than member after member, farm members and others,

Agricultural Conditions
on the opposite side of the house began a demand for an agricultural policy. After they had been nine years in office they insisted that what this country needed was an agricultural policy. Hon. members in the far corner who had been in the house for years before we took power cannot surely congratulate themselves on what they have accomplished because it has also been the refrain of their remarks ever since we took office that what this country needed was an agricultural policy. I agree that what we did need was an agricultural policy, and immediately this government took power we outlined and formulated very definite policies in agriculture. The attitude that I have taken towards agriculture since this government took office has been exactly the same as I have taken in connection with my own farm or that I would take if this country were my farm. I think the sound farmer begins here: First he lays the best foundation he can regarding live stock, grain and so on, to produce and raise the best stock he can at the lowest possible cost. It was with that end in view that we evolved policies known as our live stock policies, and we have made it possible, without any restraint so far as this government is concerned in the matter of finance, to put into the hands of farmers in the outlying districts-and not altogether in outlying districts-herd sires and other stock which makes it possible for them to improve their herds, a step they could not otherwise take except at big expense to themselves. That has been one of our fundamental policies with regard to agriculture; it has been very far reaching, and of course would have been more beneficial if prices for agricultural products had been better.
Next, during our first twelve months in power we were able to. obtain the services *of perhaps one of the best agrostologists on the North American continent, so that the farmers of this whole country might receive benefit from his knowledge and research work concerning the production of forage crops, and the like. I maintain we have laid a sound foundation for agriculture throughout this country.
What is the next step which confronts the farmer? It is this: He wishes a market for his product. This government carried out its election promises by giving the Canadian market to Canadian farmers. Our farmers receive the full benefit of our market. Although I realize hon. members are somewhat impatient to get away I believe I should take a few moments to outline some of the benefits reaped by Canadian farmers in various
branches of agriculture as a result of obtaining the benefit of the Canadian market. First let us consider butter. After imposing a duty which kept out butter from Australia and New Zealand and other countries in 1931 Canadian butter in Montreal brought the following premiums over the export, or world value:
January	 8-69
February	 7'8?
March	 7-82
April	 6-33
An estimate by an independent authority showed that in the first nine months of office this government as a result of its tariffs had put into the hands of the dairy farmers of Canada over 812,000,000. The officers of my department when asked to check up the estimate given by the president of the National Dairy Council, and to predicate the result on a conservative basis, gave an amount in excess of $14,000,000 for the first nine months.
We will now consider the value of Canadian butter as compared with that of Australia and New Zealand. During the month of January, 1932, our butter was worth at Vancouver 3i cents per pound higher in price than Australian butter. On January 23, 1932, the finest New Zealand butter which sells at a premium of [DOT]74 cents per pound over Canadian butter was equal to 17-22 cents per pound Canadian funds, which would Leave Canadian butter on the same day at 16-48 cents on the London market. Allowing for transportation and handling charges, Canadian butter on that date would have netted back 13-98 cents at prairie points. On the same day, however, No. 1 pasteurized Alberta and Saskatchewan butter was quoted at Vancouver at 21 cents. That indicated a difference of approximately 10 cents a pound if we consider transportation due I think, entirely, to the protection afforded by our tariffs in preventing the importation of butter from New Zealand and Australia. This statement regarding the various markets will be of interest to those who evidently still have the opinion-perhaps not the opinion-but would like to give the impression to the country that it is their opinion that our tariffs have not improved the condition, so far as butter is concerned. On March 19, 1932, the price of butter at Montreal, namely 28 cents per pound, exceeded the value for export to London by 11-05 cents per pound, which, on one day's Canadian consumptive requirements of 833,333 pounds, amounted to $92,083.30. On the same day the value of butter at Montreal exceeded the value at New York by 5 cents per pound, equivalent on one day's Canadian consumptive requirements to S41,666.65. On the same day
3396	_	. commons
-	Agricultural Conditions____________
the value of butter at Montreal, exceeded the value at Chicago by 5i . cents per . pound, equivalent on one day's Canadian consumptive requirements to $47,916.64.
I should like to speak longer concerning butter, and the additional returns . to the Canadian farmer in connection therewith, due to our tariff. I find, however, that I must turn to other commodities. Let us now consider lamb and mutton.. During 1931 the total imports of lamb and mutton were 1,185,327 pounds, compared with 4,411,771 pounds in 1930, a very notable reduction, particularly useful in view of the unstable condition of the world's markets. It is safe to say that during the early part of the year prices were maintained on an average of 2 apd 3 cents a pound above what would otherwise have been the case, and during the autumn when the flush of the runs was coming forward, prices were held higher by one cent per pound. On the average, then, the market was held at li cents higher which, on inspected slaughtered sheep alone, at an average of 86 pounds per head, contributed the revenue of 81,059,000. Inspected slaughterings represented only 45 per cent of the total farm sale, so that the total revenue saved would be well in excess of $2,300,000. May I repeat at this point what I have said on other occasions that wool is the one farm commodity on which there is no duty. Yet there has been a much greater depreciation in the price of wool, a commodity which has no tariff placed upon it, than there has been on any commodities with tariffs.
Next I shall touch on the increase in cattle prices, these increases being brought about by our tariffs. Much has been said regarding the benefit accruing to the farmers as a result of the reduction in ocean freight rates. In addition to that we have made it possible, by arrangements with the railways, that the farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan and Manitoba who have a good deal of coarse feed and wish to purchase feeder cattle shall receive a 50 per cent freight rate from the ranches to their farms. In that way they save the stock yard charges and local freight, as well, because without the arrangement we have made, the special 50 per cent reduction in the rate there would be a local rate into and out of the stock yards. We made the endeavour, and to a certain degree were successful, to have mail orders filled by the Beef Producers' Council for farmers in the north who wanted cattle, so that they might be saved the expense of coming down and hunting for cattle and the expense involved.

That saving amounted to about $100 a car load. We did everything within our power to develop the export of our cattle to Great Britain. The result has been that as a result of the increase, in price we have, netted back to the Canadian farmers a sum not less than $7,500,000.. The cattle that were shipped netted back over the local market price, Calgary $17.29 per head; in Moose Jaw $21.18 per head; in Winnipeg S18.ll per head and in Toronto $17.50 per head. Our hopes in this connection however were very badly shattered when Great Britain went off the gold standard.
Next we come to bacon and pork. During 1931 the imports of pork and pork products were 5,138,400 pounds as compared with 19,631,645 pounds in 1930. This is due almost entirely to the effect of the tariff. However, in January, 1931, in spite of our tariff against bacon, the Danes felt our domestic price was so much higher than theirs that they could very well export bacon to this country. The only way we could stop the bacon coming in was by passing a ministerial order excluding importations on the ground of the danger of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, which was done in one case at least in England when this disease had undoubtedly been introduced through the importation of Danish bacon. By this action we excluded from our domestic market 20,000,000 pounds of Danish bacon. These are matters of legislative acts, and perhaps we should have given them more publicity, but since I accepted my portfolio I have felt that as minister of farming I should, by laying down a sound fundamental policy, direct the energies of my department to putting more money into the pockets of our farmers and not worry about who should know.
The last speaker challenged me to show how this government had in any way benefited our farmers by improving the price of the products they have to sell. I will take a commodity that has not been very much discussed-fruit. All hon. members are aware of the advantage that the American fruit grower has over the Canadian. Due to favourable climatic conditions he gets his crop on the market before ours, when people have a taste for fresh fruit and prices are high, and if our domestic market was not protected it would be impossible for our fruit growers to carry on. The dumping duty we put into effect has been so much criticized that no doubt hon. members will be interested to know the results of this action on , the 1S31 fruit market. Let me give the committee the
Agricultural Conditions

figures of car arrivals of seven commodities and 1931. These figures cover domestic and on the twelve principal markets for 1930 imported fruit:
	Car	Arrivals of Seven	Commodities	on Twelve	Principal Markets	
		Domestic			Imported	
1930	1931	Diff.	1930	1931	Diff.Apples.	. 3,032	.3.476	+444	476	436	- 40Celery.	. 190	235	+ 45	810	405	-405Grapes.	. 72	350	* +278	1,056	541	- 515Lettuce.	. . 15	27	+ 12	1,304	862	- 442Onions.	. G17	886	+269	725	431	-294Pears. .	. . 52	59	+ 7	515	415	-100Plums. .	. . 9	12	+ 3	96	58	- 38It will be observed that there has been a heavy increase of domestic shipments with a still heavier decrease of imported shipments. I do not think anything could more clearly demonstrate the benefit which our tariff measures have proved to the fruit growers of the dominion. The most pronounced effect was observable in Ontario with respect to grapes. Grapes were not bringing any price at all in Ontario because the wineries were virtually not operating, and if we had not preserved the markets of the prairie provinces for the Ontario grape producers they would not have been able to dispose of their crop. This did not raise the price to the purchasers in the prairie provinces over what it was a year ago. In fact the price was a good deal lower than the preceding year, but it was slightly over the price across the line. However, if it had not been for this tariff it is doubtful if the American grape growers would not have taken advantage-as they have done in the past-to exact a higher price for their product in this country than in their own. There was also a marked benefit to the fruit growers in British Columbia. Due to lack of protection they had had a very unprofitable market, and as a result their fruit ranches were being neglected. A survey undertaken by the provincial authorities in the fall of last year shows that there has been a decided increase in the planting of all the small stone fruits. For instance, in the Okanagan valley there have been the following plantings during the year:	Peaches,
14,874 trees; apricots, 3,546; plums and prunes, 2,289; cherries, 4,024;-or a total of 24,731 trees. Indications point to similar or even greater plantings during 1932, and although fruit prices in British Columbia have been lower than they were last year, the fruit growers, because of their good crop and their protected home market, have been more than satisfied. No doubt hon. members will be
interested to hear some of the expressions of appreciation which we have received from the fruit organizations of British Columbia. These organizations of course, are absolutely nonpolitical. Mr. MacDonald, president of the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, states in part:
The greatest stabilizing influence upon the marketing activities of the growers during the past season (1931) was the establishing of the fair market values by the Dominion government; it enabled the growers to market crops which previously rotted in orchards and gardens. It is estimated that $184,000 had been saved by the fruit growers of the province which otherwise would have been lost had the growers been compelled to meet the competition from the United States. A specific instance was rhubarb from the Hatzic-Mission district. As a result of the fixing of four cents per pound on rhubarb this district shipped over eighty cars of rhubarb to the prairie markets formerly supplied by the state of Washington.
Mr. Somerset, chairman of the Ontario Marketing Board, in a conversation emphatically stated:
The establishing of the fair market value saved the Ontario growers from receiving ruinously low prices during the past season and prevented the marketing situation from becoming a chaotic condition, and prices dropping much lower than were realized.
Mr. James E. Johnson, manager of the Norfolk Fruit Growers' Association, Simcoe, Ontario, stated:
The policy of the government in regard to the fixing of fair market values for fruits and vegetables has been of considerable benefit throughout the whole season in the marketing of the apple crop.
Mr. Johnson represents an organization handling three hundred thousand barrels of apples, controlling three thousand acres of orchard of one hundred thousand trees, and paying out in labour in connection with the production and harvesting of apples $110,000 annually. Mr. Johnson is recognized as one of the foremost apple growers and dealers ih the province of Ontario.
Agricultural Conditions

Mr. E. J. Chambers, president of the Associated Growers of B.C. Ltd., said to the members of the Penticton Cooperative Growers, recently:
The reason for considering this section in a relatively good position was because it had done fairly well with soft fruits during the past stimmer.
A dump duty has given us good protection on the markets so let us be careful not to overdo the matter of price.
I have here a large number of other letters along the same lines, but as I wish to finish before one o'clock I will not detain the committee with any further quotations.
Canned fruits	 lbs.
Onions	  bush.
Canned vegetables	 lbs.
Barley	 bush.
Buckwheat	 bush.
Oats	 bush.
Peas	 bush.
Rye	 bush.
Wheat	 hush.
Bran, shorts and middlings	 cwt.
Oatmeal and rolled oats	 cwt.
Maple sugar to United Kingdom.. .. lbs.
Clover seed to United Kingdom	 bush.
Flax seed	 hush.
Tobacco leaf	 lbs.
There was also a large increase in 1931-32, as compared with 1929-30, in horses, fox skins, mink skins, hides and skins to the United Kingdom; fresh beef to the United Kingdom; pickled pork to the United Kingdom and to the United States; poultry to the United States; butter, condensed milk, fish oils, lard and compounds of tallow, and honey. There are also others, all of which show that in spite of the statements that have been made to the effect that our trade has been restricted because of the tariff, there has been a great increase in our exports of agricultural products, particularly to the United Kingdom.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose I was concluding a few remarks with reference to marketing. This morning the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer) referred to the price of beef cattle in the west being only $4.25 per hundredweight. The amendment says that the government has taken no steps or has no definite policy to relieve the agricultural depression, but I would have thought that the hon. member, coming from the part of the country from which he does, would have known something about the efforts made by this govern-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on and complete the story.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Robert Weir: In answer to the
criticism directed against this government that its tariff policy has restricted trade, I desire to put on record figures showing increased exports of farm products since we came into office. This is to show the relative exports of farm products comparing 1929-30 and 193132:
1929-30	1931-32
4,254,466	7,263,489
26,422	195.813
17.249,042	22,477,523
14,817,071	24,337,678
186,558	741,041
6,406,181	13,841,300
43,808	66,056
1,526,368	4,359,813
177,006,369	191,315,933
1,988,356	2,018,332
407,050	798,840
13,212	29,284
41,794	97,146
772,831	1,046,474
6,811,391	8,222,922
ment in connection with the marketing of beef cattle. Shortly after taking office, and when our cattle had been shut out from the United States, we succeeded in having buyers come from the old country. They visited Montreal and Toronto and were on their way home when I persuaded them to come to Ottawa to pay me a visit and discuss the cattle situation. They were very much disappointed in the export cattle they had seen as they felt that there would be a big supply of choice cattle available with the American market shut off. I suggested that they go to western Canada, particularly to the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta to inspect the cattle there. However, they were so decided in their prejudices against Canadian cattle that they could not be persuaded to make the trip. My idea was not to encourage them to buy western cattle instead of eastern cattle, I was trying to persuade them to buy western cattle because I knew if they were not lifted off the market they would flow into and depress the markets in eastern Canada. So far as eastern Canada was concerned it made no difference whether these cattle were lifted from the west or from the east. However, the buyers would not go west because of their prejudice.
The government then had some carloads of standard type cattle, representing the different

Agricultural Conditions
grades, shipped to the old country markets. With these cattle was sent a real live cattleman, a man who was vitally interested himself because of the extent of his own holdings, to demonstrate the good points of these cattle to the English buyers. The result was that in the following spring old country buyers came not only to eastern Canada but to western Canada. Personally I feel that the soundest line to be adopted is to have buyers from the old country come here to make purchases. These men have a knowledge of the old country markets and the result of their visits this spring was that they contracted for practically all the cattle in western Canada available for export at from $5 to $5.25 per hundredweight. Since that time further orders have been received and the prejudices against western cattle have been overcome. I do not think we can overestimate the work done by the government in this connection.
I think it would be well to put on record a brief summary of the benefits accruing to agriculture through the legislation passed by this government. In the first place, agriculture has benefited to the extent of $592,040 in connection with fruit. This sum does not take into consideration the value to the industry of new plantings as a result of the government's policy, nor does it take into consideration the possible break in the market which would have occurred had fruit been allowed to come in from the United States.
In connection with butter, agriculture has benefited to the value of $12,862,000. This sum takes into consideration only the benefits to the dairying industry as far as butter is concerned during the first eighteen months in which this government was in power. In the case of lamb and mutton the benefit is valued at $2,300,000, and in the case of cattle, $7,500,000. This latter figure has to do only with the marketing of commercial cattle. In the case of swine, the benefits are valued at $2,200,000. The sire loaning policy is valued at $1,000,000. This is a very conservative estimate as it does not take into consideration the indirect benefits which would accrue in connection with pure-bred cattle. In connection with the wheat bonus, there has been expended in western Canada $10,000,000. Altogether, there has been put into the pockets of the farmers a total of $36,454,040, or an average of over $50 per farmer by legislation alone more than there otherwise would have been.
In addition, loans have been made to the provincial governments in connection with the drought-stricken areas, which loans total over
$12,000,000. I do not think even those hon. members who have been most critical of the government in connection with agriculture will refuse to admit the importance of the assistance given to the wheat pools of the west. The government has guaranteed the banks up to a certain amount per bushel, and this year it has guaranteed the wheat pools in connection with the holding and marketing of wheat.
I believe that those of us who were present this morning realize that the remarks of the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) were not so much a criticism of my colleagues and their attitude towards agriculture as a confession of the disagreements he had perhaps had with his colleagues during the time they were in office. I would not be fair if I did not reciprocate his kindly wishes, and I desire to thank him for the compliment he paid me when he said that what agriculture needed at the present time was a completely new foundation. The fact is that we started laying that foundation some twelve months before he paid me that compliment. As I said this morning, we have laid what I believe to be a sound foundation for agriculture. In addition we have given the farmers our own markets, but we are now faced with another problem even greater than this, that is, to extend the effective range of our tariffs to take care of the marketing of those products which reach a point of production that puts them on the export market. This applies especially to those products where the surplus is small compared to the total production. Last week a delegation from the province of Quebec attended on the government and asked that something be done in the way of a marketing board. It is interesting to note that on that day hon. members opposite were speaking with grave suspicion of such a board, feeling that the whole matter would be put into the hands of private interests. The members of this delegation were thoughtful men, engaged in the dairying business, and one of them summed up the situation in the most effective manner I have ever heard. He said: I am a creamery man; I make one hundred pounds of butter and then I make another pound, and it is that extra pound which causes the whole difficulty. The difficulty is caused by the small surplus over what is needed for home consumption. We have given a great deal of consideration to the question of extending the effective range of our tariffs in extending markets.
There are two ways in which this surplus can be lifted. One is by the setting up of a federal farm board as was done in the United
3400	COMMON'S
Agricultural Conditions
States and the purchasing of all surpluses to be held or resold on the world markets. The other way is to set up a marketing board and put machinery at the disposal of the farmers in order that any branch of agriculture desiring to place a levy upon its products may create a fund to be used by the marketing board to absorb any loss which Would be necessary in removing the surplus stores. In this way, more life could be given to the home market. However, there are many difficulties in the way, especially in view of the forthcoming Imperial conference. It is realized that our great world market is the United Kingdom and it was felt that the representatives from the old land should be consulted regarding their attitude towards any system of levying or bonusing. There are also many practical difficulties to be overcome in the working out of a marketing board of any kind.
I assure hon. gentlemen that we have given more attention and thought to this question than to any other, and in this connection I have received excellent cooperation from hon. members irrespective of party. Because of the reasons I have stated it has been thought best to appoint a commission to study the whole problem of marketing, and the government intends to appoint such a commission to study this question, especially in connection with export marketing. It will study the problem of supply and demand and perhaps more particularly the spread in the processing of the major farm products.
I believe I have dealt with most of the items coming under this amendment. The first is:
The national control and regulation of currency and credit.
This subject has been discussed in this house on so many occasions during the present session that no useful purpose would be served by taking time now for a further discussion of it.
The next paragraph is:
A measure of controlled inflation having for its object increase in commodity prices.
Much has been said both for and against inflation. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) yesterday, in speaking to this amendment, stated that the price of eggs in his constituency was three cents a dozen or just sufficient to buy a postage stamp. I am sure he would not feel that any reasonable price for eggs would be less than twelve cents a dozen. This would mean that the dollar would have to be increased to four times its present value. That would mean, on a similar

basis, the price of steers would be twenty-four1 cents a pound on the1 hoof and wheat would be'82.70 a bushel. If We follow that further in connection with the man who owns his property, with the labouring classes who are hit perhaps even worse than are the farmers, We find ourselves getting into grave practical difficulties.


George Gibson Coote: I am sure the minister does not want to misrepresent what I said. I was speaking about the average price level of agricultural commodities and contending it should be raised.


Robert Weir: The next paragraph reads:
A substantial reduction of farm indebtedness.
That comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces, and it would therefore be a waste of time to discuss' it here, although I realize fully that that is perhaps the greatest load which the farmers of Canada have to carry at present.
Financial assistance in creating processing plants under farmer control.
This is a matter which has been given a good deal of consideration. Personally I believe in the principle of cooperative marketing, but if cooperative marketing is sound, as I consider it is, it should stand on its own feet. If the purpose is to cut out the middle man or excessive profits by private interests and the cooperative enterprise will have those profits to play on and still have the prices charged by private interests as well as the good will of their big clientele or members of their pool or cooperative organizations, I do not see why they cannot stand on their own feet and I believe they can. Marketing in connection with live stock has perhaps made greater progress and undergone greater changes than the marketing of any of the rest of our products. Fifty years ago less than 18 per cent of our population was urban and live stock processing and marketing took place on the original farm. A few years later beef rings were started; farmers got together in cooperative groups and killed tlieir stock cooperatively. Then, as small industries started up in the towns, farmer butchers or regular butchers started business and the tendency was that the stock would be driven to the town butcher and slaughtered there. From that we have the jump to our packing plants as the urban population grew in comparison with the rural population. Therefore now we are in this position that the rural and the urban populations are practically the same.

Agricultural Conditions
With reference to the packing plants, I stated before that the purpose of this commission would be to study the problems of marketing and in that connection also study in particular the spread in the processing of the major farm products. I believe we should have cooperative marketing and cooperative industry, but at the same time I think we would be unwisely advised if we tried in any way to destroy the efficiency of private interests and industry set up by the capital of people who are just as much Canadians and interested in the welfare of Canada as are we in agriculture. We should have both, and I believe it will be quite possible, with a thorough survey and investigation, to work out a spread which would ensure the farmers that no undue profits were taken from them. That would be the standard for the cooperative enterprise. The latter, on the other hand, would act as a balance wheel against the private enterprise, and at the same time it would be a standard by which the private enterprise could measure its work.
Another paragraph reads:
That farming cooperative selling organizations be permitted to import goods received in other countries in exchange for Canadian agricultural products without the imposition of customs or dumping duty.
If we agreed to that, we would also have to agree to give the consumers in this country an opportunity to make use of farm products such as fruit and so on, which are dumped into this country from the United States. It cannot be two ways; it must be one way. In my constituency, which is a purely rural one, the largest urban place in it having a population of about 1,600, although the farmers at the last election voted that Canadian markets be given to the Canadian farmer, I think I heard given, almost on a par with this, reasons by those farmers, some of them from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the United States, as well as from Anglo-Saxon countries, that they wanted as well to protect the urban industries of this country, so that when their children grew up they would not have to go to another country to work if they did not wish to take up farming. They still hold that view.
In conclusion, I would not have hon. members consider that I thought everything was well with agriculture; far from it; but I do not think the situation can be remedied by the adoption of policies that have been in . vogue in other countries and that, before this economic crisis arose, were more or less successful but now have failed. We must 41761-214
study, investigate, the problems of our own country and work out our own solution and salvation.
Mr. T- F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch): Mr. Speaker, even at this late hour in the session, I believe I would be neglecting my duty if I did not say a few words in connection with the amendment now before the house. First, I want to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) upon the moderate tone of the speech which he has delivered here to-day; it is entirely different from those which he has delivered in the house on previous occasions. I should like also to congratulate the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) on the spirit of forgiveness and conciliation which he has shown towards hon. members opposite regarding the severe personal criticism which they have levelled at him from time to time. He has shown a spirit of forgiveness and a willingness to work hand in hand with the present government and the Minister of Agriculture for the uplifting and benefit of agriculture throughout the country. He knows the serious condition in which agriculture now finds itself.
Probably the Minister of Agriculture has wondered why in the past from time to time he has been subject to such severe personal criticism from this part of the house. Let me say this to him:	From the time he first
spoke in this chamber he courted such criticism. In the first speech he delivered here he went out of his way to criticize our leader and to brand him as an outcast. He also spoke of the former Minister of Agriculture as a spreader of foul seeds and weeds throughout Saskatchewan. Both of these hon. members are respected and looked up to by us on this side of the house, and we resent such personal criticisms and are willing and ready to hurl them oack to the man who uttered them. If he comes looking for war, he will fmd war. In the last speech he made in this house the Minister of Agriculture went out of his way to refer to two hon. members on this side, two outstanding representatives of western Canada, whom he branded as backbenchers. Now if we stop and think we will realize that even the present Minister of Agriculture is where he is only by a turn of the wheel of fortune which has brought him to the front. When a man goes out of his way to criticize severely members on this side of the house, he must expect the same treatment frorfi hon. gentlemen on this side. As to me, I do not ask for any quarter and I do not give any, but I am ready and willing to cooperate with other hon. gentlemen for the

Agricultural Conditions

good of agriculture at the present time. I reserve the right, however, not to indulge in personal criticism, but to criticize policies that may be put forward by the government. I think hon. members should at all times be ready and willing to give constructive criticism of policies that are put forward by the government for the good of agriculture or for any other purpose.
We listened this morning to some hon. members opposite saying that tihe former Liberal government had no policy with regard to agriculture. That showed a woeful ignorance on their part of what the former Minister of Agriculture and his department did during the years of the Liberal administration. Last year in this house I put on Hansard a record of the achievements of the former Liberal administration with regard to agriculture, and in case some hon. members did not hear it or have not read it or looked up the agricultural literature for the past few years, perhaps it will be wise for me to put it on Hansard again in order that they may become acquainted with what the Liberal government actually did do for agriculture during the years they were in power.
First I would mention that the former Liberal government made it possible for the farmers of western Canada to secure two new varieties of wheat, Garnet Wheat and Reward wheat. They placed these two new varieties in the hands of our farmers. I see some hon. gentlemen opposite smiling. If they went to the farmers out in the Peace River country or in northern Saskatchewan and told them that this was something to laugh at, they would not be laughing before they got off the farm, because Reward and Garnet wheat have been a wonderful boon to the western farmer who has been having frozen crops for the last ten or fifteen or more years. It has meant hundreds of millions of dollars to western Canada to have Reward and Garnet wheat. It has made it possible to raise wheat in the northern parts of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba where formerly we thought we could never raise wheat. Farmers had previously been raising piebald Marquis wheat, which had been cursed by every importer in the old country for years, or they had been raising frozen wheat and getting little or nothing for it for years, but these early varieties of Reward and Garnet wheat have made it possible to extend the boundaries of the area in which we can raise wheat for over one hundred miles further north.
The next thing the Liberal government did was to participate with the provincial government of Ontario in a scheme for erecting a

new live stock building at the Royal Winter Fair, Toronto, by granting a sum of 835,000 per annum for twenty yearn. Hon. members for Ontario are well aware of the value of the Royal Winter Fair.
The former government also organized work throughout the country with a view to finding a rust-proof wheat. Farmer members from Manitoba know what rust has meant to them in the growing of wheat for many years. It has ruined our western crops to the extent of millions of dollars. The government started research laboratories and experts working on this problem of rust control and such great progress was made that we now have a wheat which is almost free from rust, and in this way one of the big problems which the farmers of western Canada have had to contend with for years has been practically eliminated.
I will leave that matter as time is passing and go on to the next. The former government also established restricted areas for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. The work that has been done in that respect has been of incalculable advantage to the farmers of Canada and to our citizens in general. These restricted areas were established throughout the country under the Liberal administration, and the work is still being carried on at the present time to the great benefit not only of the live stock industry of this country but of the health of the human race.
Another thing which the late government did was to enlarge the present central experimental farm at Ottawa by taking in a few years ago a large tract of land.
Another thing was the grading of our products and the establishment of standards looking towards improving the quality of our products and their better marketing. That system has been of great importance both to our domestic and export trade in agricultural products. The results of this system have been to improve the quality of our products, to increase their monetary value, and to add to our reputation for such commodities as butter, cheese, eggs, bacon, fruits and vegetables. This question of grading of different products was examined by the agriculture committee last year, and although there was some adverse criticism from some quarters it was decided by the committee, after investigation, that this system of grading and standardizing of our agricultural products should be continued because it was to the advantage of agriculture and in the public interest as well.
Next was the establishment of an agricultural economic and cooperative farm market-

Agricultural Conditions
ing branch. That has now been established for some time. Another thing which the former government did was to create a system of inspection of fruits and vegetables at the different shipping points. The Minister of Agriculture also inaugurated a system of precooling or refrigerating of fruits and vegetables.
Next was the establishment of a seedcleaning and storage elevator at Moose Jaw.
Initial steps were also taken by the former government to hold the world's grain conference and exhibition at Regina. We hope that this will materialize in the future. It was called off last year owing to conditions in western Canada, but we hope and trust that conditions will be better in the future and that this world's conference will take place at Regina.
The former government also established three new plant pathological laboratories, at St. Catharines, Edmonton and Sydney, and the representatives from those districts in this house I am sure appreciate the value of those laboratories.
Then the former government also abolished the manufacture and importation into Canada of oleomargarine. It will be remembered that some years ago we endeavoured to put through legislation prohibiting the importation of oleomargarine. To-day we are the only country in the world that does not allow the use of oleomargarine. This question became more or less of a political issue at the time and the leader of the opposition of that day and the former Minister of Agriculture voted for the importation of oleomargarine. They were anxious to have it brought into the country. But the Liberal government refused the importation of oleomargarine. If oleomargarine were imported into Canada to-day it would undoubtedly replace some thirty or forty million pounds of butter, so that step by the former government means a great deal to the dairy farmers of this country at the present time. We come next to the assistance of live stock industries and the establishment of live stock arenas in cooperation with the provinces and cities interested. Several of those arenas are distributed throughout the dominion at different centres where fairs are held, and are used for the accommodation of live stock. Next we come to cooperation with other nations of the British Commonwealth in the establishment of an agricultural research bureau. These are some of the things the Liberal government did for agriculture during its term of office.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: Did that cooperation increase the exports of agricultural products?
41761-214 i


Mr. DONNELLY:: We believe it did. '


Victor Clarence Porteous: Well, it did not.


James J. Donnelly: My word is as good as the hon. gentleman's. May I now refer to the policy of the Conservative government since coming into power.


An hon. MEMBER:: It might not mean much either.


James J. Donnelly: If what I shall have to say did not mean more than the statements of some hon. members opposite I would not say anything; I would not get up and make speeches at all.
I shall now refer to the policies of the Conservative government. I have before me twelve points which the present Minister of Agriculture propounded as his policy:
1.	A national marketing board.
2.	Lower costs of production to be attained by increased yield of wheat per acre.
We have endeavoured to increase our yield of wheat for a great many years, and I do not know whether or not at the present time we are meeting with more success than we did before. Ail farmers try to increase their yield.
3.	Sewing of land with crop best suited to it.
I do not know how that will be worked out, and I am not familiar with the activities along that line, or whether very much has been done in connection with the matter.


Robert Weir: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. On what does the hon. member base his statement that that is the agricultural policy outlined by me?


James J. Donnelly: This statement was
issued by the Department of Agriculture, and I have read the same twelve points published in MacLean's Magazine. I received a pamphlet from the Department of Agriculture outlining the twelve points shortly after the minister took office, and accept them as his policy. We return to them as follows:
4.	Research work to discover fertilizers required for different soils. No fertilizer to be recommended unless of moderate cost and available in the particular area.
I do not know what has been done, or of any particular activity, in that connection.
5.	Immediate survey of seed grain-wheat, oats, barley-and of seed vegetables and fodder crop.
I leave that for the consideration of hon. members.
6.	Creation of bull clubs.
Agricultural Conditions

This has been done for many years by all governments. Bull clubs have been established throughout the country for a long time.
7.	Immediate improvement of quality of our swine; government to buy every good sow which comes on the market.
For years the Liberal government had the same -policy; I can remember that for fifteen or twenty years that practice has been followed.
8.	Eradication of disease among poultry.
About the year 1916 or 1917, under the
Union government, if I remember correctly, this policy was begun and still continues.
9.	Increase of efforts to eliminate parasites.
Apparently efforts along those lines are
not being greatly increased because we find that the estimates for the entomological branch have been decreased. Apparently they are going to restrict their activities.
10.	Transformation of experimental farms into local educational centres.
We have not seen any great activity along that line.
11.	Cooperation with provincial governments in carrying out policies and bringing to the farmers the discoveries of government scientists.
There may have been some activities along that line, but I do not know of them.
12.	Research work in feeds to inform farmers of best balanced ration available in each area.
Of these twelve points, eleven have been clipped from the policies of former governments and have been the policies of past administrations. There is only one new one, namely, that referring to the national marketing board. We have heard a great deal about this board which is still in process of being formed. I am in happy cooperation with the idea, and hope it reaches formation. I should like to say to the minister, however, that such a board may be fraught with great difficulties and troubles, especially owing to the fact that an economic conference is shortly to be held in Ottawa. Those in charge must be careful concerning any steps taken towards the formation of such a board.
I have endeavoured to outline the policies of Liberal and Conservative administrations. What has been done with regard to them? May I say that in 1930, the Liberal government passed an estimate for $25,000 to set up a commission to investigate live stock and live stock products. That commission was never formed, and the investigation never took place. After two years have elapsed we find that at the present time this government is going to do a similar work. In the mean-

time, however, it has allowed two years to pass before beginning the program.
In his speech to-day the minister referred to the amount of farm products we have exported. He did not, however, tell us about the prices we received for them. If we cannot sell products abroad at our present prices, when will we be able to sell them? If an hon. member were running a shoe store he could sell his shoes at $1 a pair much more quickly than at $5 a pair. It would be much easier to sell wheat at 50 cents a bushel than at $1.50 a bushel. At the present time wheat is being sold for about 45 or 50 cents a bushel and eggs at four cents a dozen, whereas at an earlier time we received $1.50 or $1.65 for our wheat and 25 cents or 30 cents per dozen for our eggs. To-day the farmers in the west are saying, "We are not selling our products; we are giving them away." Certainly if we cannot give them away we must be passing through very hard times.
The other day I said to a farmer, "How much do you get for eggs"? He said, "Four cents a dozen." I said, "They cannot go much lower than that," "Oh, yes they can" he said, 'they can go four cents lower." Probably that man was a pessimist, because he believes that the price can drop four cents more. We hope it does not, and that it begins to recover. It is impossible to imagine conditions much worse than they are to-day.
The minister referred to a reduction of ocean freight rates on cattle shipped to the old country. Yes, that is tine; they have been reduced. I presume the government is taking credit for that drop. But, surely if it takes credit for a reduction in freight rates on cattle shipments it will give the Liberal government credit for in the year 1926 or 1927 reducing freight rates on cattle $15 or $20. Surely we can give the Liberal government credit for that. Is the minister also taking credit for having reduced ocean passenger rates? The shipping companies have reduced the freight rates on cattle; they have also reduced their passenger rates. Why? Well, any hon. member knows the reason-it is good business. The shipping companies are out for the business; that is all. If this North Atlantic shipping combine figured it was good business to put up the freight and passenger rates to-morrow, they would put them up. I hope they will not. They are not looking after the farmers' interests; they are looking after their own. If the minister was instrumental in bringing about the reduction in freight rates,
I should be willing to give him credit for it, but I do not think there is any credit coming

Agricultural Conditions
to him. But if he has been, responsible for that reduction, I do hope he will be able to get a still further reduction.
With regard to farm conditions generally,
I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) and other hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, in depicting the terrible conditions that to-day exist among our farmers throughout the dominion. In my opinion nothing more adversely affects the Canadian farmer to-day than the low price he is receiving for his products. That price has been reduced from one hundred down to about thirty-seven; whereas the price of the commodities he has to buy has been reduced only to about eighty-six. If the price levels were even the condition of the farmer would not be so bad.
I submit the government should take immediate steps to try to adjust these price levels so as to get them somewhere about even. I take issue with the Minister of Agriculture that tariffs have no influence upon prices; I contend they have a very material influence; and I believe that with the present high tariff policy of this administration we are bound to have a continuation of those uneven price levels. The only way to adjust them to something like an even basis is by lowering the tariff. If you bring down the tariff the price of manufactured products will come down to about the level of the price of farm products. "Oh, yes," you say, "but if you do that you will put the manufacturer in the same miserable condition as the farmer is now experiencing." No, you will not do anything of the sort. In the first place, you will make the condition of the farmer better. You will admit that. But you will not put the manufacturer in the desperate condition of the farmer, for the very reason that the moment you begin to bring down the price of manufactured products you will have more markets. You will grant that. Our people will begin to get busy, our transportation companies from one end of the country to the other will get busy. What will follow immediately after that? We shall have an unfavourable trade balance. Just what our Prime Minister does not want at all I do want; I want an unfavourable trade balance. The moment you get an unfavourable trade balance the value of your dollar will go down-just what the hon. member for Macleod was referring to-but the price levels of our manufactured and our farm products will go up. I repeat, an unfavourable trade balance will depreciate our dollar. As a result our manufacturers will receive more protection, they will get a belter price for their goods; and so will our farmers
for their products. After we have a depreciation in the value of our money, and we are importing and exporting more freely, if we find our price level is not high enough, then I am ready and willing that we go off the gold standard and issue more paper money. "Oh," you say, "this is terrible, to issue more paper money." But we have done it in the past. In 1917, I think it was, we issued $26,000,000 of paper money, with nothing behind it at all, only the country. It did not hurt the country any, we went on financing just the same. In 1927 we issued another $46,000,000 of paper money without any gold back of it. We had prosperous times. We can do it again if necessary. We have all the resources of the country behind us. If having lowered our tariff we have an unfavourable trade balance and depreciated money, and we do not find the price levels high enough, we can issue more paper and depreciate our money still further, This is necessary to be done in the interests of agriculture and of the other primary industries, all over the country.
We should, if possible, endeavour to reduce-production costs, but this government has done more than any other government to increase these costs. Their action in issuing, the national service loan did more to increase-the cost of production than the action of any other government that has preceded them. I ask any hon. member: If you had $10,000 in your pocket what commercial enterprise would you put it into?


Henry Alfred Mullins: A good farm.


James J. Donnelly: I thought that, too, some years ago. I may tell the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) that I once put $125,000 into good farms, and I will take $25,000 for them to-day. He may think it a good investment now; I did some years ago. But no one who stops to think seriously- and the people are thinking seriously-is very well aware that there is no commercial enterprise to-day into which a man can put his hard-earned cash and feel assured that it is safe and he will get a good return on his investment. For that very reason our financial men had their money stored in the banks not knowing what to do with it. They were willing to take the ordinary rate of interest allowed by our banks rather than invest their capital in any commercial enterprise. When the national service loan was floated naturally these men would have been anxious and willing to buy national bonds that would return them four per cent interest. But this government said, "No, that is not enough; you
Agricultural Conditions

shall have more than that, you shall have 15.12 to $5.17 for your money." Thereupon they raised the rate of interest and gave a splendid opportunity to these moneyed people. By taking this action the government forced our provinces in western Canada to pay six and a half per cent on bonds that they issued immediately afterwards-bonds exempt from municipal and provincial taxation, which means that they give a return of somewhere in the neighbourhood of seven per cent. What has happened as a result of this? Today the western farmer has to pay nine and ten per cent interest on loans. He simply cannot pay that rate of interest under present conditions. I repeat this government is responsible for that state of affairs. From the point of view of our farmers nothing worse could have been done. I have maintained, and I still maintain, that what we farmers in western Canada have always wanted was not easier money-we have had too much of it-but cheaper money. Every time our banks lend out money they should see that their loan is secured; then they would be able to lend their money to our farmers in western Canada at a low rate of interest. Therefore I would urge the minister to intercede with his government to see if something cannot be done in order to secure for western farmers not easier but cheaper money, in order to enable them to carry on, and with this * criticism I will conclude my remarks.


Victor Clarence Porteous: Mr. Speaker, I rise because of the challenge issued by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, who said that his word had greater value than mine. I do not say that my word is worth more than his, but I have under my hand a return tabled by the Department of Trade and Commerce which does say 'so.; I should like to place on Hansard a few figures with regard to the value in dollars of the exports of agricultural products, comparing the years 1921 and 1930, in dollars:
Meat products. . . . Dairy products. . . .
'Wheat	
.Other agricultural products

It will be seen that in every case there has been a decrease under the Liberal government. *While: I am on my feet I should like to make one. * comment on the amendment. May I say. if those who have suspicious minds with Iregard to the monopolies of this country were i to capitalize their suspicions as much as they, capitalize the position of the country to-iday: .in order, to. improve their position as
TMr. Donnelly.]
members of the opposition, I should pity the shareholders in that capitalization.
I may say that it is generally known in my party that I entertain some ideas that are somewhat similar to those expressed by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) with regard to our currency. I say, however, that in view of the fact that the hon. member has been promised that this matter will be discussed at the coming Imperial conference, I cannot see that any benefit will be derived by bringing it up for discussion here on the very eve of the prorogation of parliament. I believe many things will be accomplished at the Imperial conference that will prove beneficial to the farmers, and I think the hon. member who moved this amendment would do well to withdraw it.
Some parts of the amendment have no importance at all. For example, one suggestion has to do with the national control and regulation of currency. I would suggest to hon. members who criticize our present banking system that if they have any funds to spare the field is wide open. They can go into the banking business any time they wish, and if they think the rates of interest now charged are too high let them loan money at a lower rate on the same security required by the banks. Another suggestion is that a substantial reduction be made in farm indebtedness and interest rates. I should like to know how any government can reduce the indebtedness of farmers to private individuals. Another recommendation has to do with international agreements on tariff matters. I should like to know what government has gone further than this government has gone, and contemplates going, with regard to trade agreements. The Imperial conference has been called; it is contemplated that this question will be discussed, and I believe what will be accomplished there in regard to international agreements will be an example to all nations. I do not see that any benefit will be derived by the farmers if this amendment is adopted, so I must vote against it.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of speaking very briefly on one particular phase of the amendment now before the house. I am not confining myself to this one matter because I deprecate the importance of other points contained in the amendment, but because there are two or three other good reasons.
I should like to speak for a few minutes upon the proposed marketing board. This, of course, is not altogether a new idea; it is one which the minister had in mind before he

Agricultural Conditions
was appointed to his present position. For many mouths many of us have been studying this question and hoping for the creation of this board. May I say here that just as the minister spoke of the cooperation offered by other hon. members and. of the absence of partisan party politics in the consideration of this matter, so I wish to express my appreciation of the attitude of the minister in welcoming that cooperation and assistance and in meeting on common ground those who are sincerely interested in agriculture and who believe that by this means some good may be done.	_
It has been announced that for certain reasons this policy cannot be initiated at the present time, but we have been told that a commission will be appointed to study this question and perhaps settle some of the doubts and meet some of the difficulties which are now apparent. It is hoped that this will make it possible at some future time-I hope in the very near future-bo establish such a board. Naturally, with others who have been thinking along these lines, I am disappointed that it is not possible to proceed with the creation of this board at this time. I have no doubt the minister shares that disappoints ment, but 1 quite understand that there are three distinct difficulties which stand in the way of the actual appointment of such a board and the carrying out of such a plan at the present time. First, there is the question of whether the plan itself is absolutely sound. Personally I am convinced that it is, but that does not necessarily mean that I am right and ail who think otherwise are wrong. Then there is the question that undoubtedly has occurred to the government, as to the reception such a board would receive on the part of those who it is hoped will be the chief beneficiaries of the plan, the farmers themselves. Again I say that as far as I have been able to ascertain the farmers in general are not only prepared to enter into such an arrangement but they are also prepared to make it self-supporting and semi-cooperative, and their only regret is that they have not been able to do so before this time. But again I can only speak for that part of the farming population with which I am intimately acquainted.
The most serious aspect of all, and the consideration in which, in spite of my own disappointment, 1 believe possibly wisdom has been shown in this delay, is the relation of this plan to the coming Imperial conference. In connection with any plan of marketing, two main factors must be considered, the producers who wish to sell their goods and the consumers whom it is hoped will purchase
those goods. We must consider our own experience and the experience of other countries. For example, Australia is working under the Patterson scheme, which this proposal might resemble, but they are not permitted to send their butter to this country because of the dumping clause. It would be fatal to this plan if we were to find out too late that that was the attitude of Great Britain. I believe there is a general misapprehension as to the details of this proposal; I cannot indicate what the bill will contain because that is in the hands of the gods, but I can indicate what is in my mind and in the minds of many others who have discussed this matter.
Throughout the years under successive ministers much good work has been done by the Department of Agriculture, but in the main the work has been along the lines of improving marketing methods and the farm products themselves. In this field much good has been accomplished. I believe that this country has been fortunate in the past and is at the present time in the quality of its ministers of agriculture. They have been men who have had a wide and intimate knowledge of farming matters, they have had a sincere desire to do what was best for agriculture. Under their administration and partly with the assistance of the department, a foundation has been laid without which no marketing plan could succeed. We have a foundation of good products, good live stock and poultry; we have our systems of grading. These things have made it possible at this time to say that in the main we can supply that class and quality of farm products which is essential if we are to enter the British market in competition with other countries, principally Denmark. While good work has been done, this work is set at naught unless the product can be sold at a price which will at least meet the cost of production and leave a small profit for the time and labour expended and to cover the capital costs represented by the plant. That this is not the case at the present time is so well known that I do not need to add further arguments.
The hopelessly disorganized condition of the farmer and the low prices which he is receiving for his products have made it obvious that some action must be taken along the lines of better marketing methods. This condition is tragic because the population of our farms is slowly but surely moving towards bankruptcy. It is not only a bankruptcy of fortune, of bank account and pocketbook but a bankruptcy of ambition and morale. Although it must be admitted that it is no small misfortune which can discourage the

Agricultural Conditions
splendid type of man and woman we have on our farms, there is a lirhit to endurance and if this drain upon reserves, financially and morally, continues, that limit will be reached. I speak from an intimate knowledge of the men and women in western Canada, with whom I have worked and lived for the greater part of my lifetime, but I am prepared to believe that the same is true of our brother farmers in the central and eastern provinces. I feel sure that they are of a strong and courageous character and willing to work under overwhelming odds, but that cannot go on forever.
What is the reason for these conditions and the low prices which prevail? It is due in part to general conditions and also to the fact that the farmer has increased his production along other lines because of the continued low prices being paid for wheat. Local consumption of farm products in this country has decreased due to widespread unemployment; there is a lessened purchasing power and as a result of all these things we find ourselves upon an export basis not only with respect to wheat but with respect to live stock, dairy products, poultry, eggs, and all those products which are generally designated as mixed farming products. This attainment, if it may be called an attainment, instead of being a matter for congratulation has had 'ar-reaching and most unfortunate consequences. One of the reasons for the conditions which now prevail, a reason Which has been proved so often as almost to attain the status of economic law, is the fact that even a small percentage of farm products produced in excess of the home requirements will set the price for the entire production, whether sold in this country or abroad.
My time is too short to go into the details of this matter, but I shall refer to one instance, that of hogs. A little less than a year ago we reached the export basis on hogs. Within a few weeks of that time, without any other factor entering into the matter, the price paid to the farmer for hogs dropped from an average of eight cents per pound to four cents per pound. The same was true of our beef cattle, and I am sure it was also true, perhaps not to the same degree, of our egg production, our butter production, and the production of those various articles to which I have referred. That being the fact,
I think it would be most deplorable to throw up our hands and say that the only remedy would be to keep our production down to domestic requirements. That would be admitting an abject failure, and I do not think We are ready to do that. If we are to succeed
[ \i:. Speakman.]
in this country-arid I am certain we shall in the future

and if the farmers are to succeed, they must raise more of their class and kind of product than can or will be consumed in Canada during the succeeding years. It would be a tragedy were that very energy, that Very production itself to be, through the force of circumstances, the power that damned all their efforts. We must find some other way out of the situation.
What has been done to meet this condition? During the past years, by private initiative and cooperative endeavour, an effort has been made to place upon the markets of other countries and particularly of Great Britain, some of that surplus. That effort, speaking in the large, speaking as a matter of continuity of policy, has failed. The reason given is fairly obvious. Before we can enter the British market-let me use it as an illustration as it is the greatest market open to us at the present time-and maintain our trade within that market, we must assure the purchasers of those goods there of two things: first, that the goods which we sell have uniformity of quality and that they may depend upon that quality as continuing imonth by month and year by year. Beyond that we must assure them of continuity of supply. The British importer is not going to take the trouble to advertise and develop a market for Canadian live stock, bacon, butter or other commodities, when he is not certain at any time, having developed that market, he will be able to get those goods to meet the demand thus created. So far he has not had that assurance, and for this reason: In almost each year there are periods when live stock and butter may be sold upon the British market at a price which, in comparison with our Canadian price, will realize a profit. There are other periods when almost certainly a loss will be involved, and it is too much to expect any private shipper will keep on shipping month by month when he is losing money. But unless we can establish that continuity, why should the British importer bother with us, particularly when he can receive from other countries, notably from Denmark, the clahs and kind of goods he reqiiires, with the absolute certainty that those goods will be delivered as and when wanted Week by Week and morith by month throughput the entire year? That is a point in regard to which we must take some action.
I have neither the time nor the knowledge to go in detail into what might be done, but may I suggest two or three main principles under which such a board as has been suggested knight function, arid the work it might

Agricultural Conditions
do? In the first place, such a board should be given fairly ample powers, to be exercised in connection with regulations passed, I should suppose, with the approval of the governor in council. Those powers should, I think, include one of having some control over the quality of the products which we export. This may sound to some as dictatorial, but it would be intolerable if, during the process of developing an export trade, any individual through short-sightedness, greed, selfishness or mere ignorance, were to be permitted to destroy our hopes by shipping abroad some trashy product of a kind of which we Still find too much in this country, but which is in no way typical of this country's products as a whole. You cannot over-estimate the damage which might be done to our reputation or the financial loss that might be incurred by such a thing. Just as we guard the quality of our wheat as it is distributed throughout the world and also as we guard that of our eggs, poultry and other products, so should such a board have power to exercise some control, and for the same reason, over the quality of our goods sent abroad.
In the second place, the board should have some control over transportation facilities, particularly the ocean space, in relation to beef cattle and other items. It should have, as was intimated by the minister, the power at least to inquire into the spread which prevails as between the producer of farm products and the ultimate consumer. In that connection it should have and eventually I think it must have, control over a fund out of which losses incurred in our overseas trade in farm products may be met. As to that-and I imagine it is one of the greatest difficulties -so much has been said on one side or the other, I hesitate to say more. But two questions are being and should be asked in respect of such a fund:	How is it to be financed?
How are you going to get the money? Second, how will it be expended in order to bring about the greatest results? I suggest-and this is no suggestion emanating from myself; it has been indicated already by the minister as a possibility-that such a levy should be placed on the goods themselves, on the total production in this country of that class or kind of farm commodity, in such a way as to impose no great hardship, and that could easily be done.
Let me take live stock as an illustration: last year we exported something like five per cent of our total production and that five per cent, hanging over our heads at this time, is sufficient to depress our market. A levy of one-tenth of a cent per pound according
to the weight of the animal, placed upon our total production, would prove approximately sufficient to pay two cents a pound, or $20 a steer on all the animals exported. Further, this is obvious and it is most important: This assistance should not be given by way of a fixed bonus. If 3'ou do that, you defeat the very object you have in view, because if this is paid by way of a fixed bonus, it is obvious it would be to the interest of the buyer or shipper to keep the Canadian price as low as possible in order that the bonus might add to his profit and not to that of the producer. I suggest that it should be used to pay the actual loss involved in the shipment of those goods. This would be a varying amount. In this way two difficulties would be met: first, it would in no way induce the shipper to depress the Canadian price, and, second, it would in no way put us in the position of attempting, by bonusdng articles, to undersell our competitors in foreign markets, neither of which actions would be sound.
Other items might be attended to similarly. Owing to the time of the day and the desire to prorogue, I am not going to go into this as I might and perhaps should. The main object of the whole thing is this: to replace this chaotic, disorganized condition under which this modicum of exportable goods becomes a cunse which crashes the price of all. with an organized, systematized method of controlled marketing, semi-cooperative in character, financed by the industry itself and having in mind as an objective, as a watchword:	continuity of supply, uniformity of
quality and Stabilization of market conditions and of price levels. Create that slight shoit-age; permit to be created or reestablished that healthy competition, which, under our present system, is the life of trade, and you go some distance in solving the marketing problem of the farmer and in placing his domestic as well as his export prices upon a reasonably stable basis. You put hope into his heart, and while no one could expect that this would solve all his problems, because it would be wrong to think the millennium would come. I believe it is one step which could be taken towards the solution of these problems and the placing of agriculture upon a basis which would bring reasonable returns to those engaged in the industry and put hope into their hearts. I believe that it would be one factor in raising the cloud of depression under which we are labouring at the present time.


Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: I wish to pay a compliment to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and to his depart-
Agricultural Conditions

ment for some great work that his market extension division has done for certain fruit and vegetable growers in my district during the last season. The minister referred briefly to a shipment of rhubarb. The fruit and vegetable growers in my district wish me to express their gratitude not only to the minister but to the government for the protection which has been afforded to this industry during the last two years. Just to show the house the work which the market extension division of the Department of Agriculture can do, I would point out that rhubarb is produced in the Fraser river valley a few weeks earlier than in. the rest of the dominion, and we were successful this year in marketing our rhubarb not only on the prairie but in eastern Canada. When the first shipment of field rhubarb was due to be shipped to Ontario on April 27, the Department of Agriculture put on a broadcast over the eastern section of the Canadian National Railway System announcing that Canadian field rhubarb had arrived, dilating on its qualities and on the medicinal value of rhubarb, and urging the people to purchase it. The result was that from that one district in the province of British Columbia we have marketed this year close to one hundred cars of that product. This work I think might be enlarged.
I must express disappointment that something in the way of a marketing board has not been brought into existence this year, but the minister has announced that it is the intention of the government to se.t up a commission. I hope that that commission will be clothed with powers not only to encourage our export trade but to assist some of our industries in reducing the great surpluses that exist today. The Minister of Agriculture told us the other day that owing to a surplus of some fifteen million pounds of butter in Canada the price had dropped from 28 to 17 cents. It is the belief of the dairymen of my district, and I believe throughout the dominion, that if that surplus could be removed the price of butter would advance four or five or six cents immediately. This is a matter that I have no doubt the commission will take into serious consideration, and I hope that they will have powers conferred on them so that they may assist our producers. Another important matter is the distribution of Canadian products within our own country. This is very important. I was hoping that the marketing board would have power to deal with this question, but now that a commission is being appointed I trust that it will be clothed with power to encourage and assist towards the order'1- marketing of products

within our own country. I am reminded particularly at the present time that large quantities of Alberta butter are coming into the province of British Columbia. We can absorb large quantities in that province because we do not produce sufficient to meet the demands of the domestic market, but the trouble is that many of the creameries in the province of Alberta are small, with no selling agency, and they ship their product to some broker in Vancouver, and he unloads it as soon as possible and cuts the price in order to dispose of it. The result was that butter on the Vancouver market was reduced by five cents a pound in one day. That also applies to eastern Canada as well as to the prairie provinces, and if something could be done to encourage the orderly marketing of our products within our own country it would be a great work. I trust that the commission which is being appointed will be able to do something along that line. I am not going to say anything more with regard to the .marketing board. The last speaker (Mr. Speakman) has expressed my views in that regard. AH I wish to add is that I know there will be great disappointment in certain branches of agriculture that that board was not set up this session.
Another matter that I wish to take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the house concerns another branch of agriculture and one that is confined to my district. But even if it is confined to one district in the Dominion of Canada there is no reason why we should not all be interested in it. We have in Canada to-day certain resources limited to certain districts, and we are all interested in their development. I am speaking particularly of the hop-growing industry. Canada is the only hop-growing country in the world that is not producing a surplus. Furthermore, we are producing the finest hops in the world. The Canadian hop stands high on the world's market. I have some evidence here which I wish to produce very briefly. Samples of the Canadian hop have been submitted to the brewers' academies, not only in Great Britain but in the United States, and I should like to quote from a letter from the National Brewers' Academy of New York to whom nine samples were submitted:
Replying to your inquiry of even date, we desire to state to you that British Columbia hops are considered an entirely suitable brewing material for the production of ale, lager and stout, and that in our experience, owing to the pronounced aroma of this type of hops, it may be used in the proportion of fifty to seventy-five per cent in the production of lager beer, whereas for the brewing of ale, stout and

Agricultural Conditions
porter British Columbia hops may be used exclusively in order to impart to the finished beverage a distinct hop-aromatic flavour and a pleasant hop-bitter taste.
I do not think it is necessary for me to dilate further on the quality of this product. We find that even with the large surplus of hops in England we have been able, owing to the high quality of the Canadian hop, to export small quantities to that market. What I wanted particularly to deal with is the serious condition in which that industry finds itself at the present time owing to the fact, not that the whole Canadian product could be consumed. in Canada, but that the consumers will not purchase this product. It is quite evident that the reason is because this industry some time ago was very active in approaching the late government and also this government in regard to some protection, and in retaliation the consumers, the brewers of this country, with the exception of one, have discriminated against and carried on a boycott against the Canadian hop. One of the largest growers has been boycotted for being active along these lines since 1925, and he states:
Our company has been under boycott for many 3'ears, and nearly all of our $500,000 investment in British Columbia remains idle for that reason. Furthermore, our losses in the past few years have totalled $174,294 because of the boycott.
The efforts that have been made to sell not only direct to brewers but through brokers have been more or less unsuccessful. I have under my hand a letter written by a broker in the city of Toronto referring to his efforts to place some of the Canadian product with consumers in that city. He points out that owing to the effort of the growers to have an embargo placed on imported hops they refused even to look at the samples. I have represented the interests of this industry in the house, and have appealed both to the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. May I say that the industry has received great assistance from both sources. I know, however, that there was never any effort made to effect an embargo. In fact the industry is in this position: They are very fair; they do not even suggest that there should be a high tariff. They suggest only that some working agreement should be made between the consumers and the growers, and they are prepared to enter into such an agreement for a term of years. I thought that some arrangement might be made between those, two bodies through the marketing board whereby
the growers might receive something near the cost of production plus a fair margin of profit. They would be satisfied with that arrangement. I had hoped that there might be some organization through which it might be possible to bring the consumers and growers together, and it is my hope that the board, when set up, may have that power.
As we are approaching the end of the session I shall not take further time but should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister upon his efforts to assist the mixed farmers of Canada. I could not for one moment support the amendment, because when we compare the conditions in Canada with those of other countries we must feel fortunate that we are living here. I wish briefly again to thank the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Agriculture for their efforts in helping to market the products of British Columbia.


Mr. MARCIL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the hen. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Alfred Speakman: I was paired with {he hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


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


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I was paired with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was .paired with the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Henry Alfred Mullins: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was paired with the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I was paired with the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Desrochers). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BAKER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.

Relations with the United States


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


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


Mr. MURPHY:: I was paired with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SAUVE:: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Se-guin). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.



RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES

Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, before the main motion is put may I be permitted to make this statement. Some three years ago the government of the United States imposed a duty against our cream and milk. It was one of the main causes of the serious depression in the dairy industry in the eastern townships of Quebec. This week the American government has imposed a duty against our copper and lumber. If there is one industry in Canada whose prosperity would help substantially to settle our unemployment situation it is the lumber industry, and I wish to stress the adverse effect of this duty on this industry. Another outstanding circumstance that to my mind affects Canada very seriously is the taking of the water from the St. Lawrence and diverting it into the Mississippi river; that is, the Chicago diversion. This 8,500 cubic second feet is being taken through the Chicago drainage canal in spite of adverse judgments rendered even in Washington. In view of these circumstances, and in view of the remarks of the Prime Minister this morning in connection with the treaty that is soon to be signed for the deepening of the St. Lawrence river, I would humbly request that before the treaty is signed or we have any further dealings with the United States government, he will see to it that these four matters are settled favourably to Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate to say that the proposed legislation to which the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard)
has referred has not yet been passed; and further, as to whether it will or will not pass is highly problematical.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You mean as to lumber?


Richard Bedford Bennett: And copper.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The other two are also important.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to milk products, the duty was imposed some years ago and the language the hon. gentleman has now used would have been most appropriate on that occasion. As to his last observation, I can only say that the interests of this country will be adequately safeguarded with respect to the alleged diversion of water into the Mississippi river. I am bound to say that the hon. gentleman's statements are hardly in accord with the facts.
Main motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Ross in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
Health of animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. and the Meat and Canned Foods Act, $1,654,000.
William Richard Motherwell: I wonder if the
minister would be good enough to move down a little further. We would like to hear his voice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross):: Carried?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not believe
this is a proper way to consider estimates, to jump from one to another. You would require the alacrity of a cricket to keep up this speed.


Arthur Edward Ross: Carried?


William Richard Motherwell: Surely we can get
through these estimates by conducting them properly; we need not make a horse race out of it.


Mr. RHODES:: I think my hon. friend
in under a misapprehension. We have called the first item of those which remain unpassed, and it is proposed to take them in order.


William Richard Motherwell: I remember what
happened last year at the close of the session; I know exactly how the estimates went through the last day, and I suspect the same unseemly thing now-rip through any old way.


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow this item to pass without registering a strong protest against its reduc-
Supply-A griculture

tion and, on the whole, against the government's policy of cutting, this year, the appropriations of Agriculture by one-third.
It is truly deplorable that this government, while endeavouring to cut down expenditure, thought fit of making agriculture bear a greater proportion of this reduction than the other departments. One cannot too strongly protest against the government's policy of simply reducing by 10 or 12 per cent the appropriations of National Defence and other departments, which I may designate of a lower order, while those of Agriculture are cut down 33 ( per cent.
Far be it from my thought of placing too much blame on the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), who I am aware is animated by the veiy best intentions. I am rather inclined to pity him owing to the shabby way he was treated by the cabinet when the estimates for the current year were prepared. I wonder whether the hon. Minister of Agriculture was supported as he should have been by some of his colleagues who show so much sympathy for the farming class, at election time. Of what help, for instance, was the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve), he who, during the election, proclaimed himself the champion of the farming community. Bewailing the sad situation of agriculture, ho stated that should his party assume power, prosperity would reappear in all farm homes. And the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), who made such a fuss over the consequences of the New Zealand treaty on Canadian dairy products; he also, I think, let slip an excellent opportunity of proving his sincerity by not forcing the cabinet to make a more generous grant to the industry which is the foundation of national prosperity.
The government had recourse to a blank signature in order to provide for the requirements of agriculture and the maintenance of order and peace in Canada; instead of indulging in fine speeches and including agriculture in that blank signature, it would have been preferable to grant the Department of Agriculture the whole amount required for the current year.
The funds placed at the disposal of the government to help the farmers, pursuant to the famous blank signature act, judging from last year's experience, was not distributed to the Quebec farmers, and the millions of dollars expended under this item rather went to the western farmers. I challenge the hon. Minister of Marine and Post Office to deny this fact.
I feel in no way jealous of what has been done for the west which, I have no doubt,

was greatly in need of help, however, I must point out the injustice of not assisting the eastern farmers who also greatly feel the pinch of the crisis we are undergoing.
May I, sir, specially draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture on the altogether embarrassed position in which a certain number of farmers of the county of l'Assomption are placed. Owing to the proximity of the city of Montreal, the farmers of a number of parishes in my county sell their milk and cream in Montreal; they have always derived the greater part of their revenue from that source and, . notwithstanding the low prices obtained, this industry permitted them, at least, to meet the daily needs. Certain regulations adopted last year by the Municipal Council of Montreal, oblige the dairies who wish to trade with that city to establish that their cattle have passed the tuberculine test.
At a time when distress prevails not only among the workmen of towns, but also among the farmers of this country, the government is not justified in not having recourse to all the means at its disposal to relieve the so deserving farmers who certainly form the basis of our national prosperity. In December, 1930, pursuant to an order in council, No. P.C. 2879, the government set aside as a restricted area for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, the county of l'Assomption. However, since December, 1930, the tuberculine test on cattle has not been carried out and only special private tests have been undertaken. In December, 1931, a delegation numbering about forty farmers came to Ottawa to interview the hon. Minister of Agriculture, so as to request him to have the provisions of the order in council carried out, without further delay. The reply of the Minister of Agriculture was that he could not have this work undertaken immediately, but that as soon as the 1932 estimates were approved, these tests would be proceeded with.
Since that date, I have more than once written at the request of those interested, to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and I have here the answers to my correspondence. First, on April 6, he expressed his regrets of having to inform me of the decision of the department, to simply complete, this year, the second tuberculine test of cattle which, had passed the first test-except under special circumstances.
As, in a previous letter, I reminded the hon. Minister of Agriculture that he had promised the delegation to carry out as soon as possible the tuberculine test of cattle, he replied that he could not implement his

Supply*-A griculture
promise until the Director General of Veterinary Service, had informed him of the amounts which would be at their disposal, in 1932, for the tuberculine test of cattle. In another letter, dated April 7, the hon. Minister of Agriculture informed me of his decision not to proceed to new tests, either under the regulations governing certified herds or under those with reference to restricted areas for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, except under special circumstances, and the Minister further added, even in such cases, the farmers should accept the tuberculine test of their cattle without requesting compensation from the government.
Not only, sir, do I think I am justified, but I deem it a paramount duty, in connection with the vote asked under item 47 Health of Animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, $1,654,000, namely a reduction of $S96,000, on the previous year

also with reference to item 49, Administration of Destructive Insects and Pests Act-a cut of half the previous amount

I deem it, I state, a paramount duty to protest, on behalf of the farmers I represent here, against this unjustified decrease, and especially in connection with the item which particularly affects the farmers. Although the government through bonuses and other gifts of all kinds gives to the farmers of the western provinces the greatest advantages possible, it does not seem to realize that the eastern fanners, just like those of the west, have a right to protection and relief from this government.
The Quebec farmers are suffering from the present crisis, just as much as those from the west, and the ridiculously low prices they obtain for their products are hardly sufficient to enable them to subsist with their family. If those who, especially, have depended heretofore on the products of their cattle as their main source of revenue, are to be deprived of the tuberculine test granted to them pursuant to the order in council just referred to, they will find themselves in a very critical situation. That is why, seeing that the hon. Minister of Agriculture-whose kindness I acknowledge-mentioned in his letters that, except under special circumstances, the promises made to cattle owners would not be implemented, I again address myself with confidence to him and I insist that he should reconsider the sad plight of those who surely are to be looked upon as under exceptional circumstances; and if he is unable, owing to the cut in his estimates, to carry out a general tuberculine test of cattle in the county of L'Assomption, let him at least, without further delay, undertake the test of the cattle of
farmers who sell milk and cream in Montreal, and from which markets, at present, they are debarred. Needless to say that, when requesting the hon. Minister of Agriculture to carry on such tests, I mean that they should be done according to the provisions which govern restricted areas, such as my county, and that the indemnity granted by the Act be paid to farmers whose cattle react, even if the payment of the indemnity be deferred. In connection with the delegation to which I referred a moment ago, my opponent, in the last election, who came to Ottawa with it, having noticed that I had also joined the delegation, immediately took every possible step to prevent the delegation being received by the Minister of Agriculture. He went from the Postmaster General's office. to that of the Minister of Marine, to induce them to use their influence with their colleague in order that the delegation be not received or, at least, thait the results be nil.
Notwithstanding his trips right and left, which hindered this defeated candidate of being of any help to these farmers and many of his friends who formed part of the delegation, I must say, greatly to the credit of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, that the delegates and myself received a most cordial welcome, and that we all left with gratitude in our hearts and filled with the hope, that the minister's promise would be implemented.
Having returned to their homes, the delegates learned that Mr. Jeannotte, repeated everywhere that the delegation having been taken in hand by the Liberal member for L'Assomption-Montcalm, notwithstanding the promise given by the minister, no results would follow, and that the tuberculine test requested would not be proceeded with. I take this opportunity, sir, to denounce this undignified attitude of my opponent and to repeat to the hon. Minister of Agriculture that I have too high an opinion of him to believe that he would lend himself to such intrigues.
I therefore, pray the hon. Minister of Agriculture to dissociate himself from such idle talk originating with the defeated candidate in L'Assomption, and to do the right thing by the farmers and milk producers of the county of L'Assomption, and especially, to assist, without delay, the milk and cream producers, heretofore, doing business in Montreal, and who, since May 1, are deprived of their only livelihood. The question is too serious and momentous not to depend on the broadmindedness of the hon. Minister of
3416	COMMONS
Supply-Agriculture
Agriculture to definitely settle tfiis question of tuberculine test which is most important to those interested.
In conclusion, I desire to make a pressing appeal to the minister. The producers of milk and cream in mv constituency find themselves in a painful and even disastrous position in shipping their products to Montreal because of the action taken by the municipal authorities as a health precaution. These men will be unable to continue their trade unless their animals are tested. I request the hon. minister to come to the relief of these people by authorizing without delay the testing of their herds. I should like the minister to give orders for the payment of the indemnity which the law allows should the county of L'Assomption be put in a special zone. Does the minister intend to assist the milk producers of L'Assomption by giving them the help they need so badly?


Robert Weir: There is a strong possibility that we may carry on some work in the county of L'Assomption, and immediate consideration will be given to those who ship milk to the city.
Mr- RHEAUME: Can the minister tell me when he is going to retest the herds in St. Johns-Iberville? These herds were tested two years ago. The herds in Missisquoi count}' were retested last year and they were first tested after the herds in Iberville had been tested.


Robert Weir: The first work to be done will be that of retesting herds.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words along the same line as the hon. member for L'Assomption (Mr. Seguin). I deprecate also the reduction in this vote covering the administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Meat and Canned Foods Act, and more so when I am told that the testing of animals for tuberculosis comes under this vote. I was made aware some time ago that representations had been made by people in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay asking for the establishment of a zone in that district, and in December I communicated with the minister and asked for the establishment of this zone. The answer I received was that this work was not being proceeded with because of the scarcity of money. I have received a communication from a representative of the provincial government who is interested in this county, in which he deprecates the fact that this work was not gone on with last year. Is the minister able to assure me that

this work will be proceeded with this year and that the zone promised will be established?


Robert Weir: The -retesting of
herds will take up the entire time of the staff, and no new areas will be opened up until these retests have been completed.


William Thomas Lucas: A number of years ago a system of grading of dressed beef was established in the abattoirs. I think it was a voluntary system, with what were known as red and blue labels, which gave the consumer some idea of the quality of the beef he was receiving. Can the minister say whether or not any success has been achieved along this line?


Robert Weir: That would come under live stock, and there has been no curtailment of the work in that branch.


William Richard Motherwell: Can the minister
give the committee some idea of why such a large reduction has been made in this important vote? Will it result in any of the veterinary staff being demobilized? Will it result in no new work being undertaken in regard to restricted areas? Will it mean the attention of the department will be confined to retesting herds in the various districts, for instance, Nova Scotia? That province is an excellent place to test out the restricted area policy because it is practically an island, almost as much an island as is Prince Edward Island; with its natural water boundaries it provides the least possibility of recontagion. That province has not been retested, if I remember rightly, for three years or possibly more. I know there was a reason for that and I can excuse my hon. friend for keeping away from that area as long as there is any considerable remnant of the 1928 row still existant. But now I think the good sense of the stock owners of that province has prevailed. There were only three or four persons who made the row; ninety-five per cent of the stock men were quite satisfied with the free area policy. This only indicates what a tremendous racket a few men can make. I do not think the province as a whole should be penalized because of the recalcitrancy of four or five men whose good sense, I am sure, must have returned by this time. My hon. friend will forgive me if I cannot hear him at this distance, but I shall read Hansard for his reply to me.
As regards the area adjacent to this capital city, a few days ago everybody took great delight and pleasure in having an area here that could be looked upon as free from tuberculosis in dairy herds. When the dairy

Supply-Agriculture
herds are clean, it is not long until the hog herds are clean, and when the hogs are clean, it is only a matter of time until you have the poultry clean of T.B. Therefore it will be nice to have a city not only beautiful to look upon, but healthy to live in, free from possible infection of this nature. As long as there is a number of untested localities in the triangle formed by the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers and the Rideau canal, consisting of some eight or ten constituencies, there is a tremendous danger * of reinfection in the herds that have been cleaned up of bovine tuberculosis. It is to avoid such reinfection that restricted areas have been established, especially this one south of Ottawa with its splendid natural boundaries. If my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture can see his way, say this fall, to test these odd untested spots that are left as festering sores which facilitate recontagion among the clean herds, I shall be glad as one responsible for the establishment of this area in 1930. I am not blaming him in any way, knowing what difficulties he has to encounter, but I can assure him that unless he takes a firm stand, there will always be in that area some objectors who do not want to have their herds tested. If there is any difficulty in connection with the matter, I may say we had difficulty in Nova Scotia, where two or three stock owners actually resorted to force to stop the government veterinaries doing their duty. We avoided the necessity of force by exercising diplomatic treatment in the case of those cantankerous men who had their herds so badly infected that they did not want them tested. The same situation may arise here adjacent to Ottawa and I can assure my hon. friend he will receive plenty of support in the country and in the house even if he has to tramp on somebody's toes in order to get those festering spots of possible recontagion in bovine tuberculosis cleaned up.


Robert Weir: It is not contemplated to reduce the staff in any way. The work of retesting will, it is felt, take the time of the whole staff. The first retest that will be commenced will be in Nova Scotia. Regarding the area around Ottawa, the great percentage of that work has already been done and we are gradually cleaning up the small areas referred to by the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of Destructive Insect and Pest Act, $328,300.
Mr. GARDINER:: Has the minister any
further word in regard to the grasshopper and cut-worm plagues in the west?


Robert Weir: There is no further information.	<


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Farm economies, including agricultural cooperative marketing, $8,600.
William Richard Motherwell: Does the minister
think it is quite fair to this new branch to reduce its vote so severely at this time? I know there is an item of $1,000 in the supplementary estimates for it, but that is not very much when you consider that cadet training is going to get $260,000 more. If one considers the relative importance of the two supplementaries, $1,000 looks very small as an addition to the main vote for this important purpose. I know no change will be made now, but I should like the minister next year to try to get the appropriation back to where it was, plus a little more. The subject of farm economics and the cost of production is very important at this time; we have the nucleus of a great farm economics branch there and it cannot operate on wind or hope or faith. It must have money and moral support. I believe it is getting the latter from the minister. I know he can administer only what the Minister of Finance and his other colleagues give him. May I appeal again to the Minister of Finance?- formerly I have not appealed to him in vain. He has responded rather slimly in this vote, it must be admitted, but he has responded. This is a very important branch of agriculture at this time and the ministry should surely appreciate that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Contributions to Empire Bureaux, $21,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain what this empire bureau is?


Robert Weir: It is a bureau combining agricultural information and research work in agriculture, so that whatever research is done or information obtained along the lines of research or values in connection with agriculture, it is gathered there and disseminated throughout the various dominions of the British Empire.


William Richard Motherwell: Are most of the
other countries that have entered into this agreement with us, as we have with them, pretty well living up to their financial obligations with respect thereto?


Robert Weir: So far as we know, yes.


Mr. HEENAN:: I see the Minister of Finance is in his seat. Perhaps what I am going

341S
Supply-Agriculture

to speak of refers more to his department than to that of agriculture. I see this is a contribution to empire bureaux. I was wondering why the government has eliminated from the estimates the grants for health in Canada. For instance, the Canadian Social Hygiene Council used to have a grant of $20,000, which is entirely eliminated from the estimates, and another grant which has been eliminated is one of $100,000 to the provinces to help in the fight against venereal disease. We have just been talking about the health of animals. While that is all right, we ought to be just as much interested in the health of the citizens of Canada. I understand the Prime Minister has said that this is a provincial matter. If that is correct it is another direct turn-about-face on the part of the government, because, speaking in this house on March 3, 1930, to a resolution with respect to extending our activities in the matter of health, the present Prime Minister had this to say:
There is, however, a field in which the province may not, it seems to me, properly function, and that is the creation of national wealth by ensuring the health of the Canadian people. Some one has said. "A nation's health is a nation's wealth." We as a parliament are concerned in the health of the Canadian people as a whole. To the extent to which men are able to labour, free from disease, we have added to the national wealth; to the extent which citizens by studying preventive medicine obtain knowledge, from clinics and other methods, for which the nation might well pay, we have added to the national wealth of Canada.
At the conclusion of his remarks the present Prime Minister said:
Let us approach this problem not as a problem of jurisdiction, not as a problem as to whether or not under the British North America Act, it is a matter of provincial responsibility; let us look upon it as a national problem. This parliament has the power to appropriate any part of the national revenue for any purpose for the interest of Canada as a whole. Make the appropriation not for provincial purposes, but to the provinces to carry forward a great national undertaking-the ensuring of the health and thereby the happiness and prosperity of the Canadian people.
I was wondering in view of those remarks by the Prime Minister if the Finance minister could not give us some assurance that the government will assist in carrying on this work of maintaining the health of the Canadian people by restoring the grants of $20,000 to these societies.


The CHAIRMAN:: I want to call attention to the fact that we are on item No. 55.


Peter Heenan: My understanding was that we could ask any questions on this item.
[Mr. Heenan.l


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Within the department.


Peter Heenan: The government promised to retain one item in each department, but it is quite evident that they did not retain one for this department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The understanding has not been violated at all, because one item was retained in each department; but finally we arrive at a point where it is necessary to pass the items if we are ever to close the session of parliament. If my hon. friend were logical in his contention we would never conclude the business of the session, because we would always have one item remaining in each department. If the committee does not object, I certainly take no exception to my hon. friend asking a question at this stage. There is no question that the cause for which my hon. friend speaks is an extremely worthy one. At the same time it is a provincial matter, but I do not think that that point would be stressed if we were in funds. As a matter of fact, we are driven to the necessity of reducing our estimates to the lowest possible point and a number of very worthy items have had to be eliminated and others materially reduced. That is the only answer I can make at the moment. If we come to better times the answer might be different.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I should like to take the opportunity of supporting the bon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in the contentions he has made. The Minister of National Health is not in his seat, and my remarks are largely for the benefit of the Minister of Finance as he is the one who probably has more to do with cutting out this grant than anyone else. There have been two grants cut out this year, the one which the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River mentioned for the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, and the other a grant of $100,000 which from 1920 up to this year has been given to the provincial government to help fight venereal diseases. The cutting out of these grants will be a tremendous hardship to the provinces. I believe that the house generally is behind these grants. Petitions were signed largely in this house and I believe sent to the Minister of Finance, but unfortunately we have not heard what became of them. The excuse is being made that as this is a health matter it is one for the provinces to deal with. I cannot hold with that in the slightest degree. Disease cannot be confined to one province. It is certainly interprovincial. The burden on the provinces is increasing tremendously, and now they have this extra burden thrown on their hands, and less money to spend. I notice that this year

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
we are spending $360,000 for cadet training, yet we have to cut out a vote of $100,000 to help fight venereal disease. Instead of making a speech, as I intended to do, I will put on record a short editorial, from Toronto Saturday Night, printed in its issue of May 7, 1932. It is headed Penny Wise, Pound Foolish, and reads:
It is to be feared that the federal government is pursuing a penny wise pound foolish policy with regard to expenditures in connection with public health. In its endeavours to effect small economies it is endangering the work for preventive medicine in this country, which every physician who is not an antediluvian shellback knows is the most profitable expenditure any country could make. Last year the annual grant of $20,000 for educational work by the Canadian Social Hygiene Council was dropped from the estimates and has not been reinstated this year. In addition it appears that the grants to provinces for administrative work in preventive medicine have vanished.
These grants wrere established in 1919 when the whole country was alarmed by the increase of venereal disease as a consequence of the war. The economic benefits of the work then instituted by the social hygiene council are demonstrated by two citations which can be parallelled all over Canada. In 1918, 12-8 per cent of all patients in Toronto General Hospital gave a positive Wasserman reaction showing the presence of syphilis. In 1929 this had decreased to 3-7 per cent. In the Toronto hospital for sick children, an incidence of five per cent, has been reduced to one per cent. So remarkable have been the beneficial results of a program originally confined to venereal disease that it has been enlarged to include toxoid immunization against diphtheria, pasteurization of milk (in centres still backward in that field), periodic health examination, mothercraft,-all calculated to save Canada millions of dollars in the future. Preventive medicine reverses the favourite and traditional policy of governments everywhere, that of locking the stable door after the horse is stolen. Conditions such as we are now suffering always increase the public danger from communicable disease. It will be a national calamity if the government permits the machinery created by the social hygiene council to fall to pieces for lack of support.
I put that on record to show what public opinion in Canada is with regard to this question. I think it is very short-sighted on the part of any government to be penny wise and pound foolish in spending money on the care of public health.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to executive committee of the World's Grain Congress, $150,000.
Mr. 'GARDINER:	Would the minister
please explain the vote? Has there been any report from that congress?
Robert Weir: The sum of $150,000 was the amount decided upon by the executive 41761-215i
of the World's Grain Congress as being the amount necessary to complete the world's grain exhibition.


Robert Gardiner: Does this refer to the
grain exhibition at Regina?


Paul Mercier: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: What is being done this year? Is the exhibition to be held?


Robert Weir: Next year.


Robert Gardiner: In view of the fact that the grain exhibition will not be held this year, why the necessity for the vote?


Robert Weir: This is a vote to
carry on until the time of the exhibition next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Harbours and Rivers Under contract-
St. John-channel improvements, $350,000.
Toronto-harbours improvements, $16S,000.
Upper St. Lawrence river-channel improvements, $45,000.
Burlington channel-improvements, $50,000. Not under contract-
Fort William and Port Arthur harbours, $21,000.-Total, $634,000.
Mr. REID:: I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a condition existing on the Fraser river. As the condition is very serious I feel that I must take up the time of the committee, so that the minister may have the facts before him.
The port of New Westminster has been gradually developing. Last year 297 large ocean going vessels, with a net registered tonnage of almost 1,000,000 tons left the port. From that port there is shipped a considerable volume of exported goods, the lumber alone being to the extent of about 188,000,000 board feet. There was also shipped 105,039 tons of bar metal, lead and zinc, and 63,125 boxes of apples. Hon. members may be interested to know that 120,564 cases of liquor, and 23,425 cases of canned salmon left the port. The business of the port has grown considerably, and in the past ten years there has been an increase from 55 to 297 ocean going vessels.
When the estimates were under consideration last year I drew the attention of the minister to the necessity of keeping the river dredged. He said that owing to economy the dredging activities had been curtailed. Last year dredging was discontinued in the river, but as a result of my appeal to the minister by telegram it was resumed. I should
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

like to draw his attention to the fact that I intimated last year there would be no economy in discontinuing dredging operations. At the widest point in the river the silt is still deposited, and if dredging operations are not continued at this time they will have to be, ultimately. I made that statement last year, and I must report to him now that the river has become silted, due to the dredge not having been kept constantly at work there.
During the last year the S.S. Gracia, the S.S. Moravia and the SJ3. Danisterdyke were in the port of New Westminster and could not take their cargoes aboard because of the depth of water in the river at the lower end near buoy No. 26; consequently they had to make two calls at Vancouver, which necessitated doubling the expenses on the ships. I might explain to the minister that buoy No. 26 is opposite the south Steveston jetty which has just been completed, and in my opinion that jetty has been built -in the wrong place. The jetty was built with a view to keeping the river clear, but at the point of location the river is about 5,000 feet wide. That means that with slack water the river is so wide that the silt is deposited. The engineer tells me it was expected the river would become narrower in time. Wherever the jetties have been built and the river narrowed it has kept clear of silt. At this point, however, it is too wide, and many years may elapse before it will become narrow enough to keep itself clear. It is too wide at this point, and we cannot look for any effect from the jetty until the river at the point where it is erected becomes as narrow as other parts of the river.
The boats to which I have referred had to make two calls at Vancouver, necessitating doubling expenses on the ships. Four hundred and twenty , tons of flour could not be loaded at New Westminster and had to be transferred to Vancouver. On the week beginning May 9 the Tyndareaus, of the Blue Funnel line, which was to make her first call at the port of New Westminster, could not do so on account of the depth of water in the river, although she required only twenty-eight feet of water to get out with her load. This ship was to take 450,000 feet of cottonwood logs and two and a half million feet of lumber; also 250 tons of lead. On account of the silting up in the river the logs had to be transferred by scow to Vancouver at a cost to the ship of $450. Consequently the lumber order has been lost to the lumber mill. This is a serious matter for the port, and it also means a loss of labour to the citizens. In

fact some of the mills have cut down the number of men and hours because of their inability to fulfil orders.
On May 12 the ss. Vernon City, drawing twenty-two feet three inches of water, had to spend an extra $400 on overtime to finish loading, in an effort to catch the high tide at 2.30 in the morning. May I point out that in the summer time the tide is in the early morning or during the night; in the W'inter time the reverse is the case; the high tide is during the day, consequently ships leaving port have to go out early in the morning. Moreover, at this point where the river is silting the river bottom is five feet higher than at the sand heads. Consequently when we have high tide, although the water may be a certain depth at the mouth, it is five feet less at the silted point. The owners intended to take out the Vernon City in the morning, as it would be clear moonlight and they thought navigation in the river would be safe. They believed the moonlight would give them light enough to see any driftwood which might interfere with the propellers. About two o'clock in the morning a heavy fog came up and sailing was impossible. For that reason they were tied up for another day, involving a further loss of between $300 and $400.
I shall now give the names of some vessels, with a description of their loads, which because of the shallow' draft will not call at the port of New Westminster. First there is the ss. Stensky, which was to load 10,000 cases of liquor and 200,000 feet of lumber; secondly, the ss. Neptunian, which was to load 500,000 feet of lumber, and thirdly, the ss. Bronloy, which was to load lumber and lead. These cancellations involve a loss to the port in longshoremen's wages, and a loss in revenue to the Pacific terminal and to the lumber mills. The bookings on these ships had been made and the cargoes arranged, but owing to the condition of the river, cancellations had to be made. This condition is very detrimental to the rapidly growing port of New Westminster, which is situated on a river in which the Dominion government have spent large sums of money. This is a very serious condition indeed, and remedial steps should be taken immediately to remedy it.
On May 13, the Canadian Western Lumber Company announced that they would be compelled to work only six hours a day and four days a week, on account of the cancellation of these orders. The river is in a condition worse than it has been for some years, a condition due in great measure to the government taking off dredge No. 303. I should

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
like to point out that the other dredge, the King Edward, is working only part time, and that although the expenditure on that dredge may continue from month to month, owing to rough weather its operations would not be continuous. If the dredges had 'been kept continuously at work the shallow places would have been taken care of, and shipping would have continued. The two per cent per ton charge on shipping which was passed by order in council is also very detrimental to the port, and had the effect of causing vessels to use Vancouver port instead of New Westminster. This to my mind is discrimination, and the charge should be suspended until such time as conditions on the river are safe and the river deep enough for all ocean traffic whether by day or by night.
I have received a letter from Messrs. Balfour, Guthrie & Company (Canada), Limited. I think a similar communication has also been sent to the Minister of Marine and to the Minister of Public Works. These people make very serious complaint with respect to conditions on the river. One of their ships had to make two voyages from Vancouver to New Westminster. They say:
SS. Gracia, which arrived last week, faced the same problem, and in this connection we are having to pay diversion charges on 400 tons flour booked for loading at New Westminster in this vessel, as it was found that with this cargo on board and her draught having to be limited to 22 feet 6 inches, it would be impossible to navigate the Fraser river in safety.
In addition to the question of draught, there is also that of the inadequate aids to navigation on the river which, in foggy weather, is often responsible for most serious and lengthy delays to vessels, even though the conditions during the course of the fog may at times permit sufficient visibility to enable a vessel to navigate the river if the channel were reasonably well provided with buoys or other suitable aids to navigation.
I will not read further because I know the committee is anxious to rise. But this is a very serious matter. Probably more silt will be deposited this year than usual due to the very heavy spring freshet. The river channel is so wide, from 4,800 to 5,000 feet, that in slack tide silt is deposited; consequently a dredge will have to be kept there all the time to maintain a clear channel. After all the expenditure made on the river it will be a lamentable condition for the port of New Westminster if traffic is to be diverted to other ports, and already several vessels have ceased calling at New Westminster in favour of the port of Vancouver. I should like to have an assurance from the minister that this very serious condition will be attended to.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. gentleman, Mr. Chairman, told me that he proposed to discuss conditions in the Fraser river, and therefore I had an opportunity of reviewing the file and looking up the facts. I can assure him that the officials of the department are fully aware of the importance of the matter. It has been very carefully studied by the engineers and in the last few years large expenditures have been made. These are being continued, neoessarily so, until the plan which was devised for the improvement of the river is completed. This plan necessitates the construction1 of jetties, as my hon. friend says, for the purpose of narrowing the river and 'controlling the flow in order to help it clear itself of the silt. These jetties are being constructed. It is hoped that when they are completed the amount of dredging which would otherwise be required will foe very much decreased. I think my hon. friend agrees with that. The dredge Fruehling is being sent to endeavour to relieve the condition of which my hon. friend complains. I can only say that we fully appreciate the importance of the port of New Westminster, but the conditions are very difficult; the river carries enormous quantities of silt and, as my hon. friend says, dredging would be required almost continuously to keep the river open. The funds at our disposal have not permitted that expenditure. However, I am hoping that this year we shall be able in very large measure to relieve the condition of which he complains. We will do our 'best with the funds available. I will call the attention of the engineer to my hon. friend's statement and u-rge him to do the best he can to afford this very much needed relief.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Has an arrangement been finally arrived at by the department with Price Brothers with reference to the wharf at Baie Ste. Catherines which was to have been improved?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No. At one time the proposition- was to turn over the wharf, which is a very large one, to the dominion for a considerable sum of money. Later on an amended proposition was made for its transfer for a nominal consideration of one dollar, but the transfer would involve very heavy expenditures to make the wharf at all suitable for traffic. My hon. friend has urged the claims of this particular point for the construction of a wharf, but it would involve the expenditure of between $100,000 and 8120,000, and no funds are available for the purpose. However, we are studying the location to see if some temporary relief cannot be granted.
Supply-Immigration

Representations have been made in the past week, and the engineer is pursuing it along that line.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is the department still considering improving the wharf at Shelter bay on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, or has a decision been reached?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not the information here with regard to that particular proposition. There is nothing in the estimates for it this year. It has been urged for some considerable time. Again it involves a large expenditure on a new undertaking, and as my hon. friend knows, as these expenditures are made from revenue, and the revenues have been falling, the policy of the department has been not to undertake a new work except where the circumstances render it absolutely necessary. Shelter bay will not be lost sight of, and probably some day we shall be able to take care of it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Soldier and General Land Settlement- amount required for soldier land settlement advances, for advances under the British family-schemes recoverable from the British government, for the cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement and for the cost of administration of soldier settlement staff performing investigations for the war veterans' allowance committee, $1,500,000.
Alfred Speakman: I should like to have from the minister an explanation of the lease rental system on a third share crop basis which is being put into force, not generally but in individual cases in western Canada. I have discussed this with the minister and received reasonable satisfaction, but for the sake of those in the country who are interested I would ask the minister to give an explanation of the system.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Acting Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: The soldier settlement board has endeavoured to conform to the law of the provinces and to their practice with respect to taking a third1 or a quarter or some other portion of the crop to apply against indebtedness. I believe Alberta has introduced and passed legislation that decreases the amount of the percentage of the crop which they will take from the settler-farmer from one-third to one-quarter, but only in areas to 'be prescribed by the province. So far as soldier settlement is concerned, I think it desirable that we pursue a course in conformity with the policy of the province. I think it would 'be unfair to have a certain class of settlers follow a course that

is different from the course pursued by their neighbours, but so far as I know the province of Alberta has not proclaimed any areas.


Alfred Speakman: May I ask if the policy of signing these agreements is generally in practice, or is it followed only where the settler has fallen in arrears so far as to make his future position extremely uncertain? In other words, is this a rental system that is taking the place of an agreement for sale and permitting the man to carry on as a renter instead, or is it simply an agreement by which a maximum portion of the crop will be set as that which may be taken in payment of his annual interest and principal charges?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, this is
Wednesday, and unless we have a motion we shall not be able to sit and conclude our business this evening. That motion will have to be made while Mr. Speaker is in the chair. Therefore I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again this day.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have refrained until the last minute from making a motion, hoping against hope that we might conclude by six o'clock. As it is now clear that we will not do so I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) that this house be not adjourned at six o'clock this day. Then we can resume this evening at eight o'clock and the rules prevailing will be those for Tuesday. Of course this must be done by consent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no objection whatever to sitting this evening, and I presume that the business can be easily concluded before eleven o'clock, but for my part I should like to have a distinct understanding that if the business is not concluded by that hour the house will then adjourn. It seems useless to sit up all hours of the night in an attempt to finish the business. I should like to make a special plea that some consideration in these circumstances should be given the Hansard staff, who I happen to know are almost at the end of their endurance, working these long hours, morning, afternoon and evening. If it is understood that we will adjourn not later than eleven o'clock, in the regular way, I am quite willing to sit this evening.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think perhaps the hon. gentleman is not aware of the fact that after

Special War Revenue Act
passing the motion I have just made, this house cannot sit to-night beyond eleven o'clock, except by unanimous consent.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am sure if the Hansard staff were consulted they would rather sit after eleven o'clock than come back to-morrow morning and finish the work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I doubt that very much. If we give consent now it should be on the distinct understanding that under no circumstances shall we sit after eleven o'clock.
I for one do not care to give consent without an undertaking of that kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman has not yet realized that we cannot sit after eleven o'clock without a motion, and since that motion would have to be made by unanimous consent his objection at that moment would preclude the possibility of the house sitting beyond eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 102, to amend the Special War Revenue Act.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The time for the house to rise has not come, and hon. members are out of order in moving about the chamber and making a noise.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This amendment reduces the tax payable on insurance premiums by outside mutuals from fifteen per cent to ten per cent. This reduction has been made in consequence of representations which were made after the bill passed this house, and the amendment was made in the Senate at our request.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is the amendment acceptable to the government?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, under the circumstances.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



FISHERIES ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 10, to amend the Fisheries Act.
He said: There are only two slight amendments in the phraseology; I believe there are two words added.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following
message:
Ottawa, May 25, 1932. Sir,

	_
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. F. A. Anglin, acting as the deputy of the governor general, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, May 26, at 11.30 a.m., for the purpose of proroguing the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy, Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



IMMIGRATION AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Soldier and General Land Settlement- amount required for soldier land settlement advances, for advances under the British family schemes recoverable from the British government, for the cost of administration of soldier settlement and general land settlement, and for the cost of administration of soldier settlement staff performing investigations for the war veterans allowance committee, $1,500,000.
Alfred Speakman: Could the minister advise whether the practice mow in vogue in connection with settlers is to apply generally, or is it an exception being made of settlers who are hopelessly behind in their payments and are now practically on a rental basis instead of a purchasing basis?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: As these cases arise they are dealt with on their merits. The idea of the department is to assist the settler who is trying to get along, in the hope that he will stay on the land and make good.


Alfred Speakman: I have received a great many letters from empire and civilian settlers who find it impossible to make their principal and interest payments and they want to know if there is any prospect of their cases being taken into consideration and deductions made
Supply-Immigration

in the price which they are being called upon to pay. A number have asked me to request the minister to give some consideration to reducing the interest rate, eliminating the interest for a certain term or cancelling arrears of interest which have accumulated during the years they have been unable to pay. I am not going to speak at any length to-night on this matter as the minister understands the situation, but I make this plea on behalf of these men.


James J. Donnelly: I notice part of this
grant is for advances under the British family schemes to be recoverable from the British government. Some years ago an agreement was entered into between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the British government to bring out a certain number of settlers to settle in a colony known as the Coal Creek colony. I understand that the British government was to look after these people for a couple of years, but for the past three years they have had crop failures and at the present time are very hard up. Will any part of this grant be used to care for the people in this colony?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member was
good enough to speak to me about the situation to which he has referred, but all I can say is that I understand the agreement was between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the British government or some society in Great Britain, and this government was not a party thereto. I am not acquainted with the terms of the agreement, but I shall be glad to look into the matter and advise the hon. member if in any way we arfe a party to the agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Annuities Act, $32,000.
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is an investigation being carried on in connection with the fruit basket manufacture, and if so, has it been completed?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The investigation in connection with fruit basket and container manufacturers is still being pursued and I expect a report thereon in a short time.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the Citizen of May 14 there appeared an article headed as follows:
Cut Production of Canned Goods Ontario and Quebec Cooperatives Agree to Sell at Fixed Price
There would appear to be a combine in connection with these commodities and I 
should like to know if an investigation is to be carried on.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Whenever the proper steps are taken in connection with price fixing, an investigation follows. I am not acquainted with the situation to which my hon. friend refers, but if the proper steps are taken, an investigation will follow.


Peter Heenan: Is the minister considering the appointment of additional fair wage officers? As the minister knows, in many cases these officers act in a dual capacity. They inspect the different public works being carried on to see that fair wages are being paid, and at times they act as conciliators in wage disputes. There are very few of these officers throughout the country, and in my opinion more should be appointed. I have in mind the fact that we have very few fair wage officers throughout Canada. The minister will recall that in 1930 we passed a Fair Wages and Eight Hour Day Act which, if carried out, as I am sure the government wishes it to be, would require, in my opinion, the employment of additional men in order to see that the act is complied with. I was wondering whether the minister did not have that in mind and whether he intended appointing additional men for that work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If it becomes apparent
that more officers are necessary in order to carry on the work to which the hon. member has referred, undoubtedly that will be done.


Peter Heenan: I understand a conference of provincial premiers was held here recently. I was wondering whether on that occasion the government took the opportunity to discuss the question of the establishment of an unemployment insurance system for Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not.


Peter Heenan: And whether or not they
discussed the question of the eight-hour day being made general throughout Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not.


Peter Heenan: With respect to old age
pensions, can the government or the minister give the committee any idea when they contemplate the establishment of a system of old age pensions for Canada on a national basis?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The payment of old age
pensions is, of course, determined by the laws which parliament has passed. I do nor, know exactly what the hon. member means when he speaks of placing the system on a national basis. The legislation now in force with respect to old age pensions is well known

Supply-Labour-Annuities


Peter Heenan: Probably I did not express myself properly. The minister knows there is on the statute books at present a law under which the federal government offers to pay fifty per cent of the old age pension cost in connection with that paid by any province that will come in on the scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Seventy-five per cent.


Peter Heenan: The original legislation
was fifty per cent, and five provinces came in under that scheme. The present government increased the federal contribution to seventy-five per cent. My understanding is that even under the seventy-five per cent contribution no more provinces have taken part in the scheme, and inasmuch as the federal government promised to take it over on a national basis and pay one hundred per cent, I understand New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have passed measures accepting the old age pension scheme but have not so far proclaimed their acts, waiting for this government to take it over one hundred per cent. That was what I meant when I asked whether the government could give the committee any information as to when they proposed to pay the one hundred per cent, so that all the provinces could participate.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The question to which the hon. member refers has been the subject of debate and comment for some years. It is quite true that the former government established the law on the basis of a contribution of fifty per cent towards old age pensions, and last year the act was amended so as to provide for a seventy-five per cent contribution. How this matter appeals to the provinces is a question pretty well for them to determine. The statute is very clear and plain. The subject is a large one and will command the attention of those who have t.o do with matters affecting old age pensions. That is the position as it stands at present.


Peter Heenan: I am not now going to
argue that point further. I am wondering whether the government could tell us whether . they have dropped the idea of establishing a national council for the civil service of Canada. It will be recalled that a committee of this house recommended the establishment of such a council, and in conformity with that recommendation, the government of the day passed an order in council providing for a drafting committee to draft a constitution. The order in council can be found on the file. Since that time I have not heard whether the present government intends to proceed with the matter or to drop it entirely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter stands just
*where it was left by the hon. gentleman. He passed his order in council and stopped. The stop still stands.


Mr. MITCHELL:: Is it the intention of
the government to appoint any official advisers representing labour in connection with the forthcoming Imperial economic conference? I understand the British government are going about the business of this conference in their careful and practical way by appointing four official labour advisers from names submitted to them by the British Trades Union Congress. I understand that questions, such as migration, which vitally affect labour, may be discussed at the conference, and I should like to know the attitude of the government in that regard. I understand Australia and South Africa have taken the same step.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In Great Britain, prior
to the formation of a national government, a Labour government was in office. A number of members of that Labour government are members of the national government, and in the formation of committees regard was had to that fact. This government will call to its assistance those capable of rendering such help on every subject on which it may require to be aided. That will include labour if labour questions are being discussed, and similarly for any other questions affecting the state. Furthermore, the committees that are dealing with the economic conference were advised that the British government intends to ask representatives of labour organizations to come in the capacity of advisers, and I believe they are coming as such. If advisers are necessary, they are always available from the ranks of labour as well as from other quarters.


Humphrey Mitchell: The question was raised by a previous speaker of the payment out of the federal treasury of the full one hundred per cent of old age pension benefits. The hon. member stated that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had not passed measures to bring their respective provinces within the sphere of this legislation. Should, however, the federal government implement the promise it made at the last election, that would hardly be necessary, because no cost would be entailed by the provincial governments.
In connection with the eight-hour day, labour has for many years petitioned the various governments requesting that they ratify the convention of the International Labour Office ratified at Washington in 1919.
Supply-Labour-Annuities

At present there is a congressional committee sitting at Washington considering the practicability of the six-hour day on the railroads of the United States. We are all agreed as to the influence of mass production in industry and the problems arising therefrom, and one of the first things the government should do at the next session of parliament is to appoint a special committee to investigate the possibility of introducing the six-hour day in this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Make it four.


Humphrey Mitchell: I think the day will come when it will be four, and there are only too many in this country who would be glad indeed to work four hours a day if they had the opportunity. I appreciate the gravity of the situation, and I have known ever since I first entered a trade an apprentice boy, the problems that are involved. I have watched the development of industry and the influence Of mass production on the lives of men and women engaged in industry, and in my judgment, whether we like it or not the time is not very far distant, when the parliament of this country, in the face of absolute necessity, will have not only to recognize the convention agreed to by our delegates to the international labour office convention at Washington in 1919, but by legislation to reduce further the hours of labour in industry. I make that suggestion in view of what I think is a practical and a pressing problem, and I would like the government to take it seriously into consideration during the recess. At least a study should be made of the problem with the resources which the government have for undertaking a study of that kind. Some leadership might be given to the government of the day by the recommendations of such an investigating body. At all events it would give this country some idea as to the practicability of the introduction of such legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the government has not any present intention of appointing a commission for that purpose, _ nor can I see that there is any reason in anything that has been stated here to-night or at any other time that would warrant the government in taking any such action. It has been stated so frequently in this house on the other side, and very strongly by those with whom the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mitchell) is associated, that Canada's export business is the great matter for consideration, and that the retention of our place as an export country is of primary importance to the development of

this dominion. If the hon. gentleman who lias just taken his seat will explain just how a country working six hours a day is to compete in the markets of the world, on the basis suggested by himself and his friends, with a country whose workmen work eight or ten or twelve hours a day, and sometimes longer in soviet Russia, he would be doing something ivhich no one else has yet been able to do. The question is very simple: Is Canada desirous of engaging in export business or not? If so, must she meet the competition to which I have referred? If so, can she lessen her hours of labour to six and expect to pay the same wages for a six-hour day, and compete with a country whose workmen work for half that wage and toil for ten hours a day? Notwithstanding all that has been said with respect to the willingness of men to work, my observation has been that recently in Vancouver men who were employed, led on by agitators, left their work and joined in a procession of people not desiring to work any time at all, but rather desiring to be free from work and be supported by the state. There is a tendency abroad in the world to see how little work can be done, not how much, and to see how few hours can be worked, not how many. The purpose of regulating hours of labour by the state originally was that there might be hours of leisure and opportunity for self-improvement, and that men should not be mere machines nor labour a commodity, but when the end that has thus far been reached was attained it was amazing the willingness with which some people began to contend that eight hours a day was too long and that six would be a better number of hours to labour. Some put it on the ground of mass production, some on the ground that after all, eighteen hours for sleep and enjoyment was preferable to twelve hours, and doubtless they were right; but I think it will be a long time before the parliament of Canada passes a statute fixing the six-hour day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister did not state in what countries men were working eight, or ten or twelve hours a day, As the Prime Minister I think knows, in most of the European countries the number of hours of work is rather less than the hours that are worked in some of the industries in Canada. I do not know just which the countries are to which the Prime Minister referred with which we would be in competition. Further, I regret exceedingly that the Prime Minister would seek to imply that there is any large number of men who do not want to work. I am quite

Supply-Labour

Annuities
aware that the present policy, which simply gives relief without requiring work and without providing work, is absolutely demoralizing. One thing that a great many of us have been urging upon the government at this session is that the policy of providing relief work in some form or another should be instituted, not merely because we believe it to be economical in the long run, although it would entail a certain amount of capital outlay, but because it is in the interests of the unemployed men themselves. The Prime Minister is inclined to scoff at the idea of a six-hour day. Under modern conditions it is not altogether unreasonable to cut down production, and that can perhaps most readily be done, as is admitted by a good many employers, by reducing the hours of labour. Figures were given in Toronto on Monday with regard to unemployment in Canada. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, of whom I asked a question, said that he thought those figures were very wide of the mark. But I must call his attention to the fact that they were given on the platform of the Canadian Political Science Association by a group of men who had been investigating this matter for some months past-Mr. H. M. Cassidy, Mr. A. G. Heakes, and Mr. G. E. Jackson, of the University of Toronto. These are capable men pursuing lines of investigation similar to those carried on in Dominion government offices, and taking their data from Dominion government reports. According to their figures, instead of a decline in unemployment there has been an increase. If their figures are anywhere near the truth they reveal a serious condition. Taking a group of eight of the largest	industries-manufacturing,	logging,
mining, communications, transportation, construction, service and trade-they show that in March, 1932. the last month for which data is available, an average in these eight industries of 35-9 per cent of the men are unemployed. In view of the fact that over a third of the men in the main industries are unemployed, it might be well to cut down production and absorb this third in productive labour. I do not think that suggestion can be brushed aside by the assertion that a lot of men do not want to work. Without going into details, I should like to make a comparison to show where we stand so far as unemployment is concerned. These gentlemen assert that in the month of March, 1929, there were in these eight industries 262,941 unemployed. A year later, in March, 1930-and I believe that is a fair month to take-the number was 328,154. In March of this year, 1932, the number was 726,594.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was it for 1931?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The number was
513,599; I am sorry I omitted that when reading the other numbers. These figures indicate a steady increase during the last three years. Approximately the same is true of the different months of the years. I note that the census figures are taken for the month of June, and for the information of hon. members I shall give figures of unemployment for that month:
June,	1929	
114,337June,	1930	
243,424June,	1931	
476,688


Henry Herbert Stevens: Those are figures given
by the group of gentlemen to whom the hon. member has referred?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, concerning
eight of the leading industries. Then, the percentages may be of interest.


James Dew Chaplin: Would the hon. member give us all the information on one item? Take logging, for instance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Shall I begin with January, 1929, and go forward to each year?


James Dew Chaplin: No; let us have the
figures for January of each year, or for March of each year, as the hon. member pleases.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The following are
the figures in the logging industry for the month of March in four consecutive years:
March, 1929	 5,676
March, 1930	 4,715
March, 1931	 18,983
March, 1932	 22,946


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, those figures for the whole of Canada.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, for the whole of Canada, and I was about to give the percentages of unemployed in these eight industries during those four years. They are as follows:
Per cent
March,	1929	
13-7March,	1930	
16-8March,	1931	
25-8March,	1932	
35-9
Probably it would be well to give the estimates of the average number of workers unemployed in Canada from the years 1929 to 1931 inclusive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand the figure
13.7 per cent represents the percentage of unemployed?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the paper
said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. I shall now
give the estimated average number of workers
Supply-Labour-Annuities

unemployed in Canada from the years 1929 to 1931 inclusive. These are the aggregate figures 'concerning the eight industrial groups to which I have referred:
1929		 163,835
1930		 295,085
1931		 497,007
Then, the estimated percentages of all workers unemployed in Canada from the years 1929 to 1931 inclusive in these eight industrial groups, are as follows:
Per cent
1929		  8-5
1930		 15-0
1931		 25-0
If desired it might be possible to place these tables on Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not those tables.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In view of these
figures it does not seem unreasonable that we should ask ourselves whether or not there should be a wider distribution of work already available.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say one or two words in this connection. The month of March, in the very trades mentioned by the hon. members, is in each year the month of seasonal unemployment. I have not had an opportunity to analyze the figures carefully, having seen them only recently, but if those figures are to be relied upon I am led to the following conclusion: If in March, 1929, 13-7 per cent of the logging employees were unemployed, and that percentage represents 5,676 people, and if 35-9 per cent were unemployed in March of this year, representing 22,946 people, then the number of employees has certainly kept pace with the unemployed, and there are many more people employed now than there were then. I trust the hon. member appreciates the effect of that statement, as he has just given it. He has said that in March, 1929, there were in the logging industry 5,676 unemployed, and he stated that that number constituted 13-7 per cent of those engaged in the industry. Therefore, roughly speaking, 100 per cent would be eight times the number he has given, or about 44,000 people employed in the industry in 1929. If 22,946 people were unemployed in 1932, and that number represented 35-9 per cent, it follows that over 60,000 people were employed in the industry. Therefore theTe was an increase of about 16,000 in the number of men who made logging their vocation or work in the year 1929; therefore the margin of unemployment was larger. It would mean that in designating their employment they indicated logging, otherwise

there is something vastly out of ratio with the figures. I do not know just what they mean. I saw them roughly', but I a-m not going to enter into a discussion, because they will be analysed in due course. We all know the transportation industry at the moment is greatly disorganized on account of lack of traffic, and you could get a large number of people who would say at once they were at present unemployed, although they might get two days' work a week. As I saw the report it did not indicate whether or not allowance had been made for that fact.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not studied the figures either, having just received them. Possibly it would be of interest to the Prime Minister if I ran through the manufacturing industry for the month of June. According to this statement, in 1929 there were 6.907 unemployed; in 1930, 53,740; in 1931, 127,810.


Mr. MANION:: AVhat were the railway
transportation figures for the month of March in the same yrnars?


James Shaver Woodsworth: For 1929. transportation, 22,994 unemployed; 1930, 29,176; 1931, 43,209; and for this year 64,099.


Robert James Manion: My recollection is that before the railway committee Sir Henry Thornton said that on the Canadian National Railway's there were 20,000 fewer employees this year than in 1928. If that is so, the figure would be still lower for the Canadian Pacific. If my recollection is correct the total would be something under 40,000. Therefore the figures quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would seem to be about fifty per cent too high.


James Dew Chaplin: I would say the figures quoted for the logging industry are altogether astray; they are not worthy of any credence whatever.


Angus MacInnis: I believe these figures
were prepared by the bureau of statistics.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, no.


Angus MacInnis: Where are they from?


Henry Herbert Stevens: From a group of gentlemen-good estimable people no doubt-who discussed this question before the political science conference in Toronto. My information is that the bureau of statistics do not support the figures given here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They certainly do not.


Angus MacInnis: I thought the member
for Winnipeg North Centre was quoting from figures furnished him this afternoon by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

Supply-Labour-Annuities


James Shaver Woodsworth: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: I rather regret the statement made by the Prime Minister in reply to the member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) in connection with the six-hour day. It is not that I expected the Prime Minister would give any assurance that we might look for any legislation on the subject, but the implication of his remarks that there are a great many people in the country who do not wish to work is in glaring contrast with his statement in 1930, when he went all over this country directing attention to the fact that there were so many unemployed, and that all they wanted was an opportunity to work. If since 1930 the unemployed have deteriorated possibly the government is more or less responsible for this lamentable condition. The right hon. gentleman also said that the general tendency to-day was not to see how many hours we could work, but how few hours. I believe that is quite true. If it is not true, I believe we might well despair of the progress of the human race. It is rather significant, I think, that we have the unemployed at the two extreme ends of society. Those at one extreme end seem to enjoy their unemployment very much. As a matter of fact they live on the best while they are unemployed. They go to the mountains in summer and to the seaside resorts of the southern states in the winter. In short, they are well looked after-by those who work and produce.
While the government at the present time state they have no intention of bringing down legislation with respect to a six-hour day, let me say that this administration are doing many things that they had no intention of doing in 1930, and they will do many things in the next few years that they have no intention of doing this year. And still they will not be able to keep ahead of the game. We are in a fast moving world, and he is a bold person who will say what he will or will not be prepared to do in the next few years. We must never forget the fact which is drawn to our attention so often, that the situation in which we find ourselves is a world situation. Let us not forget that in the industrial world at the present time, without including India, China, Russia or Japan, there is a population of 30,000,000 unemployed. Yet we are improving our machinery every day and restricting the opportunities for work. That cannot go on without some adjustment being made in industry itself. A few days ago I read a report in the press that in Ontario men had offered to go to work for five dollars a month and their board.
I do not think that is any indication that the people of this country do not wish to work. If there was any reason to suppose that such was the case I think it could be disposed of very easily by pointing out that when there is work available there is no difficulty in this or in any other country in reference to unemployment. Sooner or later the hours of labour will have to be reduced. This has never been done by legislation. When under certain conditions the workers had the power to reduce their hours of labour it has been done. Possibly some day they will come to the conclusion that if they are to get what they want they will have to organize and take the necessary measures themselves.


Humphrey Mitchell: Some time ago the
Minister of Labour mentioned that the government were going to send men to Jasper park and another national park in the west to work at five dollars a month. What policy has been decided upon in this regard, and how many men are likely to be employed?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: With respect to the national parks under our control, I have no recollection of stating that we were going to hire men to work in them for five dollars a month and t'heir board and lodging. Certainly if occasions arise where men have no employment and are going to suffer hardship, if representations are made by those more intimately concerned, such as the provinces, this government will take such appropriate action as would seem necessary in the circumstances.


Humphrey Mitchell: May I ask whether the government are still determined to employ men in these parks during the coming summer? I have had a number of communications from the west, from Calgary and Edmonton in particular, asking as to the conditions surrounding work in these parks.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Undoubtedly men will be employed in these parks during the summer.


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Railways gave some figures with regard to the employment of railway men. I have same figures here taken from government reports, which I should like to give the committee. In 1929 the number of persons employed on all Canadian railways was 187,846, while in 1931 the number was 154,000, a decrease of 33,846.


Robert James Manion: The other figure was just double that. These figures agree with what I just stated.
Supply-Mail Subsidies


Peter Heenan: These are railway figures
only. It might be interesting, since railway operations are a fairly good barometer indicating the trade of the country, to give the results of the operation of Canadian railways for the two years. In 1929 the railways moved 115,187,028 tons of freight, while in 1931 they moved 73,830,000 tons, a decrease of 41,357,028 tons. The number of passengers moved in 1929 was 39,070,893, while in 1931 the number was 26,400,000, a decrease of 12,670,893. Here is a point I want the government, and especially the Minister of Railways, to realize: while the railway men had to take a ten per cent reduction in wages this year, the wages paid railway men in 1931 were. $62,492,500 less than 1929.
I do not know whether or not I am quoting the same figures referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-I think be dealt with unemployment; my figures are with respect to the number employed. I have the report of the government with regard to the month of March from 1926 to 1932, covering the 7,700 firms regularly reporting to the government. The index figures as of March 1, 1926, stood at 92-6, and the figures for the following years are as follows:
1927		
1928		
1929		
1930		
1931		
1932		
On a report of this kind it would be hard to figure that more persons are employed now than last year.


George Spotton: I wonder if the hon. gentleman could give us the figure for 1492.


Peter Heenan: I would if the hon. member could understand it.


Humphrey Mitchell: I would like to ask the reason for the reduction of $43,000 in the appropriation for the annuities branch.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If the hon. member would look at the supplementary estimates he would see that there is really very little reduction. I had, and still have, under review a possible reorganization of the annuities branch, but I found it impossible to carry out that reorganization during the current year.
TliADE AND COMMERCE
Mail subsidies and steamship subventions- additional amount required to provide, as authorized by the governor in council, for postal subsidies and to meet obligations under existing contracts, $82,497.50.


Thomas Reid: There is a matter connected with this item to which I should like to

direct t'he attention of the gov'erament, a matter about which I have felt very keenly for years. Perhaps I should have discussed this question when the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce were under consideration, but I think it might come up here very well. In view of the fact that this government pays large subsidies to steamship companies for the carrying of mail, I think it is about time we took note of the crews employed on those ships. It is true that ships come to this country from foreign nations, and probably it would be too much to expect that Canada should interfere with them, but when we .pay huge sums to Canadian companies I think we shouid see whom they employ. In this connection I should like to read an article which will explain the situation:
White Seamen Idle, Jobs Go To Orientals
Alleged Discrimination in B.C. Shipping Draws Protest; 2,573 Foreigners
Aroused by widespread unemployment among white seamen while Canadian ships plying from this Canadian port have hundreds of Chinese on their payrolls, the Canadian Association of Seamen lias begun a new campaign to eliminate or at least reduce the number of the orientals.
C. P. O'Donovan, secretary of the association, estimates that ocean lines, coastwise companies and tug-boat concerns operating from Vancouver employ 2,573 orientals.
And 2,000 white seafaring men. he declares, spent last winter trudging the streets of Vancouver looking for jobs.
Public bodies in Vancouver and leading members of parliament at Ottawa are being asked by the association for support.
The question has been taken up with the deputy Minister of Labour at Ottawa.
This week, Mr. Donovan said to-day, the association is appealing to Premier Bennett.
Some of the work!ess men were absorbed by ships recommissioned for spring service, according to Mr. O'Donovan, but the gravity of the situation as a whole he said is still shown by the records of his own association, which out of a total membership of 612 has had 410 men out of work for eight months-67 per cent unemployed, many of them married, 52 of them naval reserve men.
Despairing _of getting work here, he said. 65 seamen left Vancouver this week, beating their way by freight train to the east, hoping for jobs on lake or river boats there.
These men had an average of five years' service as seamen in British Columbia.
An analysis of crew lists made by the association attributes approximately 1.995 oriental employees to one large ocean steamship line.
I am informed that this company is the Canadian Pacific steamship lines.
Another deep-sea company is credited with approximately 300 orientals of all ratings with the exception of white officers.
Altogether the analysis shows 2,573 orientals on vessels registered here and operating here, distributed as follows:
Ocean vessels	 2,295
Coastwise ships	 286
Tugs	 82

Supply-M arine
"We don't say the companies should get rid of all these men, but we do think they should take on a percentage of white men," said Mr. O'Donovan.
"We say so of all departments, including the galley. Most of the Chinese on the coast boats and the tugs are cooks but we are prepared to supply cooks and particularly we do not see why the coast boats cannot carry three or four each.
"It is absurd to say white sailors are not dependable. The 'drunken sailor' of popular saying is just hearsay. The white seamen and firemen and oiler is a hard-working conscientious fellow in whom full confidence can be placed.
"And it isn't for our own members we are campaigning particularly. We do not care whether they belong to our association or any association so long as the men employed are white men."
For the first time in forty years the Canadian Pacific boats are being overhauled in the dry dock at Esquimalt. An editorial which appeared in one of the newspapers reads as follows:
In The Right Direction
Ever since the first white liners came out from England 40 years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has given them their periodical dry docking in the orient. It was very much cheaper to employ Chinese labour on the work of refitting and reconditioning than Canadian labour.
It is still much cheaper-a considerable saving in labour costs being effected.
But the company has changed its policy in part. For their summer overhauls hereafter the Empresses will go into the big dry dock at Esquimalt instead of that at Hong Kong.
This has been made possible by wise concessions in the matter of fees on the part of the Dominion government, a bit of constructive statesmanship for which the federal administration may fairly be given reasonable credit.
But the new policy might, with advantage, be carried farther. Large numbers of orientals are employed on the Empresses. Nevertheless, this port is simply swarming with white seamen who have nothing to do. The anomaly is one that it needs but an extension of the principle already invoked to rectify. A few hundred more white seamen on Pacific liners would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars more business for Vancouver.
It may be said that the government has no right to dictate as to who shall be employed on these ships, but when $860,000 is being paid out for subsidies I think the government should at least intimate that in the interests of our own country white seamen should be given more consideration in manning these ships.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It might have been more
to our advantage had my hon. friend given me this information some days ago.. It is well to remember that these crews largely are recruited either on the Pacific coast or in
Hong Kong, the other terminal point of the service. The committee will recall that Hong Kong is a British colony and such members of the crews as are Chinese are Hong Kong citizens and British subjects. As British subjects they are entitled to employment as much as anyone else. A large proportion of these crews are white, being of Scotch and English descent. The hon. member says that the company has changed its policy with regard to the docking of its ships but it must be remembered that the government is permitting the free use of Esquimalt dockyards. Generally speaking, the overhauling of a ship is a costly proposition and this permission given by the government makes it possible to dock the ships at this end.


Thomas Reid: The government is to be commended for allowing the use of that dry dock.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Ocean and River Service-Radio service- further amount required, $500,000.
["The other night in connection with this item I brought to the attention of the minister the question of a dismissal in Shelburne county, but at that time the minister had not brought down the return with regard to the dismissal of Doctor Captain Churchill as Indian doctor at that point. Since that time I have received the return.\nI simply wish to place these facts on record: In the first place the return shows that, as far as the record goes, the minister simply dismissed Doctor Churchill with no recommendation of any kind. In the second place the minister was warned at the time by his officer that the additional cost per visit to the Indians residing at Shelburne would be approximately $20. In the third place the first bill submitted by the new doctor for the month was: $153, as against an average monthly bill of the previous doctor of something like $18. In the fourth place it seems to have been just at the time I called the minister's attention to the fact that these costs had run up so absurdly that instructions were given that the new doctor should not receive any more than the former doctor had received. In the fifth, place, notwithstanding the recommendations of the officials of the department to the effect that Doctor Churchill be allowed to do the work at Shelburne, the minister was adamant and absolutely refused to change the appointment. Lastly, to indicate the kind of man who was thus summarily dismissed without either complaint or notice. I have here Captain Churchill's citation for the award to him of the military Cross, which is as follows:\nDuring the fighting east of Arras, 26th-28th August, 1918, he was continuously on duty under heavy shell fire, and had absolutely no relief during the whole period. He kept in touch with all his R.A.P. and was responsible for the rapid evacuation of his wounded from the forward line. His zeal and devotion to duty were admirable.\n: That is under the authority of the London Gazette. This is the man who was dismissed by the minister with absolutely no recommendation, with the result as I have shown that in one month the department might have had to pay to the new appointee about seven times what was paid on the average to Captain Churchill."]
Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I think I should
say a word or two of explanation with respect to certain statements made yesterday by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). The hon. member stated that a certain station on the border

I assume he meant the radio station at Windsor-was entirely under American control and that the whole purpose of the station was to broadcast in the vicinity of one large American city. The hon. member stated that he was informed that one of the new channels which we were so glad to obtain instead of being used for Canadians was being used for the benefit of Americans. I take exception to that statement. I think the hon. member was entirely mistaken. The licence for this station was first issued to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Morgan-Dean of Windsor, the application for licence stating that a company would be incorporated and the licence would be transferred thereto. In November, 1931, that company was incorporated under the laws of Canada by the Secretary of State, and I notice that the directorate is as follows:
Malcolm G. Campbell. Sandwich, Ont.
William F. Morgan-Sean, Windsor, Ont.
William R. Woollatt, Walkerville, Ont.
,T. W. Brien. Essex. Ont.
Malcolm S. Clapp. Tecumseh, Ont.
L. R. McDonald. Windsor, Ont.
Leon Lalonde, Windsor, Ont.
Supply-Marine

As far as the department is aware, the company is a bona fide Canadian company and is under 'Canadian control. There is no thought that it is going to be operated in a manner detrimental to Canadian interests, and should such prove to be the case, the committee may rest assured that the licensee will be promptly checked up and if necessary the licence will be cancelled. With regard to the station selling some of its time to United States advertisers, there is no regulation forbidding this practice. A similar practice has been followed for some years by two stations in Toronto, the Rogers-Majestic (CFRB) and Gooderham and Worts (CKGW), and also by the Canadian Marconi Company (GFCF), and La Presse (CKAC) of Montreal. As far as the department is aware there is nothing happening as was stated by the hon. member for North Waterloo.


Mr. CARDIN:: How many hours a day does the Windsor station broadcast the programs of the Columbia broadcasting system?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say, because these statements were made only yesterday and I have had no time to inquire. However, I can say that there is no regulation prohibiting the granting of time to an organization like the Columbia broadcasting system. If it was brought to the attention of the department that practically the whole time of this station was being leased to American companies for the advertising of American goods in Canada, the department would take the necessary steps to see that such a practice did not continue. My hon. friend is aware of the legislation adopted by this house to bring into being a radio commission. This commission will have control of all stations in Canada, including the one at Windsor, and the leasing of hours to different advertising companies will 'be controlled and regulated.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In justice to the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) I must say that his statement was based upon information which had been given to him. He was informed that the case he cited was a fact. In the information which came to him it was stated that one of the new channels obtained from the United States had 'been given to this .station. Is that so?


Alfred Duranleau: As was stated by the horn, member for East Essex last night, the [DOT]channel which was allotted to the Windsor radio station is channel 540. That channel has been used by Canadian stations since 1928; it was not a new channel for Canada. It was allotted in 1928 to Brandon, Manitoba. Some

months ago the latter was transferred to shared channel 930, and channel 540 being available, it was assigned to Windsor. I am told it is a very good channel and they are well satisfied with it.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any information as to the amount of capital invested in this particular broadcasting station and who are the owners of the capital? If I properly understood the hon. member for North Waterloo, I believe he stated that while there were Canadian members on the board, the bulk of the capital was held or subscribed for in the United States.


Alfred Duranleau: We have not the actual information on that point. All that concerns my department is that the company which is operating that station is one incorporated under our laws, and so long as it conforms with the laws of this country and the regulations of our department, I do not think we should be concerned with the amount of United States or other foreign capital invested in the company.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give any explanation as to the various items that go to make up this amount of $500,000 for radio service?


Alfred Duranleau: At the present time there are no details covering that amount. It will be used to give a better service to Canadian listeners and will also be used by the new commission. It will be derived from licence fees.


Robert Gardiner: Under those conditions it is not possible to estimate the detailed amounts.


Alfred Duranleau: That would be hard to tell at this time. The program is not yet completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Geneva

Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1932, including secretariat, International Labour organization and Permanent Court of International Justice, $220,613.94.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This item stood in order that if any hon. members so desired, they might mention the work of the League of Nations. I fancy, since the item stood, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has read in the press what he was asking me about at that time, but if he wishes to ask any questions I shall endeavour to answer.

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva


James Layton Ralston: On this item might I say a word with regal'd to the negotiations which I understand are now going on with the United States with regard to a possible treaty, the terms of which I believe will be laid on the table of the house after the treaty has been passed, at least by the executive. Naturally one cannot discuss it fully, because in the early days of the session the Prime Minister indicated that instead of a discussion on any resolution on which a treaty might be founded, the intention was that the treaty itself should be approved and signed by the executive, and later submitted to parliament.
But I cannot let this opportunity pass without reminding the government that in connection with negotiations with the United States there are many matters which I at least think-and I am speaking personally and as the representative of my constituency-should not be lost sight of when questions affecting those two countries are being considered. I am not one of those who understand why a St. Lawrence waterway treaty has to 'be gone on with just at this stage. I do not understand what the rush is. I do not understand why the expenditure of any large amount of money should have to be made just now, neither do I understand why a suggestion is on foot which is bound, to some extent at any rate, to provide competition in regard to traffic for our railways, which are already hard pressed. I know this: if my right hon. friend were on this side of the house and we were on that, a suggestion at the present time for a treaty with the United States with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway would immediately be met in the press which supports my right hon. friend and by him with very severe criticism and the intimation that we were being entirely dominated by the country to the south of us and that we were being ruled, as the expression went in 1911, by Uncle Sam. It seems, however, that my right hon. friend feels he can freely conduct negotiations which were supposed to be quite beyond the pale when we were in power.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can the hon. gentleman
show me anything which declared that they were beyond the pale?


James Layton Ralston: The 1911 reciprocity campaign was based upon the fact that we were being swallowed up by the United States, becoming the adjunct of that country, and that there should be no truck or trade with the Yankees. Not very long ago ministers opposite intimated in the house that the reason for the urgent necessity for the St. Lawrence waterway 41761-216
treaty was that if we did not conclude it now, we might forever lose the chance, because the United States were discussing the project of a waterway from Oswego to Albany. The apprehensions in regard to that suggestion have been exploded by the press and I do not propose to discuss it to-night.
I do not see why a treaty should be proceeded with at this time; but if it is-and we have this only from newspaper reports and from what the right hon. gentleman has said to-day-I submit there is an opportunity for the government to come to some arrangement and understanding with regard to matters which are certainly creating very great difficulties for the primary producers in this country. I refer for one thing to what has been called the modus vivendi, that is the use of our ports by United States fishermen and the use of their ports by our fishermen. For many years we afforded those privileges to United States fishermen and we received no reciprocation from them. We continued to afford those privileges in the hope that some day the United States would grant us similar privileges in return. Instead of that, what we got was a very sharp increase in duty on fish and on the products which our fishermen produced. As a result we considered that patience had ceased to be a virtue and we withdrew those privileges. The result is a situation which is, I think, mutually disadvantageous, at least in some respects. I believe that this matter should be taken up with the United States authorities. There is also now being discussed in the United States the matter of a further restriction on the importation of live lobsters from Canada by the imposition of a size limit. Greatest of all, there is an opportunity of a market in the United States for the export of our fish, which market would afford a profitable outlet, and that market is very largely restricted because of high tariffs against our fish. Our friends from the west are in about the same situation regarding their cattle; their exports to the United States are seriously restricted by reason of the high tariff of the United States. I am going to submit-perhaps it may be regarded as having nothing to do with the waterway treaty-that if we are in extremis and have to give concessions to the United States, it is at least fair that we should discuss with them these matters which are giving difficulty to the people in the east and in the west. Therefore, I ask my right hon. friend when he is conducting these negotiations to keep these matters in mind and to realize that a very fine stroke can be done for the primary producers in Nova Scotia, and no injury done to the consumers



Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
in the United States, if in connection with any arrangement which is made, and which he proposes to submit to parliament, the interests' of the fishing industry in connection with these matters are protected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose, Mr. Chairman, I should make at least a few observations in answer to what my hon. friend has said. When this government came into power it found that negotiations had been initiated by its predecessors for a treaty between the United States and Canada with relation to the deep waterway to the sea. It will be recalled that despatches were sent by this government to the government of the United States, and by the government of the United States to the Canadian government. There then intervened a discussion as to the position of Canada on the one hand and the provinces on the other with respect to the ownership, if I may use that broad term, of the water in the national section of the St. Lawrence river, and on the Ontario side of the international section. The matter had been in abeyance for some time after the decision of the supreme court. When this government came into power it was again taken up just where it had been left off, and negotiations are proceeding as I indicated this afternoon.
To precede treaty negotiations with a resolution would seem to be somewhat difficult, and to talk about a treaty being submitted to the house for approval before it is signed suggests a negation of the use of the word "treaty" itself. This the hon. gentleman, as a skilled lawyer, well knows.
So far as the bargain is concerned, a treaty is a contract betw'een states; it is a question not of concession but of agreeing upon terms. If concessions are granted or not granted, they are the subject matter of the bargain or contract or agreement between the parties, and it would be premature indeed to undertake in any sense a discussion of what might be involved in the agreement between the parties to the contract that we call a treaty.
So far as the other matters to which the hon. member has referred are concerned, it is obvious from the terms of the despatch that was sent by the Canadian government-not the present government-to the American government, in which reference was made to the effect of American fiscal policies upon the production and distribution of Canadian products, that it was in the mind of the then executive that the matter should be considered. But the reply indicated that, after all, the making of a contract with respect to the use of water which constitutes the international boundary between
[Mr. Ralston 1
the two countries-the only necessity for a treaty being the fact that it is an international body of water, the state of New York affected On the one side and the province of Ontario on the other-is not the appropriate occasion to discuss the questions to which the hon. gentleman has just now referred. If he says that there was any attack against the late administration because negotiations had been initiated, I .think he is not speaking by the book. I gathered from what he said subsequently, that what he had reference to was the observations made at that time by Canadians bn both sides of politics with respect to the reciprocity agreement of 1911. It will be recalled that the terms he used were employed not only by Canadians but by Americans of high repute. I daresay he remembers the jocular observation of a former president of the United States in that regard, speaking at a great gathering in this country, and the equally, shall I say, pregnant observations of one of his opponents, who, as it subsequently developed, did not intend them to be taken too seriously, but which were taken very seriously by Canadians in various parts of the country. I daresay the hon. gentleman will also recall what I have so frequently said, and said at that time with as much strength and vigour as I could that the difficulty lies in developing between two countries a channel of trade that is subject to interruption or destruction without the interests of the one being considered by the other. That a channel of trade which has been established should, after a country has got into the habit of carrying forward its trade through that channel, be subject to destruction without reference at all to the interests of the other party is something which I have always condemned and I still think is injurious to the welfare of any country. A fair bargain on trade matters which gives benefits to both on terms that prevent the possibility of injury if the agreement lapses by the effluxion of time or after reasonable notice has been given, is an altogether different matter, and one about which I think the hon. gentleman and myself entertain no great difference of opinion. I feel quite satisfied that if, as and when any agreement is arrived at in the form of a treaty between the United States and Canada, it will be on such terms as will not involve this country in such capital expenditures as those to which the hon. gentleman refers, or involve us in the acceptance of obligations in any sense out of keeping with the. benefits that will accrue to us.


James Layton Ralston: What I feel about my right hon. friend's reply is this. He suggests that it is premature to discuss this matter before a

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
treaty is made. My point is that it is not premature for us as one party to the contract to discuss between ourselves what misfit be fair and proper matters of consideration in connection with what my right hon. friend is pleased to term the bargain. My contention is, and since I have made it I do not think I should take up any further time of the committee, that when my right hon. friend is talking of mutual benefits, one of the benefits that might well accrue to us is a benefit with regard to these matters of which I have spoken, namely, the matter of entry for our products into the United States. As he has stated, the matter of fiscal policies had already been mentioned to the United States in correspondence by the previous government, and I regret that the answer seems to have discouraged my right hon. friend entirely from pursuing the matter further. I hope that that will not be so, and that when the time comes to get down to grips and discuss these matters which will be of benefit to us in return for the known benefits we will be conferring upon the other party to the bargain, the matters I have spoken of will not be overlooked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not desire, in view of the lateness of the hour, to take up the time of the committee. I think the observations of the hon. gentleman as to the perfect propriety of offering suggestions as to what the government should keep in mind in considering the negotiation of a contract or agreement with another state are quite sound, and I do not wish for a single moment to have him think that I did not so regard them. But to contemplate the discussion of the terms of a prospective treaty is an entirely different thing, and I think my hon; friend will agree that there is a vast distinction between the two.
So far as the waterway itself is concerned, the hon. gentleman has an entirely erroneous opinion if he suggests that the benefits to be conferred are benefits to one country, and that country not our own; for it is fairly reasonably established by engineers that certain benefits might accrue to either country, without uniting their forces for the purpose of securing common benefits, because the waterway extends from lake Superior to the sea. The benefits common to the United States and Canada are covered by the terms of a treaty ensuring to both countries the free use of the waterway itself under conditions that are well understood and appreciated. It means merely the overcoming of rapids by the construction of canals and locks, thus rendering possible a continuous voyage from the lakes to the sea rather than one broken by 41761-2164
rapids and shoals. So if the observation suggested that there were benefits to be conferred upon one party and not upon another, it was not fair.


James Layton Ralston: That continuous seaway exists now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But not for sufficient depth.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate; that questions relative to our imperial or external relations are so often left until the last days of the session, a time when most members are tired and impatient to get away. In the dying hours of the session we have a very inadequate opportunity of entering into full discussion. Some hon. members seem to regard foreign affairs as so remote from us as to have no immediate concern for the majority of our people. I need hardly remind the committee, however, that to-day we are struggling with debts, pensions and all sorts of post-war troubles which came to us because of our entry into world affairs in 1914, and if in the years to come we are to avoid a similar if not a greater catastrophe we ought to be alert to the necessity of taking a more active interest in world affairs.
When, on April 7, the item concerning Canada's contribution to the expense of the League of Nations for the year 1932 came before the committee, I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning conditions in the far east, in Manchuria. His reply at that time was as follows:
I did not think it would be wise, and I certainly accept the responsibility for having so advised our delegates, that we should endeavour, with the slight knowledge that we possess as compared with those who are constantly in touch with the situation at Geneva, and those who are responsible for the investigations in Manchuria, either to blame or praise this country or the other in connection with matters so serious as those involved in the then differences between Japan and China.
I can hardly accept the attitude of the Prime Minister as outlined in that paragraph. He seems to take for granted that the League of Nations is something apart from ourselves, something that, has a more or less independent existence, and that we must stand aside and wait until the league takes aetion. When we come to consider the matter we must recognize that, after all, the league is only a sort of forum; it is an exchange. It cannot have a life apart from that of its members; it cannot make decisions apart from the decisions of its members. We must bear in mind that we are an integral part of the league. It may be that Canada, in the size of its population, is not a

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
great nation. I submit, however, that we are sufficiently important and have held a sufficiently responsible place in the league, being for a time a member of the council, not to adopt the attitude of a junior partner or, if I may use a parliamentary term, a back bencher. In the person of Doctor Riddell, Canada has a representative at Geneva. We are in as good a'position as any other nation to keep in touch with what is going on in the league, and it seems to me we should make up our own minds with regard to our attitude on the various events which from time to time come before the council or the assembly. I do not think we can be true to our responsibilities under the treaty unless we follow that course.
I had intended to refer hon. members to some clauses in the treaty, but at this stage of the session I shall content myself by giving a very brief summary concerning our international commitments. This I find in the issue of the Canadian Forum for the month of March, 1932, and to save time I shall read the following:
By the league covenant every member binds itself to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league. If disputes arise between members which are likely to lead to a rupture, they promise to submit the matter to arbitration or judicial settlement or to inquiry by the council ; and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision or the report by the council. Should any member of the league resort to war in disregard of its covenants it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all other members of the league who undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade and financial relation.
Those are very concrete and definite responsibilities. I know the statement may be made that Japan did not resort to war. Technically that may be so, but to all intents and purposes it was a war, and the most offensive kind of war-and I use the word "offensive" in a double sense. It was an unjustifiable resort to force. Yet we, following the example of a majority of the members of the league, remained very largely quiescent. I continue with the quotation:
By the nine-power Washington treaty of 1922 (signed by Sir Robert Borden for the Dominion of Canada) each of the contracting powers agrees to respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China; to provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable government; to maintain the open door in China, and to refrain from taking advantage of conditions there in order to seek special rights or privileges for itself. And they also agree to full and frank communication
IMr. Woodswortli.)
among them if a situation arises which, in the opinion of any one of them, involves the application of the stipulations of this treaty.
If I understand correctly, the United States was willing to intervene, and did make a very effective protest against the action of Japan in China. It seems to me that this country might very well have joined the United States in making a strong protest, but we remained silent. We are sometimes told that Canada might perform a very useful function in seeking to interpret for Great Britain the opinions of the United States. In this particular instance we gave no lead whatever, abstained from action, and waited until somebody else came to a decision. I read on:
By the Kellogg Pact of 1928 (signed on behalf of Canada by Mr. Mackenzie King) the high contracting parties solemnly declare that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies and renounce it as an instrument of national policy. They agree that the settlement of all disputes of whatever nature which may arise among them shall never be sought except by pacific means.
Japan, as well as Canada, was a signatory to that treaty, and yet Japan openly and flagrantly did resort to other than pacific means for the settlement of a dispute between herself and China. If I may be permitted to read-for I should like to bring to the attention of the house the opinions of some of those who are in a position to judge with regard to these matters-Mr. Norman Angell's article in Foreign Affairs, for April 2nd. He writes;
Whether Japan has been wronged by China is not the issue. The issue is whether Japan shall be the judge in the case; alone entitled to decide what measures shall be taken to vindicate her rights; entitled to use her power as she sees fit; to be litigant, judge, executioner of the judgment, all in one.
He goes on to say the basic principles of the league are as follows:
That frontiers cannot be modified by force at the will of one interested member of the community; that a threat to peace occasioned by such defiance of the law is the concern of all nations; and that all are under obligation to cooperate to restrain such illegality.
My feeling is that in the last few months Canada has not taken that stand which she might have taken under these international committees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman does he consider Canada has any armed force with which to carry out the sanctions that are involved?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We might have
used certain sanctions. I am well aware that

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
economic sanctions in the far east have been regarded by Japan as equivalent to war. I do not know, however, that that is generally recognized in international affairs, and I think there could have been certain economic sanctions taken that would not have involved war. But we did not propose to take those sanctions, we did not even make any strong protest in the matter. There is my point. I am not saying whether Canada acting alone could have taken any economic sanction, but I think we might very well have joined with other nations in taking such sanction, and in that case I do not think a general war would have been precipitated. But I would point out that through our inactivity we are laying the foundation for a war in the future. There is not much doubt that Japan has ulterior designs in Manchuria. One of her great generals said not long ago that the frontier of Japan was the western boundary of Manchuria. That boundary is Russia. We cannot ignore the very delicate situation that will prevail when Japan faces Russia. I think it is generally recognized that under these conditions Russia has behaved admirably, that she has refused to be drawn into war-not that I am imagining that she is doing that through any altruistic motive, not at all, but I believe probably she is not ready for war and will bide her opportunity. Probably she needs time to consolidate her position.


Richard Langton Baker: Do you know all about
it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not, but I
would tell the hon. gentleman that I have tried to read what some people have said in regard to the matter, and what he will find in almost any reputable journal of international affairs to-day.


Richard Langton Baker: I rather think you know all about Russian affairs.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. My point is
the danger of neglect by the European nations may lead to the precipitation of a war between Japan and China, and I have said that so far it seems to me that Russia has avoided that conflict. I will not say whether or not we have been rather abetting Russia in this matter, for unless I mistake, some of that grain which was shipped recently from Canada to Russia would in case of conflict be used to feed Russian troops.


Richard Langton Baker: If the hon. member would
tell us all he knows about it, it might help


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am trying my
best to tell all I know about it, because I have nothing to conceal in the matter.


Richard Langton Baker: I hope not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Nothing whatever.


Richard Langton Baker: I doubt it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The gentleman may doubt as much as he pleases. It is an astonishing thing that one can hardly talk in this house about international affairs and come within range of certain countries without some hon. gentlemen becoming rather hysterical.


Richard Langton Baker: I am not hysterical.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that we may have order for a few minutes. I will not weary the house but, I have waited months in the hope that we would have some suitable occasion to present certain matters relating to the international situation. As I have said, it seems to me that the European nations at Geneva through their activities are opening the way to still further trouble in the east. I know that at the present moment it would seem as if the situation has been somewhat bettered. It ivould appear as if the pressure of the League of Nations has led to the withdrawal of Japan from Shanghai. But Japan still appears to have her ambitions in Manchuria, and that would involve the destruction of the territorial integrity of China, which we have pledged ourselves to preserve. I desire to read a few paragraphs from an appeal from the Chinese government-a statement communicated by the Chinese delegation in conformity with article 15, paragraph 2, of the covenant of the League of Nations:
The gravity of the issue thus presented can hardly be exaggerated. A great country with a population of approximately 400,000,000 inhabitants is here virtually staking its national existence on the practical application and enforcement of the league's covenant. The supreme test of the effectiveness of the league in a capital emergency is at hand.
Again:
That Japan launched the attack, that her armed forces have relentlessly advanced for nearly five months, and that they are now in occupation of a vast extent of Chinese territory in two widely separated parts of the country cannot be controverted. A formidable invasion with all the terrible concomitants of war has taken place and is going on. The scale of the operation and the period of time over rvhich it has persisted have removed all possibility of characterising it as casual or incidental.
Article 10, the very corner-stone of the covenant, is being shattered. That article reads:
us.

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
"The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league. Tn case of any such aggression or in ease of any threat or danger of such aggression, the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled."
Japan is a member of the League of Nations solely by virtue of the fact that she has acceded "without reservation" to this as well as the other articles.
China points to the forcible occupation of 200,000 square miles of her territory, to the attack on Shanghai, to the bombing of Nanking, her capital, and to numerous other specific acts of armed violence as constituting external aggression (and not merely the threat or danger of it) against her territorial integrity and political independence in plain violation of article 10. The proposition appears so axiomatic as not to fall within the domain of argument.
One other brief paragraph:
The basic feature of Japan's plea which calls for notice at this point is the extraordinary contention that the sending of an army to take forcible possession of the territory of a foreign state is divested of all aggressive import if the invading power issues a simple disclaimer of permanent territorial ambitions and of any intention to stay longer than seems to itself necessary. This position cannot be ignored because it strikes at the root of the whole matter. The league must either reject the Japanese contention or write its covenant down to a pious declaration that aggression depends upon the self-asserted state of mind of the aggressor, thus converting the covenant from a guarantee of peace into an invitation to war.
The case of China is convincingly presented. The conclusion is incontrovertible. I ask, then, that Canada, a nation of course far removed from the immediate scene of action, a nation that, as I have said, is small in numbers but is yet a part of the powerful British Empire, and a nation standing side by side with the American republic, should take a more active part than it has taken in matters of this kind.
The league may be said to be on trial. A great many people believe the league offers no guarantee of peace, and some regard it as an impracticable sort of organization. I spent a month at Geneva last year at the time of the meeting of the assembly, when I had the honour to be a temporary collaborator in the league. One cannot sit day after day watching the sessions of the league without feeling on the one hand that in the present situation it is next to impossible for the league to do any real work in the larger matters that affect the world. An enormous amount of good work is being done in minor matters, but when it comes to affairs that affect the greater nations of the world, undoubtedly the league seems almost impotent.

Yet on the other hand one could not be there even for a month without realizing that there were wonderful possibilities in this organization. The very fact that men gathered around a common table to discuss matters instead of immediately flying to arms is a very great advance. I think even in the case of China and Japan the very fact that the matter was brought to the league and there discussed was a considerable advance over what would have been possible in the past. But I submit that the future of the league and of international peace demands that we all become more actively conscious of and more definitely interested in international affairs. It may be that the league as now constituted will disappear in time, but I do urge that to-day we cannot get along without some sort of world court and world council -I almost said world parliament. At present we are dreadfully afraid of surrendering our sovereignty to any central body; in the last resort we, as nations, reserve the right to decide things for ourselves. After the great war the machinery of the league was set up in the hope that we might avoid another great catastrophe. I submit, however, that if that catastrophe is to be avoided we must be true to the principles of the league and must be more active in our interest in it, and we must assume a larger responsibility than we have done in the past.
I would urge upon the Prime Minister and the government that they should not be too hesitant in instructing delegations to go just as far as possible in carrying out the obligations which we have assumed under the treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume the hon. gentleman expects me to make a very few observations on this matter, because I would not want my hon. friend to charge the government with any effort to prevent the fullest and freest discussion of the League of Nations. I am conscious of the fact that many people are convinced that the League of Nations has failed, to some extent, at a critical time to discharge the responsibilities which were expected of it. On the other hand, I am free to say that as I read the documents I cannot see that the League of Nations could have done very much other than it did do, under the circumstances which then existed.
We have to ask ourselves this simple question: If there had been no league of nations what would have happened? It seems to me that the test is not whether the league has accomplished all that we expected it to accomplish; rather we should ask ourselves whether or not it has accomplished something that has

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
prevented another great conflict. I believe that had it not been for the League of Nations there would have been a very serious war in the far east, and to the extent to which this body, set up by almost universal consent, functioning it is true under great difficulties, has been able to prevent the outbreak of a great war, it is entitled to the sincere thanks of every peace loving man in the world. I measure its worth not entirely by what it has done but also by what it has prevented being done, and I think that is not an unfair test to impose upon an organization of that kind.
On the last occasion on which we discussed the Manchurian situation I ventured to point out to my hon. friend that at that moment a meeting of the assembly of the League of Nations had been called. Those who are familiar with the attitude of deliberate assemblies will agree that if a crisis arises the executive may not always function without the authority of the assembly behind it as successfully as otherwise would be the case. The executive, acting upon the request of China, immediately convened the assembly, which met on March 3, 1932. When that assembly met we had. a full and complete representation of the whole League of Nations for the purpose of determining what future action should be taken, and also to prevent, so far as possible, the continuance of preparations for hostilities, if I may use that word in a broad and comprehensive rather than in a narrow sense. At that meeting of the assembly Canada was represented by one of its elder statesmen, Right Hon. Sir George Perley, who has had a very considerable experience in attending gatherings of this kind. If I am not trespassing too much upon the time of the committee I should like to read just a few sentences from what Sir George Perley said on March 8 last, as indicating the attitude of Canada towards the problems then under consideration. He said:
During the last twelve years the world has been endeavouring to build up, through the league, a system of outlawing war and settling disputes by reason rather than by force. The way in which this assembly deals with the question before it will go far to show how successful we have been in this effort. Certainly, if the assembly meets satisfactorily the test, which now confronts it. it will mean a long step forward in the realization of the league ideal.
To the Canadian delegation it seems that the work of the assembly must be based primarily upon the following considerations:
. (1) We should stop further bloodshed and bring about a real and effective armistice.
(2) We should distinguish between the rights of a case and the maner in which those rights are realized and enforced.
(31 We should affirm as solemnly as possible the fundamental truth that no infringement of
the territorial integrity, and no change in the political independence, of any member of the League of Nations which is brought about by force in disregard of the undertakings of article 10 of the covenant can be recognized as valid and elfective by the other members of the league.
We believe that this assembly, the instrument through which the common concern of mankind for the maintenance of peace can find expression and make itself felt, should proceed in its work with the above considerations always in view. We hope that by so doing it will arrive at a solution of the difficulties before it, which will be just, peaceful and permanent.
I do not think any good purpose would be served by reading further from that admirable address. On March 11, at the close of the discussion, a resolution was unanimously adopted with which I will not trouble the committee. But while it did deal in carefully measured terms with the whole situation in a manner perhaps not wholly in accord with what my hon. friend suggests, nevertheless I believe its influence was very far-reaching. The resolution asserts the juridical competence of the league to deal with the Chinese-Japanese dispute, recalls the obligations assumed by the parties to the dispute as members of the league and signatories of the Paris pact for the renunciation of war, affirms the binding nature of the principles and provisions of these instruments and declares:
That it is incumbent upon the members of the League of Nations not to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement, which may be brought about by means contrary to the covenant of the League of Nations, or to the pact of Paris.
Without reading the lengthier resolution I have beside me, which resulted ultimately in the agreement executed by China and Japan by which the armistice came into effect, I think it would serve all useful purposes if I made merely one observation. A gentleman who has had much experience in attending the meetings of the League of Nations indicated this thought to me not long ago: It has always been the case that the representatives of smaller nations or states have made speeches, sometimes of considerable length and of great vigour, while the older, more powerful, and shall I say experienced nations, have remained silent because they recognize that there is a tremendous responsibility in matters of this kind. When committees are set up, when discussions take place across the table and resolutions are arrived at, then the real work is completed. In this instance the lengthy resolution I have mentioned, the sense of which is indicated by the second paragraph just read, had in my judgment a profound effect in influencing the conduct of both China and Japan. I do not

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
believe it is doing justice to either party for any one of us to express a decided opinion as to the merits of the case now under review by a commission headed by the British statesman Earl Lytton. This commission is attempting to determine all the circumstances antecedent to the recent outbreak, including the terms of the treaty between China and Japan and the methods on the one hand, by which it is contended provocation was given and, on the other, by which defence of national rights was set up. I am not prepared to express an opinion with respect to it. It may well be that there is much more than can be readily seen in a matter of this kind, involving as it does, treaties, the consideration of local conditions, and all the surrounding circumstances. So little were the parties, removed, as they were in Geneva, from the sphere of activities, able to pass upon it that they set up a commission to make an investigation on the ground. One Canadian, a gentleman with much experience in connection with railways, was attached to the commission at the instance of Sir Eric Drummond, the secretary general of the league. That commission is now carrying on its duties. I for one, despite what the hon. gentleman has just said-in my opinion this indicates the conclusions arrived at by one school of thought as distinguished from	another-am not
prepared to express any settled conviction upon the question except this: Any recourse to arms involving bloodshed is, in my opinion, at variance with the terms of the provisions of the covenant of the league as well as of the pact of Paris.
When I am asked, as each one of us is asked, why this country did not take a more leading part in the matter, I think all I have to do is to refer to the terms of the league itself, to examine the sanctions which are provided and to ask myself this question: Would you in a position of responsibility accept what is involved in endeavouring to put these sanctions into force against either China or Japan? For my own part, I confess I would not. I would be content to pursue the course which I believe commends itself to the thoughtful statesmen of the world who have had wide experience, where I have had none. Happily the representatives of this dominion, being in Geneva at the time in connection with another matter, were able to attend these meetings. I believe that the extracts which I have just read from the statements made on March 8 last by the Right Hon. Sir George Perley to the assembly of the League of Nations in Geneva represent the convictions, the hopes and

aspirations of the Canadian people with respect to the success of the great experiment embodied in the setting up of the League of Nations.
I fear at times when I contemplate the work of the league that there is great danger of its efforts failing, not because it has not striven earnestly but because there is sometimes on the part of critical persons an inclination to expect it to be able to produce the millennium just as the magician produces a rabbit out of a hat. There is no such power given to any sons of man, whether they be the League of Nations or any other league in the world. These representatives, the governors and the executive council, I believe have striven as earnestly as men ever have striven in the history of Christendom to do a constructive work for the preservation of the world's peace. I always get back to this thought-and it has the effect of making me think well rather than ill of the work this organization is acomplishing: what would have happened had we not had this world organization to which to appeal to create a public opinion, limited to no one country but extended to all, favourable to the outlawry of war, and to prevent aggression by one nation against another, no matter how great might be the provocation?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
To provide for expenses in connection writh the Imperial economic conference, $250,000.
William Irvine: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped that I would have had the opportunity of offering some extended observations on the approaching economic conference, but obviously at this time of night, when we are attempting to finish the business of the committee before eleven o'clock, it will be impossible for me even to attempt to cover the ground I had intended to cover. However, when this subject was last before the house for discussion an opportunity did not offer to any hon. member in this corner of the house to express an opinion on the matter, so perhaps I may take a few moments, even at this late hour, to say that we in this corner have hopes of some results from the Imperial economic conference. We realize that the people of Canada have great expectations of this conference; that, in fact, the hope of the nation is centred upon it, and that even if it were as successful as we hope it will be, there is bound to be considerable disappointment, for it is scarcely probable that there will emerge immediately any

Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
definite, recognizable economic benefits to be extended over the wide area represented by those who will be present at the conference. Nevertheless the hopes, not only of the Canadian people but of all peoples in the British commonwealth of nations, are very high, so high that if failure should result, it would materially affect the morale of the entire British people. Therefore it becomes the duty of every unit of the commonwealth and of every individual in each to do everything possible to make that conference a success.
Something was said about the importance to the success of the conference of the attitude of mind in which the various delegations approached each other. That is true. It was suggested that the Canadian delegates might jeopardize the result of the conference if they met in a spirit of bargaining. I do not think there is much in that observation. All trade is bargaining, and yet trade has been carried on for centuries to the mutual advantage of those trading. I would rather have a frank bargaining proposition, where each individual to the bargain recognized the necessity of making a just bargain, than have any vain altruism which it would be impossible to make effective.
I want next to observe that the conference presents great possibilities. The economic expansion in the commonwealth of nations which might result from such a conference goes far beyond the imagination. The resources of the commonwealth in raw materials, mechanical and scientific skill, experience in industrial pursuits, in finance and so forth, are great indeed. In fact, within the empire, or the commonwealth of nations, if you like, we lack nothing which is necessary to the very highest standard of living in modern times. If the conference can arrange to distribute the products of the commonwealth amongst its own people, I do not think we need to concern ourselves very much from now on about the foreign markets to which we have given so much attention in this house.
The failure or success of the conference, it must also be said, depends not upon the Canadian delegates alone, but upon all delegations equally. But its failure or success will depend almost entirely upon the primary objectives sought by the conference as a whole. If the conference attempts to keep things going in the same old course; that is to say, if it deliberates with a view to paying all debts in gold values, to maintaining the debt creating monetary system, to aim at becoming rich in debts, to scheme to capture foreign trade, to strive to stimulate production without making definite arrangements to ensure the proper distribution of what has been produced, then I have no hesitation in saying that it will be a failure, no matter what else may be done. But if, on the other hand, the conference is burdened with the conviction that the commonwealth of nations can do with ease that which no single part of it could ever do alone, and if in that conviction it recognizes that it is privileged to lay the foundation stone of what perhaps may be a new economic era, a new era in which the British commonwealth of nations in cooperative unity shall once again lead the world, then great things may be done.
It is true that at one time the British Empire led the world, and if we study that leadership in the setting in which it appears, the setting of its time, we shall find it was a leadership worthy of British pride. Britain led in manufacturing, shipping, finance, naval and military supremacy, great conquests, colonization, civil government and the arts and sciences. But leadership in these matters does not to-day count for so very much. The smallest of the nations, as will be observed, as well as the greatest, can produce more than can be distributed. It knows how to trade, how to fight, even to the last man, and is highly practised in the arts. But the world is looking for a leadership that will be greater and more to be desired than that given by Great Britain in the past, a leadership out of the debris of a civilization which, having been built upon the sand, has tumbled around our ears, a leadership recognizing the necessity of utilizing the wealth, the leisure and all the achievements which are possible to-day for the one great, single purpose of human happiness. If this will be the objective of the conference, it will succeed, not perhaps spectacularly, but nevertheless really, and it will lay the basis for what I believe will be in fact a new economic era.
Let me conclude by making a suggestion or two as regards subjects that we in this corner of the house believe should be discussed and settled definitely at that conference. We think the conference should discuss and decide ways and means of dealing with the world's debts and with our own debts to other people. It should come to the conclusion that if our debts are to be recognized as most British people wish to recognize them, they will have to be paid in goods; that is, we should undertake at such a conference to declare to the world that British debts shall be paid in goods: that such goods shall be delivered wherever they may be desired by our creditors, in whatever quantity it may be arranged to deliver them, and at whatever time delivery
3442	COMMONS
Supply-Imperial Economic Conference
may be required, and that such goods shall be delivered to our creditors at the values of the goods which we borrowed; for in practically every case what we have borrowed from other nations has been borrowed in actual goods.
Next, every branch of the commonwealth of nations should have the right to decide to control the social credit within its own boundaries. In that regard I wish to quote very briefly from Lord Beaverbrook. He is a great Canadian, a wealthy man, and a lord, and so no doubt what he says will have more weight than what I have been saying for years in this respect. He says:
Let us begin by making it clear to the public that there are only two forms of money-what you have in your pocket, and what you have in the bank. Money does not depend on gold stocks or on any other metallic foundation.
It should be our policy to make money both plentiful and cheaper. It may be fairly cheap at the moment. I do not deny that. It is certainly not plentiful. Until we have made it plentiful we will not be able to maintain the standard of wages here.
How can it be made plentiful?
Send the Bank of England about its business! Let it continue to perform the functions of a joint-stock bank.	,
Establish a central bank, owned by a nation, equipped with all the powers necessary to provide abundant credit and hedged about by all the restrictions required to safeguard the permanence and stability of the structure.
That is the solution.
Give us the right to establish reasonable credit and sufficient banking facilities for the people, and you will get the present wage-level, stability of commodity, prices and prosperity for our people.
That is what Canada should decide to do.
Next we suggested that there should be stabilization of the British currency. That would be in line with the resolutions which have been passed by very representative bodies of men in Great Britain and the necessity of which has been recognized by similar bodies in this country. Without parity of currency within the commonwealth, adequate exchange of goods cannot be effected.
Finally we suggest that trade should be arranged within the commonwealth with the least possible restrictions. Let me finish by saying this, that even if the Imperial conference should fail to be the doorway to a new prosperity, that is no reason that Canada should lose heart. The mere fact that we cannot sell our surplus wheat to anybody else is no reason that any Canadian should die of starvation. The mere fact that we cannot ship our surplus lumber to any other country does not mean that our Canadian people should not have homes. The mere fact that we cannot get rid of the boots and shoes Canada can manufacture, that we can-

not sell them abroad, does not mean that people should go without footwear in this country. So that if there should be failure Canada must go on in her own way and be a success. She must learn how to distribute her products first to her own people. I do not think we should make goods to sell but rather to use, and if we get that idea we can be content to let foreign trade look after itself for the present. Canada cannot afford, even in the name of trade, to export its products to any country below cost as she is now doing. We in this section of the house wish the greatest possible success for the coming conference, and if the government proceeds as capably in the conference as it has done in arranging for it, we have great hopes for its success.


Alfred Speakman: As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin has said, we are looking forward to this conference with hope, although not with over-optimism, believing it to be a
great opportunity but an equally great responsibility. The suggestion I have to offer is this: Every part of Canada, every industry in Canada, every individual in Canada is keenly interested in this conference, the farmers, industrialists, financiers, everyone, not only those who support the government but those who for the time being must be represented by the government in whom we have to place our trust.
In the three western provinces, and possibly in other provinces, conferences have been held and are now being held and will be held between the farming bodies, commercial bodies and different branches of the government, particularly along agricultural lines, in a great endeavour to unify thought in this direction. I am speaking particularly for the agricultural element, than which none is more keenly interested in the success of this conference. There is an endeavour to unify thought in respect of agriculture at least as between the various provinces. If they can do that I understand that the Prime Minister will certainly make it possible for these bodies to send their representatives to Ottawa and to send memoranda and give advice. I understand that accompanying some of the delegations will be small supernumerary bodies of advisers who, while not taking any part as delegates, will be able to discuss with the delegates matters which are of particular import to the different interests they represent. May I suggest that it be made possible by this government, once these different provinces have unified their thought on certain lines, to have a sort of council representative of those provinces and bodies

Supply-Royal Canadian Mint
here, not as delegates, but to watch and consider the proceedings, and to discuss with the government and with the delegates representing the government matters of interest, in order that we may help one another and that the decisions arrived at may be the decisions not of the government alone but of the thinking men and women of Canada. We can act only through the government, and we hope that the government will accept, so far as it may be offered, the assistance of others, and make it possible for these representatives to speak through the government in the conference on matters which are of deep concern to them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Notice has been sent to
each of the premiers of the provinces, as I promised the right hon. leader of the opposition, asking them for any suggestions they might desire to make to the conference through the government, as well as to agricultural and other organized bodies in the state-not the manufacturers' association alone -for the purpose of having representations made.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the administration of the Royal Canadian mint, including salaries, contingencies, retiring and other allowances, and general expenses, $182,400:
Mr. BOULANGER:: May I ask the Minister of Finance why there is an increase in this vote?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is no real increase
in this vote; as a matter of fact, there is a decrease. The apparent increase is due to the fact that we have recently taken over the mint.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: May I ask the minister if dominion notes are engraved at the mint?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, only coins.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: May I express the
hope that some day the Minister of Finance will give us dominion notes and coins with the two languages that are spoken in Canada? Last year the Canadian government did something that was very flattering to our national pride when they took over the control of the mint from the government in London. I hope that they will do something equally flattering to our Canadian pride by putting the two official languages of this country on our dominion notes and on our coins so that they will proclaim to the four corners of the earth the name of Canada. At this late hour of the session, a few hours away from prorogation, I am not going to go into a detailed expose of the reasons, historical, national and otherwise, which I could bring forward in support of my suggestion. Let me simply say this, that this move would be flattering not only to one-third of the Canadian population which speaks the French language, but also to the great majority of English-speaking Canadians who know the history of this country, and who know the contribution that French speaking Canada has made to our national life.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have only this observation to make, that the considerations which have moved my hon. friend in making his suggestion this evening must certainly have been apparent to him during the preceding six sessions he has sat in this house, and with the bright mind that he possesses I am surprised that it is only at this late date that he makes this suggestion. So far as the coins are concerned I think his suggestion has been fully met because our coins to-day are distinctly bilingual in character, in fact trilingual, because in addition to bearing words in both the French and English languages they carry a motto in Latin. Whether or not it is desirable to alter the character of our dominion notes is a matter which can well be considered as, if and when new designs are before the government for consideration.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I hope the minister
is not reproaching me for giving the government an opportunity to do a good deed.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly not.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	There can be no reproach against me because twenty-eight years ago I asked in this house for this very thing. It could only be some very narrow prejudice that would operate against this reform, which is in accord with the letter and spirit of our Constitution, as contained in section 133, clause 2, of the British North America Act. All acts of parliament must be printed in both languages, and I would point out that dominion bills and coins are acts of parliament as well as the legislative bills that we pass through this house. But there is something higher in this idea. I think it makes for national unity. If we intend to build up a Canadian confederation we cannot build it up by keeping one-third of the population in a reserve in the province of Quebec, and then stating that everything is satisfactory so long as the Indians of Quebec keep in the reserve which has been given to them. I understand to a certain extent the fears of those who feel that there should be only one language in this country, but they are at
Supply-Royal Canadian Mint

least a hundred and fifty years late in giving expression to those fears. Belgium is a nation with two languages, and a nation which has preserved its liberty. Switzerland, a nation with three languages, has for twelve hundred years preserved its liberty in Europe. The preservation of languages is so natural and just that Great Britain, when she took over Palestine, used both Arabic and English on the coins and bills of that country. South Africa, also, uses the two languages.


Ernest Lapointe: What about the Irish Free State?
Mr. LaVERGNE : And the Irish Free State, and Malta,-in fact all over the British Commonwealth with the exception of Canada, we find dual language adopted. At this late hour I shall not take the time to speak at length; but may I say that if we want to build a nation, if we want Canada to be preserved as a separate and distinct entity, my opinion is-and I think it is based on sound common sense-that first of all equal justice must be given to all races, in compliance with the thought of the fathers of confederation. Their views were well expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald, who said in the House of Commons that there were no victors or vanquished, but only two races having the same rights and the same privileges so far as language and civil rights were concerned.
I have only one further statement to make; I could discuss this matter for a long time, but I shall not do so. If we want Canada to survive as a nation we must build in it something different from the United States. We should have here a dual civilization and dual traditions, for it is only on that basis that we can build up a free, prosperous and happy country.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, it is too late for me to offer any lengthy remarks, but I should like to say that I am in full accord with the remarks of the hon. members for Bellechasse and Montmagny. I wish only to place before the committee an example of the different spirit which exists even in Great Britain concerning the languages. A couple of months ago I received at my office in Quebec a letter from Great Britain which had been sent by air mail. The words "by air mail" and "par avion" in English and French respectively were on the letter. On the same day I received by air mail a letter from Alberta. The service which carried that letter was of course in Canada, but the letter had no French notation on it. In Canada some people see' red when they hear the French

language; elections are fought on the language question. I hope we will pass over that crazy period of Canadian history, and that everybody will realize it is not a shame in Canada to know, speak and understand two languages.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Mr. Chairman, I agree fully with the remarks of the three speakers who have preceded me.


Mr. SULLIVAN:: I concur fully in the remarks of the previous speakers. I believe both languages should be spoken in the province of Quebec and throughout the whole of Canada. The words of the mottoes of British sovereigns, namely, "honi soit qui mal y pense" and "Dieu et mon droit" do not prevent the people of the British Empire from being loyal to the British crown. A few days ago I had occasion to look into the files of a very dear old friend who has now passed away. He was a man against whom I had occasion to contest a constituency, and in that election the people decided he was a better man than I. I refer to the late Hon. Mr. Robb. Many petitions and circulars on this subject were sent to him, as a member of the Liberal government, but they were not acted upon. However, the fact that the late government did not grant the request now repeated by the hon. member for Bellechasse is no reason why the present government should not do so. Two wrongs do not make a right. Therefore, leaving all petty political consideration aside, I am free to concur in the remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, I also concur in the remarks made by the ex-Minister of Justice, the hon. member for Montmagny and the hon. member for St. Ann. I say to the committee that if such a resolution had not been brought down this year by the hon. member for Bellechasse I myself would have made a similar motion. Representing a county of the province of Quebec and as a citizen of that province I ask the government seriously to consider the suggestion.


Mr. GAGNON:: Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to add a word in support of the contention of the hon. member for Bellechasse. It is true that the first hon. member who moved that bank notes and currency be printed in the French language was the hon. member for Montmagny, in the year 1907. At that time he and the hon. member for Labelle were the only members who were in favour of a resolution to that effect. To-night however we hear a great many members on both sides of the house express similar views.

Supply-Coal


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is mistaken concerning the support given to the measure in 1907.


Onésime Gagnon: Byron, once said that "a small drop of ink fallen like dew upon a thought produces that which makes millions think." It would seem that the drop of ink the hon. members for Labelle and Montmagny dropped thirty years ago upon the thought of bilingualism has produced what millions of Canadians think to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: I think if my hon. friend reads Hansard of that day he will find he is mistaken.


Onésime Gagnon: No, I do not think I am.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Well, don't begin quarrelling about it.


Ernest Lapointe: An amendment was moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the effect that in principle the two languages are equal in this country. No division was taken.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for payments in connection with movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council and for the cost of administration thereof, $1,100,000.
James Layton Ralston: I should like to know how many more tons of coal will be moved this year than last as a result of this assistance.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The assistance granted to the coal miners of Nova Scotia, for which provision is made in this item, has been the subject of many conferences and discussions between the Department of Mines and the operators in Sydney and elsewhere. I believe if the mine operators of the province of Nova Scotia will be astute enough to take advantage of the markets which this assistance will make available, they should, when the full force of the assistance is felt, get upwards of 1,000,000 tons of coal. I am hopeful of it.
Mr. RALSTON; Does my hon. friend say a million tons more than last year will be produced?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, I am hopeful they
will be able to get a million tons extra.


James Layton Ralston: Generally speaking, I
think the subvention, although drafted in somewhat different terms, is in effect the same as was in force last year, save in two respects; one, in regard to waterborne coal, that is coal moving further up the St. Lawrence to Kingston and Toronto; the other, in regard to railway coal. I do not anticipate a great deal of extra coal will be moved up the St. Lawrence to Toronto. I did hope the railway coal would produce a substantial
additional tonnage, but I am afraid a condition has been imposed by the order in council which will materially lessen the amount which they might otherwise move under this subvention. That condition is that the only coal which will receive the subvention is the excess over the amount which was purchased by the railways last year. That is a very serious condition, and one which of course, in the case of the Canadian National Railways, means that no subvention at all will be payable, as I understand it, for the reason that their consumption this year is considerably less than it was last year. Last year they were assisted under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act; whereas, so far as I know, there will be no such assistance this year. Therefore the only inducement to them to continue taking Nova Scotia coal is that offered by this subvention, and that inducement is negatived by the condition that I have stated. As to the Canadian Pacific, they will get the subvention because they used practically no Nova Scotia coal last year. That is the difficulty, and I am afraid my hon. friend will find his hopes regarding extra tonnage far from being realized.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the committee rise and report the resolutions.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, before
the committee rises, I desire to direct attention to the dismissal of Francois Harbour, Indian agent at Oka, in the county of Two Mountains, a position to which he was appointed in 1923. An investigation was ordered a year after the election of 1930, on account of the fact that this man had apparently attended political meetings during the course of the campaign of 1930. The investigation was started, stopped, and started again. A peculiarity of the investigation is that the government appointed a prosecuting attorney to represent the department under the title of "procureur du departement." I wish to direct attention especially to this fact. I hold in my hand all the evidence in the case. I will not deal with it fully now as I may have an opportunity to refer to it at another session. The plaintiff produced five witnesses, one of whom desired the position. The defence produced fifteen witnesses. Of those whom I may term the main witnesses for the prosecution, one, Mr. Marinier, when asked if the political meeting that Mr. Harbour was accused of attending was a Liberal or a Conservative meeting, answered:
A Liberal meeting? you confuse me; I cannot answer you; I rather think that it was a Conservative meeting.
Supply-M i-scellaneous

It was upon the testimony of this and other witnesses that the commissioner based his decision to dismiss Harbour. In the evidence of another witness named Binette we find the same question put to him, and he is not certain that it was Harbour himself who gave the sign of approval of the speech that was being delivered by the Liberal speaker, Mr. Geoffrion. This is the question put to him by the prosecutor:
Between you and Harbour there were some taller than Mr. Harbour and some of his height.
He aswered:
Yes, sir.
To another question:
Q. Was Mr. Harbour wearing a hat or a cap?
He answered:
I did not notice this particularity.
So the evidence of two of the most important witnesses produced by the prosecution certainly is not very specific as to the fact that Mr. Harbour himself was the man who signified his approval of what was said at that time by the Liberal speaker. We have also the testimony of one of the witnesses that he did not know whether it was a Liberal or a Conservative meeting. In his defence Mr. Harbour testified that he had never uttered any signs of approval, neither clapping his hands nor in any other way signifying that he approved what was said by the speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman knows it has not been charged that any fraud was practised. A wholly impartial tribunal heard the witnesses and the accused, if that term may be used. The commissioner reported against him. The hon. gentleman is only delaying the supply bill by proceeding further.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That may be so, but we have the evidence of Harbour himself and his fifteen witnesses, all of whom testified that to the best of their knowledge in the election campaign of 1930 they had never heard of Mr. Harbour mixing up in politics at all. Then ve * have the evidence of the two witnesses produced by the complainant, one of whom, Mr. Cadieux, is the principal Conservative organizer in the county, and the other Mr. Eustache Yarin, is also a strong supporter of the Conservative party; they both testified that during the course of the election campaign of 1930 to their knowledge, Mr. Harbour had never done anything in the interests of the Liberal party. We have also the evidence that at that time a gentleman named Chene testified that the man who had given

signs of approval of the speech made by Mr. Geoffrion was none other than himself, Chene, and not the accused, Mr. Harbour. I desire to draw attention especially to the fact that there must have been a conspiracy on the part of certain persons to oust Harbour from his position. I do not know to what extent it is true that the government, before dismissing Harbour, although the report had been submitted to them, considered the question very seriously, and it was only upon a certain mim ister taking the responsibility upon himself that they decided to act upon the report. I strongly protest against the way the investigation was conducted, because I think an injustice was done to this man Harbour.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish to delay the house for only about two minutes in order to keep the record accurate. When this item was under discussion some evenings ago, close to the time for adjournment, the minister, in replying to some interrogations by myself, stated that the person in Gleichen to whom had been awarded the contract for the supply of coal to the Indian reserve at a price which I showed was $1.10 more than the price at which the coal could have been secured if tenders had been solicited in the proper way, was a dealer in coal according to the letterheads on file. As my information had been to the contrary I immediately wired to Gleichen in order to ascertain whether or not my statement had been correct. The wire I sent on May 6 read:
Your letter states McConnell not a coal dealer. Minister states McConnell's accounts bear heading dealer in coal, oils, etc. Please wire full statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To whom was that wire sent?


Edward Joseph Garland: That was
sent to a person whom I knew to be a coal dealer and who would be in a position to inform me, Mr. R. S. McQueen of Gleichen. His reply was:
I reaffirm statement McConnell not in coal business irrespective his billhead. He has no scale shed or coal equipment. I have been GleicHen fourteen years and McConnell never received car of coal in that time. Check up with Canadian Pacific Railway for verification. My letter correct in detail.
R. S. McQueen.
Subsequently I received a letter from the same gentleman amplifying his telegram. In order to be sure that I was not relying upon one witness who might have been prejudiced I also wired Mr. Bentley, of Gleichen, a very reliable person and a member of the local

Supply Bill
legislative assembly, who wrote me under date of May 10 as follows:
Since coming in to town and mailing my letter to you I have learned that McConnell claims he is a coal dealer. This is not true and never was true. He has it on his bills, etc., but I never heard of him shipping in a ear of coal. I believe the contract was worked between him and the Crown Lumber Company. You should insist on getting the names of those who did tender, and I think you will probably find the Crown Lumber Company put in a tender higher than his. They supplied the coal although he got the contract and rake off.
I am not accusing the minister or the administration of wrongdoing in this matter, but I have drawn their attention to what in my opinion is a scandalous method of awarding contracts. If that method is current throughout the various departments there is a wild and extravagant over-expenditure of money in the securing of supplies. I ask the minister to investigate this matter thoroughly, and make sure that in future tenders are called for in the proper way, by open advertisement.


James Layton Ralston: The other night in connection with this item I brought to the attention of the minister the question of a dismissal in Shelburne county, but at that time the minister had not brought down the return with regard to the dismissal of Doctor Captain Churchill as Indian doctor at that point. Since that time I have received the return.
I simply wish to place these facts on record: In the first place the return shows that, as far as the record goes, the minister simply dismissed Doctor Churchill with no recommendation of any kind. In the second place the minister was warned at the time by his officer that the additional cost per visit to the Indians residing at Shelburne would be approximately $20. In the third place the first bill submitted by the new doctor for the month was: $153, as against an average monthly bill of the previous doctor of something like $18. In the fourth place it seems to have been just at the time I called the minister's attention to the fact that these costs had run up so absurdly that instructions were given that the new doctor should not receive any more than the former doctor had received. In the fifth, place, notwithstanding the recommendations of the officials of the department to the effect that Doctor Churchill be allowed to do the work at Shelburne, the minister was adamant and absolutely refused to change the appointment. Lastly, to indicate the kind of man who was thus summarily dismissed without either complaint or notice. I have here Captain Churchill's citation for the award to him of the military Cross, which is as follows:
During the fighting east of Arras, 26th-28th August, 1918, he was continuously on duty under heavy shell fire, and had absolutely no relief during the whole period. He kept in touch with all his R.A.P. and was responsible for the rapid evacuation of his wounded from the forward line. His zeal and devotion to duty were admirable.
: That is under the authority of the London Gazette. This is the man who was dismissed by the minister with absolutely no recommendation, with the result as I have shown that in one month the department might have had to pay to the new appointee about seven times what was paid on the average to Captain Churchill.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to,
Resolutions reported, read the second time, and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South) in the chair.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the year ending March 31,	1932, the sum of
$2,242,474.83, and for the year ending March 31, 1933, the sum of $161,768,299.87. be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.
' Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Rhodes thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 101, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1932, and the financial year ending March 31, 1933.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT moved the adjournment of the house.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in the morning the
Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) will make a short statement with .respect to reparations
Montreal Harbour
[Stage Direction]
and the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) will make a statement with respect to a bill which he will ask the house to permit him to withdraw. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the opposition, both official and unofficial, for the way in which they have contributed to-day to the transaction of business and the disposition of matters which we have had under discussion.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Thursday, May 26, 1932